cassity Posted November 8, 2015 Share Posted November 8, 2015 and that's the one million pound question which those supporting Shaker can't answer . No one is supporting Shaker and the "million pound question" has been answered. It's irrelevant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
retep Posted November 8, 2015 Share Posted November 8, 2015 It doesn't matter. It's irrelevant. He was locked up without trial for thirteen years, they've had thirteen years to bring charges and haven't brought any. You either think locking someone up without charge for over a decade is acceptable or you don't. "There are multiple reasons why Aamer cannot be charged in court. The US has assessed Aamer to have been active in a combat zone in Afghanistan. As part of the international law of war, armies can remove unlawful combatants from the battlefield; yet, intelligence and military operatives’ primary focus is preventing the enemy combatant from continuing to fight – not conducting criminal investigations or finding evidence suitable for court. Evidence would have to have been collected from the potential crime scene (for example, a cave in Afghanistan), and, as former CIA Director Michael Hayden has said, it is not practical to “turn the American armed forces or the C.I.A. into C.S.I. Miami or C.S.I. Kandahar, or C.S.I. Jalalabad or C.S.I. Peshawar in order to build up that kind of evidence”. 31 William Lietzau, former US Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Detainee Policy, has explained this in the following way: f you could graduate from a Taliban boot camp of course you can’t be prosecuted for anything, you haven’t done anything, you’re only a graduate. But if you were captured in war, of course you wouldn’t release that person, they’re still the enemy, they still want to fight you, they still want to kill you […] So, you wouldn’t release them but on the other hand you can’t criminally prosecute them. As Lietzau has outlined in reference to Afghanistan, detention is not “because [combatants] have committed some criminal offence that we want to punish them for, but because they are the enemy.”32" http://henryjacksonsociety.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/Britains-Last-Guantanamo-Detainee.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Halibut Posted November 8, 2015 Share Posted November 8, 2015 "There are multiple reasons why Aamer cannot be charged in court. The US has assessed Aamer to have been active in a combat zone in Afghanistan. As part of the international law of war, armies can remove unlawful combatants from the battlefield; yet, intelligence and military operatives’ primary focus is preventing the enemy combatant from continuing to fight – not conducting criminal investigations or finding evidence suitable for court. Evidence would have to have been collected from the potential crime scene (for example, a cave in Afghanistan), and, as former CIA Director Michael Hayden has said, it is not practical to “turn the American armed forces or the C.I.A. into C.S.I. Miami or C.S.I. Kandahar, or C.S.I. Jalalabad or C.S.I. Peshawar in order to build up that kind of evidence”. 31 William Lietzau, former US Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Detainee Policy, has explained this in the following way: f you could graduate from a Taliban boot camp of course you can’t be prosecuted for anything, you haven’t done anything, you’re only a graduate. But if you were captured in war, of course you wouldn’t release that person, they’re still the enemy, they still want to fight you, they still want to kill you […] So, you wouldn’t release them but on the other hand you can’t criminally prosecute them. As Lietzau has outlined in reference to Afghanistan, detention is not “because [combatants] have committed some criminal offence that we want to punish them for, but because they are the enemy.”32" http://henryjacksonsociety.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/Britains-Last-Guantanamo-Detainee.pdf None of that excuses locking him up for 13 years without charge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cassity Posted November 8, 2015 Share Posted November 8, 2015 "There are multiple reasons why Aamer cannot be charged in court. The US has assessed Aamer to have been active in a combat zone in Afghanistan. As part of the international law of war, armies can remove unlawful combatants from the battlefield; yet, intelligence and military operatives’ primary focus is preventing the enemy combatant from continuing to fight – not conducting criminal investigations or finding evidence suitable for court. Evidence would have to have been collected from the potential crime scene (for example, a cave in Afghanistan), and, as former CIA Director Michael Hayden has said, it is not practical to “turn the American armed forces or the C.I.A. into C.S.I. Miami or C.S.I. Kandahar, or C.S.I. Jalalabad or C.S.I. Peshawar in order to build up that kind of evidence”. 31 William Lietzau, former US Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Detainee Policy, has explained this in the following way: f you could graduate from a Taliban boot camp of course you can’t be prosecuted for anything, you haven’t done anything, you’re only a graduate. But if you were captured in war, of course you wouldn’t release that person, they’re still the enemy, they still want to fight you, they still want to kill you […] So, you wouldn’t release them but on the other hand you can’t criminally prosecute them. As Lietzau has outlined in reference to Afghanistan, detention is not “because [combatants] have committed some criminal offence that we want to punish them for, but because they are the enemy.”32" http://henryjacksonsociety.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/Britains-Last-Guantanamo-Detainee.pdf So when did he become "not the enemy"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
retep Posted November 8, 2015 Share Posted November 8, 2015 None of that excuses locking him up for 13 years without charge. The first line in my link should be enough. ---------- Post added 08-11-2015 at 16:23 ---------- So when did he become "not the enemy"? As far as I know he hasn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cassity Posted November 8, 2015 Share Posted November 8, 2015 As far as I know he hasn't. So the enemy has been released? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
999tigger Posted November 8, 2015 Share Posted November 8, 2015 Without purposely trying to stir things up, what do you think Shakers motives were for being in Afghanistan with false papers? I think thats a fair point. His version he was working for a charity etc. You may or may not believe that, but if you cant prove otherwise, then in UK law we have the presumption of innocent till proven guilty. The burden of proof is on those making the claims to come up with sufficient evidence to substantiate their claim, which counts for both sides. If he was such a risk, then 13 years is a long time to imprison someone without charging them. The authorities were unable to do so. If authorities are going to imprison you, then they have to provide a reason, otherwise they could imprison anyone they felt like without being called to account. If they still believe him to be a threat then MI5 will still keep tabs on him and use whatever powers they have under existing legislation to monitor his movements. Whether you believe he was up to no good or not, then without evidence its not enough. Your belief has to be based on something and it has to be sufficient to prove some wrongdoing in law if you want a different outcome. As ive said multiple times if he cant prove his case then he should get nothing, but he has the right to bring a claim and let the legal system decide whether that claim is justified and proven. What he was doing in Afghanistan is still irrelevant to whether its right for the UK government to carry out torture on him, as even if he had been a convicted terrorist, it would still be illegal conduct by MI5. I thought people would be anti torture and anti detaining people without evidence or charge. Fortunately the authorities understand why its important for the UK to protect its legal system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
retep Posted November 8, 2015 Share Posted November 8, 2015 So the enemy has been released? Let's call it open prison, or invisibly tagged. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
999tigger Posted November 8, 2015 Share Posted November 8, 2015 and that's the one million pound question which those supporting Shaker can't answer . Wrong its been answered multiple times. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cassity Posted November 8, 2015 Share Posted November 8, 2015 Let's call it open prison, or invisibly tagged. Why not just keep him banged up?...he has a beard for Christ's sake. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts