999tigger Posted November 1, 2015 Share Posted November 1, 2015 So is that the point at which they should have been tried and either sentenced or acquitted and released? Its complicated Bob and I havent read up on it. As you pointed out the US govt did its best to try and exclude priosners from any rights hence it being at Guantanomo and not wating to give them Federal or any Geneva Convention rights. It passed legislation to justufy this. There were some eventual challnged under Habeus Corpus and right not to be illegally detained and in 2008 a case which helped the detainees reached the Supreme Court. Think that is Boumedine v Bush. More of the detainees were successful at challenging their detention until 2012, when another ruling was in the face of the government and made it much harder to appeal. Theres an article here.http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2012/0611/Supreme-Court-deals-blow-to-Guantanamo-prisoners-challenging-their-detention I think by that time Guantanomo had processed who they had and the remaining prisoners were more of an embarrassment. Bush left and Obama came in so everyone wanted to move on hence they decided to close it. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-22358351 ---------- Post added 01-11-2015 at 18:42 ---------- I'm sure I already said, Human Rights legislation from there and open borders. Right not to be illegally deatined has nothing to do with the EU its a British convention that dates back to the 1600s. Right not to be tortured also covered in Uk signing up to Geneva Conventions as well as other international Conventions against torture. Long before UNHCR. Do you think we should allow torture? Its got nothing to do with open borders. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gamston Posted November 1, 2015 Share Posted November 1, 2015 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. The UK is a developed civilisation and to suggest anything otherwise is a disgrace . Terrorist organisations such as the Taliban, Al-Qaeda and Isis are the uncivilised people who torture, then brutally murder the prisoners they capture . Interrogation techniques used by the CIA are to save lives unlike the torture dished out by the likes of Isis and Al-Qaeda . I wouldn't put myself in a position where MI5 or US agents thought it was necessary for me to help them with their enquires unlike Shaker Aamer , but l am worried about the Muslin terrorist threat to people living in civilised Britain . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
999tigger Posted November 1, 2015 Share Posted November 1, 2015 The UK is a developed civilisation and to suggest anything otherwise is a disgrace . Terrorist organisations such as the Taliban, Al-Qaeda and Isis are the uncivilised people who torture, then brutally murder the prisoners they capture . Interrogation techniques used by the CIA are to save lives unlike the torture dished out by the likes of Isis and Al-Qaeda . I wouldn't put myself in a position where MI5 or US agents thought it was necessary for me to help them with their enquires unlike Shaker Aamer , but l am worried about the Muslin terrorist threat to people living in civilised Britain . Actually I didnt say anything otherwise. If you want to sign up to international agreements and make a big play on respecting peoples rights and having a developed legal system then people who act illegally need to be held to account under the law. That is all thats happening. You either think the govt should be held to account for illegal detention and torture or you do not. Just because terrorists organisations behave atrociously is not a good enough reason for the UK government to start acting illegally. If it wants to sign up to torture then it should abandon the international agreements its signed or reserve the right to torture people who do not obey what the foreigh office say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sandy18 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. The UK government didn't torture or illegally detain him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
999tigger Posted November 1, 2015 Share Posted November 1, 2015 The UK government didn't torture or illegally detain him. Not according to the claim. The torture claim comes from actual sessions MI5 had with him and the illegal detention comes with assisting in illegal rendition. Will have to see what the court papers and trial say. The British part is supplemental to what the US did. If they didnt do anything then he wont win his case. If they didnt do anything then they wont pay him a penny and they should refuse to settle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sandy18 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. Geneva Convention says. POWs cannot be prosecuted for taking a direct part in hostilities. Their detention is not a form of punishment, but only aims to prevent further participation in the conflict. They must be released and repatriated without delay after the end of hostilities. The detaining power may prosecute them for possible war crimes, but not for acts of violence that are lawful under IHL. Hostilities haven't ended so they could have kept him locked up without contravening the Geneva Convention. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Arctor Posted November 1, 2015 Share Posted November 1, 2015 If they didnt do anything then he wont win his case. If they didnt do anything then they wont pay him a penny and they should refuse to settle. Surely there's little else to say about it. Why do people get into such a lather about something that will only happen if it's justified and won't happen if it's not? Seems a bit of a waste of emotional energy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sandy18 Posted November 1, 2015 Share Posted November 1, 2015 Not according to the claim. The torture claim comes from actual sessions MI5 had with him and the illegal detention comes with assisting in illegal rendition. Will have to see what the court papers and trial say. The British part is supplemental to what the US did. If they didnt do anything then he wont win his case. If they didnt do anything then they wont pay him a penny and they should refuse to settle. There's already been an investigation into the torture claims with no evidence found, no more money should be wasted on it. Its not illegal to detain POW's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Arctor Posted November 1, 2015 Share Posted November 1, 2015 Geneva Convention says. POWs cannot be prosecuted for taking a direct part in hostilities. Their detention is not a form of punishment, but only aims to prevent further participation in the conflict. They must be released and repatriated without delay after the end of hostilities. The detaining power may prosecute them for possible war crimes, but not for acts of violence that are lawful under IHL. Hostilities haven't ended so they could have kept him locked up without contravening the Geneva Convention. No, the UK and US formally ended their combat roles in Afghanistan in October and December 2014 respectively. It would probably be possible to argue successfully that hostilities ended way before then since neither were at war with a state once the Afghan government was installed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nagel Posted November 1, 2015 Share Posted November 1, 2015 I'm amazed how certain everyone is about the facts. How is it possible to know the truth of this case either way? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts