Guantanamo: Sympathy for The Devil?
Discussion
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4204041.stm
Most of the news coverage of this story has yielded much in the way of condemnation.
Obviously, one can question, indeed, it may well be right to do so, the conditions there and reports of alleged abuse.
Geneva Convention and all that.
However where, amidst the indignation, are the incredulous questioners of these mens' location in the first place?
Sure, they'll get a thorough debriefing by our own security johnnies but for the life of me, why the hell has the media bias been so skewed against the bleedin' obvious on this subject?
Most of the news coverage of this story has yielded much in the way of condemnation.
Obviously, one can question, indeed, it may well be right to do so, the conditions there and reports of alleged abuse.
Geneva Convention and all that.
However where, amidst the indignation, are the incredulous questioners of these mens' location in the first place?
Sure, they'll get a thorough debriefing by our own security johnnies but for the life of me, why the hell has the media bias been so skewed against the bleedin' obvious on this subject?
Plotloss said:
Strike me as curious that they all seem to go to Paddington Green high security nick on arrival.
Is Paddington that much worse than Guantanamo?
Isn't it just because they're terrorist suspects, so they go the station with the best facilities? But ISWYM, if the septics can't get them to confess after three years, what will the special branch achieve?
I'd assume that our security services haven't waited 3 years to investigate these men.
Septics couldn't find any evidence either.
Maybe they'll come clean as soon as they get back here.
Out of these four, only one was actually in Afghanistan. 2 were in Pakistan (possibly dodgy) and one in Zambia! Now that does seem a long way from the battlefield to be considered an "Enemy combatant".
>> Edited by superflid on Tuesday 25th January 12:39
Septics couldn't find any evidence either.
Maybe they'll come clean as soon as they get back here.
Out of these four, only one was actually in Afghanistan. 2 were in Pakistan (possibly dodgy) and one in Zambia! Now that does seem a long way from the battlefield to be considered an "Enemy combatant".
>> Edited by superflid on Tuesday 25th January 12:39
We(our police) have been out there to inverview these men 5 times or so havnt they already?
I doubt any court in this country could try them and convict without very strong evidence now, and if they had that then why not do it far earlier?
Again you cant protect civil liberties by destroying them.
I doubt any court in this country could try them and convict without very strong evidence now, and if they had that then why not do it far earlier?
Again you cant protect civil liberties by destroying them.
superflid said:
Out of these four, only one was actually in Afghanistan. 2 were in Pakistan (possibly dodgy) and one in Zambia! Now that does seem a long way from the battlefield to be considered an "Enemy combatant".
There's still something untoward about these arrests.
I'm still surprised by the lack of analysis into why these people were in Afghanistan or wherever else they were.
Also, what were the yanks doing seizing people in Zambia, anyway?
It's one helluva mess.
ErnestM said:
To quote Cicero:
"Inter Arma Enim Silent Leges"
It's either war or a police/law enforcement action. Decide.
Just my 0.02
ErnestM
Unfortunately the US administration doesn't appear to be able to decide, which has left these people in a legal limbo.
Either they're prisoners of war or criminals, the civilised world has well established systems for dealing with both.
No vixpy you're not going liberal you're just treading the fine line between keeping our freedom safe from outside influences and keeping it safe from internal influences (i.e. overzelous security services) These people should have a trial; if they can't be convicted then they should be released.
The future security of the free world is under much greater threat from our elected representitives than it is from al-Zawahiri and his mates.
The future security of the free world is under much greater threat from our elected representitives than it is from al-Zawahiri and his mates.
RobDickinson said:
We(our police) have been out there to inverview these men 5 times or so havnt they already?
I doubt any court in this country could try them and convict without very strong evidence now, and if they had that then why not do it far earlier?
Again you cant protect civil liberties by destroying them.
They've been banged up without legal counsel for three years anyway, no chance of them being convicted by any system in the civilised world now.
mechsympathy said:
To quote Cicero:
"Inter Arma Enim Silent Leges"
It's either war or a police/law enforcement action. Decide.
Just my 0.02
ErnestM
Unfortunately the US administration doesn't appear to be able to decide, which has left these people in a legal limbo.
Either they're prisoners of war or criminals, the civilised world has well established systems for dealing with both.
Actually under the articles of the Geneva Convention there is a third option. As these men don't meet the definition of a Prisoner of war:
Part 1, Article 5
Art. 5 Where in the territory of a Party to the conflict, the latter is satisfied that an individual protected person is definitely suspected of or engaged in activities hostile to the security of the State, such individual person shall not be entitled to claim such rights and privileges under the present Convention as would, if exercised in the favour of such individual person, be prejudicial to the security of such State.
Where in occupied territory an individual protected person is detained as a spy or saboteur, or as a person under definite suspicion of activity hostile to the security of the Occupying Power, such person shall, in those cases where absolute military security so requires, be regarded as having forfeited rights of communication under the present Convention.
ErnestM
(There are also other sections of the convention that allow summary execution of civilians, not in uniform or acting as saboteurs and spys, to be summarily executed)
ErnestM said:
Art. 5 Where in the territory of a Party to the conflict, the latter is satisfied that an individual protected person is definitely suspected of or engaged in activities hostile to the security of the State, such individual person shall not be entitled to claim such rights and privileges under the present Convention as would, if exercised in the favour of such individual person, be prejudicial to the security of such State.
Where in occupied territory an individual protected person is detained as a spy or saboteur, or as a person under definite suspicion of activity hostile to the security of the Occupying Power, such person shall, in those cases where absolute military security so requires, be regarded as having forfeited rights of communication under the present Convention.
Interesting points, looks like legal bollockese to me. It's certainly vague enough to label anyone out of uniform that the occupying power feels like as undesireable. Which is why the US administration has managed to fend off the various objections to their behaviour.
But since three of the four Bitons picked up were outside the conflict area, then this is irrelevant to their cases anyway.
When five British detainees were returned from Guantanamo in March 2004, the biggest clue to what would happen to them next was given by the then Home Secretary, David Blunkett.
He said that none was a threat to British security.
And, indeed, none has faced any further sanction.
In foreshadowing the release of the remaining four British citizens from Guantanamo, the Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw, was more ambiguous in his choice of words.
But in saying that some of the 200 detainees freed by the US had returned to terrorism, he was probably hinting that the decision on whether to charge any of the four - Moazzam Begg, Martin Mubanga, Feroz Abassi and Richard Belmar - may be less clear-cut.
Whatever the eventual outcome, it is likely that the four will be arrested in the UK under a section of the Terrorism Act 2000 prohibiting involvement in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism.
They will be questioned by officers from Scotland Yard's anti-terrorist branch and a decision on any prosecution taken by the Crown Prosecution Service.
They can be held up to 14 days without charge.
'Complex discussions'
Short of a direct admission of complicity, it seems improbable that "evidence" obtained from interrogations carried out at Guantanamo would, on its own, be sufficient to form the basis of a UK prosecution.
The Treason Act applies to those who take up arms against their own country.
But one of the four, Martin Mubanga, was not even seized from a "battlefield" and the evidence against the others rests mainly on allegations that they took part in Al Qaeda training camps so that sanction can almost certainly be ruled out.
Mr Straw told the Commons that there had been "intensive and complex discussions" to address US security concerns.
This may mean that the government has offered some kind of assurance that the men will be kept under surveillance but there is no possibility of details being publicly disclosed.
Meanwhile, two British residents, who are not citizens, are amongst the 550 detainees who continue to be held at Guantanamo.
And the US has signalled its intention to create a permanent prison, holding up to 200 "enemy combatants", there.
The war on terror might be entering a new phase but the implications for human rights have not diminished.
He said that none was a threat to British security.
And, indeed, none has faced any further sanction.
In foreshadowing the release of the remaining four British citizens from Guantanamo, the Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw, was more ambiguous in his choice of words.
But in saying that some of the 200 detainees freed by the US had returned to terrorism, he was probably hinting that the decision on whether to charge any of the four - Moazzam Begg, Martin Mubanga, Feroz Abassi and Richard Belmar - may be less clear-cut.
Whatever the eventual outcome, it is likely that the four will be arrested in the UK under a section of the Terrorism Act 2000 prohibiting involvement in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism.
They will be questioned by officers from Scotland Yard's anti-terrorist branch and a decision on any prosecution taken by the Crown Prosecution Service.
They can be held up to 14 days without charge.
'Complex discussions'
Short of a direct admission of complicity, it seems improbable that "evidence" obtained from interrogations carried out at Guantanamo would, on its own, be sufficient to form the basis of a UK prosecution.
The Treason Act applies to those who take up arms against their own country.
But one of the four, Martin Mubanga, was not even seized from a "battlefield" and the evidence against the others rests mainly on allegations that they took part in Al Qaeda training camps so that sanction can almost certainly be ruled out.
Mr Straw told the Commons that there had been "intensive and complex discussions" to address US security concerns.
This may mean that the government has offered some kind of assurance that the men will be kept under surveillance but there is no possibility of details being publicly disclosed.
Meanwhile, two British residents, who are not citizens, are amongst the 550 detainees who continue to be held at Guantanamo.
And the US has signalled its intention to create a permanent prison, holding up to 200 "enemy combatants", there.
The war on terror might be entering a new phase but the implications for human rights have not diminished.
mechsympathy said:
Art. 5 Where in the territory of a Party to the conflict, the latter is satisfied that an individual protected person is definitely suspected of or engaged in activities hostile to the security of the State, such individual person shall not be entitled to claim such rights and privileges under the present Convention as would, if exercised in the favour of such individual person, be prejudicial to the security of such State.
Where in occupied territory an individual protected person is detained as a spy or saboteur, or as a person under definite suspicion of activity hostile to the security of the Occupying Power, such person shall, in those cases where absolute military security so requires, be regarded as having forfeited rights of communication under the present Convention.
Interesting points, looks like legal bollockese to me. It's certainly vague enough to label anyone out of uniform that the occupying power feels like as undesireable. Which is why the US administration has managed to fend off the various objections to their behaviour.
But since three of the four Bitons picked up were outside the conflict area, then this is irrelevant to their cases anyway.
I agree. It is complete bollox. War is controlled chaos. You win wars by forcing the enemy to lose control of their portion of the chaos...
The only reason I posted that was so that people would actually take an interest in the Convention and read it for themsleves. It's all good and well to repeat what you hear, but one should inform themselves.
Personally, I believe that Convention protections do no apply to individuals as part of a terrorist organization. I arrived at that conclusion by doing personal research. Because people where making such a fuss about the issue, I actually thought - "Well, if the US is contravening a signed agreement, that would be wrong." However, as with all legal documents, there are loopholes. Is it war or a law enforcement action? Either way, it doesn't matter - except to the lawyers.
ErnestM
Gassing Station | The Pie & Piston Archive | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff