gomgeg Posted November 1, 2015 Share Posted November 1, 2015 Still waiting to know why he was in a war zone against government advice. Self inflicted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mafya Posted November 1, 2015 Share Posted November 1, 2015 Still waiting to know why he was in a war zone against government advice. Self inflicted. How many British aid workers are currently in war zones? Plenty..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
999tigger Posted November 1, 2015 Share Posted November 1, 2015 Still waiting to know why he was in a war zone against government advice. Self inflicted. So it justifies torture? and being detained for 13 years without any evidence? Youd be happy if the state did that to you and think it was self inflicted? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gomgeg Posted November 1, 2015 Share Posted November 1, 2015 How many British aid workers are currently in war zones? Plenty..... I haven't got a clue, but if they've gone against government advice that's their problem. That will also be self inflicted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Arctor Posted November 1, 2015 Share Posted November 1, 2015 I'm sure it wasn't nice, but he was a prisoner of war and found with the other Taliban torturers. He doesn't appear to have been crucified or had his skin peeled off him whilst alive. Interestingly, you've accidentally hit the nail on the head. The CIA deliberately didn't classify the Guantánamo detainees as POWs. Cheney and his buddies came up with their own classification of "enemy combatants" precisely so they could sidestep the Geneva Convention with regards to their imprisonment, lack of trial, evidence, all that inconvenient stuff that is supposed to differentiate us from the Nazis. Had he been treated as a POW he'd have been released years ago and would likely have no grounds for a claim. There's a reason for the Geneva Convention and for doing things properly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gamston Posted November 1, 2015 Share Posted November 1, 2015 So its ok for the UK government to go round torturing and illegally detaining people? Would you be ok if you were imprisoned and detained without trial for 13 years as well as tortured on the basis the victims of 9/11 had it much worse, even though it had nothing to do with you? If Britain wants to be regarded as a developed civilised nation then it has to act within its own laws and things it has promised to do by refraining from illegally detaining and torturing people. Maybe no tax payers money would be being wasted if the illegal activity had not happened. He was captured by the Americans who I am sure acted in good faith . He has not been in a British prison or been under any British jurisdiction so he should not be entitled to any compensation from British tax payers . If he is not happy then he should leave Britain and go and live in a more civilised country if one exists . How do you know this guy is innocent ? Terry Waite was captured when he went to a conflict zone and I never heard people campaigning to get him any compensation . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
999tigger Posted November 1, 2015 Share Posted November 1, 2015 Interestingly, you've accidentally hit the nail on the head. The CIA deliberately didn't classify the Guantánamo detainees as POWs. Cheney and his buddies came up with their own classification of "enemy combatants" precisely so they could sidestep the Geneva Convention with regards to their imprisonment, lack of trial, evidence, all that inconvenient stuff that is supposed to differentiate us from the Nazis. Had he been treated as a POW he'd have been released years ago and would likely have no grounds for a claim. There's a reason for the Geneva Convention and for doing things properly. Except I believe that was challenged and went to the Supreme Court where they ruled it was illegal and they had to be given some status. Habeas corpus was recognised as was their right not to be tortured. If he had been released years ago, then it would be less serious because he would have been detained for a smaller period. If he was tortured as alleged, then that also comes under the UN Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Degrading or Inhuman Treatment or Punishment from 1985 to which Britain is a signatory, nothing to do with the Human rights Act although that contains similar provisions. If hed undergone the torture then ofc he would have a claim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Arctor Posted November 1, 2015 Share Posted November 1, 2015 He was captured by the Americans who I am sure acted in good faith . He has not been in a British prison or been under any British jurisdiction so he should not be entitled to any compensation from British tax payers . If he is not happy then he should leave Britain and go and live in a more civilised country if one exists . How do you know this guy is innocent ? Terry Waite was captured when he went to a conflict zone and I never heard people campaigning to get him any compensation . Terry Waite was kidnapped by Hezbollah, not a government. ---------- Post added 01-11-2015 at 18:19 ---------- He was captured by the Americans who I am sure acted in good faith . He has not been in a British prison or been under any British jurisdiction so he should not be entitled to any compensation from British tax payers . If he is not happy then he should leave Britain and go and live in a more civilised country if one exists . How do you know this guy is innocent ? Terry Waite was captured when he went to a conflict zone and I never heard people campaigning to get him any compensation . Except I believe that was challenged and went to the Supreme Court where they ruled it was illegal and they had to be given some status. So is that the point at which they should have been tried and either sentenced or acquitted and released? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
999tigger Posted November 1, 2015 Share Posted November 1, 2015 He was captured by the Americans who I am sure acted in good faith . He has not been in a British prison or been under any British jurisdiction so he should not be entitled to any compensation from British tax payers . If he is not happy then he should leave Britain and go and live in a more civilised country if one exists . How do you know this guy is innocent ? Terry Waite was captured when he went to a conflict zone and I never heard people campaigning to get him any compensation . You are missing the point that it was bristih agents who are alleged to have carried out some of the torture. have you read up on the case? The British agents are acting in the name of the UK govt, thats why the claim is being made against them. Nothing to do with his nationality. Why should he not make a claim if the govt has broken the law? I never said I knoew the guy was innocent, but there is a presumption that you are innocent until proven guilty and they couldnt produce enough evidence in 13 years. They have to prove it in court. If they didnt do it then they have nothing to worry about. Terry Waite isnt a similar situation as the people accused of imprisoning him werent a sovereign government. If the UK wants to put itself forward as a developed civilisation and sign up to lots of international agreements about giving people a right to a fair trial and not torturing them, then you can hardly complain when people are unhappy for them doing exactly that because its illegal. Maybe dont go round torturing people. I very much doubt youd be happy if MI5 agents came round and tortured you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
runningman1 Posted November 1, 2015 Share Posted November 1, 2015 I'm sure I already said, Human Rights legislation from there and open borders. It has absolutely nothing to do with being in the EU. The European Court of Human Rights is not the same thing as the EU. Most of the human rights legislation people of your political persuasion seem to be against come from our membership of the UN and the ECHR. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts