If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
What should happen to the 5 Brits freed from their illegal imprisonment?
BillieTheBot
Posts: 8,721 Bot
As you will all have heard five of the 9 British citizens illegally held in the Guantanamo Bay concentration camp are to be freed.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3505365.stm
Naturally the S*n has already resumed its self-appointed position as the country's judge, jury and executioner and has demanded that the men do not go free when they touch down in Britain.
The Americans actually wanted the British government to promise any prisoner freed by the US must be arrested and detained in Britain. Poor Blair had to break it to them that unlike in Bush's America we still have a democracy in Britain and that it is not up to the government to arrest and imprison people.
As far as I'm concerned unless the men had broken any laws they should not even be detained for one second by the authorities when they arrive. Whether "those who might belong to Al Qaida" might have broken UK laws remain to be seen. But it seems clear that those who simply joined the Taliban, which isn't a terrorist organisation and carried out no attacks or operations outside Afghanistan have no broken any UK laws.
As far as I'm concern they should sue the US for false imprisonment, torture and everything else they can throw at them. And they should get Legal Aid to do this as well. Bigger travesties of justice and disregard for human rights and the law have never been seen.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3505365.stm
Naturally the S*n has already resumed its self-appointed position as the country's judge, jury and executioner and has demanded that the men do not go free when they touch down in Britain.
The Americans actually wanted the British government to promise any prisoner freed by the US must be arrested and detained in Britain. Poor Blair had to break it to them that unlike in Bush's America we still have a democracy in Britain and that it is not up to the government to arrest and imprison people.
As far as I'm concerned unless the men had broken any laws they should not even be detained for one second by the authorities when they arrive. Whether "those who might belong to Al Qaida" might have broken UK laws remain to be seen. But it seems clear that those who simply joined the Taliban, which isn't a terrorist organisation and carried out no attacks or operations outside Afghanistan have no broken any UK laws.
As far as I'm concern they should sue the US for false imprisonment, torture and everything else they can throw at them. And they should get Legal Aid to do this as well. Bigger travesties of justice and disregard for human rights and the law have never been seen.
Beep boop. I'm a bot.
0
Comments
2)dunno - ask US
3) i'd expect them to make that claim, depemds on what you mean by torture
4)leased from Cuba -all above board
It's all the most hilarious/tragic because it was the US that engaged in an illegal war on a sovereign nation.
2. They haven't had a trial. Many of the hostages in Guantanamo will probably be let go eventually without trial, because they have done nothing wrong other than fighting against an illegal, foreign invader.
The others will be facing military tribunals in which the judges are appointed by the US government :rolleyes: and prisoners don't have the right to a lawyer, amongst other things. I tell you- it maks the Taliban's judicial system a model of openess.
3. Yes the people have been horrendously treated, and that includes torture. Have a look at the link on my sig.
4. To exploit the very fact that Gitmo is illegal as hell and in breach of every law in the universe. But they're not in US soil, not as such anyway, so the US government can get away with atrocities more common of brutal fascist dictatorships.
Taliban were child-raping, drug peddling vermin so a useful by product is their removal.
Rejoice for that if nothing else:
The production of heroin has gone up since the removal of the Taliban. The CIA are involved in its production and smuggling according to some sources.
They were also engaged in fighting against British troops.
Therefore they are traitors and guilty of high treason. If they ever do set foot in this country, and I hope they don't they should be shot.
They went to a war zone to train as guerilla fighters against troops from their own country and were preparing to bring the war to this country.
There are hundreds of questions to be asked about this whole situation, that is why we need an enquiry (imo).
And no, they weren't about to "bring war to this country". As it happens it was the other way around.
I can't see 'treason' anywhere I'm afraid.
Ladymuck, I'm not one to defend the Taliban and am certainly happy they're no longer around, but to keep facts straight they're not 'child-raping, drug peddlers'.
There is a much larger issue at hand here involving international law or the fact that we supported and put the Taliban there in the first place, and were more than happy for them to kill people and pull out women's nails for as long as they were serving a purpose for the West- but that's been all discussed at length before.
Some Taliban have done the above (C4 d0c, Sumirah Shah)
A Brit going out to fight with Taliban is as morally reprehensible as one who'd have fought alongsides Sadamm's Republican Guard
i hear the returnees are going to be monitored/guarded at huge expense
A one-way flight back to their pont of abduction woould be cheaper, a bit of Afghani justice, perhaps?
Unfortunately morally reprehensible acts alone don't constitute a crime. Bottom line is unless it is proven those men have broken the law they have the right to return and carry on with their lives here, if that is what they wish.
Not all of them were. I saw on BBC News24 earlier about one of the detainees who was actually in a Taliban prison when captured, he was a web designer from Manchester who fell foul of the Taliban, why was he detained? Because he's Muslim by the looks of it. Make no mistake, a lot of the US see this as a final battle between good and evil between Christianity and Islam.
And thats scary as fuck. :mad:
I honestly don't think these 5 are particularly dangerous as no way would have the U.S released them. We know it was supposed to be a favor to Britain, but if they thought they were terrorists that could come back to hunt them, they would be staying in Cuba.
You can't just hold them indefinitely without trial, it stinks of hypocrisy on the part America, I thought they were the bench mark for freedom, rights, blah blah blah..
We aren't debating the legality of the war, however compared to the Iraqi war I do agree with the war on the Taliban for varying reasons.
However, regardless of it's legality, ANYBODY who fights, or actively disrupts the activities of soldiers from their own country doing their duty should be severely punished.
Treason isn't a crime that effects individuals, it is a crime that can, if serious affect everyone in this country.
A crime like that should carry the death penalty.
How would you treat a supposedly British citizen who set off a dirty nuke in London?
They should be detained whilst they are investigated, and then they should eitehr be charged or they shyould be released.
If they were in Afghanistan fighting against UK troops then they should be tried for High Treason, and jailed accordingly, and if they were fighting US troops they should be thrown straight back to the US authorities. Exceptional circumstances should only be that they were in Afghanistan before war was declared.
They deserve a fair trial, as do the other prisoners in Camp X-Ray. But that's all they deserve until they are found innocent.
Interesting thing about the release though: they were segregated from the rest of the camp. Bet the rumours are that they've been killed...
As you and Whowhere have been mentioning this I'd like to bring out something I've been giving some thought about. What constitutes 'treason'? Are the instances in which treason (or rather, fighting against forces under the command of the government that rules the country where you have been born) can be a commendable, or at least justifiable action?
Suppose Britain was taken over by a brutal dictator such as Mugabe. Once the dictator has established himself and there is no doubt that he's the head of state and controls the government and army, would you consider it 'high treason' if there were people out there fighting a guerrilla war against the Army?
My point is that there can be such thing as justification for such a position. If Britain were today under attack from another country and there were Britons at home fighting against the British forces and aiding the invader I think there is little doubt of the act of treason. But what you got here is people who by all accounts appeared to be in Afghanistan well before Britain even intended to go to war against them, and who regardless of their nationality were there to offer support to a community they felt identified with. No one asked the British forces to invade a sovereign nation, and one thing clear as hell is that Britain wasn't under any danger from the Taliban. So regrettable as it is that these people wished to associate themselves with a brutal regime as Afghanistan, I somehow doubt they can be charged with treason for aiding their hosts to fight a foreign invader that happened to contain a few soldiers from the country they were born in.
I didn't realise that fighting the US army is now a crime punishable with jail or death.
If they aren't Afghan (or allied to Afghan) they have no reason to be fighting (unless they were forced, etc), and so they can face the consequences of their actions. Those consequences should involve a fair trial and proper charges though, obviously.
'Sources' eh? The main source being your arse, which you are talking out of!
Alladin you spout some crazy stuff. Knee jerk anti-americanism is the preserve of the French no?
Sorry if I have completely ignored the rest of this thread, but surely if someone shot Prince Charles tomorrow, they should be treated like any other murderer?
In point of fact, Al makes a very sound and valid argument. If the UK we're, on its own soil, hijacked by right wingers propped up by the military establishment, would you consider it your patriotic duty to fight against them in the name of the nation you cherish? Would you consider yourself a traitor?
The point is, if the threat we're to British national security (which it wasnt) and these individuals in any way hindered the defence of British soil or aided the invading or ursurping powers, yes that would be treason.
If the UK government is the aggressor in a foreign land which posed no viable threat but which was subsequently ravaged with numerous innocent civilians bombed and shot in order to secure what is in reality the necessary gateway for access to mid-asian gas reserves, then is fighting against that perceived international criminality considered treason? If you are intellectually honest i would hope you would see the difference.
Their actions did not threaten British soil or the civilian population's security, merely the lives of those whom in their thinking were unquestioningly serving an expansionistic imperialistic agenda.
Quite a grey area upon which to be making such absolute pronouncements of "treason".
Its indisputable that the production of heroin has gone up. I see the results on the streets. Do some research.
And about the CIA - note that I did say "according to some sources.". Not "definitely".