Seastallion 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. Disingenuous legal technicalities. Firstly, what defines a prisoner of war? As we are told in the OP, he was captured by tribesmen. Not during battle, not evidently a fighter, not armed, simply captured for the bounty. Apparently you condone legal technicalities that allow a man who by his captors own checking, did nothing wrong, to be locked up for 3 years initially, and after he is deemed worthy of being free, is held for a further ten years.....and that's OK by you. It is attitudes like that that really deserve to have the shoe on the other foot, and see how you like it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yellowboat 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. On top of all that, it is said that this prisoner was cleared for release during the Cheney administration. How you can legally hold people for years when you have in fact cleared them of any wrong doing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lostboy 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. Perhaps you did not receive the memo? To maintain this legal fiction created by a cabal of evangelical neocons wanting to proselytise their flawed republican-style democracy to the rest of the world backed a a bloated, out-of-control security state, you are not allowed to use the words 'Prisoner of War' "The Bush administration announced its policy on captives from Afghanistan in February 2002. It drew a theoretical distinction between al-Qaeda fighters and members of the Taliban forces. Since al-Qaeda was a non-State group, the conflict between the United States and al-Qaeda was outside the reach of the Geneva Conventions, the White House said. By contrast, since the Taliban were the de facto armed forces of Afghanistan, the Geneva Conventions did apply to the conflict between the United States and the Taliban. However, according to the White House, the Taliban forces did not meet the criteria set out in the Third Geneva Convention for attaining POW status. Therefore, in practice, all detainees from Afghanistan were “unlawful combatants” who did not deserve the privileges of prisoners of war." - See more at: http://www.crimesofwar.org/a-z-guide/prisoners-of-war/#sthash.EHfmmjhn.dpuf If you intend to keep pushing this canard in the face of an overwhelming majority of the world's population who now know the truth, then you should stick to the words approved by your fellow travellers. Guantanamo is designed to avoid any recognition of any rights except 'might'. US foreign policy under the neocons is Might makes Right. Obama tried to mitigate this but is clearly trapped by the self interests of the Security State. At least he can now achieve his first term campaign promise and close that abomination. It would be nice if he also respected international sovereignty and voided the questionable lease and returned the land to Cuba. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RidgeRunner Posted October 31, 2015 Share Posted October 31, 2015 Hope they chipped him..... The CIA certainly will be tracking every move of every Guantonomo prisoner they release. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FritsSikkink 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. Lame excuse to kidnap and detain a person and abuse all his civil rights. Land of the free, what a joke Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simple1 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. The Bush administration took the position that laws of war and humanitarian law under the four Geneva Conventions of 1949 did not apply to the armed conflict the United States was engaged in with al-Qaeda in the US invasion of Afghanistan. The US Supreme Court disagreed, finding that Article 3, common to all the Geneva Conventions, did apply to all individuals in the conflict. A good article reviewing the convoluted legal wrangling follows. Guantanamo: the Legal Mess Behind the Ethical Messhttp://www.bu.edu/today/2013/gitmo-the-legal-mess-behind-the-ethical-mess/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nontabury Posted October 31, 2015 Share Posted October 31, 2015 Hope they chipped him.....The CIA certainly will be tracking every move of every Guantonomo prisoner they release. Have any of those so far released, committed any criminal acts or joined(re-joined ) any terrorist organization? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RuamRudy Posted October 31, 2015 Share Posted October 31, 2015 The CIA certainly will be tracking every move of every Guantonomo prisoner they release. Have any of those so far released, committed any criminal acts or joined(re-joined ) any terrorist organization? I wouldn't be surprised if they did. If I had endured years of illegal detention and torture, I would not necessarily be filled with loving kindness towards my captors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
louse1953 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. Why,what was his crime,"being a Muslim". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
louse1953 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. Listen mate,i have been accused of a lot of things by police,none of them were true and the magistrate agreed.The US military always lie to suit their narrative. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
louse1953 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. Very convenient loophole there NS.Lets say the USA has a moral duty to give him justice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AhFarangJa Posted October 31, 2015 Share Posted October 31, 2015 Hope they chipped him.....The CIA certainly will be tracking every move of every Guantonomo prisoner they release. Have any of those so far released, committed any criminal acts or joined(re-joined ) any terrorist organization? According to the CIA and CBS news....yes..... 18% have. Assuming of course the info is legit.... http://www.cbsnews.com/news/18-of-gitmo-detainees-go-back-to-terror/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seastallion Posted October 31, 2015 Share Posted October 31, 2015 Hope they chipped him.....The CIA certainly will be tracking every move of every Guantonomo prisoner they release. Have any of those so far released, committed any criminal acts or joined(re-joined ) any terrorist organization? According to the CIA and CBS news....yes..... 18% have. Assuming of course the info is legit.... http://www.cbsnews.com/news/18-of-gitmo-detainees-go-back-to-terror/ That's an astoundingly low figure when you consider that the rate of recidivism for prisoners in the US is 60% and in the UK, 50%, and even more astounding considering the HUGE ill will those ex-gitmo men would have for the West having been treated so unfairly and despicably. 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 Simply because the concept of helping others may be an alien notion to you, it doesn't mean that others think so insularly. not alien not nonsense. I dont <deleted> believe him ok get it Mr Naive!!! 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. not alien not nonsense. I dont <deleted> believe him ok get it Mr Naive!!! Well what do you believe? The Americans admitted years ago that he wasn't connected to terrorism. To what incriminating evidence are you privy which shows he was banged to rights? Surely it is in everyone's interest that you publish these revelations? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RidgeRunner Posted October 31, 2015 Share Posted October 31, 2015 Hope they chipped him.....The CIA certainly will be tracking every move of every Guantonomo prisoner they release. Have any of those so far released, committed any criminal acts or joined(re-joined ) any terrorist organization? According to the CIA and CBS news....yes..... 18% have. Assuming of course the info is legit.... http://www.cbsnews.com/news/18-of-gitmo-detainees-go-back-to-terror/ Well, if they know that, they are tracking them. A guy released from Guantanamo is going to be a celebrity when he gets back home. The big shots will want to meet him and the CIA is watching. Good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacky54 Posted October 31, 2015 Share Posted October 31, 2015 (edited) 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. At least he was not deprived of his head like so many innocents butchered by those he no doubt admires and supports. Edited October 31, 2015 by jacky54 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brewsterbudgen Posted October 31, 2015 Share Posted October 31, 2015 It's shocking that despite Obama's pre-election pledges (in 2008) Gitmo has still not been shut down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FritsSikkink Posted October 31, 2015 Share Posted October 31, 2015 Hope they chipped him.....The CIA certainly will be tracking every move of every Guantonomo prisoner they release. Have any of those so far released, committed any criminal acts or joined(re-joined ) any terrorist organization? According to the CIA and CBS news....yes..... 18% have. Assuming of course the info is legit....http://www.cbsnews.com/news/18-of-gitmo-detainees-go-back-to-terror/ The big shots will want to meet him .They told you that? CIA better track you too Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pdaz Posted October 31, 2015 Share Posted October 31, 2015 He is not British.. He is a Saudi National previously resident in the UK.. Should pack the twunt up and send him back to Saudi.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yellowboat Posted October 31, 2015 Share Posted October 31, 2015 He is not British.. He is a Saudi National previously resident in the UK.. Should pack the twunt up and send him back to Saudi.. Why ? Because he was held without a trial for 14 years ? Interesting concept of due process and decency. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chuckd Posted October 31, 2015 Share Posted October 31, 2015 If some of you anti-US, pro terrorist supporters would like to offer your assistance by providing a home and comfort for any prisoners of Guantanamo, please PM me with your name and home address and I will provide it to the US authorities. I have heard they are looking for sponsors to help house the underprivileged terrorists. Any volunteers? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yellowboat Posted October 31, 2015 Share Posted October 31, 2015 If some of you anti-US, pro terrorist supporters would like to offer your assistance by providing a home and comfort for any prisoners of Guantanamo, please PM me with your name and home address and I will provide it to the US authorities. I have heard they are looking for sponsors to help house the underprivileged terrorists. Any volunteers? It is not anti-American to question America's behavior, in fact it is basis of which the country was founded. Why do you think you enjoy the right to bear arms ? The US authorities created these issues, and it is for them to solve them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Credo Posted October 31, 2015 Share Posted October 31, 2015 If some of you anti-US, pro terrorist supporters would like to offer your assistance by providing a home and comfort for any prisoners of Guantanamo, please PM me with your name and home address and I will provide it to the US authorities. I have heard they are looking for sponsors to help house the underprivileged terrorists. Any volunteers? It is not anti-American to question America's behavior, in fact it is basis of which the country was founded. Why do you think you enjoy the right to bear arms ? The US authorities created these issues, and it is for them to solve them. And now the problem is solved. He will be returned to the UK. I don't recall much pressure from the UK (or the Saudi's) to get him released. He was picked up in an active war zone, which was not his native country and he was not doing charity work. There are limited job opportunities in the area, terrorism is one and drug smuggling is the other. I hope he gets back payment on his social welfare benefits for all the years he missed them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RuamRudy Posted October 31, 2015 Share Posted October 31, 2015 It is not anti-American to question America's behavior, in fact it is basis of which the country was founded. Why do you think you enjoy the right to bear arms ? The US authorities created these issues, and it is for them to solve them. And now the problem is solved. He will be returned to the UK. I don't recall much pressure from the UK (or the Saudi's) to get him released. He was picked up in an active war zone, which was not his native country and he was not doing charity work. There are limited job opportunities in the area, terrorism is one and drug smuggling is the other. I hope he gets back payment on his social welfare benefits for all the years he missed them. He says he was doing charity work and nobody has proved differently. Glib, baseless statements from armchair warriors don't prove differently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nontabury 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. not alien not nonsense. I dont f**** believe him ok get it Mr Naive!!! Well what do you believe? The Americans admitted years ago that he wasn't connected to terrorism. To what incriminating evidence are you privy which shows he was banged to rights? Surely it is in everyone's interest that you publish these revelations? I think if you could show a reference to where the USA admitted he had no connection with terrorism, that it would help your argument no end. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mudcrab 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. I find it incredibly depressing that Muslims can behead other muslims for not being muslim enough or being the wrong sort of muslim. Evidence is just a Western concept in the muslim world. And laughed at. Animal, mob mentality. 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 mistaken and your terminology is incorrect. Please leave the term "US Judicial System" out of the equation. He wasn't in the US and he wasn't subject to the US Judicial System. Prisoners of war aren't entitled to US due process. "Oh so much for the Constitution" is wrong. He had no Constitutional rights because he isn't American and he wasn't in America. He was a prisoner of war under military laws and jurisdiction pertaining to prisoners of war. He had no rights or access to the American Judicial System. You're spinning your wheels on this. Cheers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yellowboat 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 mistaken and your terminology is incorrect. Please leave the term "US Judicial System" out of the equation. He wasn't in the US and he wasn't subject to the US Judicial System. Prisoners of war aren't entitled to US due process. "Oh so much for the Constitution" is wrong. He had no Constitutional rights because he isn't American and he wasn't in America. He was a prisoner of war under military laws and jurisdiction pertaining to prisoners of war. He had no rights or access to the American Judicial System. You're spinning your wheels on this. Cheers. You and others who choose to look the other way are also spinning their wheels. He was in US custody. He was cleared of all charges 10 years ago. The US judicial system failed to convey justice. The US military is part of that system. You are standing by a framework which is flawed in its unfairness.. These men should have gotten trails or let go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seastallion Posted October 31, 2015 Share Posted October 31, 2015 Simply because the concept of helping others may be an alien notion to you, it doesn't mean that others think so insularly. not alien not nonsense. I dont f**** believe him ok get it Mr Naive!!! Well what do you believe? The Americans admitted years ago that he wasn't connected to terrorism. To what incriminating evidence are you privy which shows he was banged to rights? Surely it is in everyone's interest that you publish these revelations? I think if you could show a reference to where the USA admitted he had no connection with terrorism, that it would help your argument no end. When, way back during the Bush administration, they declared him able to be released because they had nothing to charge him with. 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