Guantanamo Brits released...finall

[Britkid]

Four of the five British residents have been released from Guantanamo, some of them who have been there for five years without charge.

'Four British residents held without charge at the American detention camp for suspected terrorists at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba are to be released, reducing the UK involvement with the camp to just one inmate.
The four men have all lived in Britain after being granted refugee status or temporary immigration status. They have struggled to have their cases heard because until recently Britain refused to represent them on the grounds that they were not UK citizens.

Three of the men - Jamil el-Banna, Omar Deghayes and Abdenour Samuer - are to be allowed to return to the UK by Christmas. A fourth, Shaker Abdur-Raheem Aamer, will be sent back to his home country, Saudi Arabia.
That leaves one UK resident, Binyam Mohammed al-Habashi from Ethiopia, still in Guantánamo. The Pentagon claims he is particularly dangerous and it is determined that he stays to face one of the military commissions established to prosecute prisoners at the camp.

News of the imminent release of the four men came three months after the UK reversed its previous policy and decided to represent the men.

Until August the official Foreign Office position was that the prisoners were not entitled to representation because they were not British nationals.

But David Miliband, the foreign secretary, responded to criticism of the government's position and agreed to take up their cases. He wrote to his US counterpart, Condoleezza Rice, requesting their release.'

Well, this is good I feel. Looking at the men's factfiles at the bottom of the article, none of them deserved to be locked up for years and none of them are particularly dangerous now.

It's good to see our foreign office finally standing up to the Americans over Guantamano.

[Tri-Nitro-Toluene]

The British Government actually standing up to the US and not being a complete and total lapdog? Pinch me. I MUST be dreaming.

[cellardoor6]

At 12/8/07 04:57 AM, Tri-Nitro-Toluene wrote: The British Government actually standing up to the US and not being a complete and total lapdog? Pinch me. I MUST be dreaming.

How are they "standing up to" the US?

Apparently all they did was finally represent them and request their release. There was no "release them or else" or anything like that.

[Tri-Nitro-Toluene]

At 12/8/07 05:20 AM, cellardoor6 wrote:

At 12/8/07 04:57 AM, Tri-Nitro-Toluene wrote: The British Government actually standing up to the US and not being a complete and total lapdog? Pinch me. I MUST be dreaming.

How are they "standing up to" the US?

Apparently all they did was finally represent them and request their release. There was no "release them or else" or anything like that.

British policy in the past has basically been ' The US is doing stuff, even if we don't like it, lets support them cause they are bigger than us'.

The fact that the government has taken the representation of these people seriously enough and managed to get them released is actually suggesting that they are starting to make a move where Britain's interests in areas where there may be clashes with the US is becoming paramount. it isn't a giant move away from America, but the fact that the British government was willing to apply some pressure on the US ( however little it may be) indicates a slight shift in policy decisions away from the ' US says jump we say how high' towards a more ' Why the hell do you want us to jump?' attitude.

[Elfer]

At 12/8/07 05:20 AM, cellardoor6 wrote:

At 12/8/07 04:57 AM, Tri-Nitro-Toluene wrote: The British Government actually standing up to the US and not being a complete and total lapdog? Pinch me. I MUST be dreaming.

How are they "standing up to" the US?

"Standing up to someone" has different connotations in Britain and the US.

In this case, it meant that they stopped cowering behind their teacup long enough to politely ask for a small favour.

[Memorize]

At 12/8/07 05:28 AM, Tri-Nitro-Toluene wrote:

but the fact that the British government was willing to apply some pressure on the US ( however little it may be) indicates a slight shift in policy decisions away from the ' US says jump we say how high' towards a more ' Why the hell do you want us to jump?' attitude.

Please.

All that country and those other European idiots do is complain and bitch. But yes, when it comes right down to it, they'd lick our balls straight into armageddon.

They're weak anyway. Just like the liberals in the US.

[Britkid]

Memorize's latest work:

From: Memorize
Sent: 12/08/07 10:51
Subject: lol
----------------------------------------
----------------------------------------
< Newer Older > Reply to Message Delete Message Add Sender to Contacts Block Sender
----------------------------------------
----------------------------------------

fucking idiotic 14 year old

---------------------

Oh the wit, how could I possibly trump that?

[Memorize]

At 12/8/07 11:06 AM, TheRoyalEnglishman wrote:

Oh the wit, how could I possibly trump that?

Lol, I know. It's great!

[morefngdbs]

At 12/8/07 11:06 AM, TheRoyalEnglishman wrote: Memorize's latest work:

From: Memorize
Sent: 12/08/07 10:51
Subject: lol
----------------------------------------
----------------------------------------
< Newer Older > Reply to Message Delete Message Add Sender to Contacts Block Sender
----------------------------------------
----------------------------------------

fucking idiotic 14 year old

---------------------

Oh the wit, how could I possibly trump that?

;
Your PM is much longer than my last one from Numbnuts... ah sorry, 'memorize'.
His last PM to me was just one word.
That was " IDIOT" no explaination.
It gave me a nice laugh & I find him to be such an ass, I can't block him because his stupidity at times just makes me laugh my ass off. I'm hopeful that more gems are forthcoming.

To the topic of letting people just go after serving time without charge, no matter who you are , no matter what you may have done, you deserve the right to face your accusers & have a fair trial.
That the United States, the worlds so called greatest democracy has failed to do so, under orders of the President of the country ,is deplorable.
When the lawmakers of your nation, use loopholes (such as not bringing the accussed into the country) but keep them in area's in other parts of the world that they are in complete control of , this is the actions of cowards.
Cowards who know that they have to move behind the scenes & hide as much information of what they are doing as possible. This in my opinion ,shows that the United States is no different than the Soviet Union in using its military/police powers to deny personal rights & freedoms to people who may be able to show that the 'regime' is in the wrong.

The biggest crime of the Gitmo prison camp, is in my opinion .
The toadies in power ,led by the president, don't want to be inconvienienced by the rules & rights they are suppose to be the champions for.
That for the most part the citizens of this country don't care that their rights & freedoms have been shoved through a loophole is probably the beginning of the end to the so called freedoms in that country.

You cannot toss aside the rights of others, just because it inconvieniences you.
Just because a person is from another country, and not an American ,doesn't mean they are not entitled to the same legal rights as you ,if you have them in your custody.

If you feel like scoffing at me for these views , let you not forget that since this was done, the U.S. now has "The Department of Homeland Security" who are basicly the Gestapo, they don't need a warrant, they don't need a reason, they can arrest whoever they want & don't even have to have a basis to back up their actions. It is all covered so very broadly as 'Homeland Security' & the people of the U.S. for the most part didn't even bother to complain.

Anyone who is simply released by the U.S. without charges after all this time should have the right to go to the World Court & sue the United States for crimes against them.

[Memorize]

At 12/8/07 02:27 PM, morefngdbs wrote:

That was " IDIOT" no explaination.

I decide not to give idiots one.

Since you're a failure and all.

To the topic of letting people just go after serving time without charge, no matter who you are , no matter what you may have done, you deserve the right to face your accusers & have a fair trial.

They do have trials at gitmo. They just aren't guaranteed. We've released over 500 people and there are only about 350 there at a given time.

The reason why some of them are held without trial is due to the risk of insurgents and terrorists claiming to be mere civilians, are released, and go back to killing civilians and soldiers. Which has happend before.

They're not being denied trial. Just being withheld from an immediate one.

You honestly think this is new in history?

The only thing new about it are idiots like you who care about the rights of those who target civilians.

When the lawmakers of your nation, use loopholes (such as not bringing the accussed into the country) but keep them in area's in other parts of the world that they are in complete control of , this is the actions of cowards.

No.

It's smart.

Comparing the US to the soviet union and WWII Germany.

THAT is why you are an idiot.

[morefngdbs]

At 12/8/07 03:45 PM, Memorize wrote:

At 12/8/07 02:27 PM, morefngdbs wrote:

I decide not to give idiots one.

Since you're a failure and all.

;
I'm willing to compare bank accounts & property ownership anytime... You do own an incorperated company too right?
You have children & a good job obviously ?

To the topic of letting people just go after serving time without charge, no matter who you are , no matter what you may have done, you deserve the right to face your accusers & have a fair trial.

They're not being denied trial. Just being withheld from an immediate one.

Same thing, your changing the rules as written in your constitution.

You honestly think this is new in history?

;
Not at all, the Nazi's are infamous for it. , So are the Commie's :)

The only thing new about it are idiots like you who care about the rights of those who target civilians.

When the lawmakers of your nation, use loopholes (such as not bringing the accussed into the country) but keep them in area's in other parts of the world that they are in complete control of , this is the actions of cowards.

No.

It's smart.

Its a cop out!

Comparing the US to the soviet union and WWII Germany.

Stop acting like them & I'll stop pointing it out !

THAT is why you are an idiot.

I see, telling the truth, pointing out the illeagal actions of your goverment makes me an idiot.
Well then I agree with you, after all only an idiot would want to be held to the laws & Constitution of the United States.

Gems every one of them.... LMFAO

[Christopherr]

At 12/8/07 10:50 AM, Memorize wrote: All that country and those other European idiots do is complain and bitch. But yes, when it comes right down to it, they'd lick our balls straight into armageddon.

I wouldn't say all the Europeans. Some of the Eastern Block still likes us (ex. Poland).

[Proteas]

At 12/8/07 02:27 PM, morefngdbs wrote: To the topic of letting people just go after serving time without charge, no matter who you are , no matter what you may have done, you deserve the right to face your accusers & have a fair trial.

As a citizen of the United States, yes, you have the right to all those rights under the constitution. As it stands, the men in question are not U.S. citizens, they were enemy combatants picked up inside of a war zone. And since they failed to cloth themselves in easily recognizable military garb of their home country, they do not have rights as Prisoners of War, either.

this is the actions of cowards.

That's one way of looking at it. It could also be viewed as a deviously smart move on the part of an administration often hailed as being full of idiots as well.

Cowards who know that they have to move behind the scenes & hide as much information of what they are doing as possible.

You'll probably think me a jaded asshole for saying this, but I honestly don't trust my government to tell me everything that goes on behind the scenes anyway. When my co-worker who was in the army's Special Forces during Vietnam tells me of torture and interrogation tactics they used that would make Water-boarding look like a walk in the park, it doesn't surprise me.

When the atrocities of Abu Ghraib came to light, I was a little bit surprised by the actions depicted, I will admit to that. But I was equally surprised that someone was dumb enough to take pictures of the going's on.

And when the CIA came out and said that it no longer used water-boarding itself in it's interrogation techniques, I rolled my eyes... especially since it was only 1 of handful of such "techniques" (plural) it would publicly discuss.

This in my opinion ,shows that the United States is no different than the Soviet Union in using its military/police powers to deny personal rights & freedoms to people who may be able to show that the 'regime' is in the wrong.

This statement would have some credibility if we were actually sending political protesters and opponents to Guantanamo, instead of foreign combatants (i.e.; Cindy Sheehan and the like).

It is all covered so very broadly as 'Homeland Security' & the people of the U.S. for the most part didn't even bother to complain.

Perhaps we're not complaining about our rights being violated and people being dragged off to the Gulags because... neither of those things have happened.

Seriously, how many people reading this topic right now have personally been effected by the new security rules and regulations (besides having a longer wait at the airport)? How many of you know of someone effected? How many of you know of someone who has been dragged off and arrested for some piece of anti-administration rhetoric they wrote? I'd be amazed if half of you are still here if that was truly the case, especially for what passes for discussion on this board on a daily basis.

Are we actually losing rights as time goes on, or are this administration's opponents merely guilty of proof by assertion?

Does anyone really know -- or care -- anymore?

Anyone who is simply released by the U.S. without charges after all this time should have the right to go to the World Court & sue the United States for crimes against them.

Uh huh, like that wouldn't be a biased jury.

*rolls eyes*

[Britkid]

The freed men

Jamil el-Banna

Banna, 45, a father of five from London, was seized by the CIA in 2002, and flown to Guantánamo after MI5 wrongly told the US that his travelling companion was carrying bomb parts on a business trip to Gambia. MI5 had attempted to recruit him as an informer days earlier

Omar Deghayes

Born in Libya, Deghayes, 37, came to the UK as a child after his father was murdered. He studied law at Wolverhampton University and in Huddersfield. His family say he has condemned terrorism. He alleges he was by left blind in one eye after a US soldier poked his finger into it.

Abdenour Samuer

Samuer fled to the UK from Algeria and was granted asylum in 2000. He went to Afghanistan after 9/11. He says he was captured on the Pakistan border. He told US interrogators that in 2001 a man at Finsbury Park mosque gave him money to go to Afghanistan

Shaker Abdur-Raheem Aamer

Aamer, 38, is a Saudi national with a British wife and four British children living in Battersea, London. He was applying for British citizenship when he took his family to Kabul and was seized by troops fighting alongside US forces. He will return to his native Saudi Arabia.

No sign of 'enemy combatants' amongst that, they were just suspects. Apart from the third one, who was the victim of false intelligence. He still should have been tried.

[Sajberhippien]

At 12/8/07 03:45 PM, Memorize wrote:

The reason why some of them are held without trial is due to the risk of insurgents and terrorists claiming to be mere civilians, are released, and go back to killing civilians and soldiers. Which has happend before.

"Guilty unless otherwise proven"

[The-Hydra-of-Spore]

Not really much of a show of defiance is it? What would be a show of defiance would be if one just one country who got demanded by the U.S Government that they release all nuclear weapons would just announce to the world a simple statement: We will if you do. Just once. Alas I suppose this is the best we can get in this modern age.

[JerkClock]

At 12/8/07 06:26 PM, morefngdbs wrote:
Same thing, your changing the rules as written in your constitution.

In all fairness, the constitution means jack fuck anymore. You can't have "freedom of speech" and yet have a "Federal Communications Commission" at the same time. It doesn't work that way.

[Memorize]

At 12/9/07 05:38 AM, Sajberhippien wrote:

"Guilty unless otherwise proven"

Your definition of "innocent until proven guilty" would be allowing captured enemy combatants back on the streets on bail.

Sorry, but different rules apply to war time combatants.

[Christopherr]

At 12/9/07 05:38 AM, Sajberhippien wrote: "Guilty unless otherwise proven"

In almost every case, they really are terrorists, it's just that the evidence would not hold up in court. Think about when you were a kid, and you would make an argument you know is right, but someone would say, "Prove it!"

You couldn't prove it though, so that must mean it was wrong.

[S-W-A-R-M-generation]

Realize they aren't the only innocents being held there. Apparently, the US Constitution does not mean anything if you build a camp in Syria or Cuba...

[Memorize]

At 12/9/07 04:09 PM, S-W-A-R-M-generation wrote: Realize they aren't the only innocents being held there. Apparently, the US Constitution does not mean anything if you build a camp in Syria or Cuba...

The US constitution applies to US citizens and those who live inside of the United States. Especially NOT someone during war time.

Would having freedom of speech apply to a US citizen living in... Sudan?
Or maybe the right to bare arms for US citizens living or staying in Japan?
Freedom of the Press?
Protest?
Attorney?

Point is: The US constitution applies to US citizens living INSIDE and operating in the United States.

[Imperator]

At 12/8/07 10:47 PM, Proteas wrote: As a citizen of the United States, yes, you have the right to all those rights under the constitution. As it stands, the men in question are not U.S. citizens, they were enemy combatants picked up inside of a war zone. And since they failed to cloth themselves in easily recognizable military garb of their home country, they do not have rights as Prisoners of War, either.

Proteas, we're fighting a moral war.

And in doing so we have to make it clear beyond a doubt we are morally superior. That means we have to give all the prisoners the same rights as everyone else, stop using questionable interrogation tactics, and do our damn well best to minimize scandals such as Abu-Ghraib.

It doesn't matter if they aren't POWs, we have to treat them that way anyways, because if we don't, it's seen as nitpicking. And you can't win a moral war by nitpicking these things. It has to be all or nothing.

We have to show the world that all the stuff we say about Iran, Saddam, and Al-Qaeda is not only true, but that we're the much better alternative.

[JerkClock]

At 12/9/07 06:27 PM, Imperator wrote:

Proteas, we're fighting a moral war.

Nothing moral about it, we attacked Afgahnastahn because we were attacked, and put the captured Al-Qeada in Guantanimo Bay, plain and simple. It's not a moral war, it was us attacking them for attacking us. I don't see what's so hard to figure out about that.

[Imperator]

At 12/9/07 06:49 PM, JerkClock wrote:
Nothing moral about it, we attacked Afgahnastahn because we were attacked, and put the captured Al-Qeada in Guantanimo Bay, plain and simple. It's not a moral war, it was us attacking them for attacking us. I don't see what's so hard to figure out about that.

Our language makes the War on Terror a moral war. We're good, they're bad.

They cut off heads, deny freedom, bomb civvies, torture people, etc.
We do the opposite.

We're fighting a Moral War on Terror. And you can't win that by playing dirty. End of story.

[JerkClock]

At 12/9/07 08:08 PM, Imperator wrote:

Our language makes the War on Terror a moral war. We're good, they're bad.

Not really, you're playing semantics is all that is. People got attacked who were leaving them alone, you have to be an idiot to think that means we're being moralistic for defending innocent people.

They cut off heads, deny freedom, bomb civvies, torture people, etc.
We do the opposite.

Says who? The dumb fucks who think torturing someone who deserves it is the same as torturing someone who doesn't? Who says we can't torture them back? And why not?

We're fighting a Moral War on Terror. And you can't win that by playing dirty. End of story.

You're actually trying to argue that if we be mean back to them we "lose." I somehow doubt our soldiers care that some idiots out there are going randomly declare we lost based on stupid non-sense like how "moral" we act.

[Memorize]

At 12/9/07 08:39 PM, JerkClock wrote:

You're actually trying to argue that if we be mean back to them we "lose." I somehow doubt our soldiers care that some idiots out there are going randomly declare we lost based on stupid non-sense like how "moral" we act.

Democrats? Bringing up morality?

*chuckles*

[Imperator]

At 12/9/07 08:39 PM, JerkClock wrote: Not really, you're playing semantics is all that is. People got attacked who were leaving them alone, you have to be an idiot to think that means we're being moralistic for defending innocent people.

The hell news have you been watching? I must just be imagining the talk about how bad terrorists are, how Saddam was a big meanie, and the great "Axis of EVIL".

Says who? The dumb fucks who think torturing someone who deserves it is the same as torturing someone who doesn't? Who says we can't torture them back? And why not?

Little hard to spread democracy when you attach little rules and regulations....or deny it entirely.
You can't win hearts and minds while torturing your enemies.
Sorry, but it just don't work that way.

You're actually trying to argue that if we be mean back to them we "lose."

We do "lose", because every time a scandal occurs, Bin Laden gets more recruits, and we look just as bad as "they" do.

I somehow doubt our soldiers care that some idiots out there are going randomly declare we lost based on stupid non-sense like how "moral" we act.

You can't win the war on terror by causing terror.

[Imperator]

At 12/10/07 01:43 AM, Memorize wrote: Democrats? Bringing up morality?

*chuckles*

I'm not a democrat.

And Christian Republicans are the LAST people on Earth who should be spouting all the good graces they've done.....

[Memorize]

At 12/10/07 01:53 AM, Imperator wrote:

And Christian Republicans are the LAST people on Earth who should be spouting all the good graces they've done.....

You're right.

I just found the words "democrat" and "morality" both in the same sentence as very humorous as it is usually the democrats who "who are you to define morality?".

It's just the irony is all.

[Sajberhippien]

At 12/8/07 10:47 PM, Proteas wrote:

At 12/8/07 02:27 PM, morefngdbs wrote: To the topic of letting people just go after serving time without charge, no matter who you are , no matter what you may have done, you deserve the right to face your accusers & have a fair trial.

As a citizen of the United States, yes, you have the right to all those rights under the constitution. As it stands, the men in question are not U.S. citizens, they were enemy combatants picked up inside of a war zone. And since they failed to cloth themselves in easily recognizable military garb of their home country, they do not have rights as Prisoners of War, either.

Still, the right to a fair trial is a human right. And still, if they don't face a trial, who's gonna decide if they ARE enemy combatants? And still, even if they don't cloth themselves in military uniforms and kill americans, they are murderers and should face trial for murder, right?

this is the actions of cowards.

That's one way of looking at it. It could also be viewed as a deviously smart move on the part of an administration often hailed as being full of idiots as well.

Smart in just the same way as using hydrocyanic acid to kill jews.

This in my opinion ,shows that the United States is no different than the Soviet Union in using its military/police powers to deny personal rights & freedoms to people who may be able to show that the 'regime' is in the wrong.

This statement would have some credibility if we were actually sending political protesters and opponents to Guantanamo, instead of foreign combatants (i.e.; Cindy Sheehan and the like).

Since they don't get a fair trial there is no way to prove they are foreign combatants. I could grab you and say you're a foreign combatant (since I live in another country), but that wouldn't be okay I guess?

It is all covered so very broadly as 'Homeland Security' & the people of the U.S. for the most part didn't even bother to complain.

Perhaps we're not complaining about our rights being violated and people being dragged off to the Gulags because... neither of those things have happened.

No, you only violate other people's rights, which happen to be the same rights as you are so damn proud of having yourselves.

Seriously, how many people reading this topic right now have personally been effected by the new security rules and regulations (besides having a longer wait at the airport)? How many of you know of someone effected? How many of you know of someone who has been dragged off and arrested for some piece of anti-administration rhetoric they wrote? I'd be amazed if half of you are still here if that was truly the case, especially for what passes for discussion on this board on a daily basis.

I know of a few. Although not personally friends, they are members of the same organizations as me (such as Amnesty International and Food not Bombs).

Are we actually losing rights as time goes on, or are this administration's opponents merely guilty of proof by assertion?

Mainly, it's other people who lose their rights, but yes, most western countries are losing their rights to the war on terror.

Anyone who is simply released by the U.S. without charges after all this time should have the right to go to the World Court & sue the United States for crimes against them.

Uh huh, like that wouldn't be a biased jury.

*rolls eyes*

THAT'S the very spirit of this whole thing. The US acts as police, judge, and jury at the same time and terror-lists organization after organization, but don't ever bow down to any other court such as the World Court. Same thing when the US was found guilty of mining civilian docks in Nicaragua, they said that it was just a biased jury and refused to accept the decree.