Great news. Our fellow ''Britons'' have been released from Guantalamo bay. Hey! lets throw a party. Or wait till they throw a bomb. Thank god for for democracy

If they are innocent, why were they took there in the first place and what were they doing to get arrested.

If they are guilty, why are they letting them go.

Discuss.

Hey. Lets go for a holiday to Iraq. Great idea. Why! These people are getting off with it. This is sick

i think they are the least of our concerns when it comes to terrorism im afraid!

they are being released because they have no evidence to charge them with anything.
No matter what assumptions you draw about someone from their whereabouts we are supposed to live in a world where people are innocent until proven guilty and detention is subject to fair trial. America clearly only wants to apply this system when it's convenient to themselves and would rather that the rest of the time they can just do what they like.

There are actually Americans being held there too, how are they getting away with it ?

Originally posted by Tim42
Hey. Lets go for a holiday to Iraq. Great idea. Why! These people are getting off with it. This is sick

do you get your information from the Daily Sport? The detainees were arrested in Afghanistan and Pakistan - they have probably never been to Iraq.

Still, seeing as you don't need evidence to assume someones guilt, feel free to make up what you want.

they where held there for propoganda purposes. There country was being bombing by usa and they where arrested for fighting back.

Usa and everyone else bombs schools and towns andwhen they fight back by shooting down planes or bombing rail ways we have the right call them terrorists. Iraq has nothing to do with terrorism it has a dictator who has been taken down so we should leave. There are no excuses because if that was the reason to topple sadam then what about somalia.

Bomb the real people behind the 9/11 attacks saudi arabia if you have to but they do own 6% of america no wait kill women and children in iraq instead.

Rant over.

Look at your young men fighting
Look at your women crying
Look at your young men dying
the way they've always done before
Look at the hate we're breeding
Look at the fear we're feeding
Look at the lives we're leading
The way we've always done before
My hands are tied
The billions shift from side to side
And the wars go on with brainwashed pride
For the love of god and our human rights
And all these things are swept aside
By bloody hands time can't deny
And are washed away by your genocide
And history hides the lies of our civil wars
D'you wear a black armband when they shot the man who said "peace could last forever"
And in my first memories they shot kennedy
I went numb when I learned to see
So i never fell for vietnam
We got the wall of DC to remind us all
That you can't trust freedom when it's not in your hands
When everybody's fighting for their promised land
Look at the shoes your filling
Look at the blood we're spilling Look at the world we're killing
The way we've always done before
Look in the doubt we've wallowed
Look at the leaders we've followed
Look at the lies we've swallowed
And I don't want to hear no more......

My hands are tied
For all i've seen has changed my mind
But still the wars go on as the years go by
With no love of god or human rights
Cause all these dreams are swept aside
By bloody hands of the hypnotized
Who carry the cross of homicide
And history bears the scars of our civil wars

Goes on but I think this gets the message across:help:

they are not Afghanis, they are British, I've not spotted the US bombing us, did I miss it?
Legitimate resistance fighters were held seperately and have a chance at least of the US complying with the Geneva convention.
We've created the mess in Iraq, we have to stay now until the situation is stable, otherwise we've just made the situation worse.
Somalia was until recently in the midst of a civil war, not quite the same situation as Iraq, but anyway, given a desire to bring 'freedom' and peace to the entire will doesn't gift us with the ability to do it all at once, and Iraq had more oil.

Get the facts straight when you rant, it will be more impressive.

Originally posted by Deadstar
they where held there for propoganda purposes. There country was being bombing by usa and they where arrested for fighting back.

Usa and everyone else bombs schools and towns andwhen they fight back by shooting down planes or bombing rail ways we have the right call them terrorists. Iraq has nothing to do with terrorism it has a dictator who has been taken down so we should leave. There are no excuses because if that was the reason to topple sadam then what about somalia.

Bomb the real people behind the 9/11 attacks saudi arabia if you have to but they do own 6% of america no wait kill women and children in iraq instead.

Rant over.

At the end of the day if the americans had any evidence they had been up to no good then they woul'd have charged them.
This is not to say they have been good guys who have done nothing wrong ,just that the evidence is not their.
You do have to wonder what british citizens are doing in afghanistan??

Originally posted by royjames
You do have to wonder what british citizens are doing in afghanistan??

Same as they are doing all over the rest of the world - there was once a small thing known as the British Empire...!

Originally posted by royjames
At the end of the day if the americans had any evidence they had been up to no good then they woul'd have charged them.
This is not to say they have been good guys who have done nothing wrong ,just that the evidence is not their.
You do have to wonder what british citizens are doing in afghanistan??

i'm fairly sure that they were upto no good. They went with the stated intent of fighting the Americans. But that doesn't give the Americans the right to call them "illegal combatants" and strip them of all human rights.
I'm sure that if the Germans had done that to Canadian or Polish people fighting with the British during the 2nd world war, we would have subsequently tried whoever we could for war crimes.

Without evidence though they should have just been repatriated or removed from the area of conflict.

Yes Iagree with those comments cyclone,hard though it is for us to beleive they were just there for the fun of it without proof you have to let them go.
If on the other hand we coul'd prove it then to me they shoul'd be tried for treason and shot.

Well when those people who have been released from detention come back to our shores you can bet your bottom dollar that the liberals and do gooders will fawn all over them and treat them as returning heroes when in reality we know what they have been up to.
And you can also expect the lawyers to be clamouring to offer assistance to them also.
Lucky for them it is not years ago as they woul'd probably have been executed for treason,

Why treason - surely for that they would have had to fighting against the UK? And even if they were in some sort of 'terrorist training camp' surely they would actually have had to perform some seditious act to be tried for treason?

Originally posted by royjames

You do have to wonder what british citizens are doing in afghanistan??

A lot of British citizens went to Spain to fight Franco, and others went to France to help the French resistance against the Nazis.

Fighting oppression used to be a British disease. Sadly we've now joined the US in being the oppressors.

You should have posted a kangaroo court poll on this one mate!

are they guilty/ do we want them back?

yes
no


etc

Originally posted by evildrneil
Why treason - surely for that they would have had to fighting against the UK? And even if they were in some sort of 'terrorist training camp' surely they would actually have had to perform some seditious act to be tried for treason?

our forces were involved, so it would be treason probably if there were any proof of them engaging in combat.

so they have been in prison nearly a thousand days,well for me leave em there another thousand...they are being called "british" i'd prefer to call them traitors....WTF were they doing over there???? suppose they will say they were on holiday.....yeah sure they were....they went to fight against british/US troops so i say leave em to rot.:rant: :rant: :rant: :rant:

Originally posted by kirky
so they have been in prison nearly a thousand days,well for me leave em there another thousand...they are being called "british" i'd prefer to call them traitors....WTF were they doing over there???? suppose they will say they were on holiday.....yeah sure they were....they went to fight against british/US troops so i say leave em to rot.:rant: :rant: :rant: :rant:

so you're only a believer in due process and trial by jury of peers and that whole malarky when it benefits yourself then?

Originally posted by Cyclone
our forces were involved, so it would be treason probably if there were any proof of them engaging in combat.

Was the UK ever officially at war with Afghanistan or the Taliban ?

Despite long periods of solitary confinement and methods of interrogation that even the FBI have denounced as torture, the US govt. appear not to have sufficient evidence to charge them.

Legal opinion here from the Attorney General downwards seems to think these people were either detained illegally or that any purely 'confessional' evidence would be inadmissable if it were decided to prosecute them.

Originally posted by Greybeard
Was the UK ever officially at war with Afghanistan or the Taliban ?
"Officially at war", no, but then, we weren't "officially at war" in the Falklands either, or Malaysia, or Iraq (1 or 2), or Suez, I don't even think Korea was "officially" a war, that was just a "police" action, IIRC.

Don't know what the "official" definition of treason is, but hopefully it's just something like "engaged in combat/aggression against" rather than needing to be "at war".

Having said the above, the gentlemen in question have not been convicted of anything, let alone treason, they are "officially" innocent and should be considered innocent by everyone. They should now be left alone to put their lives back together, and if they want to sue the US gov’t for whatever, so be it.

Originally posted by Cyclone
so you're only a believer in due process and trial by jury of peers and that whole malarky when it benefits yourself then?


eh......they were fighting against us....so what they gonna do now go quietly back to running the corner shop..or perhaps they might plot revenge against the people keeping them in jail....brits/yanks....no wonder our country is such a soft target,its full of do gooders and lefty types:rolleyes:

execute them before they cause avoc here in britain..its gonna happen sooner or later:rant:

....back to running the corner shop?!!!!.... Execute them all?!!!!...
Whoa there Kirky, sorry matey but those comments are that far right of left they're bordering on facist. Who did you vote for at the last election- the BNP?

Originally posted by kirky
so they have been in prison nearly a thousand days,well for me leave em there another thousand...they are being called "british" i'd prefer to call them traitors....WTF were they doing over there???? suppose they will say they were on holiday.....yeah sure they were....they went to fight against british/US troops so i say leave em to rot.:rant: :rant: :rant: :rant:

Kirky, I wish you had some idea of what you're writing.
There is no evidence to prove anything against these people, what if it was someone from you're family? . .

Looking at it from another viewpoint - this is just a statement to show what kirky sounds like ( in your eyes, this is how you sound ) 'what about all those Brits that died in the tsunami in indonesia, India etc . . well, let them die, we dont care - they shouldn't have been over there in the first place'.


The Brits & Americans start wars, ruin countries, their troops are accused of hideous crimes against prisoners and innocent civilians and yet when someone is arrested for probably just protesting in the streets - no evidence whatsoever of terrorism against them but just for propaganda and then held in Guantanamo Bay for 3 years!!, is that right?

Originally posted by Lestat
Kirky, I wish you had some idea of what you're writing.
There is no evidence to prove anything against these people,


That's not strictly true. It has been established beyond doubt that some of them had prior knowledge of 9/11. And many of them were certainly training to fight with terrorist organisations against the US and UK.

That may or may not have been against the law as it stood at the time, but it's not exactly what you'd call living a blameless existence, either.

It may not be possible to prove anything against these people legally, but it leaves us in no doubt where their loyalties lie. That alone is cause for their detention during a period when there is hightened terrorist threat.

I have several questions for all of you who ar so sure of these people's guilt

1 Why can they not be dealt with according to the laws of the land of either the UK or the US?
2 If they are "prisoners of war" why has the US unilaterally decided that the Geneva Convention does not apply to them?
3 In what precisely defined circumstances do you view torture as being a method that a "civilised" authority uses?
4 If the US authorities are so convinced of all the above being necessary then why are they releasing these british detainees?

Originally posted by mojoworking
That's not strictly true. It has been established beyond doubt that some of them had prior knowledge of 9/11.

Then where is this evidence? I dont think anyone caught would really own up to anything on the scale of 9/11! surely the people the govt claims to be protecting have a right to know.

If it's worth taking 3 years of someones life away then at least show and prove the reasons behind it.

Originally posted by mojoworking
That's not strictly true. It has been established beyond doubt that some of them had prior knowledge of 9/11. And many of them were certainly training to fight with terrorist organisations against the US and UK.

Can you substanciate this claim mojo?

Where is the evidence / proof?

Originally posted by Lestat


and yet when someone is arrested for probably just protesting in the streets - no evidence whatsoever of terrorism against them but just for propaganda and then held in Guantanamo Bay for 3 years!!, is that right?


A lot of the people in Guantanamo Bay are there because the Americans promised the local war-lords a reward for any 'foreign fighter' they could capture and hand over. The war lords of course weren't too particular about the term 'foreign fighter' and any foreigner was fair game as long as they got paid., and they weren't averse to torturing captives to persuade them to admit to being 'foreign fighters' before passing them on to the Americans.

I believe there were a couple of cases of foreign aid workers suffering this fate as well as an Arab journalist.

Originally posted by mojoworking
That's not strictly true. It has been established beyond doubt that some of them had prior knowledge of 9/11.

Established by who? Need a link here, I reckon.

It may not be possible to prove anything against these people legally, but it leaves us in no doubt where their loyalties lie. That alone is cause for their detention during a period when there is hightened terrorist threat.

Here are some interesting statistics from the Home Office which show that, of 664 people arrested between 11th September 2001 and 30th September 2004, 17 have been convicted of offences under the Terrorism Act.

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/docs3/tatc_arrest_stats.html

So, 2.6% of arrests secure convictions. Not a great strike rate, is it? With this in mind, is it remotely sensible that our legal system should not be applied to these cases, and that guilt should be presumed? I would argue not.

Originally posted by Jamie
Can you substanciate this claim mojo?

Where is the evidence / proof?

Well, there is this:

SYDNEY cleaner Mamdouh Habib knew about the September 11 attacks in advance, had trained in martial arts with two of the core terrorists and planned to later hijack a plane himself, the US military has claimed.

The allegations are the most serious levelled against an Australian citizen and mark the first time a Guantanamo Bay detainee has been accused of having prior knowledge of the 9/11 strikes on New York and Washington

However, the 48-year-old father of four has claimed he was tortured into making admissions and now denies every accusation against him.

However, a Melbourne-based radical Islamic cleric, Sheikh Mohammad Omran, earlier this year alleged that Habib had at one stage assembled a jihad war chest of about $12,000 to send to Islamic rebel fighters in Chechnya.

To read the full story click here: http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,11007518%5E601,00.html

That's from "The Australian" newspaper website. Of course it's all just allegations, so you'll be able to dismiss the claims quite easily :)

Originally posted by mojoworking
That's from "The Australian" newspaper website. Of course it's all just allegations, so you'll be able to dismiss the claims quite easily :)

The US military claims a lot of things. That doesn't make the allegations necessarily untrue, but "established beyond doubt"? Nah.

Originally posted by Greybeard
A lot of the people in Guantanamo Bay are there because the Americans promised the local war-lords a reward for any 'foreign fighter' they could capture and hand over.

I have heard this on the radio too from the captive's solicitor. But would not like to comment as I have never met any of them, and don't trust journalists, especially as they spend a year convincing us that bush would lose by a landslide, when obviously the opposite was always true.. etc..

Although you have to ask the question, as to why these four weren't released earlier with the so called "less dangerous ones", could it be because they shouted more about their innocence to the yank captors?

The second point is that these men haven't yet been released, nor are they going to be for some weeks..

To add to the point about the scarcity of convictions, here is some more interesting reading:

http://www.irr.org.uk/2004/september/ak000004.html

"The IRR has documented eleven of the fifteen convictions under anti-terrorist laws since 11 September 2001. Only three Muslims have actually been convicted under the 2000 Act and two of them have been given leave to appeal their convictions. Six of those convicted under the Terrorism Act 2000 are white and were convicted for offences such as wearing a ring or carrying a flag with the symbols of banned Loyalist organisations. The 2000 Act makes it illegal even to wear a T-shirt supporting a banned organisation. A further two non-Muslims have been convicted under the Anti-Terrorism Crime and Security Act 2001, one for sending a racist letter containing white powder to the office of Mohammad Sarwar MP."

Originally posted by mojoworking
Well, there is this:

SYDNEY cleaner Mamdouh Habib knew about the September 11 attacks in advance, had trained in martial arts with two of the core terrorists and planned to later hijack a plane himself, the US military has claimed.

The allegations are the most serious levelled against an Australian citizen and mark the first time a Guantanamo Bay detainee has been accused of having prior knowledge of the 9/11 strikes on New York and Washington

However, the 48-year-old father of four has claimed he was tortured into making admissions and now denies every accusation against him.

However, a Melbourne-based radical Islamic cleric, Sheikh Mohammad Omran, earlier this year alleged that Habib had at one stage assembled a jihad war chest of about $12,000 to send to Islamic rebel fighters in Chechnya.

To read the full story click here: http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,11007518%5E601,00.html

That's from "The Australian" newspaper website. Of course it's all just allegations, so you'll be able to dismiss the claims quite easily :)

For something to be established behond doubt, I should expect to see some concrete hard evidence.

"the US military has claimed" ..... means f**k all.

Originally posted by kirky
eh......they were fighting against us....so what they gonna do now go quietly back to running the corner shop..or perhaps they might plot revenge against the people keeping them in jail....brits/yanks....no wonder our country is such a soft target,its full of do gooders and lefty types:rolleyes:

execute them before they cause avoc here in britain..its gonna happen sooner or later:rant:

If you took the time to find out a little more you would know that the UK government appears to be intending to charge them with offences under the terrorism Act. :roll:

Originally posted by missnorks
....back to running the corner shop?!!!!.... Execute them all?!!!!...
Whoa there Kirky, sorry matey but those comments are that far right of left they're bordering on facist. Who did you vote for at the last election- the BNP?


never voted in my life..and perhaps the comments were a bit strong,having said that i know one of the familys who lost a loved one in the bali bomb and belive me and would never want anyone to go through what they have gone through but its a sad fact that someone somewhere will

Originally posted by Yodameister
I have several questions for all of you who ar so sure of these people's guilt

1 Why can they not be dealt with according to the laws of the land of either the UK or the US?
2 If they are "prisoners of war" why has the US unilaterally decided that the Geneva Convention does not apply to them?
3 In what precisely defined circumstances do you view torture as being a method that a "civilised" authority uses?
4 If the US authorities are so convinced of all the above being necessary then why are they releasing these british detainees?
Well said Yodameister

Originally posted by Lestat
The Brits & Americans start wars, ruin countries, their troops are accused of hideous crimes against prisoners and innocent civilians
What do you mean "their", it's "our" troops, from the UK, and sent over there by "our" elected representatives. "We" all (or had the chance to) voted for them, let's take a bit of collective responsibility here.


Originally posted by mojoworking
It may not be possible to prove anything against these people legally, but it leaves us in no doubt where their loyalties lie. That alone is cause for their detention during a period when there is hightened terrorist threat.
Even *IF* their loyalties lie in this direction (which hasn't been proven either way, since when have "loyalties" been imprison-able by indefinite incarceration ? Are you advocating the same treatment for any Republican sympathiser in NI ?
Are you advocating the same treatment for any person who is not loyal to the current ruling *party* of this country, are they traitors ?

Originally posted by mojoworking
The allegations are the most serious levelled against an Australian citizen and mark the first time a Guantanamo Bay detainee has been accused of having prior knowledge of the 9/11 strikes on New York and Washington
This pertains to ONE Australian citizen, proven or not it has nothing to do with the UK citizens we are discussing.


I understand the feelings these issues generate, but please try to separate your feelings for what the terrorists do from what should be done to any number of UK citizens against which no charges have even been brought (so far), let alone proven.

Originally posted by Tony
If you took the time to find out a little more you would know that the UK government appears to be intending to charge them with offences under the terrorism Act. :roll:

suppose a bit of community service will be dished out there then..but then again once they play the race card blair will bottle it:rolleyes:

Originally posted by kirky
suppose a bit of community service will be dished out there then..but then again once they play the race card blair will bottle it:rolleyes:

you might be surprised to find that the legal process is actually seperate from the political one in this country. Tony Blair has no say in what will happen, and the Home Secretary (who does have some say) has said that he will allow the normal due process to take place as you would expect.
Unless the police can gather sufficient evidence to make a conviction possible the CPS will not consider taking it to trial.

And fortunately for all of us here in the UK confessions obtained under torture or the allegations of Americans are not considered to be admissible evidence.

Kirky, it does sound like you want to live in a fascist police state, but it also sounds like you assume that you'd be one of the privileged ones who didn't need to worry about every word and action in fear of being made to disappear if you said or did the wrong thing.

Originally posted by Cyclone
you might be surprised to find that the legal process is actually seperate from the political one in this country. Tony Blair has no say in what will happen, and the Home Secretary (who does have some say) has said that he will allow the normal due process to take place as you would expect.
Unless the police can gather sufficient evidence to make a conviction possible the CPS will not consider taking it to trial.

And fortunately for all of us here in the UK confessions obtained under torture or the allegations of Americans are not considered to be admissible evidence.

Kirky, it does sound like you want to live in a fascist police state, but it also sounds like you assume that you'd be one of the privileged ones who didn't need to worry about every word and action in fear of being made to disappear if you said or did the wrong thing.


i don't want a police state i don't like the police....well some of em anyway....but i don't want fanatical muslims running around threatening our way of life,if they don't like the way we live why don't they go and live elsewhere.....and i don't mean law abiding muslims i mean the idiots like the ones that have just been released to come back here.

Originally posted by kirky
i don't want a police state i don't like the police....well some of em anyway....

You just don't like the Police that catch you and yours clearly breaking the law though, do you Kirky? I suppose that certain Guantanamo residents might feel the same about the US military.

Originally posted by Tony
You just don't like the Police that catch you and yours clearly breaking the law though.

i aint broke no laws:D :D :D :D :D :P :P

Originally posted by kirky
i aint broke no laws:D :D :D :D :D :P :P

neither have they, that's why they weren't arrested and tried.

Can you see my point?

Originally posted by Greenback
Established by who? Need a link here, I reckon.



Here are some interesting statistics from the Home Office which show that, of 664 people arrested between 11th September 2001 and 30th September 2004, 17 have been convicted of offences under the Terrorism Act.

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/docs3/tatc_arrest_stats.html

So, 2.6% of arrests secure convictions. Not a great strike rate, is it? With this in mind, is it remotely sensible that our legal system should not be applied to these cases, and that guilt should be presumed? I would argue not.

I think the issue of terrorism is a very sensitive one and one where many of the "standard" rules of the land on many occasions are hard to apply because they are so smart!

If you look at it from another way. Think about how many gangsters and criminals there are around the country where the authorities know they have a hand in drugs and criminal activity, however, there are a grave many of these people who cannot be prosecuted because the way in which they operate means its very hard to gather hard evidence. the situation still is that they are known criminals but just get other people to do all the work.

The same thing stands with terrorists, on many occasions the authorities know that someone has something to do with terrorist activity but the consequences of their actions could be detrimental to the country and they therefore cannot take the risk to allow them to walk free.

I think there is very strong argument of innocent until proven guilty and we do live in a democracy and everyone should have the right to trial. But I think there are exceptional circumstances and in reality, terrorists can sometimes be just too clever to leave traces of evidence for the authorities to find!

Even looking at the statistics, no its not impressive however you can probably say quite confidently that the reaminder have probably at some point had something to do with terrorism and the fact they have been arrested in the first place may well be enough to show them that the police do have powers!

Originally posted by Cyclone
neither have they, that's why they weren't arrested and tried.

Can you see my point?

so what were they doing there? sight seeing:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

its all politics,tony blair,s boot licking for votes. thats why they are bieng allowed to be released.

Originally posted by kirky
so what were they doing there? sight seeing:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Good thinking Kirky...for sure they were not looking for a job as a tourist guide.

Originally posted by owdlad
Good thinking Kirky...for sure they were not looking for a job as a tourist guide.

Maybe they were visiting family.......

Bit off the subjest, but do you think it's true that a popular name now in the UK for a baby boy is Mohammed, i don't think so but you all would know better.

Originally posted by youngmcgill
Maybe they were visiting family.......

I am sure that if they had their legal people would have been only too pleased to bang the drum about it. :rolleyes:

Originally posted by kirky
so what were they doing there? sight seeing:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

do you even understand innocent until proven guilty.

It doesn't matter what they were doing, unless we can prove that they were doing some illegal.

If we could be thrown in jail on the basis of looking suspicous with no trial, no access to lawyers and no-one to oversee the police. Would that make the world a safer place. No it wouldn't, it would make it a police state where 'normal' citizens lived in fear of being dragged away in the night.

They are being released into British Police Custody, Anyone following this story will no doubt believe that these men have serious questions to answer. They were willing to go to Afghan to kill British and allied soldiers. They would not get a fair trial in USA nor will the others held at Guantanamo. Therefor all detainees should be released to their respective countries to be dealt with. These men are traitors. One of them even refused to be classed as English when Arrested even though he was born here. You need to know the full background to this before making any comment. Also the one that was trying to recruit his friends to go with him, Telling them they would be well paid and well armed. Sorry to say, They should have been shot whilst in Afghanistan. They are certainly dangerous people. Maybe they will face trial here on charges of treason. If so then we may be able to lock them up and throw away the key.

Originally posted by Rodgers
They are being released into British Police Custody, Anyone following this story will no doubt believe that these men have serious questions to answer. They were willing to go to Afghan to kill British and allied soldiers. They would not get a fair trial in USA nor will the others held at Guantanamo. Therefor all detainees should be released to their respective countries to be dealt with. These men are traitors. One of them even refused to be classed as English when Arrested even though he was born here. You need to know the full background to this before making any comment. Also the one that was trying to recruit his friends to go with him, Telling them they would be well paid and well armed. Sorry to say, They should have been shot whilst in Afghanistan. They are certainly dangerous people. Maybe they will face trial here on charges of treason. If so then we may be able to lock them up and throw away the key.

I think thats quite a sore point with many people, the fact that they went to fight against british and british allies. Really, do we want to have people in our country that are prepared to fight us and encourage others to fight against us?

They simply do not fall under US jurisdiction.

From what I remember, even the BBC news were slating the North American Government and Military.

Unlawful combatants from what I remember to why there were held for so long, The US did not break the law, just made a new one.

Originally posted by venger
They simply do not fall under US jurisdiction.

From what I remember, even the BBC news were slating the North American Government and Military.

Unlawful combatants from what I remember to why there were held for so long, The US did not break the law, just made a new one.

it can't unilateraly invent international law.
What it did was ignore all existing international law, conventions and treatise governing the conduct of prisoners of law, gave them another name (for media reasons) and then did what it damn well liked.

Rodgers - evidence, this is what is required under British law. Is there any, because i've not seen it. Denying that you are English is not a crime, trying to recruit people for terrorist activities probably is, but if that's the case then they should have had a lawyer, been tried and sentenced, not held illegally by a foreign power.

Maybe they will face trial here on charges of treason. If so then we may be able to lock them up and throw away the key. [/B][/QUOTE]

Like we did in Northern Ireland.
Then in a few years when we have let them go onto electronics courses whilst in prison, let them out again as part of some deal to "buy" peace they will be more accomplished terrorists. I am afraid if they are found guilty they should hang.

Originally posted by Rodgers
They are being released into British Police Custody, Anyone following this story will no doubt believe that these men have serious questions to answer. They were willing to go to Afghan to kill British and allied soldiers. They would not get a fair trial in USA nor will the others held at Guantanamo. Therefor all detainees should be released to their respective countries to be dealt with. These men are traitors. One of them even refused to be classed as English when Arrested even though he was born here. You need to know the full background to this before making any comment. Also the one that was trying to recruit his friends to go with him, Telling them they would be well paid and well armed. Sorry to say, They should have been shot whilst in Afghanistan. They are certainly dangerous people. Maybe they will face trial here on charges of treason. If so then we may be able to lock them up and throw away the key.

I've read the case histories too, and they're nowhere near as black-and-white as you make out.

Let's see how strong the evidence is when they eventually come back before bandying words like 'treason' about.

I would have thought that the confessions provided by these people, under torture, would be (rightly) inadmissable in a British court, most likely meaning it will be difficult to bring charges. In any case, after spending so long in such horrendous conditions I doubt very much that these people pose any danger to anyone but themselves.

I'm afriad Guantanamo makes a mockery of western "justice".

I think a strong point is that really if the have lived in the UK for x number of years and had the benefts of being British citizens then turned their back on their countries to go away and fight against us and work towards killing our soldiers, why should we welcome them back into the country with open arms and let them claim benefits and use our system?

Im very up for equal treatment and that nobody should be hung without a trial, but I think its wrong that we should welcome them back but at the same time, they are British Citizens and in that respect were stuck with them.

I fully agree, The Americans were wrong to begin with, When these men were caught in Afghan, They should have been handed over to the British Military for transfer back to this country for investigation. I cannot condone much or in fact anything the Americans have done. They have made a ba..s up of this since the start. Right to say I believe that these men may have faced torture at the hands of the Yanks, But, War is war. They made a big mistake, But I doubt if they will admit to this and take what is coming to them, Knowing justice in this country they may well get probation or tagged for a few months. I would also like to see a few of the yanks prosecuted under rules of war, But as they will not and refuse to recognise the "Geneva Convention" I doubt if we ever will. The only time they became involved was in the ww2 even then they wanted to take full control of the War Trials. But at the end of the day, These men are British, They were glad enough to be educated here, Live here in freedom. Have more civil liberties etc. If they have no wish to be British, Then let us send them to Afghan traet them as persona non grata

Originally posted by youngmcgill
I think a strong point is that really if the have lived in the UK for x number of years and had the benefts of being British citizens then turned their back on their countries to go away and fight against us and work towards killing our soldiers, why should we welcome them back into the country with open arms and let them claim benefits and use our system?

Im very up for equal treatment and that nobody should be hung without a trial, but I think its wrong that we should welcome them back but at the same time, they are British Citizens and in that respect were stuck with them.

no, the key point is that allegations and suspicions of that behaviour are not enough in a democracy to take action.
If you can prove that they did that then they can be punished, if you cannot then you are wasting your breath.

The USA is a signatory to the Geneva convention.

What is it you don't think they will admit. Their guilt? And on that basis you'd like it if they weren't tried but just summarily sentenced?
A fine perversion of our justice system, anyone who won't admit their guilt must be guilty and lying.

What is coming to them is most likely freedom and a lot of counselling to help them get over the illegal detention and torture.
If there were any evidence that a civil or even military court would have convicted them with then they'd have been tried a long time ago.

Originally posted by poppins
Bit off the subjest, but do you think it's true that a popular name now in the UK for a baby boy is Mohammed, i don't think so but you all would know better.

It is and always has been a popular name for muslim children.

Are you trying to infer that we are being taken over and even non muslims are calling their children mohammed to be politically correct?

Is it true that Britney is now a popular name for baby girls in America?

Originally posted by venger
Unlawful combatants from what I remember to why there were held for so long, The US did not break the law, just made a new one.

Read the below, sorry it's a bit long, but it should clarify the situation. The important bit being "Undetermined Status. Should doubt exist as to whether an individual is a lawful combatant, noncombatant, or an unlawful combatant, such person shall be extended the protections of the Geneva Prisoner of War Convention until status is determined. The capturing nation must convene a competent tribunal to determine the detained person’s status."

Note, the US did none of this, so they ARE in breach. Read on and enjoy...

The Geneva Conventions of 1949
Some of the most important Laws of Armed Conflict (LOAC) rules come from the Geneva Conventions of 1949. The Geneva Conventions consist of four separate international treaties. These treaties aim to protect combatants and noncombatants from unnecessary suffering who may become wounded, sick, shipwrecked, or POWs during hostilities. They also seek to protect civilians and private property. The four treaties govern the treatment of wounded and sick forces, POWs, and civilians during war or armed conflict.

Combatants
The Geneva Conventions distinguish between lawful combatants, noncombatants, and unlawful combatants.
Lawful Combatants. A lawful combatant is an individual authorized by governmental authority or the LOAC to engage in hostilities. A lawful combatant may be a member of a regular armed force or an irregular force. In either case, the lawful combatant must be commanded by a person responsible for subordinates; have fixed distinctive emblems recognizable at a distance, such as uniforms; carry arms openly; and conduct his or her combat operations according to the LOAC. The LOAC applies to lawful combatants who engage in the hostilities of armed conflict and provides combatant immunity for their lawful warlike acts during conflict, except for LOAC violations.
Noncombatants. These individuals are not authorized by overnmental authority or the LOAC to engage in hostilities. In fact, they do not engage in hostilities. This category includes civilians accompanying the Armed Forces; combatants who are out of combat, such as POWs and the wounded, and certain military personnel who are members of the Armed Forces not authorized to engage in combatant activities, such as medical personnel and chaplains. Noncombatants may not be made the object of direct attack. They may, however, suffer injury or death incident to a direct attack on a military objective without such an attack violating the LOAC, if such attack is on a lawful target by lawful means.

Unlawful Combatants. Unlawful combatants are individuals who directly participate in hostilities without being authorized by governmental authority or under international law to do so. For example, bandits who rob and plunder and civilians who attack a downed airman are unlawful combatants. Unlawful combatants who engage in hostilities violate LOAC and become lawful targets. They may be killed or wounded and, if captured, may be tried as war criminals for their LOAC violations.

Undetermined Status. Should doubt exist as to whether an individual is a lawful combatant, noncombatant, or an unlawful combatant, such person shall be extended the protections of the Geneva Prisoner of War Convention until status is determined. The capturing nation must convene a competent tribunal to determine the detained person’s status.

End of the day if they left Britain to fight the British then they should not be let back into Britain as they obviously would hurt Britains.

If they are not guilty of any thing then bad luck and get on with your life.

But if they are guilty let them find a home some where else.

Originally posted by owdlad
I am sure that if they had their legal people would have been only too pleased to bang the drum about it. :rolleyes:
i know loads of pakistani's that have afghanistan relatives..hundreds of the buggers even:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Originally posted by jonsastar
End of the day if they left Britain to fight the British then they should not be let back into Britain as they obviously would hurt Britains.

If they are not guilty of any thing then bad luck and get on with your life.

But if they are guilty let them find a home some where else.

No, not "obviously" at all. These men, guilty or not of assisting Taliban forces, have been mentally crushed to the point that they pose no danger to the public. "Bad luck"? Three years of solitary confinement, sensory deprivation, windowless cages, minimal sanitation, and complete degradation, without the prospect of a fair trial at the end of it all - if indeed, it ever does end? It's a bit more than losing a tenner down the dogs.


And let me get your last point straight. If found guilty, after being tried (presumably over here), we randomly select some country to ship them off to? How would that work?

Originally posted by Greenback
And let me get your last point straight. If found guilty, after being tried (presumably over here), we randomly select some country to ship them off to? How would that work?

We could build a big catapult and where ever they land thats there home.

Sorry pal but if they are guilty they dont deserve to feel British soil under there feet.

Also if they are guilty I dont give a damn what they feel like tough sh*t.

Originally posted by youngmcgill
Im very up for equal treatment and that nobody should be hung without a trial, but I think its wrong that we should welcome them back but at the same time, they are British Citizens and in that respect were stuck with them.

Originally posted by youngmcgill
Im very up for equal treatment and that nobody should be hung without a trial, but I think its wrong that we should welcome them back but at the same time, they are British Citizens and in that respect were stuck with them.

They are not really British citizens though are they.

If you let a dog sleep in a barn it doesnt make it a horse.

Originally posted by jonsastar
They are not really British citizens though are they.

If you let a dog sleep in a barn it doesnt make it a horse.

Excellent.

Perhaps one of these 'non-British citizens' can teach you how to spell seize correctly.

Originally posted by sham71
Excellent.

Perhaps one of these 'non-British citizens' can teach you how to spell seize correctly.

Probably not as they have just spent three years in Guantanamoe bay having there brains wiped of all memory sham.

Originally posted by jonsastar
We could build a big catapult and where ever they land thats there home.

Sorry pal but if they are guilty they dont deserve to feel British soil under there feet.

Also if they are guilty I dont give a damn what they feel like tough sh*t.

If they're found guilty by the British judicial system then I too have very little sympathy for them. But the point I was making is that your solution above - "if they are found guilty let them find a home somewhere else" just isn't viable politically or legally. Gut instinct doesn't come into matters of law.

Originally posted by jonsastar
They are not really British citizens though are they.

If you let a dog sleep in a barn it doesnt make it a horse.

What does this mean? They were all either born here, or else came over here when young. So yeah, they are all really British citizens.

Originally posted by jonsastar
They are not really British citizens though are they.

If you let a dog sleep in a barn it doesnt make it a horse.

can you see beyond this racial bigotry to discuss the issue properly or shall we just give up now.

Originally posted by jonsastar
End of the day if they left Britain to fight the British then they should not be let back into Britain as they obviously would hurt Britains.

If they are not guilty of any thing then bad luck and get on with your life.

But if they are guilty let them find a home some where else.

I think id have to agree with this statement. My brother is in the army, I wouldnt like to think that the guy living next door to me would quite happily go to war to fight against him when hes fighting on behalf of our country.

These guys cant just have their cake and eat it, why should they be allowed to go and fight against our country, our own people and our allies, killing our own people thenbe allowed to waltz back in the country and use our resources. Not everyone agrees with the war, but we live in a democracy and sometimes we just have to accept things.

Originally posted by foo_fighter

Even *IF* their loyalties lie in this direction (which hasn't been proven either way, since when have "loyalties" been imprison-able by indefinite incarceration ? Are you advocating the same treatment for any Republican sympathiser in NI ?
Are you advocating the same treatment for any person who is not loyal to the current ruling *party* of this country, are they traitors ?


You may not like it and it may not suit your anti-USA sensibilities, but internment without trial during war time for those considered a threat is a long-established practice.

German and Italian civilians (and others) living legally in Britain during the late 30s/early 40s were locked up for the duration of WWII, and yes, in case you hadn't noticed, internment was very popular on both sides for many years during the worst of the troubles in Northern Ireland.

You can bend the truth all you like to suit your lefty ideology, but in the understandably tense aftermath of 9/11, these people were plainly seen to be consorting with the enemy. There's no running away from that fact.

Whether they actually posed a physical threat to anyone in reality, or were just over-zealous, misguided religious nutters is another matter.

Internment would never have come into it with these guy's, Maybe with their parents not with them. They are British, But, Like many others that are born in this country they choose to have duel nationality. Maybe they chose to change their nationality, If so, Then send them to Afghanistan and let their Courts deal with them. Racism is a thing that I hate, But, We find much of it within mixed races and mixed culture. There are many that cannot make up their minds where there loyalties lie. But, we ourselves must put up with racism directed at ourselves. I live close to a paper shop, where when Ken Bigley was murdered they were spitting on his picture in the paper. These same boys were born and bred in this country. They smoke drink, do dope etc just like many of our own youths, Then they go to mosque. This is not the Muslim way. These are just hypocrites. These are the same type of youth that decided to take up arms against their own country and people. US..... We do have a serious problem, It will get worse, Yet we are the one's that are branded racist and warmongers. OK The war was wrong, But they still do not want peace on any terms except their own, They kill their own ministers, They do not beleive in freedom at all. Just the same as those men coming back to take advantage of this Country and all it has to offer them, Maybe Guantanamo Bay could be the right place for them. They are a disgrace to the muslim religion, and the people.

Originally posted by youngmcgill
I think id have to agree with this statement. My brother is in the army, I wouldnt like to think that the guy living next door to me would quite happily go to war to fight against him when hes fighting on behalf of our country.

These guys cant just have their cake and eat it, why should they be allowed to go and fight against our country, our own people and our allies, killing our own people thenbe allowed to waltz back in the country and use our resources. Not everyone agrees with the war, but we live in a democracy and sometimes we just have to accept things.

you have no EVIDENCE of what they were doing. Do you understand, supposition and hearsay is not enough to convict anyone of anything. If there is evidence then they should be tried and convicted, without evidence they should go free.

Originally posted by Cyclone
you have no EVIDENCE of what they were doing. Do you understand, supposition and hearsay is not enough to convict anyone of anything. If there is evidence then they should be tried and convicted, without evidence they should go free.

If you read my previous note about EVIDENCE you would see where I was coming from.

Originally posted by mojoworking
You may not like it and it may not suit your anti-USA sensibilities, but internment without trial during war time for those considered a threat is a long-established practice.

German and Italian civilians (and others) living legally in Britain during the late 30s/early 40s were locked up for the duration of WWII, and yes, in case you hadn't noticed, internment was very popular on both sides for many years during the worst of the troubles in Northern Ireland.

You can bend the truth all you like to suit your lefty ideology, but in the understandably tense aftermath of 9/11, these people were plainly seen to be consorting with the enemy. There's no running away from that fact.

Whether they actually posed a physical threat to anyone in reality, or were just over-zealous, misguided religious nutters is another matter.

Mojo, a few of points to clarify:

1) I am not anti US, read the post about the Geneva Convention, the US Gov't are clearly in breach, hence if they get sued, fine.

2) Internment is one thing, and it has been used many times legally before. Again, read my post on the Geneva Convention, it's one thing to inter people, it's another to ignore the GC and deny access to the Red Cross, etc. etc.

3) I'm not a lefty, and I don't know where this came from on your part. I stated that a number of people had not been found guilty of a crime, and should therefore be considered innocent. I pointed out that a democratic gov't had ignored the GC. These are facts, not left wing opinions.

4) I have bent no truths, merely pointed out my understandings of how both domestic and international law are relevant to this case.

5) These people *may* have been "seen to be consorting with the enemy" ("plainly" did is debatable), if so, bring them to trial, do not pre-judge them, and do not suspend compliance with the GC.

You suggested that people should be locked-up because of their "loyalties".

You based the presumption of guilt for the UK detainees on the actions of an Australian citizen, how is this relevant ?

Both the above points of yours I disagree with, again, I fail to see how this makes me a lefty, or anti-american.

Please understand, issues like this do not do us or our forces overseas any favours, it makes our enemies all the more likely to treat us with the same disregard that they perceive of us.

Since you like historical analogies, think of the atrocities carried out by the German forces on the eastern front during WWII, and consider what revenge was exacted on those forces in Siberia after the war. One day the victor, next day the work camp detainee.

Finally, please think about the implications of what we are doing.

The suspension of law ultimately leads to a place I do not want to be. Better to not catch a few "terrorists" than become the same ourselves (or at least let our gov't become so).

Originally posted by poppins
Bit off the subjest, but do you think it's true that a popular name now in the UK for a baby boy is Mohammed, i don't think so but you all would know better.

I cant believe you've moved this subject onto this thread just because you got found out for lying on the other thread!!

In the words of the famous BLACK musician - 'stir it up, little baby, stir it up'

Originally posted by youngmcgill
I think id have to agree with this statement. My brother is in the army, I wouldnt like to think that the guy living next door to me would quite happily go to war to fight against him when hes fighting on behalf of our country.

These guys cant just have their cake and eat it, why should they be allowed to go and fight against our country, our own people and our allies, killing our own people thenbe allowed to waltz back in the country and use our resources. Not everyone agrees with the war, but we live in a democracy and sometimes we just have to accept things.

yeah, I can clearly see your evidence in this post, not.

Originally posted by Cyclone
yeah, I can clearly see your evidence in this post, not.

Hmmmmm...... I was kinda wondering also..........

Originally posted by Cyclone
can you see beyond this racial bigotry to discuss the issue properly or shall we just give up now.

Ok cyclone,

Is a Muslim a muslim before he is British.

Clearly if he chooses that he is a muslim before he is British he is not a real Brit,

In a lot of cases with british born muslims they choose the jihad against britain and her allies over loyalty to Britain.

Proving that just because they are born here or live they are never going to be British , do you understand now cyclone.

The muslims that choose to fight british troops will never be British they merely live under a British Identity because they have a better life here and they know it is easy to get through the door.

This doesnt make them British,

If I moved to France and learned the laguage and lived the life I would still say I am British cyclone, similary if you ask these people where there home land is they do not answer Britain.

is a christian a christian before British? A Jew? Any other of the ridiculous religous believes this world is plagued with?

They are not one and the same thing.

Getting slightly back towards the point, if there were evidence (that key word again) for anyone of any religion fighting our soldiers, then they should be prosecuted. Being in the region is not evidence of any wrongdoing, it's just something that makes us suspicous.

Originally posted by Cyclone
Getting slightly back towards the point, if there were evidence (that key word again) for anyone of any religion fighting our soldiers, then they should be prosecuted. Being in the region is not evidence of any wrongdoing, it's just something that makes us suspicous.

Not sure whether all combatants were Muslim on the other side , but if they were it kind of points a shaky finger.

True though there are good and bad people of all religions around the world it is the nature of the beast that follows the religion that makes them act the way they do, not the religion, apart from a few religion s that promote sacrifice and abuse of children etc

Originally posted by jonsastar
If I moved to France and learned the laguage and lived the life I would still say I am British cyclone, similary if you ask these people where there home land is they do not answer Britain.

Your point is completely irrelevant - the four men under discussion were all either born here, or came over as small children.

You talk about being "British" as if it's some kind of fixed, immovable ideal that has been around since day one, rather than a fluid, somewhat hazy term that is pretty tricky to pin down.

Which makes me think you're confusing your terms, and what you really mean to say is not "British" at all, but "white".

Originally posted by jonsastar
apart from a few religion s that promote sacrifice and abuse of children etc

Like Catholicism? :thumbsup:

Originally posted by Greenback
Like Catholicism? :thumbsup:

Dont know about that.

I was thinking of some african religions that involve believing what the witchdoctors say.

Originally posted by jonsastar
Dont know about that.

I was thinking of some african religions that involve believing what the witchdoctors say.

subsititue witchdoctor with parish priest and you can see Greenbacks point.

Originally posted by Cyclone
subsititue witchdoctor with parish priest and you can see Greenbacks point.

Not so sure about that.

Ive never heard of a parish priest telling his people that sex with a young virgin cures aids.

Originally posted by jonsastar
Not so sure about that.

Ive never heard of a parish priest telling his people that sex with a young virgin cures aids.

no, but you have heard about them abusing generations of young children?

Originally posted by Cyclone
no, but you have heard about them abusing generations of young children?

eye carumba,

you got me there

So... these men are now back on British soil, in police custody. Though, given their psychological state after being subjected to mental and physical abuse in Guantanamo (including regular injections with an unknown substance that brings on psychosis) you have to wonder what quality of evidence can be gained through questioning.

I'd expect them to be "freed" soon, probably with an electronic tag attached.

Originally posted by Greenback
So... these men are now back on British soil, in police custody. Though, given their psychological state after being subjected to mental and physical abuse in Guantanamo (including regular injections with an unknown substance that brings on psychosis) you have to wonder what quality of evidence can be gained through questioning.

I'd expect them to be "freed" soon, probably with an electronic tag attached.

I really can't see them being charged with anything, any evidence gained in Guantanamo will be inadmissable, as they had no access to legal representaion and were very probably tortured.

What annoys me most is that people say "well, what were they doing in Afghanistan/Pakistan, they must be guilty"
What would happen if we applied this standard to justice universally? we would live in a police state, where the police suspecting you is evidence enough for whatever punishment they deem fit.

Living in that sort of society is supposedly what the "war on terror" is all about.

Originally posted by Yodameister
I really can't see them being charged with anything, any evidence gained in Guantanamo will be inadmissable, as they had no access to legal representaion and were very probably tortured.

What annoys me most is that people say "well, what were they doing in Afghanistan/Pakistan, they must be guilty"
What would happen if we applied this standard to justice universally? we would live in a police state, where the police suspecting you is evidence enough for whatever punishment they deem fit.

Living in that sort of society is supposedly what the "war on terror" is all about.

But one must wonder why a Briton who supposedly has nothing to do with terrorism or Al-Quaeda chose to take a holiday in Afghanistan.

Originally posted by JonJParr
But one must wonder why a Briton who supposedly has nothing to do with terrorism or Al-Quaeda chose to take a holiday in Afghanistan.

I don't disagree with you. But does that make them guilty of something.

Circumstantial evidence does have a part in the legal system - but you cannot be convicted on the basis of purely circumstantial evidence. And of course that is why these people were not put through the legal system.

Safeguards against unfair convictions are there for a reason though - to stop abuses of power by the police.

Originally posted by foo_fighter
Mojo, a few of points to clarify:
I'm not a lefty, and I don't know where this came from on your part.

Certain people use the terms "lefty" "liberal" "do-gooder" because they judge it to be an acceptable alternative to presenting facts or reasoned argument.
No doubt they would be offended if they were labelled "fascist"
Although reading this thread it does seem that some seem to be in favour of concentration camps ( For that is what Guatanamo and Bagram air base are )

Originally posted by Yodameister
I don't disagree with you. But does that make them guilty of something.

Circumstantial evidence does have a part in the legal system - but you cannot be convicted on the basis of purely circumstantial evidence. And of course that is why these people were not put through the legal system.

Safeguards against unfair convictions are there for a reason though - to stop abuses of power by the police.

Are we therefore supposed to believe that in Afghanistan, a country which is full of Muslims, a single British Muslim was captured and tortured into making up a story about planning to spray Anthrax over the Houses of Parliament?

With this in mind is it not right to detain such men for an undefined length of time because of such suspicions? When faced with the issue of Guantanamo people often forget 9/11. Ever been to Manhattan and looked up at the World Trade Centre? Now imagine two airliners laden with aviation fuel being flown into them at high speed and then them crashing to the ground with people inside. Maybe then you can understand why the Americans detain suspected terrorists on "circumstantial" evidence. America deserves this right.

Originally posted by Ned Ludd
Certain people use the terms "lefty" "liberal" "do-gooder" because they judge it to be an acceptable alternative to presenting facts or reasoned argument.
No doubt they would be offended if they were labelled "fascist"
Although reading this thread it does seem that some seem to be in favour of concentration camps ( For that is what Guatanamo and Bagram air base are )

This is far from a new opinion. In WWII people thought that Jews fleeing from persecution should be treated in a similarly inhuman manner.

Whipping up hysteria through xenohobia has never been difficult.

Originally posted by JonJParr
Are we therefore supposed to believe that in Afghanistan, a country which is full of Muslims, a single British Muslim was captured and tortured into making up a story about planning to spray Anthrax over the Houses of Parliament?

Well, very probably. It happened in the case of the 'Tipton Three', where the men involved confessed to featuring in one of Bin Laden's videotapes - this was later proven to be a falsehood. Spray anthrax over Parliament? It's clearly ridiculous.

Originally posted by Greenback
Well, very probably. It happened in the case of the 'Tipton Three', where the men involved confessed to featuring in one of Bin Laden's videotapes - this was later proven to be a falsehood. Spray anthrax over Parliament? It's clearly ridiculous.

Is flying two airliners into downtown Manhattan equally "ridiculous"???

Originally posted by JonJParr
Is flying two airliners into downtown Manhattan equally "ridiculous"???

Yeah, but this one sounds like it was made up in a hurry. Plane? Check. Anthrax? Check. Politicians? Check. Does it stand up to any kind of analysis? Nope.

The people who seem to be broadly in favour of what is happening at Guantanamo Bay all seem to have a real problem with the concepts of

1 Innoncent until proven Guilty
2 International Law
3 The concept of a fair trial

The fact that some muslims carried out serious acts of terrorism should never have been used as an excuse to ignore human rights.

Try putting yourselves in the other persons shoes. Imagine "Christians" have carried out serios terrorist acts in Riyadh. The Saudis invade Britain. In the course of this they find some Saudi citizens who are Chrisitians and white, having been the children of British immigrants to Saudi.

Are these people to be herded up into internment camps and treated like animals?

If your answer is "yes" then fair enough, but at least give it some thought.

Originally posted by Yodameister
The people who seem to be broadly in favour of what is happening at Guantanamo Bay all seem to have a real problem with the concepts of

1 Innoncent until proven Guilty
2 International Law
3 The concept of a fair trial

The fact that some muslims carried out serious acts of terrorism should never have been used as an excuse to ignore human rights.

Try putting yourselves in the other persons shoes. Imagine "Christians" have carried out serios terrorist acts in Riyadh. The Saudis invade Britain. In the course of this they find some Saudi citizens who are Chrisitians and white, having been the children of British immigrants to Saudi.

Are these people to be herded up into internment camps and treated like animals?

If your answer is "yes" then fair enough, but at least give it some thought.

Your replies makes many assumptions which need to be clarified in order to put this into context:

1 Britain would have to be a country that harbours terrorists and funds them

2 There would need to be a British dictator in power who is loathed and regularly commits heinous acts which contradict a person's human rights

3 Britain would have to be a country governed by "Christian" law, praise acts of terrorism and uphold a concept of Holy War

If all this were true then "YES" I'd say that's "fair enough." You've got to remember that countries under Islamic law are not used to our "human rights" philosophies. Under Islamic law women are stoned, people beheaded for adultery, people beheaded for murder, hands cut off for theft - it's vastly different to the Western concept of law and order.

Originally posted by JonJParr
Your replies makes many assumptions which need to be clarified in order to put this into context:

1 Britain would have to be a country that harbours terrorists and funds them

2 There would need to be a British dictator in power who is loathed and regularly commits heinous acts which contradict a person's human rights

3 Britain would have to be a country governed by "Christian" law, praise acts of terrorism and uphold a concept of Holy War

If all this were true then "YES" I'd say that's "fair enough."


Well I believe that innocence until proven guilty and a fair trial by due legal processes should be fundamental, you believe they are conditional. That is the essential difference.

I find it painful to think of what some of the detainees at Guantanamo are going through, I hope that I would find it painful even if they were people I hated.

Now you can call me weak minded, bleeing heart liberal, woolly thinker, stupid, simplistic. But it really comes down to whether you think there are fundamental human rights.

Originally posted by JonJParr
Your replies makes many assumptions which need to be clarified in order to put this into context:

1 Britain would have to be a country that harbours terrorists and funds them

2 There would need to be a British dictator in power who is loathed and regularly commits heinous acts which contradict a person's human rights

3 Britain would have to be a country governed by "Christian" law, praise acts of terrorism and uphold a concept of Holy War

It could be argued that all these criteria are fulfilled by the US. It may not harbour or fund terrorists, but ordinary people all over the world are adversely affected by its military operations; Bush's human rights record, including putting the mentally ill to death, is appalling; and if you count the amount of times he mentions God in his speeches, you would conclude that his policies are very much driven by religion, and the fact that you're either for "us" (ie Christianity) or against us (ie Islam).

Originally posted by Yodameister
Well I believe that innocence until proven guilty and a fair trial by due legal processes should be fundamental, you believe they are conditional. That is the essential difference.

I find it painful to think of what some of the detainees at Guantanamo are going through, I hope that I would find it painful even if they were people I hated.

Now you can call me weak minded, bleeing heart liberal, woolly thinker, stupid, simplistic. But it really comes down to whether you think there are fundamental human rights.

I wouldn't call you a "liberal", "weak minded" or "stupid" - it serves no purpose in debate and is not related to this topic at all. I absolutely do believe in the fundamental human rights especially Article 2 of the Human Rights Act 1998 - the right to life. Whilst I condemn torture and ill-treatment I also condemn the concept of "Jihad", which is in my opinion an excuse for terrorist atrocities. The people who went to work on September 11th in the Pentagon and the World Trade Center had a right to life. They had the right to go home and see their families at the end of the day. They were simple business people -they were not visiting countries which are the renowned dens of terrorist cells (ie. Afghanistan) they were just going to work.

Does anybody remember the British Citizen who was in Saudi Arabia accused of car bombings?

Now you can apply the same both ways, did he really do it - was it a forced confession - maybe they held him for valid reasons? If so why let him go etc...:suspect:

The Saudi authorities may have had reason to beleive he did do something, who knows - but lets not let that cloud our udgement, oh no - British man in Saudi being accused of car bombings...no cant be true.

Originally posted by JonJParr
I wouldn't call you a "liberal", "weak minded" or "stupid" - it serves no purpose in debate and is not related to this topic at all. I absolutely do believe in the fundamental human rights especially Article 2 of the Human Rights Act 1998 - the right to life. Whilst I condemn torture and ill-treatment I also condemn the concept of "Jihad", which is in my opinion an excuse for terrorist atrocities. The people who went to work on September 11th in the Pentagon and the World Trade Center had a right to life. They had the right to go home and see their families at the end of the day. They were simple business people -they were not visiting countries which are the renowned dens of terrorist cells (ie. Afghanistan) they were just going to work.

Well I'm glad to hear that you don't bandy those words about, which puts you on a level a long way above the average Labour or Tory politician (not hard, I know)

I'm sorry if I misinterpreted what you were saying, but you did seem to be defending the actions the US have taken at Guantanamo.

Are you suggesting that you believe that if someone kills then they have waived their right to human rights? if that is what you believe then that is not "universal" human rights that you believe in, but conditional (according to my definition, and I believe a correct definition)

If you say you don't believe in universal human rights I'm not going to criticise you for that, becuase you have obviously given the matter some thought, unlike a lot of people in this thread.

Originally posted by Greenback
It could be argued that all these criteria are fulfilled by the US. It may not harbour or fund terrorists, but ordinary people all over the world are adversely affected by its military operations; Bush's human rights record, including putting the mentally ill to death, is appalling; and if you count the amount of times he mentions God in his speeches, you would conclude that his policies are very much driven by religion, and the fact that you're either for "us" (ie Christianity) or against us (ie Islam).

I don't agree with capital punishment, I never have, and I never will. I wouldn't claim to know all the in's and out's of every case of capital punishment in the US and as such don't feel qualified to comment on whether the "mentally ill" were put to death or not. I'm not a psychiatrist so I can't comment on whether they were or this was simply entered as a reason by the defence to stay an execution.
Whilst Bush mentions God in his speeches he usually only refers to it when speaking of abortion, gay marriage and euthanasia- and certainly not of Guantanamo bay. I believe that Bush feels he uses US military action in Afghanistan and Iraq to protect the American people from further terrorist attacks. If he didn't and further terrorist attacks continued we'd turn on him saying he didn't care - so how can he win? The fanatical Muslims despise America because it's all lapdancing and gay porn; they would wage their Holy War whether or not they were invaded so why not try to prevent it at least?

Originally posted by Yodameister
Well I'm glad to hear that you don't bandy those words about, which puts you on a level a long way above the average Labour or Tory politician (not hard, I know)

I'm sorry if I misinterpreted what you were saying, but you did seem to be defending the actions the US have taken at Guantanamo.

Are you suggesting that you believe that if someone kills then they have waived their right to human rights? if that is what you believe then that is not "universal" human rights that you believe in, but conditional (according to my definition, and I believe a correct definition)

If you say you don't believe in universal human rights I'm not going to criticise you for that, becuase you have obviously given the matter some thought, unlike a lot of people in this thread.

I'm somewhere in between universal human rights and conditional human rights. I believe everyone has the right to life (thus my condemning of execution) and don't give up this right even if they kill. I believe upon doing this though they give up a right to certain liberties, in essence, they give up their right to freedom and unhindered passage through countries.

Does anybody know the real reason why Feroz Abbasi left his family's terraced house in Croydon and went to Afghanistan? He didn't even tell his family what he was doing! Such secrecy rightly breeds suspicion in this post 9/11 world.

Originally posted by JonJParr
Whilst Bush mentions God in his speeches he usually only refers to it when speaking of abortion, gay marriage and euthanasia- and certainly not of Guantanamo bay. I believe that Bush feels he uses US military action in Afghanistan and Iraq to protect the American people from further terrorist attacks. If he didn't and further terrorist attacks continued we'd turn on him saying he didn't care - so how can he win? The fanatical Muslims despise America because it's all lapdancing and gay porn; they would wage their Holy War whether or not they were invaded so why not try to prevent it at least?

Well, I don't agree that invading Iraq had anything to do with terrorism. Bush's team were desperate to try to pin 9/11 on Saddam, and when the intelligence came up with nothing they were clever in tying the two together rhetorically anyway. Then there was the whole WMD saga... Bush knew Iraq and terrorism were in no way linked. So why invade?

It's a crusade, an act of empire. Bush used 9/11 as a lever to gain support for acts that are ostensibly to provide security for the American people, but which really are a way of getting a strong military presence in the Middle East in order to "re-make" it. A terrifying prospect.

Originally posted by Greenback
Well, I don't agree that invading Iraq had anything to do with terrorism. Bush's team were desperate to try to pin 9/11 on Saddam, and when the intelligence came up with nothing they were clever in tying the two together rhetorically anyway. Then there was the whole WMD saga... Bush knew Iraq and terrorism were in no way linked. So why invade?

It's a crusade, an act of empire. Bush used 9/11 as a lever to gain support for acts that are ostensibly to provide security for the American people, but which really are a way of getting a strong military presence in the Middle East in order to "re-make" it. A terrifying prospect.

But surely if Saddam used chemical weapons on his own people in the late 80's he would have no quarms about using it on America? Is this not reason to take him down?

Originally posted by JonJParr
But surely if Saddam used chemical weapons on his own people in the late 80's he would have no quarms about using it on America? Is this not reason to take him down?

How exactly would he use chemical weaponry on America? He had no delivery system - and, as it turns out, no chemical weapons.

Maybe he could have sent some anthrax in the post? (The Americas are very quiet on that one, possibly because it was a former government scientist behind it).

Where does Saddam Hussain come into this discussion?

The neconservatives ploy to link Saddam with 9/11 in the public mind has obviously worked.

Originally posted by JonJParr
But surely if Saddam used chemical weapons on his own people in the late 80's he would have no quarms about using it on America? Is this not reason to take him down?
I find it quite disturbing that 2 weeks after Bush and Blair finally admit that there were never any chemical/biological weapons to go to war over, that some people continue to believe all the lies spun over the past 3 years

Originally posted by Ned Ludd
I find it quite disturbing that 2 weeks after Bush and Blair finally admit that there were never any chemical/biological weapons to go to war over, that some people continue to believe all the lies spun over the past 3 years

But the fact still remains that we know Saddam gassed the Kurds in 1988 so the technology was there. Whether the grounding for war upon suspicion that he had WMDs was firm or not surely we had a right as defenders of "human rights" to bring down the perpetrators of the crime.

Originally posted by JonJParr
But the fact still remains that we know Saddam gassed the Kurds in 1988 so the technology was there. Whether the grounding for war upon suspicion that he had WMDs was firm or not surely we had a right as defenders of "human rights" to bring down the perpetrators of the crime.

how many murderous dictators have the US and UK propped up, and even sold arms to?

As long as we hold such double standards it is hard to take a lesson in Human Rights from either government. They only use this argument of holding murderous dictators to account when it suits them for other reasons.

If our governments had come out totally honestly and told the truth about the reasons for occupying Iraq then I may well have found myself agreeing with some of the reasons, but the fact remains that the reasons we were given for invading Iraq are demonstrably false.

Originally posted by Yodameister
how many murderous dictators have the US and UK propped up, and even sold arms to?

As long as we hold such double standards it is hard to take a lesson in Human Rights from either government. They only use this argument of holding murderous dictators to account when it suits them for other reasons.

If our governments had come out totally honestly and told the truth about the reasons for occupying Iraq then I may well have found myself agreeing with some of the reasons, but the fact remains that the reasons we were given for invading Iraq are demonstrably false.

Yoda, I think you're absolutely right to state that the reasons we were given for invading Iraq were "demonstrably false". They were, the British public were duped with lies about forthcoming attacks and 45 minute deployments. However, with the benefit of hindsight, if we could go back in time and change things should we? My response would be "NO". Why? Saddam was an evil man who drained the life out of Iraq for years. He annihalated anybody (and their families) who didn't agree with him and allowed his sons to commit atrocities of the worse kind. He squandered the country's wealth to fund his lifestyle and could not be brought to account. For these reasons alone I'd say, "do it again".
The side that the media often fail to provide us with (because it doesn't make good news) are the accounts of people who are happy Saddam has gone. Instead we're told about insurgents, the vocal minority, who despise America and were part of the former regime. But this isn't the true voice of the Iraqi people is it?

We're actually digressing quite a lot here by the way from the original thread which was about the Britons who have just been returned from Guantanamo bay.

Originally posted by JonJParr
Yoda, I think you're absolutely right to state that the reasons we were given for invading Iraq were "demonstrably false". They were, the British public were duped with lies about forthcoming attacks and 45 minute deployments. However, with the benefit of hindsight, if we could go back in time and change things should we? My response would be "NO". Why? Saddam was an evil man who drained the life out of Iraq for years. He annihalated anybody (and their families) who didn't agree with him and allowed his sons to commit atrocities of the worse kind. He squandered the country's wealth to fund his lifestyle and could not be brought to account. For these reasons alone I'd say, "do it again".
The side that the media often fail to provide us with (because it doesn't make good news) are the accounts of people who are happy Saddam has gone. Instead we're told about insurgents, the vocal minority, who despise America and were part of the former regime. But this isn't the true voice of the Iraqi people is it?

We're actually digressing quite a lot here by the way from the original thread which was about the Britons who have just been returned from Guantanamo bay.

But we live in a democracy, we should not be lied to by our government about why we are potentially sending troops to their deaths and then say "oh, well, it was all for the best in the end"

I'm not saying that means that we should not have removed Saddam Hussein, but

1 We could have done it in a better manner
2 Our Government could have told us the truth

and

3 We can and should call our politicians to account for lying to us

Originally posted by Yodameister
But we live in a democracy, we should not be lied to by our government about why we are potentially sending troops to their deaths and then say "oh, well, it was all for the best in the end"

I'm not saying that means that we should not have removed Saddam Hussein, but

1 We could have done it in a better manner
2 Our Government could have told us the truth

and

3 We can and should call our politicians to account for lying to us


May I...

4.We should have done it like Gulf War I - with fully international consent and concensus, and not virtually bilaterally whilst giving two fingers (and more lies) to the UN. And not by bugging the UN either.

Originally posted by JonJParr
We're actually digressing quite a lot here by the way from the original thread which was about the Britons who have just been returned from Guantanamo bay.
Well, I for one am definitely glad they are finally coming back home.

As to whether they will be charged here on various counts, or set free, that remains to be seen, what is important is that British citizens are no longer being held illegally by a separate sovereign state.

Originally posted by Phanerothyme
May I...

4.We should have done it like Gulf War I - with fully international consent and concensus, and not virtually bilaterally whilst giving two fingers (and more lies) to the UN. And not by bugging the UN either.

Well thats what I really meant by 1, but thanks for elaborating!

My opinion is that telling the honest truth would have been imcompatible with this, but maybe thats just my cynicism about the real reasons coming through.

Getting international concensus against what Iraq had done with honesty might have been difficult without also pointing the finger at a lot of other states, including Israel.

And before anyone starts shouting at me I'm not saying that Sharon is as bad as Saddam Hussein, but we're talking the same ballpark aren't we?

Originally posted by foo_fighter
Well, I for one am definitely glad they are finally coming back home.

As to whether they will be charged here on various counts, or set free, that remains to be seen, what is important is that British citizens are no longer being held illegally by a separate sovereign state.

Agreed. Now we just have to deal with the Britons being held illegally in Britain and we are halfway to justice.

Interesting reading - I wonder how many more Martin Mubangas there are at Guantanamo?

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,6903,1406987,00.html

Greenback,

I am intrigued by your name. Did you know that Greenback is the American slang term for paper money?

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=greenback&r=f

:) Sierra

Originally posted by Greenback
Interesting reading - I wonder how many more Martin Mubangas there are at Guantanamo?

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,6903,1406987,00.html

Well we don't have much to crow about in UK

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,1403334,00.html

but perhaps being imprisoned for three years without charge but not being regularly mistreated is perhaps somehow more lenient and humanitarian ? Smacks of psychological torture to me.

Originally posted by Phanerothyme
Agreed. Now we just have to deal with the Britons being held illegally in Britain and we are halfway to justice.
And how do you propose we deal with them?

Originally posted by Lickszz
And how do you propose we deal with them?

Charge them with the crimes that many people seem to think they have committed. Then let them stand trial with a competent defence, have the Jury return a majority verdict, and if found guilty, have the judge pass sentence.

There is a problem with that though. All they have is intelligence and this is not likely to be accepted as evidence in court.

Originally posted by Lickszz
There is a problem with that though. All they have is intelligence and this is not likely to be accepted as evidence in court.

If there is no evidence then surely, in a civilised country, they should be released?

Ok, Max. What we do know and can report is limited as few documents relating to the men are in the public domain. Here are brief profiles of the suspects involved.

DETAINEES Seventeen people have been certified for detention under the Anti-Terrorism, Crime & Security Act 2001. Of those, 16 have had individual appeals heard by the Special Immigration Appeals Commission (Siac). Twelve of them remain in custody at Belmarsh and Woodhill high security prisons, or Broadmoor hospital.

ABU QATADA One of only three suspects to allow their name to be released, Abu Qatada was granted political asylum upon his arrival in Britain in 1993. He has been sentenced in absentia to life in prison by a Jordanian court in relation to a series of explosions there. In evidence to the Siac the former home secretary David Blunkett said Abu Qatada was the most significant extremist Islamic preacher in the UK, with "extensive contacts to senior terrorists worldwide" including those within al-Qaeda.

A Siac judge said Abu Qatada was "at the centre in the UK of terrorist activities associated with al-Qaeda. He is a truly dangerous individual". ABU RIDEH Abu Rideh was born in Jordan to Palestinian Refugees parents. He came to the UK in January 1995 and was recognised as a refugee. However, in December 2001 he was detained under the anti-terrorism laws. In a letter to him, Mr Blunkett, said: "You are an active supporter of various international terrorist groups, including those with links to Osama Bin Laden's terrorist network. Your activities on their behalf include fund raising." He is being held at Broadmoor secure hospital because he is mentally ill.

DETAINEE A A is an Algerian man who was deported from the UK as an overstayer in 1989. He returned, claimed asylum, but was rejected. He was detained under special powers in December 2001, accused of actively supporting GSPC, an Algerian group said to have terrorist intentions. Suspect A "broadly supported" the aims of Osama Bin Laden and al-Qaeda. He allegedly used credit card fraud to raise funds for the organisation he supported. He was also accused of supplying satellite phones to extremists and of giving a sleeping bag and a pair of boots to Chechen rebels. The government also claims A was associated with a terrorism suspect who was later apprehended at Heathrow.

DETAINEE B Algerian born, the authorities do not know when B arrived in the UK. Officials ordered him to leave in 1996 but why he still remained is unclear. He was jailed twice for driving while disqualified and then detained under the anti-terrorism powers when the home secretary said he belonged to the Algerian GSPC. The intelligence services believe he sent communications equipment to Islamist groups fighting Russian forces in Chechnya.

DETAINEE C An Egyptian citizen, C claimed asylum in March 2000 and was recognised as a genuine refugee. He was arrested in December 2001 after the Home Office concluded he was a member of Egyptian Islamic Jihad. The group's leader, Ayman al-Zawhiri, is the architect of the al-Qaeda ideology and the closest confidante of Osama bin Laden. The Egyptian courts have sentenced C in absentia to 15 years for allegedly trying to recruit army officers.

DETAINEE E E is Tunisian and claimed asylum after coming to the UK. He waited six years for a decision, was rejected but then told he could stay until 2005. E was detained in December 2001. Mr Blunkett told him: "You are an active supporter of the Tunisian Fighting Group, a terrorist organisation with close links to al-Qaeda. You have provided direct assistance to a number of active terrorists." At his original case hearings, the authorities were challenged as to whether the group indeed existed. E also alleged that evidence against him was unreliable because it was obtained by torture of others abroad. The court however ruled in favour of the Home Office, although its full reasons remain secret.

DETAINEE H An Algerian, Detainee H is a supporter of the FIS, the Islamist Algerian group that won the country's 1991 elections, prompting a military coup. He went to Afghanistan in 1992 and arrived in the UK the following year. He claimed asylum saying his support for the FIS meant his life was in danger if he returned home. The Home Office accepted his case and gave him refugee status. Arrested in 2002, the Home Office said he posed a terrorist threat and was fundraising and distributing propaganda for banned groups.

DETAINEE I I is an Algerian who claimed asylum in the UK in early 1995. His claim was refused in May 2000, but he was granted leave to stay in the UK until May 2004. I was detained in April 2002, accused of supporting and raising funds for terrorist groups.

DETAINEE K K, an Algerian who arrived in the UK from Spain in 1998, is accused of providing "active support for a network of extreme Islamists planning to carry out attacks in the UK and Western Europe including the use of toxic poisons". He is alleged to be linked to north African extremist groups. DETAINEE P P, an Algerian who reportedly has no hands, arrived in Britain in 1999 and was charged with terrorist offences in 2001. Those charges were dropped but he remains certified for detention, accused of being an associate of Algerian terror groups.

DETAINEE S S, also an Algerian, arrived in the UK from Pakistan in 1998 and has been in custody since February 2001. He is certified for detention under the anti-terrorism laws but is currently being held under the Extradition Act after a request from France. He is accused of providing support for terrorist groups, including involvement in attacks alleged to have been planned for Canada and Los Angeles.

FORMER DETAINEES Four of those originally certified are no longer in detention. Another is yet to have a hearing before the Siac. JAMAL AJOUAOU: LEFT THE UK Born in Morocco, Jamal Ajouaou came to the UK 20 years ago. He asked to become a British citizen but his application has never been resolved. Arrested in December 2001, he was told he would face detention as a terrorist suspect. He used his rights under the anti-terror laws to ask to leave the UK and he returned to Morocco. However, he has been fighting the case, saying the law prevents his return.

DETAINEE D: RELEASED D, an Algerian, was released in September 2004. The Home Office has not explained why he no longer poses a threat, only saying the evidence no longer justified his detention. He was arrested in December 2001. The original case against D alleged he was involved in the Algerian GIA, had used false documents, and associated with known extremists. The Siac had concluded he was a "practised and accomplished liar" with a "history of involvement in terrorist support activity".

DETAINEE F: LEFT THE UK Another Algerian, F admits he first came to the UK on a false Spanish passport. He was first identified as a terrorism suspect in 1997, but a case against him was later dropped. He was arrested in December 2001 on suspicion of supporting the GIA. He was accused of "the procurement of terrorism-related materials and equipment and the provision of false documentation". F later decided to exercise his right to leave. He is now living legally in France.

DETAINEE G: BAILED G is also from Algeria. He arrived in the UK in August 1995 and claimed asylum. That application was rejected in September 1997, but he later gained six month's residency by being married to a French national. He was detained in December 2001, accused of actively supporting the GSPC. The Home Office believes he has encouraged young men to train with Islamist groups in Afghanistan and has links with al-Qaeda members. The Siac said it was satisfied that G was an "international terrorist ... his presence in the UK is a risk to national security". G was released on bail earlier this year after the Home Office accepted he was mentally ill. Campaigners against his detention say he is effectively under house arrest.

DETAINEE M Detainee M, a 37-year-old Libyan man was released in March 2003 after the Siac ruled he had been held for 16 months on "wholly unreliable evidence". The government had claimed he was part of an extremist Islamic movement in Libya, had fought in Afghanistan and had transferred money to a man suspected of links to al-Qaeda. M admitted being a member of a group called the LIFG, but said its only interest was opposing Colonel Gaddafi's regime.

DETAINEE Q Detainee Q was arrested in January 2003. He is yet to be granted a date for an appeal to the Siac.

C has now been released



Here is some more information on these detainees, and you can read the court findings on the site, which seems to be a little more information than the press has circulated.

http://www.courtservice.gov.uk/judgments/siac/outcomes.htm


Now Max, having read the background and court findings would you be prepared to let these men go free in the UK if you strongly believed that they were a threat to national security but all you had was the information and intelligence that would not be admissible in court.

Who is prepared to take accountability of letting these men go free while still strongly believing they are a serious security threat.

Would these people have still been held had they agreed to leave the UK?

The only solution that remains is to deport all of them, which shouldn't be too difficult because some of them have clearly abused our hospitality and broken our immigration rules.

Yes, I would take responsibility for releasing them. Except of course for the one accuesd of giving boots and a sleeping bag to a Chechen rebel.

In all seriousness, the only threats any of them seem to pose is to other nations. In none of the cases is it determined, or even alleged, that the fund raising was to support terrorism in this country. From the information you've supplied, and for that thanks, it would appear that they are all being held here at the behest of other countries.

Originally posted by Lickszz
There is a problem with that though. All they have is intelligence and this is not likely to be accepted as evidence in court.

Well, instead of inventing a new set of emergency powers to detain people without charge, legal representation or actual evidence, wouldn't it be better to make evidence, like phone taps, admissable in court?


The difficulty with that of course is that their testimony ends up in open court. And one must sometimes wonder whether it is in the best interests of the western intelligence communities to have their machinations revealed in this fashion.

I would say that there are probably no innocents here. They are being kept out of court for a reason; from what you have posted above, there is a plethora of evidence to arrest and charge a large number of the individuals (even if we gloss over the giving a sleeping bag away).

Given that the intelligence services have such a good record over their 'gold plated' intel on Iraqi WMD - and their almost pathological disaste for oversight, I think it is right that the notion of "indefinite detention without trial" based on their 'intelligence' be openly called into question.

Originally posted by Cyclone
so you're only a believer in due process and trial by jury of peers and that whole malarky when it benefits yourself then? due process ,yes caught in a terrorist training camp should be enough proof of their intension, and then theres the crime of bieng guilty by association,which worked quite well in northern ireland, i for one would put them on trial for treason against the state, instead blair and co. bring them home, the next step will be compensation for the time they were held, grow up, they were caught bang to rights,and deserve every thing thats coming to them, not meaning several thousand pounds,a new council house and a tax bill for the people of britain to pay for 24/7 surveillance, people like you make me sick,i just hope that when the shxt hits the fan there,s more do gooders in the explosion than right thinking fol

maybe then you lot will be saying we all make mistakes, and it will be to late, you might think im bieng offencive to you,im not, its just that britain has been completely taken over bt people who think like you and its now a laughing stock,a soft touch for any foreigner who wants a cushy life, dont mean to offend but its time we stopped bowing down to the pc brigade and sorted ourselves out, treason is treason,taking arms against the british soldier is in itself treason, personally i would have revoked their passports and left them in the country they were found in,

Traitors ,pure and simple,hang them all.
Lucky for them they did not do this when we were at war with Germany,because they would have been shot.
Now we put them under house arrest,how pathetic, typical of this country as it is now.

Depoix is correct. We have so many living here that cannot make up their minds what nationality they are. We have had and are still getting asylum seekers getting into the UK under false pretences, How many of these asylum seekers are terrorists waiting for orders. We have criminals of our own, But we have ways of dealing with them. Yet a lot of the crime is being committed by asylum seekers. Even here on the internet. We have scams by Africans based here and arranging money transfers back to nigeria. It has already happened on the Sales page of this forum. " The Nigerian Frauds ". OK so a lot of it is done outside the country. But, They are now getting brave. They have so many hiding here. The returning prisoners from Guantanamo are already counting their compensation money. They are already selling stories much of which is lies. Yet there is evidence, Maybe not enough to charge them under British Law. But they have broken laws in Afghanistan and Iraq. Let them go back and face a trial there. We cannot be told everything for National Security Reasons. If these people want to leave here and fight against British Soldiers, Then they should not be allowed to return. Blaire and co. are doing too little too late. We can tell an election is on the horizon.

Originally posted by Rodgers
Depoix is correct. We have so many living here that cannot make up their minds what nationality they are. We have had and are still getting asylum seekers getting into the UK under false pretences, How many of these asylum seekers are terrorists waiting for orders. We have criminals of our own, But we have ways of dealing with them. Yet a lot of the crime is being committed by asylum seekers. Even here on the internet. We have scams by Africans based here and arranging money transfers back to nigeria. It has already happened on the Sales page of this forum. " The Nigerian Frauds ". OK so a lot of it is done outside the country. But, They are now getting brave. They have so many hiding here. The returning prisoners from Guantanamo are already counting their compensation money. They are already selling stories much of which is lies. Yet there is evidence, Maybe not enough to charge them under British Law. But they have broken laws in Afghanistan and Iraq. Let them go back and face a trial there. We cannot be told everything for National Security Reasons. If these people want to leave here and fight against British Soldiers, Then they should not be allowed to return. Blaire and co. are doing too little too late. We can tell an election is on the horizon.
Rodgers, you really have surprised me there, after your "understanding" of IRA "freedom fighters" can't you empathise with what these individuals are trying to accomplish?

Originally posted by Phanerothyme
Well, instead of inventing a new set of emergency powers to detain people without charge, legal representation or actual evidence, wouldn't it be better to make evidence, like phone taps, admissable in court?


The difficulty with that of course is that their testimony ends up in open court. And one must sometimes wonder whether it is in the best interests of the western intelligence communities to have their machinations revealed in this fashion.

I would say that there are probably no innocents here. They are being kept out of court for a reason; from what you have posted above, there is a plethora of evidence to arrest and charge a large number of the individuals (even if we gloss over the giving a sleeping bag away).

Given that the intelligence services have such a good record over their 'gold plated' intel on Iraqi WMD - and their almost pathological disaste for oversight, I think it is right that the notion of "indefinite detention without trial" based on their 'intelligence' be openly called into question.

Whilst it would be nice to prove to those who subscribe to paranoid conspiracy theories and continually make allegations of wishful thinking or ignorance and guess work, without substance, the main problem is why tell the opposition what you know and how you did it.

There is a dirty dangerous game of cat and mouse being played out everyday across the world by teams of agents, double agents, informants, surveillance teams bugging all manner of homes, embassies, or places of work anywhere people meet. We have played this game for 30 years with the terrorists and gunmen in Ireland; the Cold War etc, we will never know what has gone on or how it has been carried it, neither should it be made public IMO.

Because of successful eavesdropping many terror groups now have to send instructions by word of mouth, these couriers are vulnerable as they cross borders, followers can be lead to other groups, identifying them.

None of us in this forum can even begin to imagine what is going on out there in their attempts to keep us safe, or if any of our agents have lost their lives in doing so, or if the opposition have been taken out.

To reveal what they have in open court to me would put those involved in danger, during WW11 would we tell the Germans we have cracked their Enigma Code, all such groups along with international organised criminals have to communicate with each other, that is their Achilles heel, we should keep our own council.

Intelligence is probably our best means of combating these people, we don't want to lose that, do we?

To win any war you need good inside intelligence, why tell them how you do it, all it will mean is a few successful trials in the UK but those convictions will not stop others, take one team out along comes another.

Like I have already stated. Some of those have clearly broken our immigration laws, which is enough for mandatory removal from the UK. They should be released and given their marching orders.

Originally posted by royjames
Traitors ,pure and simple,hang them all.
Lucky for them they did not do this when we were at war with Germany,because they would have been shot.
Now we put them under house arrest,how pathetic, typical of this country as it is now.

Did you read the story on Martin Mubanga? And still believe he should be hung, given the questionable circumstances regarding his abduction?

These are wannabee British Subjects. They used the Muslim Religion as an excuse to play soldier. They listened to propoganda. They decided to go to Afghanistan to fight against the co-alition forces. They got what they deserved. Just as those Irish that supposedly use the IRA as an excuse to kill innocents in shopping centres. I believe in the Irish cause foo, That is one of our freedoms in Britain. I never said that I believed in any killings of innocent civilians. Nor of the bombings in Birmingham or Manchester. Despite the fact that as usual the Police in their haste to convict lied and innocent men were convicted of the Birmingham bombings. There are legitamate targets, I have always made it known here and in Ireland that I am strongly against certain actions. What do they say, Two wrongs do not make a right. These men acted against their own countries, Some of them we took in out of good faith as refugees. We will never know all the facts. That is why they were never taken into Court. Also why a Labour Government want to change the law. I often wander just how many terrorists are walking amongst us. Planning a dirty bomb etc.

My own opinion here......They went out to fight against our men, our soldiers... that are here to protect our interests....
They were caught, they should have not made it to the internment camp.........If It were I that gave the orders...they would have been shot dead......there and then..no questions asked.......

I cannot believe that we allow these types of people to return to the dole ques........they committed treason.......it is punishible by hanging/death.....
In 1260ad the law still stands today!!!!! treason = death...hang the b...stards

I have to agree with Derek on this also,hang them for treason.
Oh but of course in this p c country you cant do that nah lets leave them to live at home with just a few restrictions,musnt do anything that might be right and just.
What a bloody country we live in.
Inmates running the asylum. pathetic.

One thing that this does prove. Blaire and Bush are sweethearts. Why should these men be released, There are many others in Guantanamo that could prove their innocence better than these guys have. They do not have a PC country and a bent Prime Minister to stand up for them

Originally posted by royjames
I have to agree with Derek on this also,hang them for treason.
Oh but of course in this p c country you cant do that nah lets leave them to live at home with just a few restrictions,musnt do anything that might be right and just.
What a bloody country we live in.
Inmates running the asylum. pathetic.

Did you read the story on Martin Mubanga? And still believe he should be hung, given the questionable circumstances regarding his abduction?

you continue to go on about what these men were doing. Are you privy to information that the rest of us do not have. I don't think so. So you are in your wisdom condemming these men when no evidence has been presented of their guilt.

Originally posted by Rodgers
One thing that this does prove. Blaire and Bush are sweethearts. Why should these men be released, There are many others in Guantanamo that could prove their innocence better than these guys have. They do not have a PC country and a bent Prime Minister to stand up for them

Only an ignoranamus cannot see what these scum were up to. No we are not as you put it " Privy to information", Some of us unlike others look at the facts. We look at information that is already in the public domain, We search the net and see the news, Many different things before we make up our minds. These men are highly suspicious. There are others at Guantanomo more worthy of being released, More likely to be innocent. Yet the Sadistic Dictators of America will not release these men. Why not. These men that have been returned to Britain have been returned as a favour to Blaire. Remember it is close to election time and Bush does not want to lose his bed partner. All those held in Guantanamo should be returned to Iraq for trial. The Arab Council themselves should oversee trials of all these men, If innocent, Then they should be released immediately, The same applies Sadam also If the Arab Council conclude the invasion was illegal. The biggest dictators are the Americans. They cannot look after their own people. They are fixated with Iran Iraq Afghan But, What about Africa. The cruelist rotten Governments this world has ever seen. Yet we intend to help these Governments stay in power and feed their people. Many of the suspected Muslim Militants in this Country have already fled from crime in their own countries. Return them now irrespective of whether or not they face the death sentence

Originally posted by Greenback
Did you read the story on Martin Mubanga? And still believe he should be hung, given the questionable circumstances regarding his abduction?

Mr Abbasi's biography is pretty interesting though isn't it?
Detailing how he was trained on weapons, how to take out enemy vehicles etc.

I don't believe in hanging or shooting them, but if they feel so strongly for another country that they are happy to die for it - then that is where they should be. Not in the UK.

So you'd be happy to be locked up indefinitely if someone thought that you "were highly suspicous"? I doubt it. Suspicion isn't enough in this country to convict someone, it needs evidence, which the government clearly don't have.

I agree with you about the release of all the people at Guantanamo bay and the application of due process to prosecute any of them where we have evidence to do so. And then subsequently the prosecution of the officials involved in the ongoing breaches of international law and human rights that Guantanamo bay represents.

You need to work on your ranting a little bit. It drifts and wanders from subject to subject, loosing some of it's impact on the way.

Originally posted by Rodgers
Only an ignoranamus cannot see what these scum were up to. No we are not as you put it " Privy to information", Some of us unlike others look at the facts. We look at information that is already in the public domain, We search the net and see the news, Many different things before we make up our minds. These men are highly suspicious. There are others at Guantanomo more worthy of being released, More likely to be innocent. Yet the Sadistic Dictators of America will not release these men. Why not. These men that have been returned to Britain have been returned as a favour to Blaire. Remember it is close to election time and Bush does not want to lose his bed partner. All those held in Guantanamo should be returned to Iraq for trial. The Arab Council themselves should oversee trials of all these men, If innocent, Then they should be released immediately, The same applies Sadam also If the Arab Council conclude the invasion was illegal. The biggest dictators are the Americans. They cannot look after their own people. They are fixated with Iran Iraq Afghan But, What about Africa. The cruelist rotten Governments this world has ever seen. Yet we intend to help these Governments stay in power and feed their people. Many of the suspected Muslim Militants in this Country have already fled from crime in their own countries. Return them now irrespective of whether or not they face the death sentence

Originally posted by kilauea
Mr Abbasi's biography is pretty interesting though isn't it?
Detailing how he was trained on weapons, how to take out enemy vehicles etc.

I'm not doubting that some of them may well have been up to no good. But given what is going on at Guantanamo outside the remit of international law, you have to seriously question the value of evidence gained from their interrogation there.

Originally posted by Greenback
I'm not doubting that some of them may well have been up to no good. But given what is going on at Guantanamo outside the remit of international law, you have to seriously question the value of evidence gained from their interrogation there.

I would definatley question any statements gathered while they were subject to the conditions at camp x-ray.
However, a hand written biography obtained when the individual was captured is a little more damning in my opinion.
And although we do have good cause to not trust the american gov't and military on this, we should also question what these men were doing in those area's in the first place. Yes, its a free country, but it wasn't exactly a holiday destination was it?

Originally posted by Greenback
Did you read the story on Martin Mubanga? And still believe he should be hung, given the questionable circumstances regarding his abduction?
I notice no one has answered this question yet
It's a bit diificult for those that support abduction, false imprisonment and torture to answer to actually admit it I guess.
I look forward to Mubanga suing the US and UK governments. it'll be good to see it all come out in court.

I never question the way a person is aprehended. Yet all those that are and those in custody should be given a fair trial. I doubt if they would get that in America. If a person is guilty of terrorist offences then yes he / she should face the death penalty.

If we can't lock them up indefinitely without trial and convinction and yet are unhappy with the procedures being proposed (eg. house arrest) then why can't we simply strip them of their British citizenship and deport them?

Originally posted by JonJParr
If we can't lock them up indefinitely without trial and convinction and yet are unhappy with the procedures being proposed (eg. house arrest) then why can't we simply strip them of their British citizenship and deport them?

where would you like to send them, Australia maybe. I thought we'd left that particular barbarism well behind.

Why can't we try them and convict them or leave them the hell alone.
Of course there's nothing to stop the security services from continuing to do their job and monitoring whoever they have permission to monitor after these people have been released.

I think the problem here is you are looking at all of them as having the same status.
Mr Mubanga it would appear had no reason to be detained. And it was the US who held him, UK Intelligence helped track him down but I do not see how the UK goverment could be sued for the actions of the US?
And since he was returned he was interviewed and released uncondtionaly by UK police - so what more do you want?
Moazzam Begg similarly appears to be inoccent - although his case is less clear than Mr Mubanga.

Mr Abbasi on the other hand does not appear so innocent, in fact in my view given the "evidence" against him, he is clearly a threat to this country and others.
Richard Belmar is even worse and admitted to being trained as a terrorist for Al-Queda.

So if you want to fight for peoples rights for freedom then fine - do it for the first two. But Abbasi and Belmar have in my view forfitted their right to freedom inside the UK.

so why haven't they been charged and prosecuted?

Originally posted by Cyclone
so why haven't they been charged and prosecuted?

I think that question has already been answered. It's the unfortunate but obvious incompatbility between evidence gathered within a military situation and domestic law.

Originally posted by kilauea
I think that question has already been answered. It's the unfortunate but obvious incompatbility between evidence gathered within a military situation and domestic law.

sorry, must have missed it when it was answered.

Why were they not prosecuted under military law as enemy combatants then?

Originally posted by Cyclone
sorry, must have missed it when it was answered.

Why were they not prosecuted under military law as enemy combatants then?

Because they are terrorists - not direct enemy combatants from the country we / USA are at war with.
Military law simply does not have any provisions for this kind of situation - neither does domestic law. It's an advantage terrorists have been making plenty of mileage out of for years.

Originally posted by kilauea
Because they are terrorists - not direct enemy combatants from the country we / USA are at war with.
Military law simply does not have any provisions for this kind of situation - neither does domestic law. It's an advantage terrorists have been making plenty of mileage out of for years.

I disagree, domestic law deals with the case of people planning acts of violence, committing them, aiding someone else to commit them, having knowledge of them and not reporting it, etc... What terrorist acts are not covered under domestic law?

Originally posted by Cyclone
I disagree, domestic law deals with the case of people planning acts of violence, committing them, aiding someone else to commit them, having knowledge of them and not reporting it, etc... What terrorist acts are not covered under domestic law?

Domestic law does if the planning, aiding and commiting takes part on our soil. Which is why terrorist training camps are not located in the coutries which are to be targetted.

If you train to be a terrorist then you have will and intention of killing innocent people and that threat should be removed from our soil.

Or we can stand around being bound by our own restrictive laws and wait to be attacked. I wonder how yours and others attitude changes when the first Al-Queda attack hits the UK?

Originally posted by Cyclone
where would you like to send them, Australia maybe. I thought we'd left that particular barbarism well behind.


Hey !.....Ozzie's not that bad these days, - if you steer clear of the beer :D

Originally posted by kilauea
Because they are terrorists - not direct ...

What exactly is a an enemy combatant? This is a new phrase to me and I'm not sure what it means.

Originally posted by kilauea
Because they are terrorists - not direct enemy combatants....
Please excuse my previous editing. It should have read as above

Originally posted by Ned Ludd
What exactly is a an enemy combatant? This is a new phrase to me and I'm not sure what it means.

An enemy combatant is a person who is a member of the armed forces of a country with whom you are at war with.

A terrorist avoids this classification by not being associated with any country or its armed forces. It therefore falls outside the juristiction of conventional military laws.

Originally posted by Ned Ludd
What exactly is a an enemy combatant? This is a new phrase to me and I'm not sure what it means..
Posted this earlier (much, much earlier), but it might help to re-post at this juncture:

Originally posted by foo_fighter
The Geneva Conventions of 1949
Some of the most important Laws of Armed Conflict (LOAC) rules come from the Geneva Conventions of 1949. The Geneva Conventions consist of four separate international treaties. These treaties aim to protect combatants and noncombatants from unnecessary suffering who may become wounded, sick, shipwrecked, or POWs during hostilities. They also seek to protect civilians and private property. The four treaties govern the treatment of wounded and sick forces, POWs, and civilians during war or armed conflict.

Combatants
The Geneva Conventions distinguish between lawful combatants, noncombatants, and unlawful combatants.
Lawful Combatants. A lawful combatant is an individual authorized by governmental authority or the LOAC to engage in hostilities. A lawful combatant may be a member of a regular armed force or an irregular force. In either case, the lawful combatant must be commanded by a person responsible for subordinates; have fixed distinctive emblems recognizable at a distance, such as uniforms; carry arms openly; and conduct his or her combat operations according to the LOAC. The LOAC applies to lawful combatants who engage in the hostilities of armed conflict and provides combatant immunity for their lawful warlike acts during conflict, except for LOAC violations.
Noncombatants. These individuals are not authorized by overnmental authority or the LOAC to engage in hostilities. In fact, they do not engage in hostilities. This category includes civilians accompanying the Armed Forces; combatants who are out of combat, such as POWs and the wounded, and certain military personnel who are members of the Armed Forces not authorized to engage in combatant activities, such as medical personnel and chaplains. Noncombatants may not be made the object of direct attack. They may, however, suffer injury or death incident to a direct attack on a military objective without such an attack violating the LOAC, if such attack is on a lawful target by lawful means.

Unlawful Combatants. Unlawful combatants are individuals who directly participate in hostilities without being authorized by governmental authority or under international law to do so. For example, bandits who rob and plunder and civilians who attack a downed airman are unlawful combatants. Unlawful combatants who engage in hostilities violate LOAC and become lawful targets. They may be killed or wounded and, if captured, may be tried as war criminals for their LOAC violations.

Undetermined Status. Should doubt exist as to whether an individual is a lawful combatant, noncombatant, or an unlawful combatant, such person shall be extended the protections of the Geneva Prisoner of War Convention until status is determined. The capturing nation must convene a competent tribunal to determine the detained person’s status.

Originally posted by venger
They simply do not fall under US jurisdiction.

From what I remember, even the BBC news were slating the North American Government and Military.

Unlawful combatants from what I remember to why there were held for so long, The US did not break the law, just made a new one. i think that under martial law that any one found in a combat zone comes under military law and has to be interred until catagorised as friend ,foe,refugee or enemy troops, as the terrorists do not wear insignia they fall foul of such protection offered by the geneva convention.
by not wearing a recognised uniform or carrying any id if caught in a designated area they can be tried as spies or held as a pow,s

Al you are nearly right there as to martial law. That is what is wrong now. Most of these have entered our country as asylum seekers and refugees. Many threw off their uniforms in Iraq. In Afghanistan there were many civilians that were released. Later to be found in the Iraq conflict. One of those was one of the detainees that they have just released. We are too near an election now. Blaire will use the same cards as Bush, Fear, Security, etc. Yet all this Government can do is to come up with knee jerk reactions when there is an emegency. They have made a mess of the Country here, They have made a mess of Iraq. Yet they always seem to have an excuse. They have inherited the art of conning the public.

Originally posted by kilauea
Domestic law does if the planning, aiding and commiting takes part on our soil. Which is why terrorist training camps are not located in the coutries which are to be targetted.

If you train to be a terrorist then you have will and intention of killing innocent people and that threat should be removed from our soil.

Or we can stand around being bound by our own restrictive laws and wait to be attacked. I wonder how yours and others attitude changes when the first Al-Queda attack hits the UK?

damn those restrictive laws, that have protected our freedom and civil liberties for quite some time.
How about because of the 'all new' threat of terrorism let's just sweep them all aside when the government feels that it's convenient.

Or we could actually change them in a way that continued to protect peoples rights, along with the right to a trial and the innocent until proven guilty assumption, but that allowed the prosecution of people who have a proven intent to cause harm.

Afterall, based on the situation you describe, we could quite happily lock up foreign members of armed forces if they came on vacation here. Afterall, they have trained to do military things in camps not in the UK, and who can say what there intentions are...

You are basically saying that despite not being able to prove that these people are going to or intend to do anything, that you'd rather lock them up with no trial indefinitely, just to be on the safe side.

How long after that becomes legal will it be before the government decides it can do the same for other reasons. Political dissident, threat to the state, into jail with you.
Didn't pay your speeding fine, threat to the state, into jail with you.

Either the government sticks to the laws, or there may as well be no laws and Tony can become Tony - the Dictator of Britain.

Guantanamo is not the worst of the US prisons where people are illegally and indefinately detained . There are others in Egypt, Afghanistan (Diedo Garcia possibly) where the operations are far more brutal (and secret) and where US agents are happy to sit in whilst the locals do most of the dirty work.
This is justified by the US UK governments and various people involved in this discussion. It's the wrong people that are being locked up!

Originally posted by Cyclone
damn those restrictive laws, that have protected our freedom and civil liberties for quite some time.
How about because of the 'all new' threat of terrorism let's just sweep them all aside when the government feels that it's convenient.

Or we could actually change them in a way that continued to protect peoples rights, along with the right to a trial and the innocent until proven guilty assumption, but that allowed the prosecution of people who have a proven intent to cause harm.

Afterall, based on the situation you describe, we could quite happily lock up foreign members of armed forces if they came on vacation here. Afterall, they have trained to do military things in camps not in the UK, and who can say what there intentions are...

You are basically saying that despite not being able to prove that these people are going to or intend to do anything, that you'd rather lock them up with no trial indefinitely, just to be on the safe side.

How long after that becomes legal will it be before the government decides it can do the same for other reasons. Political dissident, threat to the state, into jail with you.
Didn't pay your speeding fine, threat to the state, into jail with you.

Either the government sticks to the laws, or there may as well be no laws and Tony can become Tony - the Dictator of Britain.

You should clear your red mist before you post.

I have not and would never suggest sweeping any laws aside.

I do believe we desperately need amendments to current laws to cope with the threat of global terrorism.

Soldiers work for goverments for entirely different reasons to terrorists and under completely different circumstances. To compare them is absurd. (I was a soldier, I worked in anti-terrorism - this may be more obvious to me).

What I am saying is, there is military intelligence and some evidence (which would be more sound if the US hadn't botched the gathering of it and performed torture etc) that 2 of these men are indeed terrorists. I, having seen terrorist action at very close range, would not want these individuals walking freely amongst us.
Perhaps if you had been in birmingham, warrington, manchester, docklands on those fatefull days, you would be singing a different tune. In fact I know you would.

you are mistaken. I'm not speaking emotionally, and being involved in any incident myself would not change my opinion in the slightest.

I obviously know that terrorists and services personal are very different, but the criteria you applied, being trained for violence on foreign soil would equally apply.

My point is that people should not be imprisoned without trial, and they should not be tortured, ever.

They should also not be imprisoned because of what we 'think' they might do.

If there is evidence that they intend to commit an illegal act then they should be tried. If there is not, then we can't go around locking people up (with or without) trial because we jump to conclusions based on (albeit very suspicous) circumstancial evidence.

Originally posted by Cyclone
you are mistaken. I'm not speaking emotionally, and being involved in any incident myself would not change my opinion in the slightest.

I obviously know that terrorists and services personal are very different, but the criteria you applied, being trained for violence on foreign soil would equally apply.

My point is that people should not be imprisoned without trial, and they should not be tortured, ever.

They should also not be imprisoned because of what we 'think' they might do.

If there is evidence that they intend to commit an illegal act then they should be tried. If there is not, then we can't go around locking people up (with or without) trial because we jump to conclusions based on (albeit very suspicous) circumstancial evidence.

I don't believe people should be tortured either as I have said. I do not condone the actions of US in respect to their camps in Cuba.
But. You paint a very vague picture of these individuals under a purely legal viewpoint. It is not just a case that they "might" do something or "have the capability" to do something. They have demonstrated a will and intention to do something by attending training camps desiged to equip people to do so. They were not found in the sandpit at butlins!

I'll put it in straight words:
Are you happy for people to be walking free in the UK, who have taken it upon themselves to leave this country in order to train to kill people under the supervision of illeagal organisations who have sworn the UK to be their enemy?

If you say yes, then I have to respect your point of view. But I would hope you were alive to rethink your stance if those individuals use the skills they have learned against you, I or other British subjects.

if it's as clear cut as you say then it's fairly easy for the government to pass a law making it illegal to train with or associate with any organisation that has been declared illegal.

That way they could be prosecuted and sentences according to our laws, with a trial and evidence presented to a jury.

Passing those laws and bringing those prosecutions is something I would support.

The fact that it occurs away from British soil is no barrier, as we have a law against travelling to another country with the intent to solicit child prostitution.

I also note that when I got reinvolved in this discussion we were talking about people detained under the latest anti-terrorism laws who are in the process of being released. Whereas somehow i've ended up arguing about people being held at Guantanamo bay.

They aren't the same people and the same arguments don't apply, although similar ones may.

Originally posted by Cyclone
if it's as clear cut as you say then it's fairly easy for the government to pass a law making it illegal to train with or associate with any organisation that has been declared illegal.

That way they could be prosecuted and sentences according to our laws, with a trial and evidence presented to a jury.

Passing those laws and bringing those prosecutions is something I would support.

The fact that it occurs away from British soil is no barrier, as we have a law against travelling to another country with the intent to solicit child prostitution.

Then I think we are broadly in agreement. Where we may differ is that I would support action to deal with such individuals until such a law could be passed. Whereas it is understandable to me that you would find this an infringement on their human rights.

Originally posted by kilauea
An enemy combatant is a person who is a member of the armed forces of a country with whom you are at war with.

A terrorist avoids this classification by not being associated with any country or its armed forces. It therefore falls outside the juristiction of conventional military laws.


An enemy combatant is NOT a person who is a member of the armed forces of a country. People on the battlefield who are engaging/fighting the coalition forces are enemy combatants--they are not uniformed military of a particular country. Therefore, they do not fall under the rules of the Geneva Convention.

Originally posted by Freedom_USA
An enemy combatant is NOT a person who is a member of the armed forces of a country. People on the battlefield who are engaging/fighting the coalition forces are enemy combatants--they are not uniformed military of a particular country. Therefore, they do not fall under the rules of the Geneva Convention.

Where or where did you come from ? welcome to the forum, sounds like your going to be a realy interesting voice on the forum, keep those cards and letters comming as they say !

Originally posted by kilauea
I don't believe people should be tortured either as I have said. I do not condone the actions of US in respect to their camps in Cuba.
But. You paint a very vague picture of these individuals under a purely legal viewpoint. It is not just a case that they "might" do something or "have the capability" to do something. They have demonstrated a will and intention to do something by attending training camps desiged to equip people to do so. They were not found in the sandpit at butlins!

I'll put it in straight words:
Are you happy for people to be walking free in the UK, who have taken it upon themselves to leave this country in order to train to kill people under the supervision of illeagal organisations who have sworn the UK to be their enemy?

If you say yes, then I have to respect your point of view. But I would hope you were alive to rethink your stance if those individuals use the skills they have learned against you, I or other British subjects.


I do not agree with physical torture in prisons. Regarding the prisoners held by the U.S., I assume you are speaking of some of the "sexual" methods used in interrogation? If so, and this is just my opinion, I believe that the U.S. figured out that anything "sexual" is what gets to the "savages" -- in other words, Humiliation to the savages/terrorists is more important to them than Death. At least the radical Muslim terrorists still live to complain about their humiliating treatment -- in comparison to the innocent people who have had their heads cut off by the savages.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Freedom_USA
[B]I do not agree with physical torture in prisons.

And why not?don't they do the same to ALL of us.

Anyhow, welcome, you must live in theUS to be on line at 2AM.

Originally posted by poppins
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Freedom_USA
[B]I do not agree with physical torture in prisons.

And why not?don't they do the same to ALL of us.

Anyhow, welcome, you must live in theUS to be on line at 2AM.


Thanks. It is Sunday night. 9:00 p.m. here

Originally posted by poppins
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Freedom_USA
[B]I do not agree with physical torture in prisons.

And why not?don't they do the same to ALL of us.

Anyhow, welcome, you must live in theUS to be on line at 2AM.

why not? Because then we are no better than them. Is that the moral highground you wish to occupy when you decry their methods?

Originally posted by Cyclone
why not? Because then we are no better than them. Is that the moral highground you wish to occupy when you decry their methods?

Does that mean you are admitting that the Muslim POWs are little better than savages, then?

Originally posted by mojoworking
Does that mean you are admitting that the Muslim POWs are little better than savages, then?

no, not unless they have been proven to be the ones who tortured and beheaded people.
And I don't believe I mentioned savages, just that we presume to occupy a moral highground compared to the terrorists. We fight to preserve certain things, if we forget what those things are in a bid to win the fight, who has really won?

Originally posted by Freedom_USA
An enemy combatant is NOT a person who is a member of the armed forces of a country. People on the battlefield who are engaging/fighting the coalition forces are enemy combatants--they are not uniformed military of a particular country. Therefore, they do not fall under the rules of the Geneva Convention.
If you go back 11 posts before this on e above, you'll see who's covered by the GC, all the clasifications are there (posted by me, if it helps you find them).

Originally posted by foo_fighter
If you go back 11 posts before this on e above, you'll see who's covered by the GC, all the clasifications are there (posted by me, if it helps you find them).


OK, thanks. Then the ones that the coalition forces are fighting/capturing are Unlawful Combatants and therefore do not come under the protections of the Geneva Convention.

Unlawful Combatants do not have protection at all. For many reasons. Most of them are criminals. They wear no uniform. But neither should the Americans have the protection of the " Geneva Convention ". they will not recognize it, They have never signed up to this.

Originally posted by Freedom_USA
OK, thanks. Then the ones that the coalition forces are fighting/capturing are Unlawful Combatants and therefore do not come under the protections of the Geneva Convention.
OK, so I'll repeat:

Originally posted by foo_fighter
Unlawful combatants who engage in hostilities violate LOAC and become lawful targets. They may be killed or wounded and, if captured, may be tried as war criminals for their LOAC violations.

Undetermined Status. Should doubt exist as to whether an individual is a lawful combatant, noncombatant, or an unlawful combatant, such person shall be extended the protections of the Geneva Prisoner of War Convention until status is determined. The capturing nation must convene a competent tribunal to determine the detained person’s status.
Essentially everyone is covered by the GC (because it applies to the forces prosecuting the conflict, that'd be your and our troops), if they capture unlawful combatants they should be tried as war criminals (if they weren't already casualties as a result of being lawful targets).

There are no clauses under international law which deem the indefinate internment of suspects acceptable.

Originally posted by Freedom_USA
I do not agree with physical torture in prisons. Regarding the prisoners held by the U.S., I assume you are speaking of some of the "sexual" methods used in interrogation? If so, and this is just my opinion, I believe that the U.S. figured out that anything "sexual" is what gets to the "savages" -- in other words, Humiliation to the savages/terrorists is more important to them than Death. At least the radical Muslim terrorists still live to complain about their humiliating treatment -- in comparison to the innocent people who have had their heads cut off by the savages.

When those planes went into the towers, like most people in the world, I was truly shocked. I had nothing but sympathy for those poor people, their families and your nation as a whole.

When the US went into Afghanistan because the Taliban refused to give up or deal with Al Qaeda, I agreed with and supported the action.

But then came Iraq. Iraq was not a threat. Iraq was a target for the US government because it had a score to settle, it wanted to re-establish a foothold in the Middle East and the country is oil rich so in the long run it would recoup its "investment" in an invasion.

All the lies about WMD were just that... lies. All the BS about freeing the Iraqi people was just that... BS. The idea that killing a 100,000 innocent people would somehow make the world safer from terrorists is as stupid a thing as I've ever heard.

The fact that you seem to think it is OK to abandon your own principles and morals if you label people "savages" speaks volumes. If you take a look at your own nations history and how you treated the Native American "savages" then I think you'll get a clue as to how history will eventually judge this chapter.

The sympathy I had for your nation is long gone. You nation is a disgrace as is ours for following your lead.

Originally posted by Freedom_USA
that anything "sexual" is what gets to the "savages" -- in other words, Humiliation to the savages/terrorists is more important to them than Death. At least the radical Muslim terrorists still live to complain about their humiliating treatment -- in comparison to the innocent people who have had their heads cut off by the savages.
The sexual humiliation of prisoners is the tip of the iceberg and only came to light because of a handful of idiots taking photographs. The US has developed its secret Gulag outside Guantanamo based in "friendly countries" where the outside word has no access at all. No one know apart from US intelligence knows who is detained where. There are no restraints at all on "interrogation".
The US claims to promote freedom, democracy and the values of civilisation. In fact they are much like the "civilised" Romans, the most technologially advanced superpower of the time but guilty of barbarism on a huge scale.
Apart from the Human rights abuses in Iraq they have shown their contempt of another nations ancient history and culture by turning the historical site of Babylon into an armed camp and doing untold damage to one of the most important historical sites in the whole of human world history. Barbarians!

I have no sympathy with the Americans at all. I am shocked and very upset still at the twin towers disaster. But, Many that died were not even American. The attack on the Twin Towers was an attack on the World as a whole. The Americans need to clean up their own house. When we see starving people, Homeless people, Abuse by Authorities on their own people. A Nation that is controlled by many dictators not just one. A Nation where money can buy justice. Then I am sorry to say. America is asking for what it gets. I am just ashamed that Blaire takes sides with Bush. That this Country of ours is becoming more Americanised than I would like to see. We ourselves are behaving like a set of dictators. It is time now to remove our troops from Iraq. It will not be long before the war crazed yanks take us into Iran, Syria, maybe for oil, Maybe not. But I ask myself why the yanks do not protect the people of Africa from the dictators, and African Terrorism.

Originally posted by Zamo
When those planes went into the towers, like most people in the world, I was truly shocked. I had nothing but sympathy for those poor people, their families and your nation as a whole.

When the US went into Afghanistan because the Taliban refused to give up or deal with Al Qaeda, I agreed with and supported the action.

But then came Iraq. Iraq was not a threat. Iraq was a target for the US government because it had a score to settle, it wanted to re-establish a foothold in the Middle East and the country is oil rich so in the long run it would recoup its "investment" in an invasion.

All the lies about WMD were just that... lies. All the BS about freeing the Iraqi people was just that... BS. The idea that killing a 100,000 innocent people would somehow make the world safer from terrorists is as stupid a thing as I've ever heard.

The fact that you seem to think it is OK to abandon your own principles and morals if you label people "savages" speaks volumes. If you take a look at your own nations history and how you treated the Native American "savages" then I think you'll get a clue as to how history will eventually judge this chapter.

The sympathy I had for your nation is long gone. You nation is a disgrace as is ours for following your lead.

Well said Zamo, I totally agree with your sentiments. The history of America from the brutal killing of it's native people to the slave ships arriving at it's ports tells it's own story.
How they have the nerve to call others barbarians, especially when they've invaded a country with no valid reason, is beyond me. Utterly shameful.

Originally posted by Zamo
When those planes went into the towers, like most people in the world, I was truly shocked. I had nothing but sympathy for those poor people, their families and your nation as a whole.

When the US went into Afghanistan because the Taliban refused to give up or deal with Al Qaeda, I agreed with and supported the action.

But then came Iraq. Iraq was not a threat. Iraq was a target for the US government because it had a score to settle, it wanted to re-establish a foothold in the Middle East and the country is oil rich so in the long run it would recoup its "investment" in an invasion.

All the lies about WMD were just that... lies. All the BS about freeing the Iraqi people was just that... BS. The idea that killing a 100,000 innocent people would somehow make the world safer from terrorists is as stupid a thing as I've ever heard.

The fact that you seem to think it is OK to abandon your own principles and morals if you label people "savages" speaks volumes. If you take a look at your own nations history and how you treated the Native American "savages" then I think you'll get a clue as to how history will eventually judge this chapter.

The sympathy I had for your nation is long gone. You nation is a disgrace as is ours for following your lead.



Thank God, the majority of people in both the U.S. and the U.K. do not share your opinion. Sorry you "don't get" the big picture and have the vision to understand what the U.S. and the U.K. are trying to accomplish. Hello???? It is NOT about oil!

Originally posted by Freedom_USA
Sorry you "don't get" the big picture and have the vision to understand what the U.S. and the U.K. are trying to accomplish.

Sorry, I must have been asleep. What are they trying to accomplish?


Originally posted by Freedom_USA
Hello???? It is NOT about oil!

Yes, hello!!! What is about then?

Some posters in this Forum are completely clueless. There are complaints of the U.K. becoming "Americanized" -- honey your country is becoming "Muslimized" -- you better wake up before it is too late!

You see starving and homeless people and abuse--Ha, you see what the Media wants to show you and what you want to believe. Actually, most countries/citizens are very jealous of what we have in America--oh, well.............

BTW, I luvvvvvvvvvv Tony Blair and Pres. Bush. Blair and Bush are the only two that have the courage and conviction to take action. Be thankful your country has Tony Blair.

Chirac is a joke---he wants to be the "leader of the free world" oh so much---that will NEVER happen!

Originally posted by Freedom_USA
Some posters in this Forum are completely clueless. ...Ha, you see what the Media wants to show you and what you want to believe.

I think it's you that has the problem here mate.

Originally posted by Freedom_USA
Actually, most countries/citizens are very jealous of what we have in America--oh, well.............

I'm sure they are. The Bush Administration must be too, as I can't think of any other reason they're hell-bent on removing your personal liberties.

Originally posted by Freedom_USA
BTW, I luvvvvvvvvvv Tony Blair and Pres. Bush. Blair and Bush are the only two that have the courage and conviction to take action. Be thankful your country has Tony Blair.


If you love him so much, then please, take him from us and claim him as your own.

Originally posted by Freedom_USA
Thank God, the majority of people in both the U.S. and the U.K. do not share your opinion. Sorry you "don't get" the big picture and have the vision to understand what the U.S. and the U.K. are trying to accomplish. Hello???? It is NOT about oil!

Since the lies over WMD have been exposed the majority of people in the UK do share my opinion.

I'd be interested to hear you explain the "big picture" to us.

Originally posted by Abdul
I think it's you that has the problem here mate.



I'm sure they are. The Bush Administration must be too, as I can't think of any other reason they're hell-bent on removing your personal liberties.



If you love him so much, then please, take him from us and claim him as your own.


I have not had any personal liberties taken away, nor has any law-abiding citizen of the U.S. Whenever I have seen a poster (in U.S.) making charges of losing personal liberties and bashing the Patriot Act, I have always asked them to tell me what Liberty they or any of their friends have lost -- the answer is always the same -- complete SILENCE because it is all B.S. These charges in the U.S. are always made by the Liberal, Left-Wing Sniveling, Whining, Blaming Others, LOSER Democrats--the scum of American politics.

We would love to have Tony Blair!

I would rather live in the Uk with all it's faults, Rather than live in the USA. There are more dictators in the USA than any other countries. I was one that agreed with the war. But the americans have gone gung ho crazy. Killing on sight. I have seen so much of this during my time in the army. I have also been to the USA. I was sick at the state of the homelesss, The starving, The poor beggars, The Racism. The homeless. Yet no-one seems to care. All they care about is the dollars. And that bush and Blaire do not get caught sleeping with each other when he visits his buddy

The only good thing about the current situation is this -

just like after Vietnam, the US of A will wake up one morning with its tale between its legs when it realises it cannot run the world and tell everyone how to vote, eat, worship etc etc. After spending over 1 trillion dollars on its adventures it will be financially (and morally) bankrupt.

Maybe then, Freedom USA will be one of the 'mythical' homeless.......


ps. if Iraq doesn't go as planned, pity the poor soldiers who come home to America. They don't have the best record on looking after their veterans (see Vietnam.)

Originally posted by Freedom_USA
These charges in the U.S. are always made by the Liberal, Left-Wing Sniveling, Whining, Blaming Others, LOSER Democrats--the scum of American politics.

I take it you are happy to blame yourself for the actions of these people then, considering you hold "blaming others" in such contempt.

There ain't a huge difference between the republicrats and the depublicans. Your political landscape is ossified into an unchanging two party system where whatever the complexion of regime in the white house, Washington still runs the shop, spending your federal taxes to 'disarm' Iraq or, under Clinton, bombing aspirin factories.

Cheney has done a clever thing by sailing Republican oratory into the waters of of Nationalism, previously occupied by Anti-federalists and militiamen such as McVeigh.

Considering the USA has a long history of arming and supporting terrorists in the UK (and still does), many people in the UK find it a bit rich that the USA is now leading a war on an abstract noun. Sorry, I mean a war on Terrorism.

And the seemingly common antipathy for the French in the USA would be hilarious if it weren't so sad. Without France the USA simply would not exist.

What frightens me most is when the USA swings from Jeffersonian to Hamiltonian politics again, only this time we have the delights of PNAC to contend with.

The current US regime seems to think it is going to be welcomed as the only dominant superpower. But I believe it will soon discover, as all empires do, that ultimately it's too expensive and costly in lives to sustain for any length of time.

PNACs assumption that the world will greet a militaristic USA abroad with garlands and cheers is woefully mistaken.

I always wonder that, if 90% of the 9-11 hijackers were saudi, and OBL was already a suspect before it even happened, what were the Bush family doing consorting with these people, let alone flying them out of the country in secret, after the worst terrorist atrocity of the century (so far) was perpetrated by another member of the Bin Laden family.

Of course none of this has anything to do with oil!

The Oligarchy in the US (and the UK) is looking increasing unclothed in the mantle of so called democracy as more and more power is put in the hands of the executive; and the executive is more inextricably linked with and beholden to commercial interests than ever; thus the interests of the citizens are swept aside in a bid for complete stability through total control.

What you end up with is a country whose policies are dictated for profit and not for the benefit of the citizens

I back the US and Bush ,they have the guts to tackle terrorism and we ought to be thankful for that.
To Freedom usa dont think this liberal lot on here are typical of the country as thay are most certainly are NOT.
I bet most of this lot are at university and everyone knows how left wing most students are.
The one bit I dont agree with is Tony Blair you can have him for me.
And yes we ARE being muslimized, still politicans here are clueless.
Keep up the good posts.

crikey, a BNP-KKK love in!!

Originally posted by sham71
crikey, a BNP-KKK love in!!

thats a bit harsh dont you think ?

Originally posted by royjames
I back the US and Bush ,they have the guts to tackle terrorism and we ought to be thankful for that.

Yes, I wonder how they sleep at night eh? Roy? Roy? Make up your mind Roy lol.

Originally posted by royjames (http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/newreply.php?s=&action=newreply&postid=182277)
Well at last the truth cometh out,and is anyone REALLY suprised ?
I dont know how Bush and Blair can sleep at night after this,as for sadam he was simply bluffing he had the weapons in order to keep the Iranians guessing and so stop any thoughts the might have had for the invasion of Iraq.
Hans Blix was right all along.



:hihi:

Originally posted by Phanerothyme
Yes, I wonder how they sleep at night eh? Roy? Roy? Make up your mind Roy lol.





:hihi:


Who mentioned Iraq in the last thread,not me,oh and fighting terrorism does not mean Iraq.
The small matter of osama springs to mind oh and not to forget alqeida,nice try Phan but must do better next time.

Originally posted by royjames
Who mentioned Iraq in the last thread,not me,oh and fighting terrorism does not mean Iraq.
The small matter of osama springs to mind oh and not to forget alqeida,nice try Phan but must do better next time.

Riiight Roy. Bush has never, ever linked terrorism with Iraq has he?

You support bush in his actions on terrorism but condemn his actions in Iraq I take it.

Bush has not simply used Iraq as an example of terrorism and you know it.
At least the american people know when they have a good man in the white house,I dont think they will go far wrong with Bush.
So are you saying that terrorism is all about Iraq?? Just so we know.

:hihi:
George Bush
For America, there will be no going back to the era before 11 September 2001, to false comfort in a dangerous world. We have learned that terrorist attacks are not caused by the use of strength ... We are fighting that enemy in Iraq ... so that we do not meet him again on our own streets, in our own cities...The terrorists have lost a sponsor in Iraq. And no terrorist networks will ever gain weapons of mass destruction from Saddam Hussein's regime...


Colin Powell
We've learned that Iraq has trained al-Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases...Some citizens wonder, after 11 years of living with this problem, why do we need to confront it now? And there's a reason. We've experienced the horror of 11 September.


Dick Cheney, interviewed about the justifications of the invasion of Iraq.
We will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who've had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11.


70% of Americans believe Saddam Hussein was personally involved in the attacks (according to an opinion poll 18 months ago) - any wonder?

You will know from my previous posts I did NOT back the war with Iraq but you cant simply blame the terrorism we have on Iraq.
It has to do with the countrys being failed states and the suffering of the masses,these are what breeds the terrorists,injustice at what is going on in the world.
BUT it is not an excuse to kill innocent people,but it does have to be addressed,it is like the situation in Africa this also has to be addressed.
Bottom line is injustice breeds resentment which in turn breeds terrorists.

Originally posted by royjames
You will know from my previous posts I did NOT back the war with Iraq but you cant simply blame the terrorism we have on Iraq.
It has to do with the countrys being failed states and the suffering of the masses,these are what breeds the terrorists,injustice at what is going on in the world.
BUT it is not an excuse to kill innocent people,but it does have to be addressed,it is like the situation in Africa this also has to be addressed.
Bottom line is injustice breeds resentment which in turn breeds terrorists.

There are few occasions I can find to agree with you Roy, and this is probably one of them. I'm not going to dispute any of what you said, because broadly speaking I believe you are correct.

I suspect, however, that we will have widely differing views on the actions to be taken. Let's leave that to another thread :)

Originally posted by Rodgers
I would rather live in the Uk with all it's faults, Rather than live in the USA. There are more dictators in the USA than any other countries. I was one that agreed with the war. But the americans have gone gung ho crazy. Killing on sight. I have seen so much of this during my time in the army. I have also been to the USA. I was sick at the state of the homelesss, The starving, The poor beggars, The Racism. The homeless. Yet no-one seems to care. All they care about is the dollars. And that bush and Blaire do not get caught sleeping with each other when he visits his buddy

Rodgers,

Funny you should mention dictators. Parade magazine (a popular insert in Sunday newspapers) lists the 10 worst living dictators. Interesting reading.

http://archive.parade.com/2003/0216/0216_dictators.html

I'd also like to ask, how much time did you spend in the states and where?

And next time, let us know you're coming. We'll stash all the starving, homeless, beggars somewhere else. :roll:

You see, it's just that there's so darn many of 'em, we need some advance notice.

We Americans do apologize for offending your sensibilities. But you know what an awful place our country is. God knows it's ALL you see on the news anymore. I'm surprised foreign news agencies don't photoshop horns, a tail, and cloven hooves, onto the photos they publish of George Bush. Come to think of it. That would look pretty funny. Maybe they should give him a pitchfork as well?

Now if we could only figure out why so many people want to come here. It's a mystery.

I guess you don't have these social problems in England. Why else would you be so surprised to see some drug addicted, alcoholic bum, with no sense of pride, self worth, or decorum. Who's ENTIRELY responsible for him or herself. Who's got no one to blame for their problems but THEMSELVES. And if they want to get some help, there are DOZENS of residential care and treatment programs, all of which ARE FREE OF CHARGE.

However, they ALL insist that the participants follow the rules. NO DRUGS OR ALCOHOL. Getting counseling and/or therapy for their addictions. Finishing school, or vocational training so they can get a job. And if they're mentally unstable, TAKING THEIR *&@#$% MEDICATION! And attending sessions with a psychiatrist or psychologist.

Most homeless persons stink at following rules or behavior modification. It's one reason why they end up living on the street.

We would love to hear your suggestions for solving this problem. Please mail them to:

George W. Bush/President
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Ave. NW
Washington, D.C. 20050

I'm sure he'll be pleased as punch to finally have this problem licked. And by someone who doesn't even live here! Who knew it was that simple?

And to everyone who says Bush only invaded Iraq because of oil? (a notion I happen to agree with) Unless your buses, trucks and cars magically run on Kool-Aid, and you heat your homes and businesses with Diet Coke, you're in the same boat we are.

In fact, if I were you all, I'd be keeping a close eye on Russia. They've been pricing their oil and gas exports in euros instead of dollars. Aw, maybe it's nothing. I'm sure THEY can be trusted not to do anything dishonest. I'm sure they have no ulterior motives, only good intentions. They just want to help.

We are all in trouble.

Sierra

Originally posted by Rodgers
I would rather live in the Uk with all it's faults, Rather than live in the USA. There are more dictators in the USA than any other countries. I was one that agreed with the war. But the americans have gone gung ho crazy. Killing on sight. I have seen so much of this during my time in the army. I have also been to the USA. I was sick at the state of the homelesss, The starving, The poor beggars, The Racism. The homeless. Yet no-one seems to care. All they care about is the dollars. And that bush and Blaire do not get caught sleeping with each other when he visits his buddy


--------
Tsk, Tsk, silly boy. You are not stating the truth and you know it. I laughed when I saw Racism -- I "presume" you are talking about the Blacks in my country -- well, the only racism that exists now is REVERSE racism. I have friends in England who are NOT happy with the way things are in your country. A couple of them were thinking of moving to Spain -- oh well, that changed after the foolish people there voted in the new Government and Spain still got attacked. Grow up sonny!

And the seemingly common antipathy for the French in the USA would be hilarious if it weren't so sad. Without France the USA simply would not exist.

What you end up with is a country whose policies are dictated for profit and not for the benefit of the citizens [/B][/QUOTE]


What planet do you live on? You don't what is going on, do you. You state "Without France the USA simply would not exist" -- are you nuts! The French would be speaking German if it weren't for the U.S. Get real.

I really do feel bad for you and that you are jealous of how well the Americans live. What is the matter w/you--oh, I get it now, you get your news from the BBC and The Guardian, that explains it.

Does anybody remember what the title of this thread is?

C'mon people, back on track please...

Originally posted by royjames
I back the US and Bush ,they have the guts to tackle terrorism and we ought to be thankful for that.
To Freedom usa dont think this liberal lot on here are typical of the country as thay are most certainly are NOT.
I bet most of this lot are at university and everyone knows how left wing most students are.
The one bit I dont agree with is Tony Blair you can have him for me.
And yes we ARE being muslimized, still politicans here are clueless.
Keep up the good posts.


Thank you Royjames. Yes, I know how the University/college kids are today--they have been "brainwashed" by their liberal activist Professors who are still trying to re-live the 1960's (at least that is the way it is here). I can only speak for Tony Blair as far as his commitment to fight this War on Terrorism and stand shoulder to shoulder with Bush. In the not too distant future, there will not be any "true" Brits and French--very, very sad. What is really scary is by the time the college kids "wake up" it will be too late.

Originally posted by Phanerothyme
:hihi:


70% of Americans believe Saddam Hussein was personally involved in the attacks (according to an opinion poll 18 months ago) - any wonder?


WRONG. Probably the "stupid" Democrats answered that way. Good Lord, don't you know by now that the Media is a joke! Do you get Fox Cable News over here? That is what you need to watch to get balanced news. CNN is Left-leaning and as bad as the BBC.

Originally posted by Freedom_USA
Do you get Fox Cable News over here? That is what you need to watch to get balanced news.
That's it, you've just proved it beyond doubt.

Please come back on April 1st.

This is a joke, right?

Originally posted by Freedom_USA
WRONG. Probably the "stupid" Democrats answered that way. Good Lord, don't you know by now that the Media is a joke! Do you get Fox Cable News over here? That is what you need to watch to get balanced news. CNN is Left-leaning and as bad as the BBC.

Brilliant :thumbsup:

Originally posted by Freedom_USA
WRONG. Probably the "stupid" Democrats answered that way. Good Lord, don't you know by now that the Media is a joke! Do you get Fox Cable News over here? That is what you need to watch to get balanced news. CNN is Left-leaning and as bad as the BBC.

Bad call Freedom_USA. Until you said that I was kind of warming to your honesty. Fox News is right wing rubbish. Its conservative bias is unbelievable. Recently a TV documentary was even made about how crap Fox News is called Outfoxed.

The dreadful Fox presenter Bill O'Reilly's only discussion method is to tell people he disagrees with to "shut up" and he even threatened to punch a teenager on air who didn't support the war.

During the recent US election Fox News started a smear campaign pointing out "how French" (!) Kerry looks in an attempt to turn voters against him.

They also really went to town on the Dixie Chicks and publicly vilified them on air after the band made their anti-Bush comments.

Sorry, but Fox News blurs the line between news and editorial comment to the point where the line is invisible.

In case anyone doesn't know, Fox News is owned by Rupert Murdoch.

A quick search on google for "Fox News bias" will produce some interesting reading, believe me.

Originally posted by Freedom_USA
A couple of them were thinking of moving to Spain -- oh well, that changed after the foolish people there voted in the new Government and Spain still got attacked. Grow up sonny!

Think you'll find the Madrid attacks took place before the Spanish elections.

Originally posted by Freedom_USA
Good Lord, don't you know by now that the Media is a joke! Do you get Fox Cable News over here? That is what you need to watch to get balanced news.

Fox News is an entertainment channel, Honey; not a news channel.

Originally posted by Freedom_USA
Do you get Fox Cable News over here? That is what you need to watch to get balanced news.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!! Oh thankyou for that - I so needed a good laugh!!!

Take a quick peek at the FAIR report on Fox network news here:

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1067

But of course it's all part of the worldwide lefty, liberal, nazi, islamic, fascist, zionistic, academic conspiracy to brainwash us all!!! (Did I get them all in? Appologies to any conspiracists I left out - FNORD!)

Originally posted by mojoworking
Bad call Freedom_USA. Until you said that I was kind of warming to your honesty. Fox News is right wing rubbish. Its conservative bias is unbelievable. Recently a TV documentary was even made about how crap Fox News is called Outfoxed.

The dreadful Fox presenter Bill O'Reilly's only discussion method is to tell people he disagrees with to "shut up" and he even threatened to punch a teenager on air who didn't support the war.

During the recent US election Fox News started a smear campaign pointing out "how French" (!) Kerry looks in an attempt to turn voters against him.

They also really went to town on the Dixie Chicks and publicly vilified them on air after the band made their anti-Bush comments.

Sorry, but Fox News blurs the line between news and editorial comment to the point where the line is invisible.

In case anyone doesn't know, Fox News is owned by Rupert Murdoch.

A quick search on google for "Fox News bias" will produce some interesting reading, believe me.


I completely disagree. Actually, Fox is the Leading Cable News Station -- over CNN, MSNBC, CNBC, CNS--all. The Main Stream Media over here is totally liberal. I'm sure you read about the Dan Rather (CBS) fiasco--he/CBS was trying hard to bring down Bush right before the election. As far as the Cable stations go, the other Cable stations "cut" on Fox all the time because Fox beats them in the ratings.


PS What do you get when you Google CNN, CBS, ABC, NBC news bias?

Originally posted by Greenback
Think you'll find the Madrid attacks took place before the Spanish elections.


Both before and AFTER the election. Remember???

Originally posted by Freedom_USA
The Main Stream Media over here is totally liberal.

How did you come up with that idea?

Because the mainstream media showed the negative side of the war in Iraq?

Like thousands of civilian children being killed?

And US troops torturing Iraqis?

My goodness, how unpatriotic of them :roll:

Originally posted by evildrneil
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!! Oh thankyou for that - I so needed a good laugh!!!

Take a quick peek at the FAIR report on Fox network news here:

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1067

But of course it's all part of the worldwide lefty, liberal, nazi, islamic, fascist, zionistic, academic conspiracy to brainwash us all!!! (Did I get them all in? Appologies to any conspiracists I left out - FNORD!)


Seriously, I hope you can continue to keep laughing. I do worry about your country -- especially since I know people there. Hope you have a long, prosperous, healthy life.

Originally posted by Abdul
How did you come up with that idea?

Because the mainstream media showed the negative side of the war in Iraq?

Like thousands of civilian children being killed?

And US troops torturing Iraqis?

My goodness, how unpatriotic of them :roll:


Where are you getting your news??? It is like we do not even live on the same planet, in the same universe?? This is just crazy. I read somewhere in this Forum that 100,000 civilians had been killed. Well, I just read today, that the Report stating that figure is incorrect. Check it out!

Originally posted by Freedom_USA
Both before and AFTER the election. Remember???

What do you mean AFTER? Are you talking about the recent ETA car bomb?

As for your description of the US media as being "liberal", I can only conclude that your political compass is a little off-kilter. But then, when the level of debate is such that being anything other then pro-war in the US is seen as being a wishy-washy Frenchie, it's hardly surprising that such skewed thinking becomes commonplace.

Originally posted by Freedom_USA
Where are you getting your news???

Not Fox.


Originally posted by Freedom_USA
I read somewhere in this Forum that 100,000 civilians had been killed. Well, I just read today, that the Report stating that figure is incorrect. Check it out!

Did I say 100,000 civilians? I said thousands.

I'm sure even your most bloodthirsty Fox News warmonger will agree on that. Unless it's unpatriotic, of course.

Originally posted by Freedom_USA
Where are you getting your news??? It is like we do not even live on the same planet, in the same universe?? This is just crazy. I read somewhere in this Forum that 100,000 civilians had been killed. Well, I just read today, that the Report stating that figure is incorrect. Check it out!

funny that, you believing fox news and it not being like we live on the same planet.

Most Americans when visiting this country comment on how you can actually find both sides of a story in the news in this country.

edit --
Originally posted by Sierra
And to everyone who says Bush only invaded Iraq because of oil? (a notion I happen to agree with) Unless your buses, trucks and cars magically run on Kool-Aid, and you heat your homes and businesses with Diet Coke, you're in the same boat we are.

In fact, if I were you all, I'd be keeping a close eye on Russia. They've been pricing their oil and gas exports in euros instead of dollars. Aw, maybe it's nothing. I'm sure THEY can be trusted not to do anything dishonest. I'm sure they have no ulterior motives, only good intentions. They just want to help.

We are all in trouble.

Sierra

You have absolutely hit the nail on the head there Sierra.

China is a rapidly rising superpower, that in spite of inherent difficulties, is accelerating trade at an almost exponential rate. This is going to add to the demand for oil as the some of the 800 million rural inhabitants steadily industrialise and join the 400 million or so that have already done so.

I would have less immediate "quarrel" with Bush and Blair if they had been more honest about the realpolitik for securing oil reserves into western accessible markets for the future.

I would still have questioned the wisdom, given the post 9/11 world political climate, of instigating an invasion and coup d'etat in an arabic country that shared a border with the country of nationality of most 9/11 hijackers.

For a long time now there has been open hostility towards the US from Arab nations that have previously demanded the removal of Israel completely. Despite a change in formal policy by most middle eastern countries, the enmities and grudges still exist.

The cloak and dagger impressions of Camp X-Ray, Diego Garcia and Abu Graib Prison, are a further (and possibly deliberate) attempts to ratchet up the tension. They certainly do nothing to salve the problem. Whereas transparent justice at least has the advantage of being credible to the public.

To me this smacks of a kind of global military entrapment that must be condemned, whatever the ends may be.

Originally posted by Freedom_USA
What planet do you live on? You don't what is going on, do you. You state "Without France the USA simply would not exist" -- are you nuts! The French would be speaking German if it weren't for the U.S. Get real.

I really do feel bad for you and that you are jealous of how well the Americans live. What is the matter w/you--oh, I get it now, you get your news from the BBC and The Guardian, that explains it.

The french were pouring aid (money and guns) into the hands of the Americans before the Declaration of independence was even written.

It's not a question of news, its more a question of history. I'm simply not qualified to comment in details:

But it is a reasonably widely accepted view, worldwide, that without:
- French troops
- The French squadron of ships to engage British vessels at the time of the Yorktown Siege
- French contributions of materiel

...the War of independence would have had a dramatically different outcome.

The surrender of Yorktown, impossible without the French, proved to be crucial in forcing the British to sue for terms (give up).

I rather feel that today, the architects of American Independence, and French Republicanism, motivated by ideals based around the inalienable rights of all humans would be disappointed in all of us, and the sort of world we are creating for ourselves.

Why did it take for this guy to mention how good and trustworthy Fox News was before anyone realised he was talking crap?

If he is happy in his 2 party state where more and more companies are having morning prayers for the workers (!!) and abortion will soon be banned, leave him to it.

As for the reverse racism comment, I suppose you think Rodney King was a low life crack head who deserved what he got?

This is not aimed at all Americans - just as with all other countries, races, religions, some are good and some are bad. Unfortunately, you have decided to lurch to the religious far right as a nation and Britain is being dragged along with you.

America may be the powerhouse of the world economy, but it has a lot to learn about human rights. From the communist witch hunts to the segregation in the deep south to the illegal imprisonment in Guantanamo Bay, you seem to just make it up as you go along.

You can call us honey and sonny all day long and even presume we are students (I am 33) but it doesn't mean you are right.

Oh, I forgot, they shoot students who demonstrate in America don't they?

Originally posted by sham71
Oh, I forgot, they shoot students who demonstrate in America don't they?

Only if it's good for the economy :D

I would also like to ask our American contributors which countries outside the USA they have visited?

After all, actually going somewhere is better than taking your world view from ANY news station.

Originally posted by Freedom_USA
[BI have friends in England who are NOT happy with the way things are in your country. A couple of them were thinking of moving to Spain -- oh well, that changed after the foolish people there voted in the new Government and Spain still got attacked. Grow up sonny! [/B]

So they decided not to move to Spain because of the train bomb? So will they not visit New York because of 9/11? Don't they know we had terrorism here for years before Rumsfeld 'invented' Al-qaeda?

Originally posted by Phanerothyme
I rather feel that today, the architects of American Independence, and French Republicanism, motivated by ideals based around the inalienable rights of all humans would be disappointed in all of us, and what sort of world we are creating for ourselves.

Unfortunately I have to agree with you there :(

Sham71,

No one is banning abortion, and prayers will never be mandatory. Never. Not far from where I live, in Sacramento, Ca. there's been a HUGE flap over kids in elementary school reciting the Pledge of Allegiance...because it contains the words "one nation under God."

As a matter of fact, Rodney King was a lowlife crackhead. And incidentally, NO ONE deserves to be beaten like that.

Did you know that there were others in the car with him that night? And that when the police finally managed to stop his car after a high speed pursuit, where he endangered the lives of himself, his passengers, the officers, and anyone else who crossed his path, that his passengers cooperated with the police? And the cops didn't lay a finger on them?

I'm sorry, Rodney King is not a nice person. He wasn't then, and he isn't now. He's been nothing but trouble his entire life. Here's what's happened to him since this incident:

http://www.weht.net/WEHT/Rodney_King.html

Unfortunately, racism still exists here, it always has, and I'm sorry to say, it always will. So will sexism, classism, ageism, and every other "ism' you can name. People have always picked on anyone they could, and they always will. It's human nature, and you'll see it over and over again if you study history.

As for visiting other countries, I've been sorry more than once that I don't have the time or money to travel as I'd like. I've been to Mexico, Canada, Nova Scotia, Australia and Tahiti. Someday, I would love to visit the UK, Asia, Europe, Africa, and I've wanted to see this place for years:

http://www.raingod.com/angus/Gallery/Photos/MiddleEast/Jordan/Petra/

I agree, actually going somewhere is much better than taking your world view from any news station. Next best is talking to people who actually live in said country. The reason why I joined this forum, even though I'm not from Sheffield.

:) Sierra

Originally posted by Phanerothyme
China is a rapidly rising superpower, that in spite of inherent difficulties, is accelerating trade at an almost exponential rate. This is going to add to the demand for oil as the some of the 800 million rural inhabitants steadily industrialise and join the 400 million or so that have already done so.

I would have less immediate "quarrel" with Bush and Blair if they had been more honest about the realpolitik for securing oil reserves into western accessible markets for the future.

I would still have questioned the wisdom, given the post 9/11 world political climate, of instigating an invasion and coup d'etat in an arabic country that shared a border with the country of nationality of most 9/11 hijackers.

For a long time now there has been open hostility towards the US from Arab nations that have previously demanded the removal of Israel completely. Despite a change in formal policy by most middle eastern countries, the enmities and grudges still exist.

The cloak and dagger impressions of Camp X-Ray, Diego Garcia and Abu Graib Prison, are a further (and possibly deliberate) attempts to ratchet up the tension. They certainly do nothing to salve the problem. Whereas transparent justice at least has the advantage of being credible to the public.

To me this smacks of a kind of global military entrapment that must be condemned, whatever the ends may be.



The french were pouring aid (money and guns) into the hands of the Americans before the Declaration of independence was even written.

It's not a question of news, its more a question of history. I'm simply not qualified to comment in details:

But it is a reasonably widely accepted view, worldwide, that without:
- French troops
- The French squadron of ships to engage British vessels at the time of the Yorktown Siege
- French contributions of materiel

...the War of independence would have had a dramatically different outcome.

The surrender of Yorktown, impossible without the French, proved to be crucial in forcing the British to sue for terms (give up).

I rather feel that today, the architects of American Independence, and French Republicanism, motivated by ideals based around the inalienable rights of all humans would be disappointed in all of us, and what sort of world we are creating for ourselves.

Well said Phan!! You took the words right out of my mouth. I absolutely agree with your observations about China. I've always wondered why all the disagreement and arguments about/over oil.

We all use it. We all need it. It's like one drug addict telling another drug addict, "I don't like how you're getting your drugs". We are all in the same boat when it comes to oil, and we'll all suffer through higher prices, embargos, long gas lines, shortages, etc.

I also wish Bush and Blair would show a little more honesty, but I'm not holding my breath.

And my hats off to you, sir. You have an excellent grasp of American history. A subject not many Americans ever bother to learn.

:) Sierra

Thanks for that Sierra.

Can you be sure after all the changes on the Supreme Court that Bush will be able to make that abortion will not be targeted?

As for Rodney King, I admit, I didn't know much about his life after the 1991 incident. Still, taking drugs (cocaine) and being an alcoholic didn't stop a certain person getting to the White House.

I have relatives and some good friends in America. I just feel saddened that the neo-cons have taken over the country. It won't last, but the damage it causes may take decades to undo.......in my opinion.

Originally posted by sham71
Why did it take for this guy to mention how good and trustworthy Fox News was before anyone realised he was talking crap?

If he is happy in his 2 party state where more and more companies are having morning prayers for the workers (!!) and abortion will soon be banned, leave him to it.

As for the reverse racism comment, I suppose you think Rodney King was a low life crack head who deserved what he got?

This is not aimed at all Americans - just as with all other countries, races, religions, some are good and some are bad. Unfortunately, you have decided to lurch to the religious far right as a nation and Britain is being dragged along with you.

America may be the powerhouse of the world economy, but it has a lot to learn about human rights. From the communist witch hunts to the segregation in the deep south to the illegal imprisonment in Guantanamo Bay, you seem to just make it up as you go along.

You can call us honey and sonny all day long and even presume we are students (I am 33) but it doesn't mean you are right.

Oh, I forgot, they shoot students who demonstrate in America don't they?


ROTFL -- I knew the U.K. was behind "the times" -- I just didn't realize how far behind. My God, everything you bring up is sooooooooo History. Also, sonny, I am a woman.

Originally posted by Freedom_USA
ROTFL -- I knew the U.K. was behind "the times" -- I just didn't realize how far behind.

Hey you! We've been playing PROPER football over here for hundreds of years. You lot are only just catching on.:mad:

Originally posted by Freedom_USA
ROTFL -- I knew the U.K. was behind "the times" -- I just didn't realize how far behind. My God, everything you bring up is sooooooooo History. Also, sonny, I am a woman.
Typical Colonial :P

Originally posted by sham71
Thanks for that Sierra.

Can you be sure after all the changes on the Supreme Court that Bush will be able to make that abortion will not be targeted?

As for Rodney King, I admit, I didn't know much about his life after the 1991 incident. Still, taking drugs (cocaine) and being an alcoholic didn't stop a certain person getting to the White House.

I have relatives and some good friends in America. I just feel saddened that the neo-cons have taken over the country. It won't last, but the damage it causes may take decades to undo.......in my opinion.

Why, you're certainly welcome. Things are rarely as bad here as the media makes them out to be.

I'm reasonably sure that they won't touch first trimester abortions. (Up to 12 weeks. A normal full term pregnancy is 40 weeks) After that, it gets fuzzy. Mostly because premature babies are able to survive earlier and earlier. And abortion advocates want late term abortions to continue to be available. So, a baby born at 24 weeks could legally be aborted, but if mom decides she wants to keep it, it's now a premature baby.

Also, anyone who murders/or causes the death of a pregnant woman will be now charged with two murders. Even if the fetus was not old enough to be viable. Mostly because of this law:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/02/23/unborn.rights.ap/

You are right about the Supreme Court. My goodness, I'm impressed that you all know so much about the US!

And poor Rodney King was an accident waiting to happen. I read somewhere recently that despite his $3.8 million settlement, he is flat broke. Can't say I'm surprised.

:) Sierra

Originally posted by Sierra
You are right about the Supreme Court. My goodness, I'm impressed that you all know so much about the US!

thats precisely because we watch the BBC and not Fox News!! Maybe Freedom USA is Rupert Murdoch in disguise...

Originally posted by Freedom_USA
Where are you getting your news??? It is like we do not even live on the same planet, in the same universe?? This is just crazy. I read somewhere in this Forum that 100,000 civilians had been killed. Well, I just read today, that the Report stating that figure is incorrect. Check it out! Incorrect? There's no other figures available not least because the US and UK have deliberately chosen not to monitor civilian deaths from the beginning and to also obstruct groups who have. This is the only independent study of any size and quality available.
Meanwhile details have emerged in the last couple of days about the atrocities carried out by US forces in Fallujah who took part in a massacre of the residents of the city including shooting people down in their homes, outside mosques when they were waving white flags to surrender and killing a tiny child as it ran to comfort it's dying mother. Many dead remained unburied weeks after the slaughter
The city is almost completely destroyed and 300, 000 inhabitants have no homes.......You won't see that on Fox news ( nor very much in the UK media either)

Sham / Nedd (and others, you know who you are),

Getting into an intellectual argument with Freedom_USA is tantamount to bullying, you're no better than GWB.

Stop it now! (or at least pick on someone who isn't "unarmed")

;)