retep Posted November 8, 2015 Share Posted November 8, 2015 Why not just keep him banged up?...he has a beard for Christ's sake. A terrifying thought, armed with dangerous beard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cassity Posted November 8, 2015 Share Posted November 8, 2015 A terrifying thought, armed with dangerous beard. Does make you wonder why he was released considering...hold on, maybe they had sfa? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mafya 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 The US also had certain intelligence about Saddam Hussain and look how incorrect that was so I wouldn't believe anything the US says. Remember Colin Powell doing a presentation about mobile weapons labs that Iraq had that also turned out to be false? US intelligence has no credibility = http://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/jul/09/usa.iraq2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Penistone999 Posted November 8, 2015 Share Posted November 8, 2015 The US also had certain intelligence about Saddam Hussain and look how incorrect that was so I wouldn't believe anything the US says. Remember Colin Powell doing a presentation about mobile weapons labs that Iraq had that also turned out to be false? US intelligence has no credibility = http://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/jul/09/usa.iraq2 But the correct decision was made to get rid of him regardless of any info . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cassity Posted November 8, 2015 Share Posted November 8, 2015 But the correct decision was made to get rid of him regardless of any info . Geez! Your moral compass is so disturbed it's offensively repellent to anyone with a sense of principle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted November 8, 2015 Share Posted November 8, 2015 Geez! Your moral compass is so disturbed it's offensively repellent to anyone with a sense of principle. I thought this was common knowledge. He'd cut the hands of thieves, although he's terrified of Sharia law, but he's quite happy to swindle the tax man and has said so on the forum. His personal morality bears no resemblance to that of an average, balanced, person. ---------- Post added 08-11-2015 at 19:44 ---------- Without purposely trying to stir things up, what do you think Shakers motives were for being in Afghanistan with false papers? Who cares. If what he was doing was a crime, then charge him with it. If not, then let him go. That's how the law works. Oh, and defending a common right, is not the same as defending or supporting an individual. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scania Posted November 8, 2015 Share Posted November 8, 2015 I thought this was common knowledge. He'd cut the hands of thieves, although he's terrified of Sharia law, but he's quite happy to swindle the tax man and has said so on the forum. His personal morality bears no resemblance to that of an average, balanced, person. ---------- Post added 08-11-2015 at 19:44 ---------- Who cares. If what he was doing was a crime, then charge him with it. If not, then let him go. That's how the law works. Oh, and defending a common right, is not the same as defending or supporting an individual. Well, I care. I care because if there is an element of doubt that this man could have terrorist connections, I certainly do want him anywhere near the UK, for my sake, your sake and the sake of innocent people everywhere. And they didn't keep him locked up for 13 years for shoplifting. That is the problem with this "new" war. Nobody knows who is who. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Stone Posted November 9, 2015 Share Posted November 9, 2015 Well you can substantiate that if you want and am happy to reply. Fortunately I think the rule of law is important and that if someone claims to have been tortured by the UK govt then they have a right to pursue that through the legal system. Torturing people is not something the UK govt should be involved in. Just because you dont like the man doesnt mean he doesnt have that right, although youd like to deny it to him. If he loses his case he should get nothing, if the UK govt deny it they should fight it in court. Just because we have a problem with terrorism doesnt mean we should be willing to make shortcuts and overlook things, which in turn undermines the very rule of law, which defines the nation as civilised and developed. Fortunately the powers that be understand their responsibility to protect these principles, even if youd like to ignore them where it suits you. You either find torture acceptable or you do not. You either think people should have access to the courts or not. You either think the government is allowed to act illegally or not and that if it does then it should be immune from prosecution or not. The principles at stake are much more importnat than any single case. It is nothing to do with the UK, he is a Saudi citizen. ---------- Post added 09-11-2015 at 03:58 ---------- 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. So why don't you answer the point which is what has this person's issues got to do with the UK? ---------- Post added 09-11-2015 at 04:01 ---------- Well, I care. I care because if there is an element of doubt that this man could have terrorist connections, I certainly do want him anywhere near the UK, for my sake, your sake and the sake of innocent people everywhere. And they didn't keep him locked up for 13 years for shoplifting. That is the problem with this "new" war. Nobody knows who is who. If he wasn't up to no good why did he travel on a false passport to a warzone claiming to be working for a none existent charity. Finally why was he allowed back into the UK and not sent back to Saudi Arabia? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted November 9, 2015 Share Posted November 9, 2015 Well, I care. I care because if there is an element of doubt that this man could have terrorist connections, I certainly do want him anywhere near the UK, for my sake, your sake and the sake of innocent people everywhere. And they didn't keep him locked up for 13 years for shoplifting. That is the problem with this "new" war. Nobody knows who is who. We pass laws to deal with such problems. Apply the law and everybody should be happy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Stone Posted November 9, 2015 Share Posted November 9, 2015 We pass laws to deal with such problems. Apply the law and everybody should be happy. This illegal traveller is nothing to do with the UK, end of. He is a Saudi Arabian citizen why do you keep on about fair trials and false imprisonment. He is not British Citizen end of! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts