Forums > Social Discussion > Guantanamo brits free!
Login/Join to ParticipatePooh-Bah
1,662 posts
Location: Bristol
1,662 posts
Location: Bristol
Posted:
did anyone else hear this - the four brits that got sent back here have been let go, and now they're suing both the british and american government.
i hope they win, cos if they do the others will all have to have actual lawyers and genuine trials, and their own holy books back.
i can't believe they got away with it for so long, hopefully it will change now. I watch with interest...
did anyone else hear this - the four brits that got sent back here have been let go, and now they're suing both the british and american government.
i hope they win, cos if they do the others will all have to have actual lawyers and genuine trials, and their own holy books back.
i can't believe they got away with it for so long, hopefully it will change now. I watch with interest...
I had a dream that my friend had a
strong-bad pop up book,
it was the book of my dreams.
member
8 posts
8 posts
Posted:
Sue a whole country?? You should be upset at them for sueing not be supporting them! Why should I pay money to these guys? After all if they did win that is where the money would be comming from. I know I only work at McDonalds and that it isnt the hardest job in the world buy why should my paid time go to these four guys just because they didn't like the way they were treated! I know the personal cost to me would be neglagible and I would gladly give my fraction of cent to help them get back on their feet, but it is the priciple of the thing to me.
Sue a whole country?? You should be upset at them for sueing not be supporting them! Why should I pay money to these guys? After all if they did win that is where the money would be comming from. I know I only work at McDonalds and that it isnt the hardest job in the world buy why should my paid time go to these four guys just because they didn't like the way they were treated! I know the personal cost to me would be neglagible and I would gladly give my fraction of cent to help them get back on their feet, but it is the priciple of the thing to me.
BRONZE Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,009 posts
Location: Bristol, UK
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,009 posts
Location: Bristol, UK
Posted:
The whole point is that they didn't do anything. If there was evidence that they'd comitted a criminal act they wouldn't be released.
Regardless, no civilised country has a law that states you can imprision somebody for 2 years and suspend their criminal and legal rights without presenting ANY evidence, not even to their lawyers. That's more in tune with places like North Korea.
If you were in their situation and were falsely imprisioned for years wouldn't you want justice?
The whole point is that they didn't do anything. If there was evidence that they'd comitted a criminal act they wouldn't be released.
Regardless, no civilised country has a law that states you can imprision somebody for 2 years and suspend their criminal and legal rights without presenting ANY evidence, not even to their lawyers. That's more in tune with places like North Korea.
If you were in their situation and were falsely imprisioned for years wouldn't you want justice?
110% MONKEY EVERY TIME ALL THE TIME JUST CANT STOP THE MONKEY
3,149 posts
Location: London
3,149 posts
Location: London
Posted:
why so it is...
umm a few things occur. This isn't so simple. Few things are
First off, small point, these guys aren't nice innocent people. They're religious extremist paramilitaries who volunteered to fight with the Taleban (remember them? they weren't very nice...)
That also means that because of their backgrounds, motivations and the strong Al-Quaeda presence that was in Afghanistan, these guys are pretty likely to have links with Al-Quaeda than most people. Anyone disagree?
Now getting information out of these guys without using torture is pretty hard
(something that the nations the US is annexing don't give so much of a crap about)
So i can understand the US wanting to keep on interrogating them to try and get more info about a terrorist group that has killed so many people and will continue to do so, as the events in Madrid have shown...
Consider if events like the destruction of the WTC and the Madrid train bombing could have been stopped by locking up a couple of hundred religious extremist paramilitaries without trial for a few years and asking them questions.
A gross violation of their human rights i agree.
but worth it?
i'm not saying it is worth it, personally. i plain don't know. It depends on whether any of them hold relevant information, and what can be done with that information. i don't that, you don't know that, and i doubt that the Pentagon has much more of a clue to be honest...
so
I AGREE
it's desperately important to uphold principles of freedom, human rights, fair trial etc
BUT
at any cost?
why so it is...
umm a few things occur. This isn't so simple. Few things are
First off, small point, these guys aren't nice innocent people. They're religious extremist paramilitaries who volunteered to fight with the Taleban (remember them? they weren't very nice...)
That also means that because of their backgrounds, motivations and the strong Al-Quaeda presence that was in Afghanistan, these guys are pretty likely to have links with Al-Quaeda than most people. Anyone disagree?
Now getting information out of these guys without using torture is pretty hard
(something that the nations the US is annexing don't give so much of a crap about)
So i can understand the US wanting to keep on interrogating them to try and get more info about a terrorist group that has killed so many people and will continue to do so, as the events in Madrid have shown...
Consider if events like the destruction of the WTC and the Madrid train bombing could have been stopped by locking up a couple of hundred religious extremist paramilitaries without trial for a few years and asking them questions.
A gross violation of their human rights i agree.
but worth it?
i'm not saying it is worth it, personally. i plain don't know. It depends on whether any of them hold relevant information, and what can be done with that information. i don't that, you don't know that, and i doubt that the Pentagon has much more of a clue to be honest...
so
I AGREE
it's desperately important to uphold principles of freedom, human rights, fair trial etc
BUT
at any cost?
"Switching between different kinds of chuu chuu sometimes gives this "urgh wtf?" effect because it's giving people the phi phenomenon."
110% MONKEY EVERY TIME ALL THE TIME JUST CANT STOP THE MONKEY
3,149 posts
Location: London
3,149 posts
Location: London
Posted:
This stuff is immaterial to the argument really, but i have to mention it...
The 4 UK citizens you're talking about,
all of which who received UK benefits for support and housing,
went to Afghanistan and fought our own soldiers on behalf of a barbaric and brutal fundamentalist regime.
Yeah?
Am i right in beleiving they are now free back in the UK,
eligible to receive benefits again,
and now even more motivated to incite hatred of the west while taking our handouts?
AND they can now sue the US for a load of money if the jobseekers allowance doesn't cover their costs?
well woo hoo, forgive me if i refuse to celebrate
This stuff is immaterial to the argument really, but i have to mention it...
The 4 UK citizens you're talking about,
all of which who received UK benefits for support and housing,
went to Afghanistan and fought our own soldiers on behalf of a barbaric and brutal fundamentalist regime.
Yeah?
Am i right in beleiving they are now free back in the UK,
eligible to receive benefits again,
and now even more motivated to incite hatred of the west while taking our handouts?
AND they can now sue the US for a load of money if the jobseekers allowance doesn't cover their costs?
well woo hoo, forgive me if i refuse to celebrate
"Switching between different kinds of chuu chuu sometimes gives this "urgh wtf?" effect because it's giving people the phi phenomenon."
BRONZE Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,009 posts
Location: Bristol, UK
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,009 posts
Location: Bristol, UK
Posted:
About the post above and the benefits system - this is how our democracy works. Some people who recieve benefits don't deserve them, some people who need benefits don't get enough. And sometimes I have to wait for the third tube before I can get on.
The first problem is a very complex issue that probably needs another thread to debate it. However as a UK tax payer I'm fine with them getting legal aid.
Now, your first post. You've judged them already. In your eyes they're guilty. How do you know they had intimate access and knowledge of Al Quaeda? Thier stories of innocence could well be true. Or it could be neither, they could just be naive people who got sucked into something too big for them to comprenhend. And as far as I know, we can't imprision people and deny them rights because they've been stupid.
Indeed a hard question. It's never a case of "At any cost?" - there will always be some cost. But don't many countries lock up people who haven't committed a crime, and our government reacts. But they one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.
If I were king....
About the post above and the benefits system - this is how our democracy works. Some people who recieve benefits don't deserve them, some people who need benefits don't get enough. And sometimes I have to wait for the third tube before I can get on.
The first problem is a very complex issue that probably needs another thread to debate it. However as a UK tax payer I'm fine with them getting legal aid.
Now, your first post. You've judged them already. In your eyes they're guilty. How do you know they had intimate access and knowledge of Al Quaeda? Thier stories of innocence could well be true. Or it could be neither, they could just be naive people who got sucked into something too big for them to comprenhend. And as far as I know, we can't imprision people and deny them rights because they've been stupid.
Quote:
it's desperately important to uphold principles of freedom, human rights, fair trial etc
BUT
at any cost?
Indeed a hard question. It's never a case of "At any cost?" - there will always be some cost. But don't many countries lock up people who haven't committed a crime, and our government reacts. But they one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.
If I were king....
addict
522 posts
Location: Berlin
522 posts
Location: Berlin
Posted:
Whatever happened to "innocent until proven guilty"?
Let there be a case.
If there were grounds for holding these people for two years without ever charging them with anything but having a different set of beliefs, then by all means let the governments of both countries come clean and prove they had a legitimate cause for withholding these four human beings from their right to be free. If the governments prove themselves trustworthy, it can only benefit them.
Above all, human rights need to be respected. Once those are lost, so is the democracy our we are all so proud of. One of those rights is freedom to actually have a fair trial.
Whatever happened to "innocent until proven guilty"?
Let there be a case.
If there were grounds for holding these people for two years without ever charging them with anything but having a different set of beliefs, then by all means let the governments of both countries come clean and prove they had a legitimate cause for withholding these four human beings from their right to be free. If the governments prove themselves trustworthy, it can only benefit them.
Above all, human rights need to be respected. Once those are lost, so is the democracy our we are all so proud of. One of those rights is freedom to actually have a fair trial.
Your life is ending one minute at a time...
So live it.
Pooh-Bah
1,662 posts
Location: Bristol
1,662 posts
Location: Bristol
Posted:
well yes actually - there is not one single shred of real evidence against them - otherwise the US would have kep it a secret by now. They wouldn't have ever let us have them back if they could prove they did anything - even the americans aren't that stupid.
Quote:
First off, small point, these guys aren't nice innocent people. They're religious extremist paramilitaries who volunteered to fight with the Taleban (remember them? they weren't very nice...)
That also means that because of their backgrounds, motivations and the strong Al-Quaeda presence that was in Afghanistan, these guys are pretty likely to have links with Al-Quaeda than most people. Anyone disagree?
well yes actually - there is not one single shred of real evidence against them - otherwise the US would have kep it a secret by now. They wouldn't have ever let us have them back if they could prove they did anything - even the americans aren't that stupid.
I had a dream that my friend had a
strong-bad pop up book,
it was the book of my dreams.
110% MONKEY EVERY TIME ALL THE TIME JUST CANT STOP THE MONKEY
3,149 posts
Location: London
3,149 posts
Location: London
Posted:
You're both saying that out of respect for human rights, the right to fair trial, and the principle of "Innocent until proven guilty" we must release people even if we suspect they are withholding information that could save thousands of lives?
i'm not saying that these guys are "guilty". I'm saying that the potential value of the information they may hold is high enough to understand rules being bent to detain and question them at length.
i am worried by the possibility of abuse of the new measures being introduced to combat terrorism. We've already seen them being misused by UK police at peaceful demonstrations. But at the same time, normal criminal law is not sufficient to effectively fight organisations like Al Quaeda.
So when a country breaks the normal rules to go after terrorists civil rights groups are up in arms.
and when we introduce new rules to go after terrorists legally civil rights groups are up in arms.
one occasion springs to mind when someone stated both these opinions and immediately afterward criticised the allies for not catching OBL yet...
It is good that civil liberties are defended so stoically, but it is equally dangerous to blindly defend a principle while ignoring the specifics of a case.
One last thing:
Well no, we don't.
It depends who the country is, what we want from them, and who they're locking up...
You're both saying that out of respect for human rights, the right to fair trial, and the principle of "Innocent until proven guilty" we must release people even if we suspect they are withholding information that could save thousands of lives?
i'm not saying that these guys are "guilty". I'm saying that the potential value of the information they may hold is high enough to understand rules being bent to detain and question them at length.
i am worried by the possibility of abuse of the new measures being introduced to combat terrorism. We've already seen them being misused by UK police at peaceful demonstrations. But at the same time, normal criminal law is not sufficient to effectively fight organisations like Al Quaeda.
So when a country breaks the normal rules to go after terrorists civil rights groups are up in arms.
and when we introduce new rules to go after terrorists legally civil rights groups are up in arms.
one occasion springs to mind when someone stated both these opinions and immediately afterward criticised the allies for not catching OBL yet...
It is good that civil liberties are defended so stoically, but it is equally dangerous to blindly defend a principle while ignoring the specifics of a case.
One last thing:
Quote:
But don't many countries lock up people who haven't committed a crime, and our government reacts.
Well no, we don't.
It depends who the country is, what we want from them, and who they're locking up...
"Switching between different kinds of chuu chuu sometimes gives this "urgh wtf?" effect because it's giving people the phi phenomenon."
110% MONKEY EVERY TIME ALL THE TIME JUST CANT STOP THE MONKEY
3,149 posts
Location: London
3,149 posts
Location: London
Posted:
Tao:
you use the terms "real evidence" and "prove"
This isn't about a trial though.
This is about the possibility they have information to stop more people being killed.
i don't know how possible that possibility is.
but if the US detained them in contravention of international law for over for a year to question them, then they must have thought it likely enough to pay the price of international anger at their actions. even the americans aren't that stupid.
Tao:
you use the terms "real evidence" and "prove"
This isn't about a trial though.
This is about the possibility they have information to stop more people being killed.
i don't know how possible that possibility is.
but if the US detained them in contravention of international law for over for a year to question them, then they must have thought it likely enough to pay the price of international anger at their actions. even the americans aren't that stupid.
"Switching between different kinds of chuu chuu sometimes gives this "urgh wtf?" effect because it's giving people the phi phenomenon."
addict
522 posts
Location: Berlin
522 posts
Location: Berlin
Posted:
I think that is precisely what these cases will find out, whether the US government is that stupid, because if it is, then it should not be allowed the power to step outside the law whenever it feels like, if it isn't, then maybe there is a case for allowing them such drastic measures.
People who do know about things like that aren't likely to give up that information anyway (at least within methods allowed by the Geneva convention, which I suspect is another thing the US wants to get past).
I think that is precisely what these cases will find out, whether the US government is that stupid, because if it is, then it should not be allowed the power to step outside the law whenever it feels like, if it isn't, then maybe there is a case for allowing them such drastic measures.
People who do know about things like that aren't likely to give up that information anyway (at least within methods allowed by the Geneva convention, which I suspect is another thing the US wants to get past).
Your life is ending one minute at a time...
So live it.
110% MONKEY EVERY TIME ALL THE TIME JUST CANT STOP THE MONKEY
3,149 posts
Location: London
3,149 posts
Location: London
Posted:
going for the 3rd post in a row...
(edit - whoops King of Bongo too fast)
about my assuming these guys are "guilty".
They are. They fought for the Taleban. That's guilty in my book.
But i'm not saying "they should be locked up"
i'm saying that it may, unfortunately, be necessary. Because it could save lives.
Errr, let me try a (fairly nonsensical) illustration:
Say we have a totally innocent nice person who's never done a bad thing ever ever.
Let's call him Dom
Now there is a x% chance that locked in Dom's head is a secret that will save the lives of y amount of people.
The only way we can uncover the secret is to lock Dom up for a year in Cuba and poke him with sticks until the secret pops out of his ear.
Would that ever be justified, for any value of x or y?
What if x is 100%, and y is 5 million people?
Even if it meant the destruction of the human race, can we still not lock Dom up in Cuba because of his 'human rights'?
Remember, in the case of the detainees at Guantanamo, NOBODY KNOWS what x or y are.
And in the balance between vs.
the US is choosing safety first, fairly understandably.
EDITED_BY: simian (1079361118)
going for the 3rd post in a row...
(edit - whoops King of Bongo too fast)
about my assuming these guys are "guilty".
They are. They fought for the Taleban. That's guilty in my book.
But i'm not saying "they should be locked up"
i'm saying that it may, unfortunately, be necessary. Because it could save lives.
Errr, let me try a (fairly nonsensical) illustration:
Say we have a totally innocent nice person who's never done a bad thing ever ever.
Let's call him Dom
Now there is a x% chance that locked in Dom's head is a secret that will save the lives of y amount of people.
The only way we can uncover the secret is to lock Dom up for a year in Cuba and poke him with sticks until the secret pops out of his ear.
Would that ever be justified, for any value of x or y?
What if x is 100%, and y is 5 million people?
Even if it meant the destruction of the human race, can we still not lock Dom up in Cuba because of his 'human rights'?
Remember, in the case of the detainees at Guantanamo, NOBODY KNOWS what x or y are.
And in the balance between
the US is choosing safety first, fairly understandably.
EDITED_BY: simian (1079361118)
"Switching between different kinds of chuu chuu sometimes gives this "urgh wtf?" effect because it's giving people the phi phenomenon."
110% MONKEY EVERY TIME ALL THE TIME JUST CANT STOP THE MONKEY
3,149 posts
Location: London
3,149 posts
Location: London
Posted:
um, how do you take away someones power to ignore rules?
Quote:
then it should not be allowed the power to step outside the law whenever it feels like
um, how do you take away someones power to ignore rules?
"Switching between different kinds of chuu chuu sometimes gives this "urgh wtf?" effect because it's giving people the phi phenomenon."
BRONZE Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,009 posts
Location: Bristol, UK
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,009 posts
Location: Bristol, UK
Posted:
Only possibly. They might truthfully know nothing about future attacks. Again I remind you that only very few of the Al Quaeda leaders knew about the 9/11 plot until it happened.
Also thousands of lives can be saved through: Better policing and intelligence gathering; not invading Iraq; locking up possible terrorists; locking up all Arabs; locking up all men aged 18-25; banning cars. The line is where exactly?
May. MAY! Exactly. Where is that line. All Arab men might know about an attack. All Irish men might know about Irish terrorist groups. Where was that line again? You don't know what x and y are, and it's a huge debate about when a belief in x justifies breaking the rules. But maybe it's better to work on what you know. It's unlikely anybody in Guantanamo has a very high x or y.
See above.
I believe not all of they claim they fought for the Taliban. And all that means is that they're guilty of having different political views and were willing to fight to defend those views. They may not have actually done anything 'wrong' whilst supporting the Taliban. But then 'wrong' is relative.
And lets not forget - this is also happening in the UK - 2 years without charge or trial. This person wasn't arrested in Afghanistan.
Quote:
if we suspect they are withholding information that could save thousands of lives?
Only possibly. They might truthfully know nothing about future attacks. Again I remind you that only very few of the Al Quaeda leaders knew about the 9/11 plot until it happened.
Also thousands of lives can be saved through: Better policing and intelligence gathering; not invading Iraq; locking up possible terrorists; locking up all Arabs; locking up all men aged 18-25; banning cars. The line is where exactly?
Quote:
'm saying that the potential value of the information they may hold is high enough to understand rules being bent to detain and question them at length.
May. MAY! Exactly. Where is that line. All Arab men might know about an attack. All Irish men might know about Irish terrorist groups. Where was that line again? You don't know what x and y are, and it's a huge debate about when a belief in x justifies breaking the rules. But maybe it's better to work on what you know. It's unlikely anybody in Guantanamo has a very high x or y.
Quote:
This is about the possibility they have information to stop more people being killed.
See above.
Quote:
They fought for the Taleban. That's guilty in my book.
I believe not all of they claim they fought for the Taliban. And all that means is that they're guilty of having different political views and were willing to fight to defend those views. They may not have actually done anything 'wrong' whilst supporting the Taliban. But then 'wrong' is relative.
And lets not forget - this is also happening in the UK - 2 years without charge or trial. This person wasn't arrested in Afghanistan.
110% MONKEY EVERY TIME ALL THE TIME JUST CANT STOP THE MONKEY
3,149 posts
Location: London
3,149 posts
Location: London
Posted:
Ah, but now you agree there's a line, and that's the important thing
now how have you reached the conclusion that it's unlikely they know anything?
huh? which person?
Quote:
Where was that line again? You don't know what x and y are, and it's a huge debate about when a belief in x justifies breaking the rules. But maybe it's better to work on what you know. It's unlikely anybody in Guantanamo has a very high x or y.
Ah, but now you agree there's a line, and that's the important thing
now how have you reached the conclusion that it's unlikely they know anything?
Quote:
And lets not forget - this is also happening in the UK - 2 years without charge or trial. This person wasn't arrested in Afghanistan.
huh? which person?
"Switching between different kinds of chuu chuu sometimes gives this "urgh wtf?" effect because it's giving people the phi phenomenon."
SILVER Member
old hand
1,032 posts
Location: Madrid, United Kingdom
old hand
1,032 posts
Location: Madrid, United Kingdom
Posted:
no no no no no
i don't thin kyou should take dom to cuba and poke him with a stick
naughty little monkey
no no no no no
i don't thin kyou should take dom to cuba and poke him with a stick
naughty little monkey
"I don't take drugs. I am drugs" - Salvador Dali 
member
14 posts
Location: Milano
14 posts
Location: Milano
Posted:
There is a Swedish guy there too! He was just in the wrong place at the wrong time when the americans got him, big mistake... I wonger if they treat them in a "legal" way when it comes to international laws of war and stuff... Wouldnt think so!
There is a Swedish guy there too! He was just in the wrong place at the wrong time when the americans got him, big mistake... I wonger if they treat them in a "legal" way when it comes to international laws of war and stuff... Wouldnt think so!
© 1998 - 2025 Home of Poi
All prices converted to United States dollars using XE.com