999tigger Posted November 12, 2015 Share Posted November 12, 2015 I have only seem claims about the UK being complicit in his torture... who is making these other suggestions about rendition? If the UK government has been complicit in torture or rendition then we need to know and to hold them to account. I don't know who the relevant parties are that you think should be assessing this are but I would suggest that the only place this should be assessed is in a court of law with full transparency. As things stand, we are looking at another extra-judicial process where the two parties facing different wrongdoing claims strike a deal to make both their respective problems go away... that is not in the public interest and should not be allowed to happen. ---------- Post added 12-11-2015 at 14:51 ---------- This thread is about the UK government allegedly preparing to make a £1m compensation payment to Aamer. There are countless posts were people have argued the compensation payment is appropriate because it is wrong to hold someone without charge for 13 years in terrible conditions. Do I really need to quote them all? I do not think the full case has been made public yet, but the complicity arguments would go along the lines of MI5 informing the US of questions they wanted the UK to ask them, hence opening them up to being complicit. That will be for the lawyers to decide as its pretty technical. The relevant parties will depend on what is being claimed. If the case is alleging criminal acts, then that would go to the DPP to consider. If the case is merely seeking compensation, then that would be a civil claim and in the first instance it would be for aamers lawyers to inform the governments lawyers. If they actually lodge a case for compensation then I assume it will just be a civil claim. The relevant party for consideration will be the government as a party to the action and the courts to monitor the fact its procedures are being followed. Whilst I agree I'd like some of this to come to trial my problem with many of the posters on this thread is their belief he should have no access to the UK courts for wrongs he claims have been carried out by the UK government. Fortunately the parties concerned including the lawyers and the government understand the issues at hand and will consider his claim, even if they dont admit liability. I dont think there are countless posts linking the £1m compensation to his 13 years, but there are plenty of posts I have made linking it to the torture. The 13 years has mostly come up when responding to issues of not being charged and commenting that no charges were made during that time. Several posts have been made highlighting the fact he is expecting to make a separate claim against the US, even though its unlikely to come to anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted November 12, 2015 Share Posted November 12, 2015 H The illegal detention by the US has nothing to do with the compo claim that the UK government is considering paying out. They are looking to pay hush money to avoid a court case about their complicity in torture. Their excuse, protecting the public purse from an expensive trial, is unacceptable because there is a huge public interest in know if the accusation is true or not and the price is worth paying. Wouldn't you agree? I do agree actually. The fact that they are paying to shut him up pretty much makes us look guilty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
999tigger Posted November 12, 2015 Share Posted November 12, 2015 (edited) Here is one example... To which this argument was made... I don't think it is being done on purpose but people are muddling the issues. The illegal detention by the US has nothing to do with the compo claim that the UK government is considering paying out. They are looking to pay hush money to avoid a court case about their complicity in torture. Their excuse, protecting the public purse from an expensive trial, is unacceptable because there is a huge public interest in know if the accusation is true or not and the price is worth paying. Wouldn't you agree? Thanks Zamo, but you are reading too much into it. I dont believe I have made direct posts accusing the UK givernment of being responsible for his detention and several times I have highlighted that the main thrust of his claim is based on the torture element. You are alos taking it out of context as part of the argument with Gamston has just been about basic legal principles regarding the right to detain people. You overlook these though. As I explained earlier, there is a possibility his lawyers will try a complicity argument, which will attempt to make the UK govt responsible for some of his incarceration as a secondary party. thats for the lawyers to put forward and the other side, the courts to consider. Edited November 12, 2015 by 999tigger Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gamston Posted November 12, 2015 Share Posted November 12, 2015 (edited) You and other terrorist sympathisers forget we are in unprecedented times and our authorities have a difficult job in protecting us from Muslim terrorism . Are you so blinkered by bigotry? - incapable and unwilling to even consider the facts that a man who may or may not have been involved in anything (you really should read the post your replying to before spouting bile) had been held without any charge being laid at his door let alone any trial process. If it was your son/brother/father held without charge you would be on here fast enough bleating - but don't worry we have time limits in this country limiting the period of time -before a person can be tried (did you get that bit tried- that happens after charge and the evidence is served) If there was evidence they had 13 years to sort it out - I think thats long enough don't you ? The Americans still claim they have plenty of evidence that Shaker Aamer was an enemy combatant / terrorist and the fact he has never be charged has no significance . There are two sides to every story and I believe the American's story instead of the guy found in Afghanistan with a fake Belgium passport . My son has never been to Afghanistan or had a fake Belgium passport or been involved in terrorist activity . If my son was a terrorist , I would expect him to be treated as a terrorist, so would not be bleating any where about him and would still have more sympathy for British families who have lost sons , brothers and fathers during the War on Terror in places like Afghanistan . I suggest you remove your own blinkers and remember the unprecedented War on Terror is on going and there are terrorists out there who don't care whose son brother or father they murder . It makes no sense to allow a Saudi Arabian terrorist to live in our country and pay him for the privilege. Edited November 12, 2015 by Gamston typo error Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redfox Posted November 12, 2015 Share Posted November 12, 2015 Perhaps you would be kind enough to provide any evidence against this man - you won't be able to - the Americans nor the Uk agencies involved could not - but if you can do better I am sure they will be grateful for your assistance I suggest you get a grip pal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gamston Posted November 12, 2015 Share Posted November 12, 2015 Perhaps you would be kind enough to provide any evidence against this man - you won't be able to - the Americans nor the Uk agencies involved could not - but if you can do better I am sure they will be grateful for your assistance I suggest you get a grip pal I am not your pal . You carry on being a terrorist sympathiser . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
999tigger Posted November 12, 2015 Share Posted November 12, 2015 Are you so blinkered by bigotry? - incapable and unwilling to even consider the facts that a man who may or may not have been involved in anything (you really should read the post your replying to before spouting bile) had been held without any charge being laid at his door let alone any trial process. If it was your son/brother/father held without charge you would be on here fast enough bleating - but don't worry we have time limits in this country limiting the period of time -before a person can be tried (did you get that bit tried- that happens after charge and the evidence is served) If there was evidence they had 13 years to sort it out - I think thats long enough don't you ? The Americans still claim they have plenty of evidence that Shaker Aamer was an enemy combatant / terrorist and the fact he has never be charged has no significance . There are two sides to every story and I believe the American's story instead of the guy found in Afghanistan with a fake Belgium passport . My son has never been to Afghanistan or had a fake Belgium passport or been involved in terrorist activity . If my son was a terrorist , I would expect him to be treated as a terrorist, so would not be bleating any where about him and would still have more sympathy for British families who have lost sons , brothers and fathers during the War on Terror in places like Afghanistan . I suggest you remove your own blinkers and remember the unprecedented War on Terror is on going and there are terrorists out there who don't care whose son brother or father they murder . It makes no sense to allow a Saudi Arabian terrorist to live in our country and pay him for the privilege. In the UK the fact you havent been charged has a lot of significance because you are innocent till proven guilty, which is as it should be. You are clearly happy to believe and condemn people without evidence. The authorities in the UK understand there are basic legal principles to be followed, even if you dont and they will decide on his guilt or not. It looks unlikely any evidence will be submitted. You can send it to the DPP if you have any. It looks unlikely he will be charged with anything at this stage. It looks unlikely he will be deported as no mention has been made by the government. It looks likely he will start some sort of compensation claim which will be considered by the government and the courts if it gets that far. We dont know what MI5 think, but if they believe him to be a risk, then there are legal measures that can be taken. ---------- Post added 12-11-2015 at 18:09 ---------- I am not your pal . You carry on being a terrorist sympathiser . Just stop it with the name calling becayse if you wnat to go down that path then people will respond. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vaati Posted November 12, 2015 Share Posted November 12, 2015 Just stop it with the name calling because if you want to go down that path then people will respond. If it does continue, then suspensions will happen and likely the thread closed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redfox Posted November 12, 2015 Share Posted November 12, 2015 I am not your pal . You carry on being a terrorist sympathiser . Toys well and truly out of pram - Carry on being utterly blinkered - You are unable and unwilling to consider this in a grown up manner - He's got a big bushy beard - must be a terrorist so lock him away - He's not even been made the subject of nor has any application been made for a control order - you can look that up if you like - I believe that if you lock someone up you better have a good reason to justify it - if you don't then there are a few nations whose state authorities you will find most appealing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gamston Posted November 12, 2015 Share Posted November 12, 2015 Toys well and truly out of pram - Carry on being utterly blinkered - You are unable and unwilling to consider this in a grown up manner - He's got a big bushy beard - must be a terrorist so lock him away - He's not even been made the subject of nor has any application been made for a control order - you can look that up if you like - I believe that if you lock someone up you better have a good reason to justify it - if you don't then there are a few nations whose state authorities you will find most appealing. I repeat the Americans still claim they have plenty of evidence that Shaker Aamer was the enemy in the War on Terror . They have their own reasons for not making this evidence public . I believe them rather than Shaker Aamer's version of events . We are not talking about holding people without charges on British soil but people who are fighting for the enemy on foreign soil , so I can see no problem in holding these people until the War on Terror is over . What has his beard got to do with any thing ? ---------- Post added 12-11-2015 at 18:45 ---------- [/i][/color] In the UK the fact you havent been charged has a lot of significance because you are innocent till proven guilty, which is as it should be. You are clearly happy to believe and condemn people without evidence. The authorities in the UK understand there are basic legal principles to be followed, even if you dont and they will decide on his guilt or not. ---------- Post added 12-11-2015 at 18:09 ---------- You continue to compare apples with oranges . Shaker Aamer was on foreign soil when he was detained by the Americans and has got nothing at all to do with UK basic legal principles . We are talking a war time environment here not domestic crime . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts