qualum Posted November 9, 2015 Share Posted November 9, 2015 (edited) Have we illegally detained every member of ISIS? Because if so, I'd say that we'd already won. Or did you imagine that they'd sue for something else? If the allegations are true then the British state did. So let him try to prove it in court... Are you scared that he'd win? We didn't illegally detain Shaker Aamer, but even though we haven't illegally detained or tortured ISIS fighters you are arguing that if they choose to accuse us of doing so they should be free to sue the UK government. I say we should tell them to get lost and we definitely shouldn't fly them here on private jets. Edited November 9, 2015 by qualum Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
999tigger Posted November 9, 2015 Share Posted November 9, 2015 I don't think the Henry Jackson Society is on the United Nations 'Black List' unlike the Revival of Islamic Heritage Society Charity which our friend Shaker has links to . You are going to believe what you are going to believe, its been pretty pointless trying to explain things to you. Im happy for the courts to deal with it and make of his case what they will. His claims touch on important issues about the behaviour of government so its right they should be tested, even if you dont think he should be allowed that right. Fortunately the UK is better than that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qualum Posted November 9, 2015 Share Posted November 9, 2015 You are going to believe what you are going to believe, its been pretty pointless trying to explain things to you. Im happy for the courts to deal with it and make of his case what they will. His claims touch on important issues about the behaviour of government so its right they should be tested, even if you dont think he should be allowed that right. Fortunately the UK is better than that. Wouldn't you rather spend the money on the NHS instead of an expensive court case? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
999tigger Posted November 9, 2015 Share Posted November 9, 2015 We didn't illegally detain Shaker Aamer, but even though we haven't illegally detained or tortured ISIS fighters you are arguing that if they choose to accuse us of doing so they should be free to sue the UK government. I explained qualum you might want to familiarise yourself with the case or even read the thread to put yourself in a better position of discussing the issues. Its not exactly clear what his full legal case will be, but part of it will be based on claims he was tortured by MI5 directly and MI5 were also complicit in his rendition. Yes he has a right to lodge a claim against the UK government and the courts will decide if it has any merits at various stages before trial. Thats how the legal system works. ---------- Post added 09-11-2015 at 22:56 ---------- Wouldn't you rather spend the money on the NHS instead of an expensive court case? Couldnt that be said of any court case, in fact why have courts at all, just move all the money to the NHS or perhaps court cases and law serve a crucial function in society and access to justice is important Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gamston Posted November 9, 2015 Share Posted November 9, 2015 I . ---------- Post added 09-11-2015 at 22:56 ---------- Couldnt that be said of any court case, in fact why have courts at all, just move all the money to the NHS or perhaps court cases and law serve a crucial function in society and access to justice is important That's true . However , a foreign terrorist who could have gone back to his own country (Saudi Arabia) in 2007 should not have access to our legal system . The case will never get to court, but the legal bill to the UK tax payer will be massive . This money would have been better spent on helping wounded UK soldiers who have served in Afghanistan rather than been wasted on Shaker Aamer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
999tigger Posted November 9, 2015 Share Posted November 9, 2015 That's true . However , a foreign terrorist who could have gone back to his own country (Saudi Arabia) in 2007 should not have access to our legal system . The case will never get to court, but the legal bill to the UK tax payer will be massive . This money would have been better spent on helping wounded UK soldiers who have served in Afghanistan rather than been wasted on Shaker Aamer. 1. You havent established to the court he is a terrorist. If the Uk govt know him to be, then they should charge him. 2. He has no reason to go back to Saudi when his British family are here. If the british govt wants to deport him they can start proceedings and that can go through the legal system. 3. Denying him access to the legal system undermines the rule of law which you dont seem to care much about. 4. You dont know if the case will or wont get to court. If it doesnt then you will find the legal bill will be relatively modest becayse the majority of any costs tend to be the trial. 5. Just because you can use the money for other things isnt a good enough reason to not have a legal system and try important cases. its importnat to know whether the Uk participated in his torture or not. Its a good job those who understand about due process will and the rule of law will ensure the case is dealt with and the issues considered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted November 10, 2015 Share Posted November 10, 2015 We didn't illegally detain Shaker Aamer, but even though we haven't illegally detained or tortured ISIS fighters you are arguing that if they choose to accuse us of doing so they should be free to sue the UK government. I say we should tell them to get lost and we definitely shouldn't fly them here on private jets. They ARE free to sue the government. Everyone is free to take out court actions. Do you live in some kind of alternate universe where access to the court system is somehow restricted? ---------- Post added 10-11-2015 at 09:10 ---------- Wouldn't you rather spend the money on the NHS instead of an expensive court case? If people think that the case is so laughable then it won't be expensive will it. It will be thrown out in about 5 minutes, costing practically nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zamo Posted November 10, 2015 Share Posted November 10, 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. I think it is wrong to lock someone up for 13 years without charge but that is not what the British government is accused of. The one clear fact in this case is that it was the US who held him for 13 years without charge. The British government is accused of being complicit in his mistreatment and that most certainly has not been established as a fact. Just as you argue that Aamer is innocent until proven guilty, so too is the British government. Both parties have had serious accusations made against them and both are seeking to make them go away with an extra-judicial deal made behind closed doors. Halibut - how can you condemn one extra-judicial process whilst praising another? The claims against the government need to be heard in court so they can be held to account if it is true. Hush money payments simply add another injustice to the whole sorry tale. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gamston Posted November 10, 2015 Share Posted November 10, 2015 They ARE free to sue the government. Everyone is free to take out court actions. Do you live in some kind of alternate universe where access to the court system is somehow restricted? ---------- Post added 10-11-2015 at 09:10 ---------- If people think that the case is so laughable then it won't be expensive will it. It will be thrown out in about 5 minutes, costing practically nothing. Apart from the millions of UK taxpayers money already spent on legal fees for both sides and not forgetting the £70,000 of UK taxpayers money to pay for the private jet used to fly this Saudi Arabian terrorist into Britain . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted November 10, 2015 Share Posted November 10, 2015 Millions is it? You'll be able to provide a source for that information I assume? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts