Should the 'UK' Guantanamo Two come 'home'?
jackkincaid
Tories are kicking up a fuss about the two 'British' inamtes of
Guantanamo Bay, about to stand trial in a military court under the
auspices of the US army, for terrorist acts in Afghanistan.
They are two of four 'British' citizens in Guantanamo Bay (I put the
word 'British' in inverted commas because arguably they have given up
their claim to British citizenship by fighting British soldiers). The
other two were arrested in Gambia, Africa, for allegedly starting an
al-Qaida cell (they say they were trying to start a peanut factory).
One of the two about to face trial was arrested in Pakistan, allegedly
helping al-Qaida members escape the oncoming Northern Alliance. The
other was caught in Afghanistan itself.
I think the US has blown its chances of being considered fair in its
treatment of these prisoners by refusing to imprison its own supporter
of al-Qaida when he was captured in an Afhan prison. By failing to do
so the US has demonstrated for all the world there is one rule for
American terrorists and another for the rest of us. If it hadn't made
that huge mistake this would be a relatively easy issue.
As it is, if Blair persuades the US to allow the four to be tried in
the UK the US will be open to the charge of favouritism - if the
British suspects are let go, why not all of the inmates? And what
would they be charged with in the UK anyway? the only law they have
allegedly broken is the aiding and abetting of an international
terrorist movement; the chances are only one of them would be
convicted for that in a UK court. It's possible that the UK could use
the International Criminal court instead, but it's unlikely that it
would secure a conviction either.
Which means at least two, possibly four, 'British' citizens will be
allowed back into the country, to enjoy all the benefits of western
democracy, when they are ideologically driven to destroy that
democracy. This - and remember, this is what those MPs are campaigning
for - will stick inn the carw of the British people. One of these
people at least no longer deserves a British passport.
Then there's the death penalty problem - whatever these people have
done, they cannot be put to death. Even for those who support it (I
don't, FWIW) know that it is not the law of the land in the UK. The US
has no right to kill British citizens, whatever they have done outside
the USA.
But what really bothers me is the campaign itself. Right now, six more
British citizens are rotting in a Saudi jail for what are obviously
trumped up charges. A cynical person might assume that Saudi Arabia
has arrested these people as a kind of 'compensation' for the four in
Guantanamo Bay - should those four be released we should probably, as
if by magic, see the release of the Saudi Six.
All those campaigners fulminating about American 'arrogance' have been
strangely silent about Saudi Arabia - even The Guardian was trying to
appeal to its readers' nostalgia for the good old days of Palmerston
(a lost cause if ever there was one), when an 'Englishman could go
anywhere in the world knowing the long arm of the British state would
protect him' where the US was concerned (Tristram Hunt, last week),
but didn't mention Saudi once. We no longer expect that protection in
the USA, necessarily, but we certainly should expect it in Saudi
Arabia. Whatever mistakes the US has made two of the people it is
putting on trial are almost certainly enemies of teh British state;
Saudi is just taking the piss.
Once again we see the political and media agenda has been hijacked.
When we should be directing our anger at our - if not enemies,
certainly not friends, in Saudi Arabia, we seem to be under direction
to make demands of our friends in America. How many British people
want these Guantanamo inmates back? I know I don't, and I don't think
most Brits do either.
So why the campaign for their trial here, but not the others? Whose
agenda is it?
Isaac Adams
news:eb35fbed.03071...@posting.google.com...
> Leftwing Labour MPs, the Liberal Democrats (inevitably) and even the
> Tories are kicking up a fuss about the two 'British' inamtes of
> Guantanamo Bay, about to stand trial in a military court under the
> auspices of the US army, for terrorist acts in Afghanistan.
>
Does Britain have a death penalty? That's what the prisoners face in the
concentration camp in Cuba.
I'd think that anyone interested in civilized values would want to get their own
people out of the hands of a murderous regime - wouldn't you?
Dirk Bruere at Neopax
> Tories are kicking up a fuss about the two 'British' inamtes of
> Guantanamo Bay, about to stand trial in a military court under the
> auspices of the US army, for terrorist acts in Afghanistan.
>
> They are two of four 'British' citizens in Guantanamo Bay (I put the
> word 'British' in inverted commas because arguably they have given up
> their claim to British citizenship by fighting British soldiers). The
Have they?
I thought that was one of the things a trial is supposed to establish.
But 'innocent until proved guilty' is just another of those inconveniences
swept aside by TWAT.
--
Dirk
The Consensus:-
The political party for the new millenium
http://www.theconsensus.org
Dave'n'Alias
"Dirk Bruere at Neopax" <di...@neopax.com> wrote in message
news:benr4b$76cm0$1...@ID-120108.news.uni-berlin.de...
>
> "jackkincaid" <theov...@another.com> wrote in message
> news:eb35fbed.03071...@posting.google.com...
> > Leftwing Labour MPs, the Liberal Democrats (inevitably) and even the
> > Tories are kicking up a fuss about the two 'British' inamtes of
> > Guantanamo Bay, about to stand trial in a military court under the
> > auspices of the US army, for terrorist acts in Afghanistan.
> >
> > They are two of four 'British' citizens in Guantanamo Bay (I put the
> > word 'British' in inverted commas because arguably they have given up
> > their claim to British citizenship by fighting British soldiers). The
>
>
> Have they?
> I thought that was one of the things a trial is supposed to establish.
> But 'innocent until proved guilty' is just another of those inconveniences
> swept aside by TWAT.
In an earlier post by you, you applaud the actions of a vigilante who tracks
down and murders a man who allegedly mugged his son. No trial or Jury there,
and yet you say "give the man a medal"
Spot the contradiction ?
Dirk Bruere at Neopax
"Dave'n'Alias" <davenalias*nospam*@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:benrgr$7aj4l$1...@ID-163212.news.uni-berlin.de...
None whatsoever.
I am simply believing the accused when he claimed he was attacked by a
mugger with a knife.
I consider such an act of self defence to be meritorious.
Of course if it turns out that he is guilty of pre-meditated murder then it
will be a different story.
Innocent until proved guilty in a court of law by ones peers.
Dave'n'Alias
Youre just a hypocrite.
delphipa
> treatment of these prisoners by refusing to imprison its own supporter
> of al-Qaida when he was captured in an Afhan prison. By failing to do
> so the US has demonstrated for all the world there is one rule for
> American terrorists and another for the rest of us. If it hadn't made
> that huge mistake this would be a relatively easy issue.
Yes there is, because US Citizens are constitutionally protected. They are
virtually guaranteed not to be treated unfairly. There was consideration of
taking a tougher route, but my guess is that Bush didn't want to get into a
constitutional legal battle.
Dirk Bruere at Neopax
The crux of both cases is 'innocent until proved guilty in court by a jury
of their peers'.
You are just an ignorant bigot.
Dave'n'Alias
> You are just an ignorant bigot.
In other words I have nailed you again and you cant handle it...
Dirk Bruere at Neopax
The bit you seem incapable of understanding is 'innocent until proved guilty
in a court of law by a jury of ones peers'.
Is that really so difficult for you to understand?
Dave'n'Alias
>
> "Dave'n'Alias" <davenalias*nospam*@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:benvu4$63319$1...@ID-163212.news.uni-berlin.de...
> >
> > "Dirk Bruere at Neopax" <di...@neopax.com> wrote in message
> > news:benvli$79kih$1...@ID-120108.news.uni-berlin.de...
> > >
> > > "Dave'n'Alias" <davenalias*nospam*@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> >
> > > You are just an ignorant bigot.
> >
> > In other words I have nailed you again and you cant handle it...
> >
>
> The bit you seem incapable of understanding is 'innocent until proved
guilty
> in a court of law by a jury of ones peers'.
> Is that really so difficult for you to understand?
You seem incapable of understanding your blatant contradiction.
You moan about the injustice of the prisoners in Cuba and talk of innocent
until proven guilty and then openly applaud a vigilante who murders an
alleged mugger..
So whats it to be Dirk, innocent until proven guilty, but only when it suits
your politics and beliefs ?
Dirk Bruere at Neopax
'Murders'?
And what jury returned that verdict?
Dave'n'Alias
Ok.. "killed"
In the same thread you recommend that people should deal with alleged
muggers in the following way:-
Dirk Bruere Wrote:-
".... we should just advise them to sneak up behind with a baseball bat -
and a few friends"
See your contradiction yet ?
Dirk Bruere at Neopax
>
> > > > >
> > > > > > You are just an ignorant bigot.
> > > > >
> > > > > In other words I have nailed you again and you cant handle it...
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > The bit you seem incapable of understanding is 'innocent until
proved
> > > guilty
> > > > in a court of law by a jury of ones peers'.
> > > > Is that really so difficult for you to understand?
> > >
> > > You seem incapable of understanding your blatant contradiction.
> > >
> > > You moan about the injustice of the prisoners in Cuba and talk of
> innocent
> > > until proven guilty and then openly applaud a vigilante who murders an
> > > alleged mugger..
> >
> > 'Murders'?
> > And what jury returned that verdict?
>
> Ok.. "killed"
>
> In the same thread you recommend that people should deal with alleged
> muggers in the following way:-
>
> Dirk Bruere Wrote:-
> ".... we should just advise them to sneak up behind with a baseball bat -
> and a few friends"
>
> See your contradiction yet ?
Hardly, since we are speaking of apprehending a mugger who was allegedly
armed.
Personally, I fancy my chances alone.
No doubt you favour simply reporting your sighting of said mugger to the
police who will follow it up a few days later.
Dave'n'Alias
By sneaking up behind with a baseball bat..
No trial, no jury...
and then you whinge about 'innocent until proven guilty' in Cuba...
> Personally, I fancy my chances alone.
Judge, jury, and executioner eh Dirk... ?
XpatriotgamesX
>From: "Dirk Bruere at Neopax" di...@neopax.com
>Date: 7/11/2003 8:35 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <benvli$79kih$1...@ID-120108.news.uni-berlin.de>
Did you ever notice that when someone loses an argument in this ng, they always
call the other poster a racist or a bigot.
Dirk Bruere at Neopax
A citizens arrest, using a minimum of force.
Abu-Alwafa
Deport all muslims to there, then use them for fertiliser.
"jackkincaid" <theov...@another.com> wrote in message
news:eb35fbed.03071...@posting.google.com...
jackkincaid
> "jackkincaid" <theov...@another.com> wrote in message
> news:eb35fbed.03071...@posting.google.com...
> > Leftwing Labour MPs, the Liberal Democrats (inevitably) and even the
> > Tories are kicking up a fuss about the two 'British' inamtes of
> > Guantanamo Bay, about to stand trial in a military court under the
> > auspices of the US army, for terrorist acts in Afghanistan.
> >
> > They are two of four 'British' citizens in Guantanamo Bay (I put the
> > word 'British' in inverted commas because arguably they have given up
> > their claim to British citizenship by fighting British soldiers). The
>
>
> Have they?
'arguably' yes (hence the use of that word).
If you're asking me what do I think - do I suspect they are guilty -
then my answer is, at least a sfar as the first two are concerned -
yes. The other day, on a radio phone-in, I heard a guy say (here in
London) a friend of his had gone to Afghanistan to fight the US and UK
troops. He was killed out there, but had he survived he (the caller)
thought it would be perfectly OK for him to come back to Britain - he
was a British citizen - and carry on his life as normal.
It's said there were 250 British Muslims who went out there (100 or so
from the US and Canada), though the vast majority turned back at
Pakistan. I would guess we could multiply that number by 10, at least,
to find the number of sympathisers. And there seems to be a complete
innocence among them at what their actions and beliefs actually
*mean*.
I'm not entirely blaming them - they are almost all of Pakistani
descent, probably with family in the region, probably the victims of
extremist propaganda in the mosque, probably suffering under the
delusion that some great war between Islam and the infidel was about
to kick off. Which means someone has to make crystal clear to them -
to Muslijms in Europe generally (I'm not sure this is a problem for
Americans) - that if you support the destruction of the nation state,
in favour of a worldwide 'caliphate', you cannot consider yourself a
loyal citizen of a nation state. And if you act on that belief -
whether you go on 'jihad' abroad or simply hand over money to
extremist Muslim 'charities' at the mosque - you should forfeit your
right to that citizenship.
Guantanamo Bay is not the ideal way of teaching that lesson, but in
the absence of any politicians anywhere capable of making the case for
cultural and political loyalty without descending into racism or
denial of religious belief altogether, it's all we have.
> I thought that was one of the things a trial is supposed to establish.
Quite. If they stay in Guantanamo bay they will get that trial. If
they come back to the UK, because they will not have broken any
existing UK laws, all but one of them probably won't. So no lesson
will be learned, and given that the media obsession on intelligence
cock-ups in Iraq will make western governments ever more reluctant to
take on extremists abroad again, they will surely do it again (and the
result will be, another attack on a big US city).
> But 'innocent until proved guilty' is just another of those inconveniences
> swept aside by TWAT.
They are innocent in the eyes of the law, but that doesn't mean we
aren't free to make up our own minds about them. I think the one
caught with a gun in Afghanistan is guilty of de facto membership of
an extremist political movement, and of terrorism (life imprisonment).
The one caught in Pakistan trying to help Talibannies escape our
troops is probably guilty only of the former (five years). The two
caught in Gambia should probably go free.
The six in Saudi Arabia - who will have no proper legal aid, who will
be tried according to a system very similar to Guantanamo Bay's, and
who also face a death penalty - are almost certainly political
prisoners. If British MPs want a campaign to get their teeth into, why
aren't they looking east? Why are they looking west? Whose agenda is
it?
lefty
The UK Guantanamo Nine should come 'home'!!!
Dirk Bruere at Neopax
"jackkincaid" <theov...@another.com> wrote in message
news:eb35fbed.03071...@posting.google.com...
> > > They are two of four 'British' citizens in Guantanamo Bay (I put the
> > > word 'British' in inverted commas because arguably they have given up
> > > their claim to British citizenship by fighting British soldiers). The
> >
> >
> > Have they?
>
> 'arguably' yes (hence the use of that word).
>
>...
> I'm not entirely blaming them - they are almost all of Pakistani
> descent, probably with family in the region, probably the victims of
> extremist propaganda in the mosque, probably suffering under the
> delusion that some great war between Islam and the infidel was about
> to kick off. Which means someone has to make crystal clear to them -
> to Muslijms in Europe generally (I'm not sure this is a problem for
> Americans) - that if you support the destruction of the nation state,
> in favour of a worldwide 'caliphate', you cannot consider yourself a
> loyal citizen of a nation state. And if you act on that belief -
> whether you go on 'jihad' abroad or simply hand over money to
> extremist Muslim 'charities' at the mosque - you should forfeit your
> right to that citizenship.
There are already British laws that cover such a situation.
> > I thought that was one of the things a trial is supposed to establish.
>
> Quite. If they stay in Guantanamo bay they will get that trial. If
No they won't.
It's a kangaroo court.
> they come back to the UK, because they will not have broken any
> existing UK laws, all but one of them probably won't. So no lesson
> will be learned, and given that the media obsession on intelligence
It is not a question of 'lessons' but about establishing what laws have been
broken (if any) on what evidence.
If evidence cannot be supplied that would stand up in a BRITISH court, they
should be released.
>
> > But 'innocent until proved guilty' is just another of those
inconveniences
> > swept aside by TWAT.
> They are innocent in the eyes of the law, but that doesn't mean we
> aren't free to make up our own minds about them. I think the one
> caught with a gun in Afghanistan is guilty of de facto membership of
> an extremist political movement, and of terrorism (life imprisonment).
Not necessarily.
Backdating laws is unethical as well as (probably) being illegal under
international law.
And if he was involved in the WTC attack I expect evidence to prove this
'beyond reasonable doubt'.
> The one caught in Pakistan trying to help Talibannies escape our
> troops is probably guilty only of the former (five years). The two
> caught in Gambia should probably go free.
Perhaps.
It remains for a BRITISH court to determine that.
> The six in Saudi Arabia - who will have no proper legal aid, who will
> be tried according to a system very similar to Guantanamo Bay's, and
> who also face a death penalty - are almost certainly political
> prisoners. If British MPs want a campaign to get their teeth into, why
> aren't they looking east? Why are they looking west? Whose agenda is
> it?
Hey! Look how good the US kangaroo court is compared to the Saudi kangaroo
court!
Makes one proud to be a US ally doesn't it.
Dave'n'Alias
Oh right..... I see... that would be minimal force as in:- Sneaking up
behind the alleged attacker with a baseball bat....
Steve Smith
> So why the campaign for their trial here, but not the others? Whose
> agenda is it?
Interesting isn't it? Glad you see beyond the media presentation and express
it so cogently. Personally I don't want these 'British' citizens back, I
agree they have chosen where their loyalties lie. The bandwagon does seem to
rolling on this one though, with even the Daily Mail in tow! Haven't met any
real Brits who care if the AQ chaps fry or not though, despite the media and
the MPs brouhaha.
Steve
Steve Smith
snipped
> > The six in Saudi Arabia - who will have no proper legal aid, who will
> > be tried according to a system very similar to Guantanamo Bay's, and
> > who also face a death penalty - are almost certainly political
> > prisoners. If British MPs want a campaign to get their teeth into, why
> > aren't they looking east? Why are they looking west? Whose agenda is
> > it?
>
> Hey! Look how good the US kangaroo court is compared to the Saudi kangaroo
> court!
> Makes one proud to be a US ally doesn't it.
>
> --
> Dirk
Answer the question Dirk.
STeve
XpatriotgamesX
>From: theov...@another.com (jackkincaid)
>Date: 7/11/2003 5:17 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <eb35fbed.03071...@posting.google.com>
>
>Leftwing Labour MPs, the Liberal Democrats (inevitably) and even the
>Tories are kicking up a fuss about the two 'British' inamtes of
>Guantanamo Bay, about to stand trial in a military court under the
>auspices of the US army, for terrorist acts in Afghanistan.
>
>They are two of four 'British' citizens in Guantanamo Bay (I put the
>word 'British' in inverted commas because arguably they have given up
>their claim to British citizenship by fighting British soldiers). The
>other two were arrested in Gambia, Africa, for allegedly starting an
>al-Qaida cell (they say they were trying to start a peanut factory).
>One of the two about to face trial was arrested in Pakistan, allegedly
>helping al-Qaida members escape the oncoming Northern Alliance. The
>other was caught in Afghanistan itself.
>
When you commit crimes in a foreign country, you should expect to face the
consequences of your crimes according to the laws of the those currently in
power. It is ludicrous for Britain to demand the return of these illegal
combatants under the guise of being British citizens.
>I think the US has blown its chances of being considered fair in its
>treatment of these prisoners by refusing to imprison its own supporter
>of al-Qaida when he was captured in an Afhan prison. By failing to do
>so the US has demonstrated for all the world there is one rule for
>American terrorists and another for the rest of us. If it hadn't made
>that huge mistake this would be a relatively easy issue.
Fair? You want fairness when dealing with terrorists? First you are ahead of
yourself because you don't know yet what their fate will be. I opt to let a
military tribunal decide. Also unfair would be to return these terrorists to
the UK where they might be released to continue where they left off.
XpatriotgamesX
>From: "lefty" lefty...@hotmail.com
>Date: 7/12/2003 1:20 AM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <5xPPa.9243$__4.703...@news-text.cableinet.net>
>
>
>"jackkincaid" <theov...@another.com> wrote in message
>news:eb35fbed.03071...@posting.google.com...
>
>The UK Guantanamo Nine should come 'home'!!!
>
Yea, in boxes.
Isaac Adams
news:20030712111956...@mb-m27.aol.com...
> >Subject: Should the 'UK' Guantanamo Two come 'home'?
> >From: theov...@another.com (jackkincaid)
> >Date: 7/11/2003 5:17 PM Pacific Daylight Time
> >Message-id: <eb35fbed.03071...@posting.google.com>
> >
> >Leftwing Labour MPs, the Liberal Democrats (inevitably) and even the
> >Tories are kicking up a fuss about the two 'British' inamtes of
> >Guantanamo Bay, about to stand trial in a military court under the
> >auspices of the US army, for terrorist acts in Afghanistan.
> >
> >They are two of four 'British' citizens in Guantanamo Bay (I put the
> >word 'British' in inverted commas because arguably they have given up
> >their claim to British citizenship by fighting British soldiers). The
> >other two were arrested in Gambia, Africa, for allegedly starting an
> >al-Qaida cell (they say they were trying to start a peanut factory).
> >One of the two about to face trial was arrested in Pakistan, allegedly
> >helping al-Qaida members escape the oncoming Northern Alliance. The
> >other was caught in Afghanistan itself.
> >
>
>
> When you commit crimes in a foreign country, you should expect to face the
> consequences of your crimes according to the laws of the those currently in
> power.
And ONLY those laws of the country you are in.
I believe you might be correct. Turn them over to the Taliban.
Wotan
Yes. The UK is the only place they are going to get a
fair trial.
Wotan
Steve Smith <SteveS...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:bep8gf$7iep9$1...@ID-123292.news.uni-berlin.de...
Would you know a "real Brit" if you met one ?
Are you one ?
"Real Brit's" believe, passionately, in fair play and justice for all.
You clearly don't - so you clearly arn't.
On the other hand, the only people slavering for vengeance against
the so-called "terrorists" are the Jews.
Nick Kersdown
> Yes. The UK is the only place they are going to get a
> fair trial.
Is this the same UK that according to you is overrun with 'Zionists' and 'EU
traitors' and 'Marxists'?
--
Nick Kersdown
http://www.banksy.co.uk/menu.html
Frank X
> strangely silent about Saudi Arabia - even The Guardian was trying to
> appeal to its readers' nostalgia for the good old days of Palmerston
> (a lost cause if ever there was one), when an 'Englishman could go
> anywhere in the world knowing the long arm of the British state would
> protect him' where the US was concerned (Tristram Hunt, last week),
> but didn't mention Saudi once. We no longer expect that protection in
> the USA, necessarily, but we certainly should expect it in Saudi
> Arabia. Whatever mistakes the US has made two of the people it is
> putting on trial are almost certainly enemies of teh British state;
> Saudi is just taking the piss.
>
I actually think that the Saudi regime is evil an corrupt. However each
country needs a legal system to enforce law and order. The people held in
Saudi Arabia chose to go to that country knowing its legal system was
questionable, we should complain but ultimately this is the way Saudi
justice has always worked.
The people held in Guantanimo are being held outside any legal system, they
are not being tried under the laws of the countries they were in. They are
not even being tried under the laws of the USA. The USA is our closest ally.
You seem to live in a witch-hunt fantasy land where you make totally
unfounded statements about matters you know nothing about. The people *on
trial are almost certainly enemies of the British state*. You don't know
diddly, you are just a nasty small minded bigot yelling witch.
Tarkan
useless baboons' wellfare, in case you get them to the UK? Let them
stay in Guantanamo where operating costs are considerably lower.
Just a thought....
TARKAN THE TURK!!!
"Dirk Bruere at Neopax" <di...@neopax.com> wrote in message news:<beohve$7af14$1...@ID-120108.news.uni-berlin.de>...
Dirk Bruere at Neopax
The answer is simple.
Both are unjust kangaroo courts by unpleasant regimes and we should be doing
our best to get our citizens out.
Dave'n'Alias
> Both are unjust kangaroo courts by unpleasant regimes and we should be
doing
> our best to get our citizens out.
The US is not an unpleasant regime.
A military tribunal is fair and just under the cicrcumstances under which
the detainees were apprehended.
Dirk Bruere at Neopax
>
> "Dirk Bruere at Neopax" <di...@neopax.com> wrote in message
> >
> > The answer is simple.
> > Both are unjust kangaroo courts by unpleasant regimes and we should be
> doing
> > our best to get our citizens out.
>
> The US is not an unpleasant regime.
This one is.
> A military tribunal is fair and just under the cicrcumstances under which
> the detainees were apprehended.
I don't think so, nor apparently do most of our citizens.
Dave'n'Alias
>
> "Dave'n'Alias" <davenalias*nospam*@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:beqidh$8590q$1...@ID-163212.news.uni-berlin.de...
> >
> > "Dirk Bruere at Neopax" <di...@neopax.com> wrote in message
> > >
> > > The answer is simple.
> > > Both are unjust kangaroo courts by unpleasant regimes and we should be
> > doing
> > > our best to get our citizens out.
> >
> > The US is not an unpleasant regime.
>
> This one is.
Nope, not even close.
>
> > A military tribunal is fair and just under the cicrcumstances under
which
> > the detainees were apprehended.
>
> I don't think so, nor apparently do most of our citizens.
You dont know that.
Steve Smith
you only care about them because you perceive Islam to be an ally to you
against the Jews. What you fail to understand is that both rampant Zionism
and rampant Islam are equally abhorent to our way of life.
And no, I am not Jewish, and yes, I am English going back I don't know how
far.
Steve
tucobeneditopacificojuanmariaramirez
::When you've made a few posts attacking Israel or the Jewnited Snakes of Scamerica we may take you seriously
::Bring the lads home to a heroes welcome
Steve Glynn
Nor do you know the 'circumstances under which they were apprehended'.
The parents of one of the British detainees who's facing charges vehemently
deny he was involved in any fighting. They allege he and his young family
went out some months previously to teach there and help with getting wells
sunk in various villages and that he was picked up by the US forces by
mistake when they discovered he had a British passport. I don't know if
this verson of events is correct any more than do you.
Nor do you, I, or anyone else (including the Americans) know what the
charges against the British detainees are going to be, come to that.
What we do know is that they'll be tried under far less favourable
conditions than would an American citizen arrested under similar
circumstances (which is what infuriates me). We also know that it's
impossible to say how fair or otherwise these military tribunals are going
to be since they've been set up and are to operate under laws written
specially for the occasion (perhaps you're confusing them with the court
martial an American serviceman might face if accused of a military crime --
they aren't the same thing at all). We also know, come to that, that in
some ways these men will be tried under less favourable terms than were the
senior Nazis at Nuremburg and that up to now the detainees' treatment has
been utterly unheard of in international law, as are these proposed
'tribunals'.
Doesn't fill me with confidence.
What is the objection to sending them back here along with any evidence
against them so long as we guarantee to prosecute them on appropriate
charges? After all, we did exactly that with after WW2 with the handful
of men who joined the Nazis' 'British Freikorps'. Remember that if the
basis of the Americans' detaining these men -- that they're 'unlawful
combatants' -- can be proved they're looking at treason charges, since that
means they were fighting against us.
Steve
jackkincaid
> broken (if any) on what evidence.
> If evidence cannot be supplied that would stand up in a BRITISH court, they
> should be released.
> court!
> Makes one proud to be a US ally doesn't it.
You're talking shite, son. They committed their alleged crimes in
Afghanistan, not Britain. If Afghanistan were a functioning state they
should stand trial there. Failing that, the ICC (but Afghanistan is
not a signatory), failing that the USA, because they are legitimate US
POWs.
There is no reason at all for them to stand trial in Britain, and the
only relevant law that could be applied to them is treachery, which
the government is reluctant to do because it would make a precedent,
that all Muslims who go on 'jihad' abroad are traitors (sounds OK to
me, but I'm not a politician).
And since they gave up their moral right to be considered British by
going into a war zone to aid the enemy (the two caught in Gambia
aside) we shouldn't care what happens to them anyway. They aren't our
problem.
No, the only problems with the proposed court is a) it may insist on
the death penalty (which we don't have) and b) there are no Americans
standing trial, even though one was caught out there.
But all this is beside the point. If you think the USruns a kangaroo
court (I don't) we all know for certain Saudi Arabia does, and it
*might* be the case tyhat Saudi - the chief fundraiser for Islamic
terrorism - has deliberately imprisoned six British citizens pending
the release of nine (not four, as I thought originally) 'Brits' in
Guantanamo Bay. It is to Riyadh that our attention should be directed,
not Washington.
Dave'n'Alias
"Steve Glynn" <steve...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:berafm$85d8n$2...@ID-139981.news.uni-berlin.de...
> > which
> > > > the detainees were apprehended.
> > >
> > > I don't think so, nor apparently do most of our citizens.
> >
> > You dont know that.
> >
>
> Nor do you know the 'circumstances under which they were apprehended'.
We do know the circumstances, we dont know if they are innocent or guilty,
but under the circumstances of their capture, a US military tribunal is fair
and just imo.
Logos
their sentence. After that, as they are muslim, they have to be sent
to Saudi Arabia which will consider what threatment they deserve.
All western country should withdraw the citizenship to the muslims who
made terrorism and they should send them in Saudi Arabia, as a hub for
the "final" destinations.
Logos
The Reverend Bob
pointless meandering on Fri, 11 Jul 2003 23:36:33 -0400:
>Yes there is, because US Citizens are constitutionally protected. They are
>virtually guaranteed not to be treated unfairly. There was consideration of
>taking a tougher route, but my guess is that Bush didn't want to get into a
>constitutional legal battle.
Have you taken the time to actually read the USA-PATRIOT Act or the
Domestic Security Enhancement Act? If not, i suggest you do and you'll
see *exactly* what this US administration thinks of the Constitution
of the United States.
I'm not particularly optimistic of the current Supreme Court striking
down the contentious portions of those Acts either, given that they
helped put the administration into power...
--
contact: rev...@hotmail.com
"That was the explanantion for the Gotterdamerung;
not suicidal murderers in high places, but simply the logic of the system."
- Antarctica: A Novel, Kim Stanley Robinson
lefty
> "Dirk Bruere at Neopax" <di...@neopax.com> wrote in message
news:<beohve$7af14$1...@ID-120108.news.uni-berlin.de>...
> > "jackkincaid" <theov...@another.com> wrote in message
> > There are already British laws that cover such a situation.
> > It's a kangaroo court.
> > It is not a question of 'lessons' but about establishing what laws have
been
> > broken (if any) on what evidence.
> > If evidence cannot be supplied that would stand up in a BRITISH court,
they
> > should be released.
> > It remains for a BRITISH court to determine that.
> > Hey! Look how good the US kangaroo court is compared to the Saudi
kangaroo
> > court!
> > Makes one proud to be a US ally doesn't it.
>
> You're talking shite, son. They committed their alleged crimes in
> Afghanistan, not Britain. If Afghanistan were a functioning state they
> should stand trial there. Failing that, the ICC (but Afghanistan is
> not a signatory), failing that the USA, because they are legitimate US
> POWs.
And they should be given a trial as POWs under the Geneva Convention and not
some kangaroo court dreamed up by the Americans!
Dave'n'Alias
"lefty" <lefty...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:mhkQa.10931$zp5.83...@news-text.cableinet.net...
Unlawful combatants are not covered by the Geneva Convention....
lefty
into different categories depending on their actions. The three main ones
are civilians, comabatants and prisoners or war. There is no such thing in
the Geneva Convention as unlawful combatants.
Dave'n'Alias
>
> "Dave'n'Alias" <davenalias*nospam*@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:beskh2$8hf8o$1...@ID-163212.news.uni-berlin.de...
> > Unlawful combatants are not covered by the Geneva Convention....
> >
> EVERYONE is covered by the Geneva Convention!!!
Not according to the US.
> It puts different people
> into different categories depending on their actions. The three main ones
> are civilians, comabatants and prisoners or war. There is no such thing in
> the Geneva Convention as unlawful combatants.
Its all bullshit when dealing with groups like AQ or the Taleban, what the
hell do they care for the Geneva Convention ?
The US is behaving rationally and sensibly in its dealings with the
Guantanamo prisoners. The prisoners are being kept warm, clothed, fed,
washed, and have religious freedom. Not bad under the circumstances...
XpatriotgamesX
>From: "lefty" lefty...@hotmail.com
>Date: 7/13/2003 10:51 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <yxrQa.11236$we7.84...@news-text.cableinet.net>
That would be incorrect. There certainly is a category for unlawful combatants.
Unlawful/illegal combatants are fighters who do not play by the accepted rules
of war, and therefore do not qualify for the Convention's protections.
lefty
>
> "lefty" <lefty...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:yxrQa.11236$we7.84...@news-text.cableinet.net...
> >
> > "Dave'n'Alias" <davenalias*nospam*@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> > news:beskh2$8hf8o$1...@ID-163212.news.uni-berlin.de...
>
> > > Unlawful combatants are not covered by the Geneva Convention....
> > >
> > EVERYONE is covered by the Geneva Convention!!!
>
> Not according to the US.
That's because they are an arrogant bunch of c***s
>
> > It puts different people
> > into different categories depending on their actions. The three main
ones
> > are civilians, comabatants and prisoners or war. There is no such thing
in
> > the Geneva Convention as unlawful combatants.
>
> Its all bullshit when dealing with groups like AQ or the Taleban, what the
> hell do they care for the Geneva Convention ?
It doesn't matter the US signed the Geneva Convention and they are bound by
it.
>
> The US is behaving rationally and sensibly in its dealings with the
> Guantanamo prisoners.
The yare breaking the law!
> The prisoners are being kept warm, clothed, fed,
> washed, and have religious freedom. Not bad under the circumstances...
>
Well maybe not bad, until they get executed without trial.
Steve Glynn
Really? Bear in mind that one of the British citizens wass apparently
arrested in Pakistan some time after hostilities ended.
In any case, why do these military tribunals seem fair and just to you?
Remember that the US clearly don't consider them fair and just for US
citizens, like John Walker Lindh (a US citizen from California who was
captured fighting to the Taleban). He was tried before a Federal court,
and I for one strongly object to British citizens being tried on a less
favourable basis than foriegners.
Bear in mind, too, that these military tribunals are completely outside both
the US civilian and military legal systems. Every procedural priviliege
the accused is granted -- choice of lawyer, access to evidence against him,
right to appeal -- is precisely that: a privilege granted by members of a
single chain of command leading back to the Secretary of State for Defence
and the President These chaps (who will hear final appeals) have already
described the defendants, and everyone else in the camp, as 'killers' and
'the worst of the worst'. Both the trials themselves and appeals against
conviction or sentence are completely outside any sort of independent
judicial authority. This is unheard of in British law since the middle
ages.
Furthermore, even if the accused are acquitted, that's no guarantee they'll
be freed. They can quite easily be returned indefinately to Guantanamo
Bay to continue in a legal limbo unheard of in any form of international
law.
Does this strike you as a proper way to conduct a trial?
Send them back here and let us try them for treason under known laws and
proceedures and with appropriate safeguards and rights of appeal.
Steve
Nick Cooper
"Unlawful combatants" is not a status recognised by the Geneva
Convention - it is a self-serving piece of legal sleight-of-hand
dreamt up by the United States in an attempt to side-step
international law.
Dave'n'Alias
Then its time the law was changed eh dopey !
Dave'n'Alias
There are plenty of Britons languishing in prisons the world over, many
having received little or no justice - indeed far less than the US is
planning for those in Cuba. And yet I dont see anyone here campaigning on
their behalf......
Lets face it not many here really care about the so called principle, its
just another excuse for a bit of yankee bashing...
Dirk Bruere at Neopax
And the procedures for changing those conventions exist.
Except the US is not going to be attempting it simply because nobody would
agree with their stance.
Steve Glynn
Who? Where? Please forward further and better particulars to
Fair Trials Abroad
at
http://www.f-t-a.freeserve.co.uk/home.htm
> Lets face it not many here really care about the so called principle, its
> just another excuse for a bit of yankee bashing...
>
Bugger what many here think. Take your ideas about how things should be
done from UK Politics Misc and we'll be off to hell in a handcart rather
quickly.
What the Americans are trying to do would be a disgrace even by the
standards of Robert Mugabe's jurisprudence.
Steve
Matthew Robb
<davenalias*nospam*@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> The answer is simple.
>> Both are unjust kangaroo courts by unpleasant regimes and we should be
>doing
>> our best to get our citizens out.
>
>The US is not an unpleasant regime.
>
>A military tribunal is fair and just under the cicrcumstances under which
>the detainees were apprehended.
Crap. They're missing even the basics of 'fair trial', including
independent appeal, right to select your own lawyer, etc
Oh, and the fact that even if found innocent, tehy can still be
detained
cheers
matt
Matthew Robb
wrote:
>And since they gave up their moral right to be considered British by
>going into a war zone to aid the enemy (the two caught in Gambia
>aside) we shouldn't care what happens to them anyway. They aren't our
>problem.
I don't agree. Firstly we don't know that they did go there to fight.
Secondly, taking arms against the state doesn't invalidate
citizenship. Were Spaniards fighting Franco no longer Spanish?
>No, the only problems with the proposed court is a) it may insist on
>the death penalty (which we don't have) and b) there are no Americans
>standing trial, even though one was caught out there.
And there's no indpeendent appeal, being found innocent won't eman you
will no longer be incarcerated, you can't choose your own lawyer, and
teh proecuting authority retains teh right to change the rules at any
time
>But all this is beside the point. If you think the USruns a kangaroo
>court (I don't) we all know for certain Saudi Arabia does, and it
>*might* be the case tyhat Saudi - the chief fundraiser for Islamic
>terrorism - has deliberately imprisoned six British citizens pending
>the release of nine (not four, as I thought originally) 'Brits' in
>Guantanamo Bay. It is to Riyadh that our attention should be directed,
>not Washington.
Not an either/or decision?
cheers
matt
Matthew Robb
<davenalias*nospam*@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> It puts different people
>> into different categories depending on their actions. The three main ones
>> are civilians, comabatants and prisoners or war. There is no such thing in
>> the Geneva Convention as unlawful combatants.
>
>Its all bullshit when dealing with groups like AQ or the Taleban, what the
>hell do they care for the Geneva Convention ?
That ain't the point. The question is do *we* care for the Geneva
Convention?
>The US is behaving rationally and sensibly in its dealings with the
>Guantanamo prisoners. The prisoners are being kept warm, clothed, fed,
>washed, and have religious freedom. Not bad under the circumstances...
Just being held indefinitely without trial. It's not even proven that
they were all involved in fighting
cheers
matt
James Hammerton
> Leftwing Labour MPs, the Liberal Democrats (inevitably) and even the
> Tories are kicking up a fuss about the two 'British' inamtes of
> Guantanamo Bay, about to stand trial in a military court under the
> auspices of the US army, for terrorist acts in Afghanistan.
>
> They are two of four 'British' citizens in Guantanamo Bay (I put the
> word 'British' in inverted commas because arguably they have given up
> their claim to British citizenship by fighting British soldiers).
Surely, whether or not they fought British (or American) soldiers is
up to the courts to decide?
> The
> other two were arrested in Gambia, Africa, for allegedly starting an
> al-Qaida cell (they say they were trying to start a peanut factory).
> One of the two about to face trial was arrested in Pakistan, allegedly
> helping al-Qaida members escape the oncoming Northern Alliance. The
> other was caught in Afghanistan itself.
>
> I think the US has blown its chances of being considered fair in its
> treatment of these prisoners by refusing to imprison its own supporter
> of al-Qaida when he was captured in an Afhan prison. By failing to do
> so the US has demonstrated for all the world there is one rule for
> American terrorists and another for the rest of us. If it hadn't made
> that huge mistake this would be a relatively easy issue.
>
> As it is, if Blair persuades the US to allow the four to be tried in
> the UK the US will be open to the charge of favouritism - if the
> British suspects are let go, why not all of the inmates? And what
> would they be charged with in the UK anyway? the only law they have
> allegedly broken is the aiding and abetting of an international
> terrorist movement; the chances are only one of them would be
> convicted for that in a UK court. It's possible that the UK could use
> the International Criminal court instead, but it's unlikely that it
> would secure a conviction either.
Britain itself jails foreign nationals without trial on the basis
of secret evidence and restricted access to lawyers (remember the
ATCS Act 2001?)...
> Which means at least two, possibly four, 'British' citizens will be
> allowed back into the country, to enjoy all the benefits of western
> democracy, when they are ideologically driven to destroy that
> democracy.
This fact has been established how?
> This - and remember, this is what those MPs are campaigning
> for - will stick inn the carw of the British people. One of these
> people at least no longer deserves a British passport.
Why?
> Then there's the death penalty problem - whatever these people have
> done, they cannot be put to death. Even for those who support it (I
> don't, FWIW) know that it is not the law of the land in the UK. The US
> has no right to kill British citizens, whatever they have done outside
> the USA.
>
> But what really bothers me is the campaign itself. Right now, six more
> British citizens are rotting in a Saudi jail for what are obviously
> trumped up charges. A cynical person might assume that Saudi Arabia
> has arrested these people as a kind of 'compensation' for the four in
> Guantanamo Bay - should those four be released we should probably, as
> if by magic, see the release of the Saudi Six.
>
> All those campaigners fulminating about American 'arrogance' have been
> strangely silent about Saudi Arabia - even The Guardian was trying to
> appeal to its readers' nostalgia for the good old days of Palmerston
> (a lost cause if ever there was one), when an 'Englishman could go
> anywhere in the world knowing the long arm of the British state would
> protect him' where the US was concerned (Tristram Hunt, last week),
> but didn't mention Saudi once. We no longer expect that protection in
> the USA, necessarily, but we certainly should expect it in Saudi
> Arabia. Whatever mistakes the US has made two of the people it is
> putting on trial are almost certainly enemies of teh British state;
> Saudi is just taking the piss.
You're right about the lack of attention being paid to British
captives in other countries...
> Once again we see the political and media agenda has been hijacked.
> When we should be directing our anger at our - if not enemies,
> certainly not friends, in Saudi Arabia, we seem to be under direction
> to make demands of our friends in America. How many British people
> want these Guantanamo inmates back? I know I don't, and I don't think
> most Brits do either.
>
> So why the campaign for their trial here, but not the others? Whose
> agenda is it?
Good question.
James
--
James Hammerton
http://www.let.rug.nl/~james
http://www.tardis.ed.ac.uk/~james (mirrored at above site)
Contributor to http://www.magnacartaplus.org/
James Hammerton
> "Dirk Bruere at Neopax" <di...@neopax.com> wrote in message news:<benr4b$76cm0$1...@ID-120108.news.uni-berlin.de>...
> > "jackkincaid" <theov...@another.com> wrote in message
> > news:eb35fbed.03071...@posting.google.com...
> > > Leftwing Labour MPs, the Liberal Democrats (inevitably) and even the
> > > Tories are kicking up a fuss about the two 'British' inamtes of
> > > Guantanamo Bay, about to stand trial in a military court under the
> > > auspices of the US army, for terrorist acts in Afghanistan.
> > >
> > > They are two of four 'British' citizens in Guantanamo Bay (I put the
> > > word 'British' in inverted commas because arguably they have given up
> > > their claim to British citizenship by fighting British soldiers). The
> >
> >
> > Have they?
>
> 'arguably' yes (hence the use of that word).
>
> If you're asking me what do I think - do I suspect they are guilty -
> then my answer is, at least a sfar as the first two are concerned -
> yes.
But surely whether or not you think they are guilty should have no
bearing on whether they receive a fair trial where to be found guilty
they must be proven to be guilty BRD? And secret evidence is not used.
> The other day, on a radio phone-in, I heard a guy say (here in
> London) a friend of his had gone to Afghanistan to fight the US and UK
> troops. He was killed out there, but had he survived he (the caller)
> thought it would be perfectly OK for him to come back to Britain - he
> was a British citizen - and carry on his life as normal.
>
> It's said there were 250 British Muslims who went out there (100 or so
> from the US and Canada), though the vast majority turned back at
> Pakistan. I would guess we could multiply that number by 10, at least,
> to find the number of sympathisers. And there seems to be a complete
> innocence among them at what their actions and beliefs actually
> *mean*.
>
> I'm not entirely blaming them - they are almost all of Pakistani
> descent, probably with family in the region, probably the victims of
> extremist propaganda in the mosque, probably suffering under the
> delusion that some great war between Islam and the infidel was about
> to kick off. Which means someone has to make crystal clear to them -
> to Muslijms in Europe generally (I'm not sure this is a problem for
> Americans) - that if you support the destruction of the nation state,
> in favour of a worldwide 'caliphate', you cannot consider yourself a
> loyal citizen of a nation state. And if you act on that belief -
> whether you go on 'jihad' abroad or simply hand over money to
> extremist Muslim 'charities' at the mosque - you should forfeit your
> right to that citizenship.
>
> Guantanamo Bay is not the ideal way of teaching that lesson, but in
> the absence of any politicians anywhere capable of making the case for
> cultural and political loyalty without descending into racism or
> denial of religious belief altogether, it's all we have.
That's no reason not to demand a fair trial.
>
> > I thought that was one of the things a trial is supposed to establish.
>
> Quite. If they stay in Guantanamo bay they will get that trial.
There's talk of govt appointed defence and prosecutor plus secret
evidence being used. How can you trust such a system?
> If
> they come back to the UK, because they will not have broken any
> existing UK laws, all but one of them probably won't. So no lesson
> will be learned, and given that the media obsession on intelligence
> cock-ups in Iraq will make western governments ever more reluctant to
> take on extremists abroad again, they will surely do it again (and the
> result will be, another attack on a big US city).
>
> > But 'innocent until proved guilty' is just another of those inconveniences
> > swept aside by TWAT.
>
> They are innocent in the eyes of the law, but that doesn't mean we
> aren't free to make up our own minds about them.
True, but the issue is how should the US treat them, not whether you
or I think they're guilty.
> I think the one
> caught with a gun in Afghanistan is guilty of de facto membership of
> an extremist political movement,
I'm sure some American and British soldiers carried guns whilst in
Afghanistan. That does not make them de facto members of AQ or the
Taliban. What circumstances surrounded their capture? Will we ever
know?
> and of terrorism (life imprisonment).
> The one caught in Pakistan trying to help Talibannies escape our
> troops is probably guilty only of the former (five years). The two
> caught in Gambia should probably go free.
>
> The six in Saudi Arabia - who will have no proper legal aid, who will
> be tried according to a system very similar to Guantanamo Bay's, and
> who also face a death penalty - are almost certainly political
> prisoners. If British MPs want a campaign to get their teeth into, why
> aren't they looking east? Why are they looking west? Whose agenda is
> it?
I agree the agenda is hardly impartial. Hell they could even look at
home for a system where basic procedures of justice are ignored and
people locked up without trial on secret evidence...
jackkincaid
>
> And they should be given a trial as POWs under the Geneva Convention and not
> some kangaroo court dreamed up by the Americans!
Then take it up with the Americans, but please don't demand they face
trial in Britain unless you are also prepared to make the same demand
of every country in which Brits are awaiting trial under laws of which
we don't approve - such as Saudi Arabia.
And if every time a non-Brit commits a crime in Britain youb are
prtepared to send him back to his country of origin to face trial.
AFAIC the Geneva Convention is out of date. It was meant to deal with
war between nation states, which rarely happens nowadays, not between
nation states and gangs of religious zealots who perceive themselves
as members of a non-existant theocracy. We need to change
international law, but that will be one hell of a job.
jackkincaid
>
> I don't agree. Firstly we don't know that they did go there to fight.
No, that's why they are on trial. So we can find out.
I think, in at least one case, it's a pretty good bet (he was with a
Taliban army unit).
> Secondly, taking arms against the state doesn't invalidate citizenship.
Christ. See, that's the problem we have in this country - in all the
west, in fact - we have too many people who blithely shrug off
terrorism against the nation. 'So he shoots a few of our soldiers. So
what...'
Taking up arms against the state is treachery. Unfortunately, that's,
the only charge we could bring against these people and because they
weren't fighting in Britain (assuming they were fighting at all), had
British troops caught them and brought them back to the UK, they would
almost certainly get off. We obviously need to change our laws.
I think we need a law that says, if you fight against British soldiers
anywhere in the world you become their POW, and they can recommend
that you have your right to citizenship removed.
> Were Spaniards fighting Franco no longer Spanish?
The Republicans were the legitimate government of Spain, which Franco
overthrew. Your question is the wrong waty round. It should have been:
should Franco's partisans be considered Spanish?
This question begs another. Franco and the Republicans both had
distinct ideas about Spain's future - one fascist and Catholic the
other socialist and atheist. If we apply that to the present troubles,
the two distinct ideas are these: Britain as a parliamentary democracy
or Britain as an Islamic republic under Shariah law.
I would argue that these two pairs of ideas about a nation's future
are different. However unpleasant Franco's vision was, it was
definitely Spanish. So wa sthe Republican vision (by the same token,
whatever else he is Saddam is an Iraqi, and should be tried in Iraq).
But the idea that Britain should be an Islamic republic is not British
at all - it is foreign. Specifiucally, it is Arabic. So those who
promote such ideas are not to be compared to Franco's fascists, but to
the likes of William Joyce (Lord Haw Haw, who wanted Britain to become
a satelite of Nazi Germany) or Kim Philby (the Soviet spy). They are
not simply home-grown extremists, they are actually traitors to the
nation, or they become traitors as soon as they act upon their
beliefs.
The trouble is, it's incredibly difficult putting such a concept into
law - whichnis why Abu Hamza got away with his treachery for so long.
>
> And there's no indpeendent appeal, being found innocent won't eman you
> will no longer be incarcerated, you can't choose your own lawyer, and
> teh proecuting authority retains teh right to change the rules at any
> time
Yeah. Boo hoo. All this is true of the jailed Brits in Saudi Arabia.
Why aren't you concerned about them? Whose agenda are you following?
>
> Not an either/or decision?
No, not an either/or decision, whatever that means. Yoiu can't ask for
these people to be tried in Britain because they didn't commit any
crimes in Britain. Their citizenship is irrelevent - and I would
suggest that those who make these stupid demands of the Americans
should make them first to the Saudis.
If you want to complain about the nature of their trial, then first
complain about the nature of the trials of Britons in Saudi Arabia. If
you're complaining about their right of access to lawyers, complain
about the lack of access for Brits in Saudi Arabia. Either you're
sticking to a principle or you're not - you're just bashing the USA,
and if that's what you're doing, why are you doing it? Whose agenda
are you following?
Steve Glynn
> "lefty" <lefty...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<mhkQa.10931$zp5.83...@news-text.cableinet.net>...
>
> >
> > And they should be given a trial as POWs under the Geneva Convention and
not
> > some kangaroo court dreamed up by the Americans!
>
> Then take it up with the Americans, but please don't demand they face
> trial in Britain unless you are also prepared to make the same demand
> of every country in which Brits are awaiting trial under laws of which
> we don't approve - such as Saudi Arabia.
>
Which we do. The salient diference is that the Saudis have one system of
'justice' for any bugger who falls foul of them rather than one for Saudis
and another for any other poor bugger who falls foul of them, which is what
the US are doing.
Actually, you inadvertantly raise a valid point, in that the judicial regime
our fellow citizens are apparently subject to in Guantanemo Bay has most of
the more obnoxious aspects of 'justice' in the Kingdom of Saud without even
the moderating influences that judical system has.
Remember, the regime to which our fellow British citizens are subject under
President George W Bush's emergency powers is one in which every step of the
judicial process is controlled by one President George W Bush, in his
capacity as Commander in Chief of US Armed Forces. He has also announced
that he considers the internees at Guantamo Bay 'the worst of the worst'.
It is his administration, without reference to any independent prosecuting
authority, that has decided to frame charges, though no one knows yet what
they are, against the men held there outside any known international law.
God help us, in a very politically incorrect phrase from my boyhood, 'wogs
behave better' than President Bush.
Steve
jackkincaid
> But surely whether or not you think they are guilty should have no
> bearing on whether they receive a fair trial where to be found guilty
> they must be proven to be guilty BRD? And secret evidence is not used.
> That's no reason not to demand a fair trial.
> There's talk of govt appointed defence and prosecutor plus secret
> evidence being used. How can you trust such a system?
> True, but the issue is how should the US treat them, not whether you
> or I think they're guilty.
It's a trial of POWs. Therefore it has to be a military trial. It
almost certainly has to be partially secret - perhaps bits of it could
be filmed and shown later, although I fail to see what interest would
be served (in Britain it is illegal to televise trials; I'm not aware
of any great demand to change the law). Maybe there should be
observers.
My point is, all of this applies to the trial in Saudi Arabia - except
wheras the Guantanamo Bay inmates are almost certainly guilty, the
Saudi inmates are probably innocent - but nobody seems to care. Why is
that? Whose agenda is being followed?
>
> I'm sure some American and British soldiers carried guns whilst in
> Afghanistan. That does not make them de facto members of AQ or the
> Taliban.
What the hell is your problem? Are you five years old?
Yes, US and UK soldiers carry guns. That is because they are SOLDIERS.
And SOLDIERS carry GUNS. If you are not a SOLDIER, you shouldn't fly
into a WAR zone. If you do, and you carry a GUN, you will probably get
SHOT. Or captured and put on TRIAL as an enemy AGENT.
Capice?
> What circumstances surrounded their capture? Will we ever know?
I've already mentioned all this in this thread. The circumstances of
their capture has been widely publicised, nearly all the newspapers
have carried it, so have TV and radio progarmmes, and you could find
out now from the BBC website, or a hundred others.
If you haven't bothered to do so by now please don't pretend you give
a shit.
>
> I agree the agenda is hardly impartial. Hell they could even look at
> home for a system where basic procedures of justice are ignored and
> people locked up without trial on secret evidence...
Sure, you could look anywhere in the world,a t any time in history.
Life's like that - imperfect, just like us. But we still have 200 MPs
who are putting pressure on the Americans but not the Saudis. Why?
Whose agenda ... yadda yadda
Richard Dell
news:fvf8hvk1j3jhtsed9...@4ax.com...
> But the jailed Brits in Saudi Arabia will be subject to Saudi law -
> not some specially made up system intended to apply only to them.
Which is worse: an official legal system with a corrupt and incompetent police
force (Saudi), or an unofficial system with a highly competent police force
(Camp Delta)? Justice suffers in both.
James Hammerton
> James Hammerton <jamesha...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message news:<m3oezwr...@client112-26.kabela.oprit.rug.nl>...
>
> > But surely whether or not you think they are guilty should have no
> > bearing on whether they receive a fair trial where to be found guilty
> > they must be proven to be guilty BRD? And secret evidence is not used.
> > That's no reason not to demand a fair trial.
> > There's talk of govt appointed defence and prosecutor plus secret
> > evidence being used. How can you trust such a system?
> > True, but the issue is how should the US treat them, not whether you
> > or I think they're guilty.
>
> It's a trial of POWs.
Agreed but Bush regards them as "enemy combatants" not POWs.
> Therefore it has to be a military trial.
Does it?
> It almost certainly has to be partially secret
Secret from even the person who might be found guilty by the process?
> - perhaps bits of it could
> be filmed and shown later, although I fail to see what interest would
> be served (in Britain it is illegal to televise trials; I'm not aware
> of any great demand to change the law). Maybe there should be
> observers.
>
> My point is, all of this applies to the trial in Saudi Arabia
Yup.
> - except
> wheras the Guantanamo Bay inmates are almost certainly guilty,
If you accept the media's or army's accounts of how they were
captured.
> the
> Saudi inmates are probably innocent
Quite.
> - but nobody seems to care. Why is
> that? Whose agenda is being followed?
As I said I agree these are good questions/points.
> >
> > I'm sure some American and British soldiers carried guns whilst in
> > Afghanistan. That does not make them de facto members of AQ or the
> > Taliban.
>
> What the hell is your problem?
I find your reasoning suspect here -- you infered someone was guilty
from the simple fact they were in Afghanistan with a gun (and weren't
soldiers fighting for the allies).
> Are you five years old?
Nope.
> Yes, US and UK soldiers carry guns. That is because they are SOLDIERS.
> And SOLDIERS carry GUNS.
Of course.
> If you are not a SOLDIER, you shouldn't fly
> into a WAR zone.
Do we know how and when he got into the war zone or why he was
carrying a gun?
> If you do, and you carry a GUN, you will probably get
> SHOT.
True.
> Or captured and put on TRIAL as an enemy AGENT.
True.
> Capice?
Yup. But it still doesn't mean he's "almost certainly guilty".
> > What circumstances surrounded their capture? Will we ever know?
>
> I've already mentioned all this in this thread. The circumstances of
> their capture has been widely publicised, nearly all the newspapers
> have carried it, so have TV and radio progarmmes, and you could find
> out now from the BBC website, or a hundred others.
So the media's account(s) of how they were captured is(are) well
publicised...
Richard Dell
> >Which is worse: an official legal system with a corrupt and incompetent
police
> >force (Saudi), or an unofficial system with a highly competent police force
> >(Camp Delta)? Justice suffers in both.
>
> The latter is worse.
How much worse? I quoted the Saudi system, I could have quoted the Taliban or
Saddam's Iraq.
> To take an analogy, Northern Ireland's Diplock courts were bad enough,
> but at least they applied to all people in the province. Suppose those
> courts had instead been introduced to apply only to the nationalist
> population - and an additional measure introduced giving the British
> Government the power to select the defence counsel - would it really
> make a difference that the RUC was a highly competent police force?
Given the intimidation during the 1970's, the Diplock courts were better than
compromised juries.
I do not defend Camp Delta, I merely suggest that there are many worse places.
Frank X
> On Tue, 15 Jul 2003 23:26:26 +0100, "Richard Dell"
> <ric...@dell3000.fsnet.co.uk> enlightened the denizens of
> uk.politics.misc by writing:
>
> >"Solon" <nob...@nowt.com> wrote in message
> >news:2ru8hv0tamiq6mnor...@4ax.com...
> >
> >> >Which is worse: an official legal system with a corrupt and
incompetent
> >police
> >> >force (Saudi), or an unofficial system with a highly competent police
force
> >> >(Camp Delta)? Justice suffers in both.
>
> >> The latter is worse.
>
> >How much worse? I quoted the Saudi system, I could have quoted the
Taliban or
> >Saddam's Iraq.
>
> because it is more robust.
>
> If you travel to Saudi, or Afghanistan, or Iraq, then you implicitly
> agree to be bound by the laws customs and practices of those
> societies. The Britons in Camp X-Ray would have no legitimate
> complaint if they were being tried in Iraq/Afghanistan, under
> Iraqi/Afghani law - although their chances would probably be rather
> less rosy than at Guantanomo Bay.
>
Hit the Nail on the head.
But wasn't 1 ot the prisoners apprehended in Pakistan and 2 in Gambia, I
doubt they would have much to fear there.
Greg Hennessy
>The complaint is that a "legal" system has been invented especially
>for them. That is not right.
>
Which differs from the 'legal' system invented especially to try nazi
saboteurs ?
greg
--
$ReplyAddress =~ s#\@.*$##; # Delete everything after the '@'
Alley Gator. With those hypnotic big green eyes
Alley Gator. She'll make you 'fraid 'em
She'll chew you up, ain't no lie
Dirk Bruere at Neopax
> On Wed, 16 Jul 2003 13:42:40 +0100, Greg Hennessy
> <spamc...@example.com> enlightened the denizens of uk.politics.misc
> by writing:
>
> >On Wed, 16 Jul 2003 11:52:27 +0100, Solon <nob...@nowt.com> wrote:
>
> >>The complaint is that a "legal" system has been invented especially
> >>for them. That is not right.
>
> >Which differs from the 'legal' system invented especially to try nazi
> >saboteurs ?
>
>
> (In principal, that is. It certainly differs in practice: not least
> because Nurembourg was not a military tribunal.)
And was open to the news media.
Greg Hennessy
>On Wed, 16 Jul 2003 13:42:40 +0100, Greg Hennessy
><spamc...@example.com> enlightened the denizens of uk.politics.misc
>by writing:
>
>>On Wed, 16 Jul 2003 11:52:27 +0100, Solon <nob...@nowt.com> wrote:
>
>>>The complaint is that a "legal" system has been invented especially
>>>for them. That is not right.
>
>>Which differs from the 'legal' system invented especially to try nazi
>>saboteurs ?
>
>If you mean Nurembourg, it doesn't.
Well thats one example, I was referring to military tribunals used the try
nazi saboteurs landed by sub in the US.
Richard Dell
I accept most of your arguments. However, what do you do with men who say to you
"if you release me I will kill you"?
Richard Dell
> >I accept most of your arguments. However, what do you do with men who say to
you
> >"if you release me I will kill you"?
>
> You charge them with "threats to kill", contrary to s.16 of the
> Offenses against the Person Act 1861, and, on conviction, lock them up
> for 10 years.
I doubt that would work. I suppose it might after some of them had actually
killed people. And then there are those who do not say it, but you know they
think it.
In UK we have this curious libertarian view that you cannot be charged with a
crime until you have committed it, and just saying "I am going to kill you"
doesn't cut it. The major difference with the Jihadis is you know they damn well
mean it - but how can a court of law address that? So we leave people like Abu
Hamza alone, even though he faces serious charges back home.
Dirk Bruere at Neopax
"Richard Dell" <ric...@dell3000.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:bf6ni0$lv8$1...@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk...
There are plenty of laws that could be applied from 'threatening behaviour'
to 'incitement to violence' to 'conspiracy'.
jackkincaid
> > It's a trial of POWs.
>
> Agreed but Bush regards them as "enemy combatants" not POWs.
OK.
>
> > Therefore it has to be a military trial.
>
> Does it?
I think so, given that we have no international institutions to deal
with stateless terrorists. We have no way of dealing with the Islamist
ideology at all. But it doesn't have to involve such extreme
punishment.
>
> > It almost certainly has to be partially secret
>
> Secret from even the person who might be found guilty by the process?
No, I meant secret from the public at large. Are you saying that the
accused is not told of what he is accused?
>
> > - except
> > wheras the Guantanamo Bay inmates are almost certainly guilty,
>
> If you accept the media's or army's accounts of how they were
> captured.
That was my opinion. I know it wouldn't stand up in law, but my guess
is anyone who went to Afghanistan after the war broke out who wasn't a
soldier was probably a terrorist.
>>
> I find your reasoning suspect here -- you infered someone was guilty
> from the simple fact they were in Afghanistan with a gun (and weren't
> soldiers fighting for the allies).
Yes I do - although I admit it couldn't stand up in a court of law,
even in Guantanamo Bay. I am assuming that their gaolers have more
evidence then I have.
>
> > Are you five years old?
>
> Nope.
Are you sure? Have you checked?
> Do we know how and when he got into the war zone or why he was
> carrying a gun?
I can tell you what I've read (friends or family in Pakistan, the
journey up to the refugee camps on the border, the recruiters in the
local mosque, the gift of a gun and ammo, the lift across the border
to the nearest Taliban-held town...). Yes, I am assuming that there is
more evidence of their actual guilt (or innocence) available. My point
is not that the manner in which they will be tried is ideal (and the
possible death penalty is just plain wrong) but that it is
unexceptional.
>
> Yup. But it still doesn't mean he's "almost certainly guilty".
Again, that was my opinion - my guess. Next time I serve on a jury I
promise I shall swallow those kind of prejudices, but please don't
tell me we don't all have them, of one kind or another. If it looks
like a duck ... etc.
Given a free choice I would not put these people on trial in
Guantanamo Bay, I would put them on trial at the Hague - but that
presupposes new international laws and new ways of defining guilt. I
don't believe they should all be let out because some of the inmates
at GB are ceratin to be guilty (apparantly some have promised to kill
Americans or Jews as soon a sthey are released - that could be a lie,
but having seen such people interviewed on TV I don't believe it is).
I admit I don't know enough about the process of the trial in
Guantanamo Bay - but then I don't know enough about the process of
trials in 20 or so other places around the world in which Britons are
kept prisoner, but that has never led me to demand they come 'home'
(except where the death penalty is concerned). I think the campaign to
release them to the UK before their trial is suspect - and seems to
have been forgotten now as soon as it was promelgated.
>
> So the media's account(s) of how they were captured is(are) well
> publicised...
It is public, but not in detail.
lefty
You are particularly ignorant of the area of Northwest Pakistan/Afghanistan.
Even in peacetime EVERYONE carries a gun. In the turmoil of wartime it would
be bordering on suicide to leave your gun at home.
Raymond Luxury-Yacht II
> Leftwing Labour MPs, the Liberal Democrats (inevitably) and even the
> Tories are kicking up a fuss about the two 'British' inamtes of
> Guantanamo Bay, about to stand trial in a military court under the
> auspices of the US army, for terrorist acts in Afghanistan.
Send them "home" to a firing squad in Afghanistan.
Dave'n'Alias
"Raymond Luxury-Yacht II" <raym...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:2ab42062.03071...@posting.google.com...
Prediction:
The Guantanamo Two will return to Britain, and all charges will be dropped
by the CRE due to "lack of evidence", "Human Rights", or some
technicality.....
Dave'n'Alias
"Dave'n'Alias" <davenalias*nospam*@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:bf8vh2$ca9qj$1...@ID-163212.news.uni-berlin.de...
Thats CPS not CRE (although wouldnt surprise me if the CRE got involved)
Mike CJ
news:2ab42062.03071...@posting.google.com...
Let the bastards rot in Guantanamo Bay.
Mike.
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.500 / Virus Database: 298 - Release Date: 10-Jul-2003
mcca...@btinternet.com
>"Raymond Luxury-Yacht II" <raym...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
>news:2ab42062.03071...@posting.google.com...
>> theov...@another.com (jackkincaid) wrote in message
>news:<eb35fbed.03071...@posting.google.com>...
>> > Leftwing Labour MPs, the Liberal Democrats (inevitably) and even the
>> > Tories are kicking up a fuss about the two 'British' inamtes of
>> > Guantanamo Bay, about to stand trial in a military court under the
>> > auspices of the US army, for terrorist acts in Afghanistan.
>>
>> Send them "home" to a firing squad in Afghanistan.
>
>Let the bastards rot in Guantanamo Bay.
>Mike.
>
do you support nu-lab or the bnp ?
not that there is much difference mind you.
James Hammerton
> James Hammerton <jamesha...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message news:<m3isq3v...@client112-26.kabela.oprit.rug.nl>...
> > > It's a trial of POWs.
> >
> > Agreed but Bush regards them as "enemy combatants" not POWs.
>
> OK.
> >
> > > Therefore it has to be a military trial.
> >
> > Does it?
>
> I think so, given that we have no international institutions to deal
> with stateless terrorists. We have no way of dealing with the Islamist
> ideology at all. But it doesn't have to involve such extreme
> punishment.
Fairynuff.
> >
> > > It almost certainly has to be partially secret
> >
> > Secret from even the person who might be found guilty by the process?
>
> No, I meant secret from the public at large. Are you saying that the
> accused is not told of what he is accused?
I recall seeing a discussion of Guantanomo Bay on Newsnight sometime
last week where they were saying some evidence may be withheld from
the accused and only given to his US govt appointed defence
lawyer. The specific example discussed was keeping the identity of a
witness secret from the accused. I've found a web page about this at
the BBC website:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/newsnight/3045574.stm
''JOE ONEK: (Director, Constitution Project) The problem is that
there's certain evidence that will be given to the lawyer that won't
be given to the defendant and the lawyer can't even give it to the
defendant. So lets give an example, supposing the secret evidence is
the name of an informant. Well if the defendant doesn't know it he
can't defend himself. Suppose that that informant is a life long
enemy of the defendant or a family that they feuded with for a 1000
years. He won't get a chance to present that argument any say "look,
this is totally unreliable." Because he won't know the name of the
informant, and that's what worries us. ''
> >
> > > - except
> > > wheras the Guantanamo Bay inmates are almost certainly guilty,
> >
> > If you accept the media's or army's accounts of how they were
> > captured.
>
> That was my opinion. I know it wouldn't stand up in law, but my guess
> is anyone who went to Afghanistan after the war broke out who wasn't a
> soldier was probably a terrorist.
Journalists and aid workers?
Or even someone trying to help a relative get out of the country?
And if you're going to Afghanistan in those circumstances you might
reasonably decide having a gun is prudent measure for self-protection.
Robert
"Dave'n'Alias" <davenalias*nospam*@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:bf8vh2$ca9qj$1...@ID-163212.news.uni-berlin.de...
>
Dirk Bruere at Neopax
"Robert" <wayne_s...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:VOTRa.5312$Gl1....@newssvr16.news.prodigy.com...
Surprising how many people get off on the technicality of 'lack of
evidence'.
We can't let that stop the govt executing people, can we?
Dave'n'Alias
>
> "Robert" <wayne_s...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:VOTRa.5312$Gl1....@newssvr16.news.prodigy.com...
> > If that happens, it will be a big big big issue in the 2004 campaign
> >
> >
> > "Dave'n'Alias" <davenalias*nospam*@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> > news:bf8vh2$ca9qj$1...@ID-163212.news.uni-berlin.de...
> > >
> > > "Raymond Luxury-Yacht II" <raym...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
> > > news:2ab42062.03071...@posting.google.com...
> > > > theov...@another.com (jackkincaid) wrote in message
> > > news:<eb35fbed.03071...@posting.google.com>...
> > > > > Leftwing Labour MPs, the Liberal Democrats (inevitably) and even
the
> > > > > Tories are kicking up a fuss about the two 'British' inamtes of
> > > > > Guantanamo Bay, about to stand trial in a military court under the
> > > > > auspices of the US army, for terrorist acts in Afghanistan.
> > > >
> > > > Send them "home" to a firing squad in Afghanistan.
> > >
> > > Prediction:
> > >
> > > The Guantanamo Two will return to Britain, and all charges will be
> dropped
> > > by the CRE due to "lack of evidence", "Human Rights", or some
> > > technicality.....
>
> Surprising how many people get off on the technicality of 'lack of
> evidence'.
That isnt a technicality. Do keep up.
Chris X
These two compatriots of ours have committed no crime. However, in the eyes
of the Moronican Jew World Order they are guilty of the biggest sin of all
:- coming to the aid of the global bully's helpless victim.
I've no doubt some people on this group would like to see these courageous
men return to the UK so Bliar's Stasi can murder them too and make it look
like "suicide".
Chris
jackkincaid
> theov...@another.com (jackkincaid) writes:
> I recall seeing a discussion of Guantanomo Bay on Newsnight sometime
> last week where they were saying some evidence may be withheld from
> the accused and only given to his US govt appointed defence
> lawyer. The specific example discussed was keeping the identity of a
> witness secret from the accused. I've found a web page about this at
> the BBC website:
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/newsnight/3045574.stm
I think that's fine, as long as the reasons for the secrecy are given.
Something similar used to happen in the Diplock courts here I think.
>
> ''JOE ONEK: (Director, Constitution Project) The problem is that
> there's certain evidence that will be given to the lawyer that won't
> be given to the defendant and the lawyer can't even give it to the
> defendant. So lets give an example, supposing the secret evidence is
> the name of an informant. Well if the defendant doesn't know it he
> can't defend himself.
Yes he can.
> Suppose that that informant is a life long
> enemy of the defendant or a family that they feuded with for a 1000
> years. He won't get a chance to present that argument any say "look,
> this is totally unreliable." Because he won't know the name of the
> informant, and that's what worries us. ''
He can still defend himself against the specific allegation made
against him. What this guy means is, the witness can't be cross
examined. But there are limitations on cross examination in all
sensitive trials - as I recall, in IRA trials the spooks and SAS etc.
give evidence behind screens. They can be cross examined, but their
identity is never given and they can refuse to answer anything
case-sensitive.
Perhaps something similar should be adopted here - I mean, ideally
this would be an ordinary trial in the ICC, but as I said before, we
just don't have any international law to try such people.
>
> > That was my opinion. I know it wouldn't stand up in law, but my guess
> > is anyone who went to Afghanistan after the war broke out who wasn't a
> > soldier was probably a terrorist.
>
> Journalists and aid workers?
Carrying a gun? Involved with people carrying guns? Without
accreditation?
>
> Or even someone trying to help a relative get out of the country?
A relative with a gun?
>
> And if you're going to Afghanistan in those circumstances you might
> reasonably decide having a gun is prudent measure for self-protection.
You might, and if you did, you might reasonably be expected to get
arrested as an enemy combatant. If these people wanted to help
relatives get out of Afghanistan - which begs a lot of questions,
since thousands upon thousands of Afghans were pouring through
Pakistan's open borders throughout the war, without any apparant need
for help. Quite a few thousand of them were helped by the UK
government to make new homes for themselves in Britain (something
everyone has conveniently forgotten) - then they could have gone to
the Pakistan embassy in London for help. Or gone to the FO, or the US
embassy, or whatever.
Nah, it won't wash. No journalists or aid workers have been arrested,
and given how very many Talibannies and al-Qaida members escaped, the
probablity is that the US only arrested those they were pretty certain
were guilty (and quite a few have been sent home anyway).
I think there is already circumstantial evidence that the two about to
stand trial are probably guilty. That wouldn't be good enough for a
court of law, obviously - even this one - but it's good enough for me
to spout my opinion on usenet.
I read an article in The Guardian a few months ago by a memeber of
some hardline Islamic group or other, who said that Guantanamo Bay was
making young Muslims like him angry because it made them too scared to
go on 'jihad' abroad. I doubt it even occurred to him that 'going on
jihad' is a profoundly anti-social thing to do, a certain way of
increasing Islamaphobia in the UK. For those who can't figure out what
their responsibilities to society are, perhaps only deterrence will
work.
Guantanamo Bay is not the ideal deterrence - I don't like it because
it brushes under the carpet the real issue at hand, which is
principled rejection of political Islam. As long as Guantanamo Bay
exists we won't strive to make political Islam the legal equivalent of
racism or Stalinist communism it should be. But it's all we've got.
There are excellent reasons for Blair to try and persuade Bush not to
use the death penalty for these people, and I hope he does. But not to
have them tried in UK courts. IMO.
Ian Bailey
If these men are tried and convicted then they deserve punishment. Why
is the US so intent on not trying them in public? Is it because they
have no evidence?
Ian
Steve Glynn
> On 18 Jul 2003 11:45:19 -0700, theov...@another.com (jackkincaid)
> enlightened the denizens of uk.politics.misc by writing:
>
>
> >Carrying a gun? Involved with people carrying guns? Without
> >accreditation?
>
> of the world, carrying a gun is not abnormal. In a war zone like
> Afghanistan, full of bandits and irregulars, one might be considered
> mad *not* to carry some means of protecting oneself.
>
> And how do you know that they didn't have accreditation? Have you
> asked them?
>
And, indeed, how does anyone know they were carrying a gun when they were
arrested or what the circumstances of their arrest may have been? The
normal thing to do is to put someone on trial on the same basis as anyone
else who is suspected of contravening the law, so as to establish the facts,
rather than intern them pro temp under a process unheard of in international
law.
It will, I hope, have been noted that President Bush has apparently stayed
prosecutions against the two British subjects he had it in mind to try
following representations by St Tone. While it's in one way good news, I
hope people have noticed how this indicates a degree of political
interference in the judicial process over in the US that would be completely
unacceptable here.
Send them back here, along with the evidence, and British courts will be
more than happy to try for treason. The evidence will, of course, have
to be presented in court and tested by the mens' barristers and given to a
jury to decide, which is how we order the criminal justice system in our
civilised country.
Steve
Steve Glynn
"Richard Dell" <ric...@dell3000.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:bf6ni0$lv8$1...@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk...
To summarise, your argument seems to be that if we think we know damn well
what someone might think, mean and intend to do we can dispense with the
formality of a fair trial.
Bloody curious version of libertarianism to my mind.
Steve
mcca...@btinternet.com
wrote:
is being a member of the taliban a capital offence ?
remember the taliban were never a target of the war.
they only became a target later when it became obvious the media would
go along with anything the govts wanted.
first it was OBL then it was al-qaead then it was afghanistan.
then we negotiated with the taliban to hand over OBL . remember ?
they tried to work with us. remember ?
then we decided that we didnt like them either.
then we said it was now about regime-change in afghanistan as well as
OBL. then - from nowhere - the taliban became a part of the axis of
evil. then the taliban became conflated with al-qaeda.
then being a member of the taliban was the same as being a terrorist.
then we look to execute people for being a member of the taliban.
and people dont bat an eyelid.
no one else may remember but i do.
jackkincaid
>
> To summarise, your argument seems to be that if we think we know damn well
> what someone might think, mean and intend to do we can dispense with the
> formality of a fair trial.
>
> Bloody curious version of libertarianism to my mind.
I wouldn't have put it the way the previous guy did.
The first point about Abu Hamza is, he is clearly inciting violence
and religious hatred. Should he be prosecuted for that? I think
probably not, but then - not least because we are so ridiculously
timid when it comes to observing and recording what is said in mosques
by dodgy imams like him (a timidity we would be uinlikely to feel
about other place of worship) - we don't actually know for certain
*what* he was saying. We were lucky that his gang of extremists
intimidated the chairmen of the mosque to such an extent that they
could be turfed out (but even then it took five years, a police raid
and much persuasion for those chairmen to do their duty and complain).
The second point about him is that he is wanted on terrorism charges
in Egypt and/or Jordan. Both countries have friendly governments, yet
we have ignored their advice and allowed him the freedom to preach.
Now, if that is on the grounds that he may face the death penalty,
then refusing extradition would be fair enough, IMO. But surely he is
unfit to preach in a mosque? I was under the impression that some kind
of accreditation was needed to become an imam - if not, perhaps there
should be.
It may come down to this: we need some kind of official and legal
definition of specifically religiously inspired hatred and political
extremism.
jackkincaid
> >
> > You are not talking about gun phobic Britain here. In most of the rest
> > of the world, carrying a gun is not abnormal. In a war zone like
> > Afghanistan, full of bandits and irregulars, one might be considered
> > mad *not* to carry some means of protecting oneself.
In a war zone? The implication of that is, whenever a war starts let's
invite every fucker with a gun over and party on down.
> >
> > And how do you know that they didn't have accreditation? Have you
> > asked them?
>
> And, indeed, how does anyone know they were carrying a gun when they were
> arrested or what the circumstances of their arrest may have been? The
> normal thing to do is to put someone on trial on the same basis as anyone
> else who is suspected of contravening the law, so as to establish the facts,
> rather than intern them pro temp under a process unheard of in international
> law.
Contravening which law? Both of you are missing the point. It's
because it is 'normal' to carry a gun while rescuing your auntie in
Afghanistan (or whatever) that our regular laws are so useless.
Go back to the beginning. We are at war. Britain, the USA - all the
civilised world - is in a state of war. Our existing legal framework
isn't up to dealing with the fall-out from this war - it is a war that
is utterly different to any war we've fought before (including the war
against the IRA, because the IRA had clear aims and a clear and
limited territory to 'win'.
It seems to me therefore we have two choices. We can either throw up
our hands and say, no entirely satisfactory law exists to protect our
society; therefore we won't protect our society, and any voluntarily
stateless idealogue who feels like attacking our troops anywhere in
the world, from Cyprus to the Falklands to Diego Garcia, is free to do
so. Or we can do something about it.
I choose the latter.
>
> It will, I hope, have been noted that President Bush has apparently stayed
> prosecutions against the two British subjects he had it in mind to try
> following representations by St Tone. While it's in one way good news, I
> hope people have noticed how this indicates a degree of political
> interference in the judicial process over in the US that would be completely
> unacceptable here.
Crap. Our laws are made and our judges are subject to parliament. Our
entire system is one of 'political interference'. That's how it should
be because in the UK parliament is elected, judges are not. Blar's
idea of a supreme court is wrong, unless that relationship is
maintained.
>
> Send them back here, along with the evidence, and British courts will be
> more than happy to try for treason.
No they won't. I don't know why, but the politicians are strangely
reluctant to try anyone for treason. I doubt it would stick in these
cases, which means we'd have two more potential killers on the
streets.
They committed their alleged crimes in Afghanistan, they should be
tried in Afghanistan. Failing that, the ICC. Failing that, they
committed their alleged crimes in an American controlled war zone
against American soldiers, they should be tried in an American
military court - not necessarily this one, I grant you, and certainly
not one carrying this one's penalty, but it has to be in the USA.
If we try them here, then all the GB inmates may as well be let out to
their respective countries, where most of them will be let off,
doubtless to carry on their campaign of hate against 'westerners' and
Jews everywhere. And if we try them here, just because they happen to
have UK passports, we might as well send every Jamaican drug mule back
to Jamaica, every Turkish people smuggler back to Turkey, every Irish
drunk back to Ireland - and every English football hooligan may as
well be sent to England after trashing a bar in Majorca or Antwerp or
wherever. The way justice works around the world would come to an end.
You should stand trial *where* you committed the alleged crime.
Failing that, in a universally accepted neutral court of law (like the
iCC). Failing that, and in the specific situation of war etc., you
stand trial in the place of choosing of the victor. The only
interference Blair should make is along those lines, or failing that,
over the death penalty. If he brings them to Britain, IMO he's wrong.
> The evidence will, of course, have
> to be presented in court and tested by the mens' barristers and given to a
> jury to decide, which is how we order the criminal justice system in our
> civilised country.
If we had an internationally recognised law that to fight for or aid
in any way the militant wing of a religiously derived political
ideology is a form of terrorism, which brings down a sentence of life
imprisonment, tried in the ICC and/or written into the law of every
civilised nation, then military courts wouldn't be necessary.
jackkincaid
>
> You are particularly ignorant of the area of Northwest Pakistan/Afghanistan.
> Even in peacetime EVERYONE carries a gun. In the turmoil of wartime it would
> be bordering on suicide to leave your gun at home.
The war didn't take place in N Pakistan, it took place in central
Afghanistan. If any of those N Pakistani gun-carriers had ventured
over the border to aid the Taliban, they too would be liable for
imprisonment at Guantanamo Bay.
I mean, what's the alternative? That every time we fight a war our
enemies can invite all of their ethnic or ideological brethren to
fight alongside them? Are you calling for the disintegration of
national boundaries in favour of ideological ones? Do you literally
want to create an 'Islamic world' - a single Islamic republic where
everyone is considered a subject of a single set of laws, so that if
one is attacked all the others will come to his aid no matter what the
reason for the attack?
Because that's what's at stake - and that is precisely what al-Qaida
want, and that is precisely what we are fighting against.
And what it would mean is this: if we needed to overthrow a terrorist
junta in one part of this worldwide Islamic republic the entire
population would be at our throats. Which means we would have to fight
the entire population. And we would have to *beat* the entire
population, which means (as the French writer Houllebecq has said) we
would inevitably commit genocide.
If we accept the end of nations in favour of religious ideology, our
potential enemies jump from a few thousand to several million - even
though we know 95% of Muslims have no desire to fight us, as part of a
Taliban republic under shariah law they'd have little choice. By
maintaining *national* laws and *national* identity we can limit the
destruction of the war on terrorism, and minimise the loss of (Muslim)
life - even if the poor, starving and brainwashed Pathan inmates of
the N Pak refugee camps don't understand.
And please remember the *majority* of Afgahns were on *our* side - we
were fighting in a civil war, on the side of the Turks against a
Pashtun junta, which *itself* was not supported by the majority of the
Pashtun population.
It would have been better if all those who allegedly aided the Taliban
had been tried in Afghanistan, but that country only has the resources
to try its own citizens (and they would have had a much harder time of
it than the inmates of GB anyway, and would still be facing the death
penalty). The best solution of all would be the ICC, but we don't have
the legal framework in place to try these kind of people and neither
Afghanistan nor (wrongly IMO) the USA are signatories anyway. Thus a
US military court is the only option.
I'd agree this particular US military court is not ideal - and I wish
Americans would lose this immoral need to put people to death - but I
see no grounds for trying them in the UK, *except* as traitors, and I
doubt that charge would even apply.
Dirk Bruere at Neopax
news:<p_LRa.2083$On1.16...@news-text.cableinet.net>...
> >
> > You are particularly ignorant of the area of Northwest
Pakistan/Afghanistan.
> > Even in peacetime EVERYONE carries a gun. In the turmoil of wartime it
would
> > be bordering on suicide to leave your gun at home.
>
> The war didn't take place in N Pakistan, it took place in central
> Afghanistan. If any of those N Pakistani gun-carriers had ventured
> over the border to aid the Taliban, they too would be liable for
> imprisonment at Guantanamo Bay.
>
> I mean, what's the alternative? That every time we fight a war our
> enemies can invite all of their ethnic or ideological brethren to
> fight alongside them? Are you calling for the disintegration of
Why not?
The US does.
Demosthenes
?
> they tried to work with us. remember ?
I remember the first part, but not the second. I do remember rebuffing all
offers of real negotiation. I also remember the Taliban saying that they
would never hand bin Laden over, no matter what the circumstances. They
placed themselves in the position of a government which supported
international terrorism and so became a legitimate target of the war.
> no one else may remember but i do.
I'm sure it happened the way you remember. On your planet.
--
Demosthenes
Beware lest in your anxiety to avoid war you obtain a master.
<mcca...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:i61ihvsjqbcfbgkm3...@4ax.com...
Demosthenes
apparently stayed
> prosecutions against the two British subjects he had it in mind to try
> following representations by St Tone. While it's in one way good news, I
> hope people have noticed how this indicates a degree of political
> interference in the judicial process over in the US that would be
completely
> unacceptable here.
I'm a little puzzled.
You complain because people are being sent for trial before a military
tribunal. That's A Bad Thing - apparently. You want Tony Blair to intercede
on their behalf. That would be A Good Thing - apparently.
So now Tony Blair has made his intercession on their behalf and appears to
have had an effect. Exactly what you wanted. Yet, it is now magically
transformed into A Bad Thing.
There's just no pleasing you lot, is there?
Dirk Bruere at Neopax
"Demosthenes" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:105861301...@despina.uk.clara.net...
One also has to ask why the US and British accused are special compared to
the Pakistanis accused.
Or even the Afghanis.
mcca...@btinternet.com
wrote:
>mccarthur > then we negotiated with the taliban to hand over OBL . remember
>?
>> they tried to work with us. remember ?
>
>I remember the first part, but not the second. I do remember rebuffing all
>offers of real negotiation. I also remember the Taliban saying that they
>would never hand bin Laden over, no matter what the circumstances. They
>placed themselves in the position of a government which supported
>international terrorism and so became a legitimate target of the war.
>
bullshit. the taliban were not a target for months and months until
someone - probably blair - thought they would float the idea of
regime-change (that had never been suggested up til then).
the media ran with it (shame on them) and so the taliban became
conflated with al-qaeda after the fact and had to go.
dont make me bore you with press clippings.
Demosthenes
until
> someone - probably blair - thought they would float the idea of
> regime-change (that had never been suggested up til then).
> the media ran with it (shame on them) and so the taliban became
> conflated with al-qaeda after the fact and had to go.
> dont make me bore you with press clippings.
The way I remember it, after weeks and weeks of anti-western rhetoric, the
Taliban themselves claimed that al Qaida and the Talban were one and the
same.
According to the Guardian in March 2001, even before 9/11, Mullah Omar was
allying himself with al Qaida. "Half of my country has been destroyed by two
decades of war. If the remaining half is also destroyed in trying to protect
Mr Bin Laden, I'm willing for this sacrifice."
"He is not going to be handed over if there is any prospect he will be
convicted," a Taliban source confirmed.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/afghanistan/story/0,1284,548465,00.html
Bin Laden married one of Mullah Omar's daughters. Omar went to far as to say
that "we are they and they are us."
It was not the western media who conflated the Taliban with al Qaida. It was
the Taliban themselves.