Gamston Posted December 18, 2015 Share Posted December 18, 2015 I'm not sure why you think that article supports your viewpoint. Quite the opposite. This quote from it - says it was used for detaining people in order to try to avoid having to legally justify their detention. The last sentence says that viewpoint was ruled invalid by the Supreme Court. I have said similar things as what is in the quote you have posted from the link I provided . I agree the legal issues are a grey area , but that does not alter the fact the viewpoint were the reasons for setting up the facility at Guantantamo . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redfox Posted December 18, 2015 Share Posted December 18, 2015 http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/06-1195.pdf Read the actual law report - not some newspaper report. But at least you found a link (well done) - shame it doesn't assist your view at all. Guantanemo was set up so that it specifically denied its detained basic rights - legal advice for one/the rights of prisoners being another. You want to pat the Americans on the back for not only having the thought process but a specific plan, carried out to deny even the most basic rights to those it detained. As I have said before you won't have it - maybe you are prejudiced and that blinds you to any other point - I still prefer your just a bit thick though Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cassity Posted December 18, 2015 Share Posted December 18, 2015 As I have said before you won't have it - maybe you are prejudiced and that blinds you to any other point - I still prefer your just a bit thick though No 'maybe' about it. It's signed sealed and delivered...you can never argue against pure blind prejudice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sgtkate Posted December 18, 2015 Share Posted December 18, 2015 Shaker Aamer would first have to prove conclusively he has been tortured while being detained . The Americans deny they committed torture so the British Government have no case to answer to regarding being complicit in his torture. So you'll take the Americans WORD that they didn't torture him, but not his WORD that he's not a terrorist? Interesting seeing as the Americans have been proved multiple times to be lying about the using of torture in Guantanamo Bay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gamston Posted December 18, 2015 Share Posted December 18, 2015 http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/06-1195.pdf Read the actual law report - not some newspaper report. But at least you found a link (well done) - shame it doesn't assist your view at all. Guantanemo was set up so that it specifically denied its detained basic rights - legal advice for one/the rights of prisoners being another. You want to pat the Americans on the back for not only having the thought process but a specific plan, carried out to deny even the most basic rights to those it detained. As I have said before you won't have it - maybe you are prejudiced and that blinds you to any other point - I still prefer your just a bit thick though Again you fail to comprehend common sense logic . You and others assume because Shaker Aamer was never charged with any terrorist offence or put on trial that he is an innocent man . The facts are the Americans believed because of where the Gauntanomo facility is located and for reasons I have already stated they were under no legal obligation to release detainees , charge them or put them on trial . I accept there are legal challengers regarding these issues of holding detainees without charge, but that is irrelevant to whether Shaker Aamer is guilty or innocent . As I have already stated on numerous occasions the Americans still claim there is plenty of evidence Shaker Aamer was an enemy combatant and I still believe them rather than the man found in a conflict zone with a false Belgium passport . I am neither blind or prejudice and you certainly aren't in a position to call anyone thick . ---------- Post added 18-12-2015 at 12:33 ---------- So you'll take the Americans WORD that they didn't torture him, but not his WORD that he's not a terrorist? Interesting seeing as the Americans have been proved multiple times to be lying about the using of torture in Guantanamo Bay. Allegations of torture against Shaker Aamer have not been proven . You are correct I don't believe Shaker Aamer's word or trust him . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redfox Posted December 18, 2015 Share Posted December 18, 2015 I troubled myself to read he law report - you either didn't bother, couldn't follow it because your just thick or you having read it decided it didn't suit your prejudiced script. You want to believe the yanks - you are entirely free to do so - Common sense logic does not run along the lines you suggest - we lock people up, don't charge them with anything - ever - but that doesn't mean there not bad people and keeping them in a cell for 14 years was perfectly fine. Utter cobblers. Logic - you don't know the meaning of the word. When the Govt settle the case (if he brings one) which they will - I will await your explanation. I am however not engaging with you - as i have said before you won't have it and seem utterly disinterested in any other views that don't quite suit your peculiar bent Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan Else Posted December 18, 2015 Share Posted December 18, 2015 When you manage to post the link I have asked for and your looking on the net try looking up the burden of proof in civil cases. If you seriously think that the UK govt has no case to answer your dreaming. It is a very serious business lying to a court, even more so if your doing so on behalf of and as the witness for the Government. I am genuinely staggered that you have any faith at all in what the Americans say about this. I would very much like to see whoever the Americans put forward as a witness in a UK court and cross examined. I am still waiting for the link by the way Let him and his litter come and live in your house. You'll so change you mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gamston Posted December 18, 2015 Share Posted December 18, 2015 I troubled myself to read he law report - you either didn't bother, couldn't follow it because your just thick or you having read it decided it didn't suit your prejudiced script. You want to believe the yanks - you are entirely free to do so - Common sense logic does not run along the lines you suggest - we lock people up, don't charge them with anything - ever - but that doesn't mean there not bad people and keeping them in a cell for 14 years was perfectly fine. Utter cobblers. Logic - you don't know the meaning of the word. When the Govt settle the case (if he brings one) which they will - I will await your explanation. I am however not engaging with you - as i have said before you won't have it and seem utterly disinterested in any other views that don't quite suit your peculiar bent You continue to get your knickers in a twist for no reason . It was unnecessary for you to post the link you provided because there was reference to the Boumediene v Bush judgement in the more interesting article via the link I provided . I have already stated there have been continous issues with legality throughout the time the facility at Guantantomo has been used to detain those considered the unlawful enemy without charging them etc , but this has got nothing at all to do with the UK Government . I have given you a reason why the Americans have not brought any charges against Shaker Aamer which is not because they believe him to be innocent like you and other Shaker sypathizers claim . Are you aware Shaker Aamer was cleared for release to Saudi Arabia in 2007 before the Boumediene v Bush judgement ? Why didn't Shaker Aamer go to Saudi Arabia when he was cleared for release there, seven years before he came back to the UK ? What are America suppose to do with detainees who have been cleared for release when no legal country will accept them ? Should the UK accept all detainess no other country wants in order to speed up the closure of the facility at Gauntanmo ? Thank you for saying I am free to believe what the Americans say, but I have serious doubts you really mean it as a consequence of your anger management issues . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan Else Posted December 18, 2015 Share Posted December 18, 2015 You continue to get your knickers in a twist for no reason . It was unnecessary for you to post the link you provided because there was reference to the Boumediene v Bush judgement in the more interesting article via the link I provided . I have already stated there have been continous issues with legality throughout the time the facility at Guantantomo has been used to detain those considered the unlawful enemy without charging them etc , but this has got nothing at all to do with the UK Government . I have given you a reason why the Americans have not brought any charges against Shaker Aamer which is not because they believe him to be innocent like you and other Shaker sypathizers claim . Are you aware Shaker Aamer was cleared for release to Saudi Arabia in 2007 before the Boumediene v Bush judgement ? Why didn't Shaker Aamer go to Saudi Arabia when he was cleared for release there, seven years before he came back to the UK ? What are America suppose to do with detainees who have been cleared for release when no legal country will accept them ? Should the UK accept all detainess no other country wants in order to speed up the closure of the facility at Gauntanmo ? Thank you for saying I am free to believe what the Americans say, but I have serious doubts you really mean it as a consequence of your anger management issues . You're wasting your time with these permanent campaigners/rebels without a clue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redfox Posted December 18, 2015 Share Posted December 18, 2015 Let him and his litter come and live in your house. You'll so change you mind. Back under the rock troll Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts