Jump to content

sandy18

Banned
  • Content Count

    79
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

10 Neutral

About sandy18

  • Rank
    Registered User
  1. Still doesn't change the fact that he was a prisoner of war. It was a war, he was classified as the enemy and he was captured and imprisoned because of the war. It isn't a crime to be the enemy so he can't be charged as a criminal, but the enemy can be detained indefinitely without charge whilst hostilities continue.
  2. It was a war, international armed conflict. He was detained because of the war. He was described as an enemy combatant. The only US soldier captured and imprisoned by the Taliban was described as a POW and was released when they did an exchange of POW's. He definitely falls within the definition of POW or detainee and both are protected under international humanitarian law. The third Geneva Convention provides a wide range of protection for prisoners of war. It defines their rights and sets down detailed rules for their treatment and eventual release. International humanitarian law (IHL) also protects other persons deprived of liberty as a result of armed conflict.
  3. What evidence do you have that they breached his rights under the Geneva Convention. None of that alters the fact he was held because he was considered to be an enemy combatant and its not legal to charge enemy combatants with a crime. He should be pursuing his war crime claims in the International Criminal Courts and his case shouldn't be funded by British tax payers.
  4. The USA claim he was an enemy combatant and held as such, he wasn't charged because you can't charge enemy combatants with a crime other than a war crime and to my knowledge there is no evidence he committed a war crime.
  5. Its not illegal to be the enemy so he can't be charged with the crime of being the enemy, but it is legal to imprison the enemy until the end of hostilities, and hostilities haven't ended.
  6. Just because you can't or don't want to see it doesn't mean I didn't achieve it.
  7. Unless they do a very good job and do deals with the enemy to appease the liberal lefties.
  8. No, I demonstrated that the UK economy isn't dominated by London. London is the largest and most densely populated city in the UK so it should have a larger economy than any other city or area, but other than the financial center its no better than the rest of the country and the map clearly shows that.
  9. London has three constituencies in top ten poorest area of the UK. ---------- Post added 02-11-2015 at 14:28 ---------- I saw more hot spots outside London than inside London.
  10. Unless you are ignoring the bits that don't fit with your opinion.
  11. The economic activity per region isn't relevant, the relevant figure is the economic activity per capita, its obvious that 10 million people will generate more economic activity than 1000 people because the 10 million will consume more than 1000 people. If the 1000 consume less than they produce and the 10 million consume more than they produce the 1000 are better for the UK than the 10 million. Some people will even argue that the people generating the most caused all the problems the UK now faces.
  12. The map isn't misleading and effectively counters the argument that the UK economy is dominated by London. There are more unemployed people living in London than the whole of Yorkshire/Humber, more than any other region in the country, poverty is worse in London than any other area of the country.
  13. That's just one area that outperformed the rest of the country probably because of the financial sector, the rest of London didn't out perform the country, a large part of it was out performed by most of the country.
  14. I disagree, the government will probably way up the cost of a court hearing and the cost of paying him some compensation, the hearing will be more expensive so they will probably settle out of court for an undisclosed amount in order to save tax payer money, but even if it went to court and no proof was found to support his claim there are people that will still believe him and condemn the British government. Its a no win situation for the UK so it would be much better to wash out hands of him and send him back to his country of birth or the country from which he was captured.
  15. No, there are plenty of exceptions outside London with most of the country outperforming a very large chunk of London.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.