Terror suspect becomes UK citizen
Discussion
BBC said:
Terror suspect becomes UK citizen
David Hicks has been at Guantanamo for three years
An Australian held as a terror suspect at Guantanamo Bay has won a legal battle in the UK High Court to be registered as a British citizen.
David Hicks, often referred to as the "Australian Taleban", can now call on UK officials to lobby for his release.
Mr Hicks, 30, whose mother is British, was captured in Afghanistan in 2001 for allegedly fighting US-led forces.
The Muslim convert from Adelaide, South Australia, faces charges of conspiracy to commit war crimes.
US authorities have also charged him with attempted murder and aiding the enemy.
His trial was due to start in November, but a federal judge in the US suspended it while the US Supreme Court looked into the legality of military tribunals created to try war crimes suspects.
Mr Hicks, who is a former abattoir worker and kangaroo hunter, has been held at Guantanamo base for more than three years.
The government seems unable to restrict, on the grounds of public safety, who can reside here or even claim citizenship.
Jaglover said:
The government seems unable to restrict, on the grounds of public safety, who can reside here or even claim citizenship.
Given that the septics haver got him wearing an orange jumpsuit in Cuba, his residence would not appear to be an issue, and since his mother is apparently British it could be argued that, as a matter of course, he has dual nationality, part of which is British.
Einion Yrth said:
Given that the septics haver got him wearing an orange jumpsuit in Cuba, his residence would not appear to be an issue, and since his mother is apparently British it could be argued that, as a matter of course, he has dual nationality, part of which is British.
All of the detainees who are British citizens have been transferred back here, so how long until he is loose here?
As for his mother's nationality, yes that should be taken into account, and virtually all the time I would advocate such a person becoming a citizen. But the government should have a right of refusal based on the risk to the public, whether from crime or Terrorism.
It is time to stop the 'rights' based approach to controlling immigration, that considers only the 'rights' of the would be immigrant and consider what benefit they provide the general populace. Someone who is a very real terrorism risk does not pass that test.
Jaglover said:
Given that the septics haver got him wearing an orange jumpsuit in Cuba, his residence would not appear to be an issue, and since his mother is apparently British it could be argued that, as a matter of course, he has dual nationality, part of which is British.
All of the detainees who are British citizens have been transferred back here, so how long until he is loose here?
As for his mother's nationality, yes that should be taken into account, and virtually all the time I would advocate such a person becoming a citizen. But the government should have a right of refusal based on the risk to the public, whether from crime or Terrorism.
It is time to stop the 'rights' based approach to controlling immigration, that considers only the 'rights' of the would be immigrant and consider what benefit they provide the general populace. Someone who is a very real terrorism risk does not pass that test.
With respect I would suggest that until he has been through due process of law to establish what, if anything, he is guilty of, your response is a little, if not prejudiced, at least premature.
Einion Yrth said:
With respect I would suggest that until he has been through due process of law to establish what, if anything, he is guilty of, your response is a little, if not prejudiced, at least premature.
In respect of immigration matters a lower standard of proof should apply. After all we are not locking anyone up only deciding whether they can come in the country or not. If the government has justifiable suspicion that a non-citizen is a threat to this country then they have every right to either deny them a visa, or, if they are already in the country, deport them.
Its first responsibility is to the well being of its own citizens.
Einion Yrth said:
Given that the septics haver got him wearing an orange jumpsuit in Cuba, his residence would not appear to be an issue, and since his mother is apparently British it could be argued that, as a matter of course, he has dual nationality, part of which is British.
All of the detainees who are British citizens have been transferred back here, so how long until he is loose here?
As for his mother's nationality, yes that should be taken into account, and virtually all the time I would advocate such a person becoming a citizen. But the government should have a right of refusal based on the risk to the public, whether from crime or Terrorism.
It is time to stop the 'rights' based approach to controlling immigration, that considers only the 'rights' of the would be immigrant and consider what benefit they provide the general populace. Someone who is a very real terrorism risk does not pass that test.
With respect I would suggest that until he has been through due process of law to establish what, if anything, he is guilty of, your response is a little, if not prejudiced, at least premature.
I agree however, this should come first and until the time when he is cleared of the allegations British citizenship should be denied!
What allegations? the point being that there are no allegations. If he was fighting for the Taleban, that is his choice. I don't see that as a crime that he should be locked up for. remember that US people came to fight for Britain before the US came into the war. The US supported the Afghans during their plight agai9nst the Russians, etc. Suddenly fighting for a foreign country is now a crime? Is it really that different?
>> Edited by andy mac on Tuesday 13th December 12:17
>> Edited by andy mac on Tuesday 13th December 12:17
CupraR said:
What allegations? the point being that there are no allegations. If he was fighting for the Taleban, that is his choice. I don't see that as a crime that he should be locked up for.
How about keeping your 'Moron' insults to yourself? There are NO proven charges against this chap. THAT is the point. It's amazing how you can enter a discussion and instantly drag it down.
>> Edited by andy mac on Tuesday 13th December 12:22
andy mac said:
If he was fighting for the Taleban, that is his choice. I don't see that as a crime that he should be locked up for.
But we were part of the coalition that overthrew the Taliban, so he has already committed treason against his new country (and his old one too come to that)
Furthermore by fighting on their side he has shown that he holds extremist views, inimical to our way of life, for which he is willing to fight, clearly not an individual we would wish to live in our country.
Jaglover said:
If he was fighting for the Taleban, that is his choice. I don't see that as a crime that he should be locked up for.
But we were part of the coalition that overthrew the Taliban, so he has already committed treason against his new country (and his old one too come to that)
Furthermore by fighting on their side he has shown that he holds extremist views, inimical to our way of life, for which he is willing to fight, clearly not an individual we would wish to live in our country.
I am not covering up for his beliefs, but don't mistake fighting for Afghanistan as instantly an extremist. That stinks of propaganda. I recall a lot of IRA prisoners committed 'treason' yet were relseased. as I said, we have a sstem of innocent until proven guilty in this country. it's all to easy to throw that out of the window when you see something, or someone you don't like, but it applies to all I'm afraid.
andy mac said:
What allegations? the point being that there are no allegations. If he was fighting for the Taleban, that is his choice. I don't see that as a crime that he should be locked up for. remember that US people came to fight for Britain before the US came into the war. The US supported the Afghans during their plight agai9nst the Russians, etc. Suddenly fighting for a foreign country is now a crime? Is it really that different?
>> Edited by andy mac on Tuesday 13th December 12:17
Yes I know about the history of the middle east (thanks for the recap). However what would have happened to American's who went to fight for the Germans in WW2? Your post seems to twist what has actually happened.
It has really shocked me that you would think that way.
>> Edited by polus on Tuesday 13th December 12:28
andy mac said:
I am not covering up for his beliefs, but don't mistake fighting for Afghanistan as instantly an extremist.
He is not a citizen of that country, he travelled there expressely for the purpose of fighting for a barbaric regime against a western coalition.
What benefit is gained to the UK as a result of him becoming a citizen?. Do you truly believe that no harm would come to UK citizens as a result of such a decision?
andy mac said:He wouldn't be in Guantanamo without a reason, it's not like they just picked him up off the street in Sydney. It's amazing how you can enter a discussion and instantly show how naive you are.
There are NO proven charges against this chap. THAT is the point. It's amazing how you can enter a discussion and instantly drag it down.
polus said:
What allegations? the point being that there are no allegations. If he was fighting for the Taleban, that is his choice. I don't see that as a crime that he should be locked up for. remember that US people came to fight for Britain before the US came into the war. The US supported the Afghans during their plight agai9nst the Russians, etc. Suddenly fighting for a foreign country is now a crime? Is it really that different?
>> Edited by andy mac on Tuesday 13th December 12:17
Yes I know about the history of the middle east (thanks for the recap). However what would have happened to American's who went to fight for the Germans in WW2? You post seems to twist what has actually happened .
I don't know.. what would have happened? Would they be locked up indefinately, and charged with war crimes? How is that twisting things? I was merely pointing out that people fight for other countries all the time. It doesn't make them criminals. What did the german do to the US personall captured? Were they locked up indefinately, or were they released after the war?
And cupra,
"He wouldn't be in Guantanamo without a reason, it's not like they just picked him up off the street in Sydney. It's amazing how you can enter a discussion and instantly show how naive you are."
he is in Guantanamo because he was fighting with the Taleban in Afghanistan. However, since then, he has been in guantanemo bay. No charge, no trial, etc. I am not defending his actions in Afghanistan, however, I do not agree with an instant judgement based on allegations that have not gone to trial, and been proven, Namely war crimes, and
murder. Judgements based on unproven claims are against the 'innocent until proven guilty' trait you and I have the protection of. Instant 'daily mail' judgments are becoming all too common.
>> Edited by andy mac on Tuesday 13th December 12:32
Gassing Station | The Pie & Piston Archive | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff