Jonathan Fairfield Posted October 31, 2015 Share Posted October 31, 2015 Amer Shaker released from Guantanamo Bay Amer Shaker, the last British resident to be held in Guantanamo Bay US military prison, has been released according to the UK home secretary. Amer was held for 13 years without charge. He was detained in Afghanistan in 2001 – with US authorities alleging he had led a unit of Taliban fighters. Amer was cleared for release by US President George Bush and later Barack Obama – but still spent more than 5,000 days behind bars. -- (c) Copyright Euronews 2015-10-31 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonathan Fairfield Posted October 31, 2015 Author Share Posted October 31, 2015 Last UK detainee arrives in Britain from Guantanamo DANICA KIRKA, Associated Press BEN FOX, Associated Press LONDON (AP) — The last U.K. resident imprisoned at Guantanamo Bay returned home to Britain on Friday after almost 14 years in which he became a defiant spokesman for his fellow prisoners. Shaker Aamer, who was never charged with a crime, arrived aboard a private plane after being released from the U.S. military prison in Cuba on Thursday evening. "My thanks go to Allah first, second to my wife, my family, to my kids and then to my lawyers who did everything they could to carry the word to the world," he said in a statement. "I feel obliged to every individual who fought for justice, not just for me, but to bring an end to Guantanamo." Aamer's release came after celebrities and members of Parliament joined a publicity campaign demanding he be freed and Prime Minister David Cameron urged U.S. President Barack Obama to resolve the case. His release, the 15th from Guantanamo this year, brings the detainee population there to 112, and comes as part of a renewed push by Obama to close the facility opened by his predecessor after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the World Trade Center in New York. Aamer, 48, a Saudi citizen who married a British woman and moved to London in the mid-1990s, had told his lawyers that he would seek a medical exam in Britain because of concerns about his health stemming in part from repeated hunger strikes he staged to protest his detention. He has received more media attention over the years than any other prisoner except the five who face trial by military commission for their alleged roles in planning and providing support to the 9/11 attacks. In a piece published in the Independent on Feb. 14, 2014, the anniversary of his detention at Guantanamo, Aamer said he was seeking basic human rights and a fair trial through his then ongoing hunger strike. "Of course I understand the impact of 9/11," he wrote in the British newspaper. "Killing civilians is an offense against Islam. But Guantanamo Bay is no solution for the victims of 9/11. Instead, the hypocrisy of the place recruits people to an anti-American banner." Aamer was born in Saudi Arabia and remains a Saudi citizen, but wanted to return to London, where he has four children, including a son he has never seen. His wife is the daughter of a prominent retired imam. Clive Stafford Smith, one of Aamer's lawyers, told the BBC that Aamer faces no charges in Britain and will not be questioned by authorities. Scotland Yard detectives questioned him for three days during his Guantanamo Bay detention. Aamer has said he went to Afghanistan to help run a school for girls, and fled during the chaos following the U.S. invasion in late 2001. He was captured by the Northern Alliance and turned over to U.S. forces who took him to Guantanamo in February 2002. The U.S. Defense Department has disclosed that Aamer was accused of significant links to terrorism. They said he shared an apartment in the late 1990s with Zacarias Moussaoui, who was convicted of taking part in the Sept. 11 conspiracy; had met with Richard Reid, who tried to blow up a U.S. passenger jet with explosives in his shoes; had undergone al-Qaida training in the use of explosives and missiles; and received a stipend from Osama bin Laden. A detainee assessment later obtained and published by Wikileaks included those allegations and more, including describing Aamer as a member of al-Qaida and a "close associate" of bin Laden. Aamer and his supporters have denied the allegations, and the United States never charged him with a crime. He was freed after a task force appointed by Obama conducted a "comprehensive review" of his case, the Pentagon said in a statement. He had been cleared for release by President George W. Bush's administration in June 2007 and human rights advocates asked why — despite a so-called special relationship with the United States — Britain was unable to secure his release earlier. "Shaker Aamer's release will bring huge relief to his family but serious questions remain," said Shami Chakrabarti, director of human rights group Liberty. "Why did it take us so many years to persuade our closest ally to behave decently?" Aamer spent much of his time at Guantanamo in the disciplinary units of Camp 5, a section of the detention center where prisoners are held alone in solid-walled cells of steel and concrete. He helped organize a hunger strike that involved more than 100 prisoners and often served as an unofficial spokesman, providing detailed insider accounts of life inside Guantanamo through his lawyers. Aamer was one of several men picked to serve on a short-lived prisoner council formed in the summer of 2005 in an attempt to address detainee complaints. His supporters long maintained that he was not released because of his activism and fears that he would publicize information about the mistreatment he and others endured. Aamer's biggest challenge will be re-integrating into society after a long absence, said Moazzam Begg, who was held at Guantanamo for three years. "In Shaker's case, I can't even begin to imagine. The last time he saw his daughter, for example ... she was 4 years old. She's now 17. I don't know how that's going to happen, how that process is going to happen," Begg told the BBC last month. "No amount of therapy and so forth will be able to replace those years, so I think this will be a harder struggle for Shaker to deal with than the actual imprisonment." -- (c) Associated Press 2015-10-31 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MaeJoMTB Posted October 31, 2015 Share Posted October 31, 2015 Will he be losing his British citizenship under the new rules? Would have thought he would be a prime candidate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HLover Posted October 31, 2015 Share Posted October 31, 2015 He's a Saudi citizen and UK resident, does he have British citizenship as well? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NongKhaiKid Posted October 31, 2015 Share Posted October 31, 2015 (edited) The headline is misleading as he's a Saudi with residency in Britain so will the govt now renew that status ? It will be interesting to see if for any reason the Saudis want him as Britain is unlikely to send him back without certain assurances the Saudis may not want to give. Edited October 31, 2015 by NongKhaiKid Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simple1 Posted October 31, 2015 Share Posted October 31, 2015 Will he be losing his British citizenship under the new rules? Would have thought he would be a prime candidate. He's a UK resident, not a UK citizen. From the OP... "Clive Stafford Smith, one of Aamer's lawyers, told the BBC that Aamer faces no charges in Britain and will not be questioned by authorities" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seastallion Posted October 31, 2015 Share Posted October 31, 2015 Deprived of his liberty for 14 years because his accusers and captors have no evidence to even proffer charges let alone obtain a conviction. I hope he sues, and on the face of it he should be successful. At the very least, a 5000 day delay from when his release is approved to when he is actually freed is easy grounds for a law suit. Land of justice and liberty, my arse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingalfred Posted October 31, 2015 Share Posted October 31, 2015 In Afghanistan doing "charity work" at the time he was caught! Haha . No more British than Bin laden Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stoneyboy Posted October 31, 2015 Share Posted October 31, 2015 In Afghanistan doing "charity work" at the time he was caught! Haha . No more British than Bin laden Yes I know darling lets up sticks with our two baby daughters and head to Afghanistan where there is civil unrest and the possibility of harm to us and our children in the name of Islamic charity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norfolkandchance Posted October 31, 2015 Share Posted October 31, 2015 At least he was off the streets for 13 years Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seastallion Posted October 31, 2015 Share Posted October 31, 2015 In Afghanistan doing "charity work" at the time he was caught! Haha . No more British than Bin laden Yes I know darling lets up sticks with our two baby daughters and head to Afghanistan where there is civil unrest and the possibility of harm to us and our children in the name of Islamic charity. And the British, French, American, Australian etc people who volunteer for Doctors Without Borders (MSF) are also all terrorists because they kindly and selflessly enter war zones to help? If the US had ANY evidence, they would have charged him. He was not caught "in the act" but caught fleeing a strife-torn area by Afghan tribesman who were promised a bounty for any "terrorist". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seastallion Posted October 31, 2015 Share Posted October 31, 2015 At least he was off the streets for 13 years Can you explain why you approve of this man's capture and incarceration when there is absolutely ZERO evidence that he had done anything wrong? Really, that's not rhetorical. I would like to see your reasoning. I would also like to see the reasoning of the US government. Consider that after 3 years, the Bush administration conceded he should go free because there was NOTHING to charge him with. That alone is a concession that he should never have been locked up, but to make matters worse, he had to spend a FURTHER TEN YEARS locked up! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norfolkandchance Posted October 31, 2015 Share Posted October 31, 2015 Seastallion And the lawyer for the defence said. Blah blah blah You just don't get it do you Regards Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingalfred Posted October 31, 2015 Share Posted October 31, 2015 Fact is they may not have had cast iron proof of links to terrorists but they found no proof of actual "charity work" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simple1 Posted October 31, 2015 Share Posted October 31, 2015 Seastallion And the lawyer for the defence said. Blah blah blah You just don't get it do you Regards And you don't get that despite with being held in detention for 13 years, including being interrogated by UK security agencies, the guy has has never been charged for supporting or carrying out a terrorist attack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RuamRudy Posted October 31, 2015 Share Posted October 31, 2015 Seastallion And the lawyer for the defence said. Blah blah blah You just don't get it do you Regards Enlighten us, please - explain exactly what it is that you get and we don't? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RuamRudy Posted October 31, 2015 Share Posted October 31, 2015 In Afghanistan doing "charity work" at the time he was caught! Haha . No more British than Bin laden Simply because the concept of helping others may be an alien notion to you, it doesn't mean that others think so insularly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ggt Posted October 31, 2015 Share Posted October 31, 2015 I often reflect on the violation of the rights of men like Amer Shaker...when the US goes around the world chiding other countries for their human rights violations...hypocrisy in action... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yellowboat Posted October 31, 2015 Share Posted October 31, 2015 13 years without charge is the current low for the US judicial system Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CMNightRider Posted October 31, 2015 Share Posted October 31, 2015 Deprived of his liberty for 14 years because his accusers and captors have no evidence to even proffer charges let alone obtain a conviction. I hope he sues, and on the face of it he should be successful. At the very least, a 5000 day delay from when his release is approved to when he is actually freed is easy grounds for a law suit. Land of justice and liberty, my arse. Deprived of his liberty???? You hope he sues???? He's lucky he wasn't shot. What do you think he was doing in Afghanistan with the Taliban? I know, he was probably sight seeing and just stopped the Taliban to ask for directions. I hope the UK deports him, and the rest of the western countries place him on a no-fly list. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NeverSure Posted October 31, 2015 Share Posted October 31, 2015 13 years without charge is the current low for the US judicial system It's not the US justice system. He never set foot on US soil and therefore never gained any US rights. He was a prisoner of war under military jurisdiction and law on foreign soil. If he had been brought to the US, which rarely if ever happens to prisoners of war, he would have gained rights of people in the US. The rules for trying or convicting or detaining someone caught on a battlefield on foreign soil are completely different from US criminal law. In the article there is a long laundry list of things he was accused of doing and belonging to and the US military isn't in the habit of turning that type of person loose when captured as a prisoner of war. Cheers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yellowboat Posted October 31, 2015 Share Posted October 31, 2015 13 years without charge is the current low for the US judicial system It's not the US justice system. He never set foot on US soil and therefore never gained any US rights. He was a prisoner of war under military jurisdiction and law on foreign soil. If he had been brought to the US, which rarely if ever happens to prisoners of war, he would have gained rights of people in the US. The rules for trying or convicting or detaining someone caught on a battlefield on foreign soil are completely different from US criminal law. In the article there is a long laundry list of things he was accused of doing and belonging to and the US military isn't in the habit of turning that type of person loose when captured as a prisoner of war. Cheers. Sorry you are right let me rephrase : 13 years without charge is the current low for the US judicial system and military justice. He was on a US military base. He should have received due process. He was accused and not proven guilty. Sadly being accused seems to be the new guilty. Oh well, so much for the US constitution. It was a nice idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickJ Posted October 31, 2015 Share Posted October 31, 2015 Hope they chipped him..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seastallion Posted October 31, 2015 Share Posted October 31, 2015 Fact is they may not have had cast iron proof of links to terrorists but they found no proof of actual "charity work" Ahhh, ok, so his alibi doesn't check out....did the allegations against him check out? Answer, NO. Guilty until proven innocent. So after 3 years of checking it all out, the US decides there's nothing to hold him for, and that he should be set free. TEN YEARS after the decision to set him free, he is finally released. I find it incredibly depressing that there are members of the human race who, despite ALL THE EVIDENCE, and despite the US conceding he should go free, still want him shot or still locked up or punished in some way. Animal, mob mentality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seastallion Posted October 31, 2015 Share Posted October 31, 2015 13 years without charge is the current low for the US judicial system It's not the US justice system. He never set foot on US soil and therefore never gained any US rights. He was a prisoner of war under military jurisdiction and law on foreign soil. If he had been brought to the US, which rarely if ever happens to prisoners of war, he would have gained rights of people in the US. The rules for trying or convicting or detaining someone caught on a battlefield on foreign soil are completely different from US criminal law. In the article there is a long laundry list of things he was accused of doing and belonging to and the US military isn't in the habit of turning that type of person loose when captured as a prisoner of war. Cheers. "That type of person"? The type of person who is accused of something? OK, to err on the side of caution, lock him up and check it all out. After three years, they decided there was nothing, so he should be set free. Why dilly dally and take a further TEN YEARS to action that freedom decision? He was not a prisoner of war!!!! He was a prisoner captured by a third party during war. If he can't sue for the first 3 years, (and there are certainly grounds for that since America did not capture him doing anything, he was handed in by bounty-hunting tribesmen, so essentially he was locked up initially on the say so of bounty hunters...a weak reason to deprive a person of his freedom), he should certainly be able to sue and win for the TEN YEARS it took to release him after the US decided that they had nothing with which to condemn him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CMNightRider Posted October 31, 2015 Share Posted October 31, 2015 Hope they chipped him..... Yes, maybe with an exploding chip. I hope they clipped him as well, so he can't pollute the gene pool anymore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seastallion Posted October 31, 2015 Share Posted October 31, 2015 Hope they chipped him..... Yes, maybe with an exploding chip. I hope they clipped him as well, so he can't pollute the gene pool anymore. Assuming you subscribe to the justice system of your home country that someone is innocent until proven guilty, your support for castration of an innocent man simply because he was Muslim and in a war zone, is disgusting. Why would he be polluting the gene pool? He has shown you nothing to suggest his genes are bad for society. On the other hand, blind bigotry and ignorant hatred should be culled from the gene pool. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yellowboat Posted October 31, 2015 Share Posted October 31, 2015 Hope they chipped him..... Yes, maybe with an exploding chip. I hope they clipped him as well, so he can't pollute the gene pool anymore. Assuming you subscribe to the justice system of your home country that someone is innocent until proven guilty, your support for castration of an innocent man simply because he was Muslim and in a war zone, is disgusting. Why would he be polluting the gene pool? He has shown you nothing to suggest his genes are bad for society. On the other hand, blind bigotry and ignorant hatred should be culled from the gene pool. Here here, Interesting how some stoop as low as the ones they accuse of being low. A race for moral low ground. Hard to see who is winning sometimes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NeverSure Posted October 31, 2015 Share Posted October 31, 2015 It's not the US justice system. He never set foot on US soil and therefore never gained any US rights. He was a prisoner of war under military jurisdiction and law on foreign soil. If he had been brought to the US, which rarely if ever happens to prisoners of war, he would have gained rights of people in the US. The rules for trying or convicting or detaining someone caught on a battlefield on foreign soil are completely different from US criminal law. In the article there is a long laundry list of things he was accused of doing and belonging to and the US military isn't in the habit of turning that type of person loose when captured as a prisoner of war. Cheers. Sorry you are right let me rephrase : 13 years without charge is the current low for the US judicial system and military justice. He was on a US military base. He should have received due process. He was accused and not proven guilty. Sadly being accused seems to be the new guilty. Oh well, so much for the US constitution. It was a nice idea. You're still missing it. This wasn't the US justice system. This was military detention of a prisoner of war on foreign soil. He had no rights. The US Constitution covers US citizens, not foreigners on foreign soil. The US military base is irrelevant and immaterial as it operates under military law as pertains to prisoners of war. We need to shift gears from US civilian law pertaining to citizens or people inside the US and think of foreign soil and the military prisoner of war system if we're to understand how this can happen. Cheers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RuamRudy Posted October 31, 2015 Share Posted October 31, 2015 Sorry you are right let me rephrase : 13 years without charge is the current low for the US judicial system and military justice. He was on a US military base. He should have received due process. He was accused and not proven guilty. Sadly being accused seems to be the new guilty. Oh well, so much for the US constitution. It was a nice idea. You're still missing it. This wasn't the US justice system. This was military detention of a prisoner of war on foreign soil. He had no rights. The US Constitution covers US citizens, not foreigners on foreign soil. The US military base is irrelevant and immaterial as it operates under military law as pertains to prisoners of war. We need to shift gears from US civilian law pertaining to citizens or people inside the US and think of foreign soil and the military prisoner of war system if we're to understand how this can happen. Cheers. That it was the US government who created of a legal framework designed to strip specific individuals of rights we may normally consider inalienable does not automatically convey moral righteousness to that framework. Rather, it highlights the moral bankruptcy of the regime that, realising it had no solid ground to stand on, either legally or evidentially, had to create an dystopian nightmare reminiscent of the worst abuses of Soviet times. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png)
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now