Guantanemo Bay Boys

[buoy15]

Heard "suspects" have neen flown home from Cuba by the RAF.

Who authorised that, how much did it cost, and why ?

[Kornholio]

Auth by some pollie who wants re-election.

Costs an arm and a leg.... as you already guessed. Better yet..... as a tax-payer you pay for it butyou won't see any return when they sell their stories to the tabloids.

Why? Because we are the good guys. If we were like them it'd be a bullet and an unmarked grave. This is why we're gonna lose in the long run.

[Training Risky]

To the tune of Copacabana:

...At the Campa... Camp they called X-Ray...
There was screaming in the air, nobody knew that they were there..

Except for Ozzie...Ozzie Bin-Laden...
Now Ozzies gone and fled, with a price upon his head...

Yes torture and bashin' were always in fashion at the Campa...
...They lost their hair.

(Apologies to Barry)

Feel free to add to the tune, and we can line up on the A40 and sing to them as they land. Then throw flowers at their feet. Then give them lots of our money.

Great stuff.

[buoy15]

Why is it that all BBC news buletins start with

"The 4 British detainees in Gauanemo Bay"

Instead of

"The muslim terrorists held in Cuba, with British connections, are being returned to the UK to screw for compensation and sponge off the State for ever ?"

PC, Jack Straw, Tony Bliar or what?

Enoch Powell - Love ya man !

[Razor61]

The last time terror suspects were flown back to the UK from Cuba they came back on an RAF C-17A.

[Lee Jung]

Forgive me but why do these 'gentlemen' who just happened to be in the combat area of Afghanistan at the time of a major offensive have any claim on the UK? We didn't incarcerate them and were kind enough to fly them home.

If they do make a claim perhaps the cost of their air transport should be deducted from any award.

Hope the sods were made to wait at South Cerney for a few days for no apparent reason!

[PileUp Officer]

Erm, because detaining people without trial is illegal.

“Oh by the way we’re gonna arrest you and hold you for 3 years in Cuba”
“On what charges?”
“Sorry old boy, top secret”
“Well, can my lawyer know?”
“What’s a lawyer? Goodbye. Oh, while we’re at it we’re gonna dress you up like Slipknot (Metal band who wear boiler suits and masks- for the oldies amongst you) and mentally torture you. Have fun”

All for (possibly) being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Sure glad it wasn’t me, especially considering Abu Gharib

[brakedwell]

I would like to think those poor, misunderstood "Britons", who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, are returning to their homeland in a C130. More likely it will be in a C17, which is only marginally less extravagant than the Blairforce One 777.

[Lee Jung]

Pile Up

Sorry I was confused, I had forgotten that we are the 51st state of the US and 'Gitmo' is our naval base and our detainee camp.

My error, I had thought we were a separate soveriegn state who, whilst holding our own terrorist suspects without trial, are not responsible for the Gitmo camp. Silly me.

[Hueymeister]

The fact that they were locked up without trial is a problem, but the fact that they went to Afganistan to fight the infidels/smite the christians/got involved with a band of terrorists surely must count for something. The Yanks should fly 'em home Conair-style, then they should be incarcerated here and tried under our justice system. No smoke without fire and Puppy next to pile of pooh spring to mind. After all they went out there to kill our soldiers...or??????

[Blakey875]

Still don't understand why they are coming back to the UK. Surely we should deposit them back in the countries they were removed from.....

[PileUp Officer]

Jung Lee: I wasn’t specifically replying to your post but the original question, apologies for your misunderstanding. ;)

Regardless of where they are from or what their intentions were, my original point still stands:

Detention without trial is illegal

[soddim]

And treason is legal?

[Pilgrim101]

Detention without trial is of course illegal. I wonder if that thought crossed Ken Bigley's, Margaret Hassan's, Nick Berg's...................................... etc etc minds as their throats were being cut.

Let's hear a public condemnation of Al Qaeda and the murders committed in the name of Islam from them and their "British" families before they are released. Remember the Black Watch, RMP and many others who paid the ultimate price of the freedom these :mad: will now profit from.

[hyd3failure]

Im not sure why this is being discussed on this thread but nonetheless I think I agree with most participants in so much as Detention without trial is not the way we do things.

I cannot imagine the shock and horror of being locked up for 3 years without any charges, trial or indeed without anyone explaining what was happening. These guys are British and as such they should be afforded all the compassion they deserve until they have been found guilty of anything. I understand one of the guys was a teacher who was setting up a school for Deaf Children when without warning he is snatched from the comfort and love of his family, transported to the middle of nowhere and left for 3 years. Im sorry guys but thats not the way to behave. If these people have links with terrorism, if they have commited a crime then lets charge them and if found guilty lets throw away the key. BUT, until that time, then they are completely innocent. Thats the way we do it in Britain, thats why our forefathers were prepared to put their lives on the line, thats why our country went to war in 1939.

[Pilgrim101]

That's also why their sons and Grandsons are fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq too

[BEagle]

Bollox to all that!

Charge them. If they're found guilty, hang them.

Sorted.

NEXT!

[Pilgrim101]

That’s what I meant to say BEags !!;)

[FatBaldChief]

I agree Hyd3. Our predessessors fought to the death against concentration camps and now we are allied with a state that promotes their use. If the 4 are suspected of alligence to terrorist organisations and evidence is available against them, try them and condemn them if found guilty. This must be done in a reasonable timescale. Incarceration without trial goes beyond medieval. We cannot treat people like animals just because the terror groups do.

Fatbaldandonhissoapbox :8

[barry lloyd]

Kilroy-Silk:yuk: BEagle for PM!

[rivetjoint]

I'm surprised this thread hasn't been used as an excuse for "yank-bashing" something that's quite enjoyed around here it seems.

If you read the books regarding the initial struggles in Afghanistan, how these people ended up in Cuba etc you'll realise that it's quite possible, although not proven, that some people were only there because of bad judgement in the heat of battle.

[PileUp Officer]

Thank you Hyd3 – that was pretty much the point I was trying to make.

I know treason etc, are not legal and I have the deepest sympathy for the family/friends of anyone (on any ‘side’) who has been killed but that does not change the fact that these guys were taken and held for 3 years on the assumption that they were guilty.
Also, excuse my ignorance (this isn’t meant sarcastically) but what is the difference between a POW and an Enemy Combatant and why does this mean that they’re no longer covered by the Geneva Convention and so can be tortured, mentally if not physically?

If these people are subsequently found to be innocent then they should be recompensed up the ying yang, if not then they should be suitably punished.

Sorry if I’ve hijacked this thread somewhat but I feel quite strongly about the blatant disregard for the law and people's basic human rights which is going on in Cuba (I can’t spell Gaun….) and elsewhere.

PO

[Jackonicko]

Moazzam Begg was 'captured' in Islamabad, the capital of Pakistan, nowhere near the battlefield. He was taken from his house in front of his daughter and his wife. He's a British citizen. He's had 600 days in solitary......

He did not "just happen to be in the combat area of Afghanistan at the time of a major offensive" and he should not be libelled as a "muslim terrorist held in Cuba, with British connections."

With his Islamic beard he's clearly more fundamentalist than his Dad, whose a typical Asian Brit - more Brit than anything else, apart from his skin colour. But that doesn't make him a terrorist.

"Moazzam Beg, 35, from Sparkbrook, Birmingham, was arrested in Pakistan last February on suspicion of links with the Taleban regime or the al-Qaeda terrorist network.

Moazzam, like his mother, was born in England; his father in India, under the British Raj. As a child, Moazzam, was by many accounts popular with school mates. Moazzam grew up in the 1970s attending a local Jewish school, chosen by his father because of its academic reputation.

After leaving school, he studied law. He helped out his father with a restaurant and opened an Islamic bookshop in the city. His father describes him as "a family man, a gentle man, an educated man".

At 12, Moazzam went to stay with relatives in Pakistan where, his father says, his interests in humanitarian work began. He performed charity work in the Asian community and told his parents that he wanted to help alleviate the suffering of fellow Muslims. In June 2001, a year before his arrest, Moazzam Begg left his home in Birmingham and moved his wife and four young children to a new life in Afghanistan. There they established a school in a remote area and worked on a project to install water pumps.

In December 2001, following the United States-led operation to remove the Taliban regime, Begg told his relatives that he was moving his family back to Pakistan. He described the situation in Afghanistan as "unbearable". The family moved to an apartment in Islamabad to wait out the strikes. They planned to return when the dust had settled. But Moazzam was arrested and the family's funds - about £8,000 - were seized, leaving Sally and the children to fend for themselves in a country where they did not speak the language.

Begg's family believe he was kidnapped in Pakistan by US authorities. He was taken to Bagram, where he was held for a year, on suspicion of passing funds to al-Qaeda and later transferred to Camp Delta. He has not seen a lawyer since he was seized."

Martin Mubanga was arrested in Zambia. Richard Belmar was captured in Pakistan. Only Feroz Abbasi was captured in Afghanistan.

In any case, what happened to:

Innocent until proven guilty.
No imprisonment without trial.
No trial without legal representation.

If there's evidence that they were traitors, or that they participated in military ops against UK forces, then let's have it and let's throw the full weight of the law at them. Otherwise, then let them go and apologise for the illegal incarceration and torture, and support any claim they make against the US for compensation.

They are British citizens or long term UK residents who have been detained without charge or trial, and who may have been tortured. It's only the fact that they've received this treatment in US hands that makes them different to other unfortunates who we wouldn't think twice about repatriating using Forces assets.

And let's be clear about what has been happening to some of those at Gitmo.

"Meanwhile, the Australian government says one of its citizens held at Guantanamo will also be released. Mamdouh Habib has been held at Guantanamo Bay for three years. He filed a lawsuit charging that in 2001 the U.S. transferred him to Egypt for 6 months, where he was electrocuted, beaten and nearly drowned. Habib alleges that while under Egyptian detention, he was hung by his arms from hooks, repeatedly shocked, nearly drowned and brutally beaten. Habib's case is only the second to describe a secret practice called "rendition," under which the CIA has sent suspected terrorists to be interrogated in countries where torture has been well documented. It is unclear which U.S. agency transferred him to Egypt. His was the first case to challenge the legality of the practice and could have implications for U.S. plans to send large numbers of Guantanamo Bay detainees to Egypt, Yemen, Saudi Arabia and other countries with poor human rights records."

"Enoch Powell - Love ya man!" Says it all. It's as ignorant and as offensive as saying: "What's all this fuss about the holocaust, I was in Colindale last week and I saw loads of Jew-boys. Never 'appened....."

[soddim]

Surely the main reason why it was so difficult for the Americans to give these chaps anything like a legal dose of justice was that in war there is little opportunity to gather evidence that can be used to convict. Had they been military then there was ample provision to detain them until at least cessation of hostilities.

They got rough justice in lieu - not the best solution but at least the Americans are doing better against the terrorists than we did against the IRA.

[BigginAgain]

Returning to the original question:
Who authorised that, how much did it cost, and why ?
Under arrangements in support of the Freedom of Information Act, anyone can contact any member of the Armed Forces and ask them the question, and expect a reply within 20 working days.

The question must not be vexacious (I don't think this one is), and must be in writing (an email will do). Better still, see here:

Request For Information (MOD) (http://www.mod.uk/publications/foi/foirequest.htm)

I can't see how such a request could reasonably be refused under the existing list of exemptions, so long as the flight took place in an RAF ac. If the flight was sub-contracted to an airline or similar, I suppose the issue of commercial confidentiality could be a player, but otherwise they should tell you.

Go on Beagle, I dare you!

BA

[MarkD]

Seems a bit excessive to send a C-17 to pick those lads up, regardless of circumstance.

Perhaps RAF could use something like an A319CJ (offered to Irish Air Corps as a reconfigurable cargo/bizjet aircraft) rather than using up C-17 time perhaps? Not to mention the advantages of easy movement to BA, bmi etc. who operate the civ version :D

[BEagle]

Why?

Get them back here where they can be 'interviewed' at length in a lawful manner by our own people.

How else would you expect them to be flown back to the UK? In a ba or Virgin a/c full of eager journos?

No - if there are charges to be brought, then IF they're guilty, throw the book at them. If not, then let them go free.

[crossbow]

Please don't tell me that we have sent a C-17. Is it full of QFI's on a beano. Did they remember their Golf Clubs and their DJ's?

Wouldn't want anyone to miss out on a possible freebie!

[ZH875]

Why can't they use Hercules aircraft to deliver this load of 'freight', if albert is good enough for our brave boys the terrorists are trying to kill, then it should be good enough for alleged terrorists, and terrorists alike.

[airborne_artist]

For once I'm with Hyd3 on this. We don't help our stand against terrorism or un-democratic government by supporting an ally who allows long-term detention in conditions that are at best border-line, with no trial by jury in an open court.

None of us have seen the evidence, so we can't judge the individuals. We must expect that there has been plenty of spin and not much fact, so far ...

[BEagle]

Isn't there still a DCI stating that civilian passengers may not be flown in a C-130 unless there is no feasible alternative?

Besides, Guantanamo Bay to the UK confined within the bowels of an Albert would probably be considered 'cruel and unreasonable punishment' by any lawyer with half a brain cell.

[brakedwell]

My feelings exactly ZH875, complete with ration boxes filled with Ham Sandwiches, Pork Pies and sausages. Lovely Jubbly.

[Navaleye]

Better still, stick 'em on an Albert open the rear door after about 4 hours and see how they fly :ok:

[opso]

A C130 wouldn't have had the legs to complete the task as required. Also, anyone that thinks that there would only be 4 pax on board (or even think of it being purely a pax lift) needs to think about the logistics of something like this more closely. Have you seen the media library footage of the last detainee recovery convoy - that was a load that wouldn't have fitted in a single C130.

[Mad_Mark]

Why should the UK fly them here at all? The USA detained them and then flew them half way around the world to a location of their choosing, so surely on release the USA should be responsible for returning them to the country from whence they were taken or to their home country!

MadMark!!! :mad:

[pr00ne]

Navaleye,

With a remark like that you have just proven what a complete and total **** you really are.

Brakedwell,

Nice one son, any more religious bigotry and zenophobic trash in your banter box?

I have to be very careful what I say here for reasons that MAY be obvious to those who know who I am and I am sure others can make an educated guess as to why
Read what Jackonicko has written and then think long and hard about what we did with the last batch of UK detainees that were released from Guantanamo.
These people are British citizens with all the rights and privileges that accords to holders of the passport. They have been detained without trial and are innocent until proven guilty.

I can at least comment on the original question, I happen to agree with Mad_Mark, these people are where they are because of the US, it should be at the expense of the US that they are returned home.

[SASless]

In the scheme of things...three years at Gitmo may have not been a picnic. I also know for a fact (as best as it can be relayed from one who was there in Gitmo) there were and are detainees that had no business being held there. That comes from someone who had direct contact with the people and thus should know. That individual also said the process of sorting out just who you really had, what the truth was of their situation was, takes a lot of time to sort out.

It is not so much a matter of how these people got there....or which country they belonged to....or even how they were treated....the question is simply...are they members of or support infrastructure of terrorist organizations that intend harm to the Western democracies. The wheels of justice grind slowly....but in time justice will win out. If they have a case that can proved in court it will happen. If not....they lose.

The feel good arguments about how badly they were miss treated ignores the reality of our situation. This is not a case of legal semantics...this is a fight for survival of our way of life. All you have to do is watch a complete video of the horrific murders of the hostages to understand what we are up against....each and everyone of us. This is not a war of uniforms...it is not a war of religion....this is a war of survival. If these terrorists can obtain weapons of mass destruction they will without doubt use them to inflict the greatest harm possible.

To ignore that reality is paramount to suicide. The certainity of the Terrorists willingness to use mass murder is already demonstrated and well documented.

If we gather up an innocent person by mistake, rough up some of the known terrorists even resort to brutal torture, I can look the other way. As any trained interrogator or intelliegence officer worth his salt will testify....the hard way is not the way. The soft way is the right way....time is on our side now that we took the overt approach in Afghanistan and other places.

As the cooperation of nations improves we will be more successful...we have to be or else we are faced with a future that will be filled with horror. My vote is for hunting down the terrorists without mercy, no quarter, one result. If they are dead , they no longer present a danger to us. This is a war to the finish....we can have no half measures or we will lose. They are dedicated and have no mercy in them. We can be no different. This is a war...not a legal proceeding. In war people get mistreated and people get killed. These people are terrorists not soldiers, they wear no unifoms, they follow no code of conduct, they have no morals...they are simply butchers of other human beings.

If an innocent man got involved....then he should be able to convince the authorities of his innocense by cooperating. If he cooperates.....his case progresses.

Did these poor souls assist in the resolution of their situations or not. When you know the answer to that queston then talk to me about their plight.

FatBaldChief....sorry to burst yer bubble....the war was on for years before the concentration camps became an issue of any discussion. The troops never did fight to the death because of that....except for very limited individual cases.

Navaleye....I agree in principle....but in reality we really cannot do that....now if we had Osama....equipped with a very small stabilizing drogue chute...and lots of O2....a C-17 at about 40,000 feet.....a clear brief on which direction to swim to Diego Garcia and the time it would take for him to hit the sea....and tell him how much I miss Sandra Bradshaw who was on one of the airliners that day in September.....and happily chunk his carcass off the ramp for that long...long freefall. Hopefully he would have presence of mind to think about it on the way down.

[norvenmunky]

They will be charged with failing to pay their council tax for 3 years

[pr00ne]

SASless,

What kind of comic book world do you live in?

We are NOT fighting a war for survival, we are not even fighting a war for goodness sake.

How can you have a “war” against terrorism? Terrorism is a tactic, a concept, you cannot fight a war against a tactic or a concept, who on earth is your enemy?
All this has arisen since September 11th 2001, there was an attack by a loosely knit group called al-Qaeda whose main beef was the US military presence in Saudi Arabia and a good deal of sympathy for the Palestinian cause. In response to this the US went after what it believed to be the spiritual home of al-Qaeda in Afghanistan where it had been given shelter and comfort by the Taliban regime. The world saw what the US was trying to do in Afghanistan and broadly gave it support. The US and it’s allies did a damm good job of taking down the Taliban and disrupting Osama, an individual that the US had armed, funded and supported to take on the Soviets in Afghanistan, and his training regime. The country is still in a pitiful state where women dare not openly attend school and war lords still hold sway.
Then we had the invasion of Iraq, the rest is history, War to the finish? Oh please, come on!

[Pielander]

I think the real problem with all of these 'scandals' over the treatment of prisoners (Gitmo, Abu Ghraib, etc.) is the loss of the perceived moral high ground. How can we possibly hope to retain any shred of legitimacy, trying to impose our own brand of civilization on the rest of the world, while we continually prove to be unable to adhere to our own basic rules on human rights? (I say 'we' because, like it or not, we are fighting the same corner as our colonial associates, and to all intents and purposes, their foibles are our foibles until we openly and outrightly condemn them).

Holding people in a legal limbo without charge for three years, seemingly for doing nothing more than being in the wrong place at the wrong time, is surely unreasonable in anybody's book. This alone seriously dents our credibility, whilst the alledged mistreatment simply compounds the issue.

My burning question to the American authorities is this: If these detainees are so dangerous as to warrant holding them for three years, then how do you know this? If they're so dangerous, then why don't you use whatever it is that tells you that they are dangerous as... wait for it... evidence, with which to charge them? One can only suggest that if there is no charge, then there must be no evidence. In which case, why not let them go? (That's how I see it, and I'm not even a Yank-Basher, unlike most of the rest of the world.)

I've heard enough rhetoric about how we have to be uncompromising in our approach to terror. There's compromise and then there's compromise. Fair enough; there should be no compromise in dealing with genuine suspects thoroughly using our own civilised legal system. However, if we compromise the pillars of our legal system itself on account of the perceived new threat, then surely the terrorists have won already.

[Razor61]

The C-17A landed at Northolt at around 1700Hrs i think, with the four onboard who were of course immediately taken into custody at probably Paddington Green.

If the parents of such souls wanted them back so badly, they should of paid for a flight for them but then i don't think BA would like the idea of having Al Qaeda terror suspects on the aircraft.

[Postman Plod]

this is a fight for survival of our way of life.

So by trying to protect our way of life, we get rid of our hard-won freedoms, right to a fair trial, presumption of innocence, manipulation of media, creating an atmosphere of fear where only the government can protect us, overlook other countries human rights abuses as long as its in the name of "The War against Terror", introduction of laws to "control" the way we lead our daily lives, etc etc. Seems to me that our government are doing the terrorists job for them...

It no longer looks like "our way of life" - it looks like theirs....

Anyway, how is a terrorist going to destroy our way of life? Did Sept 11th destroy America and its way of life? Or is that what the US government is doing in the name of "anti-terrorist measures"?

Naturally the common people don't want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in America, nor in Germany. That is understood. But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country. - Hermann Goering

[MarkD]

I see Gareth Peirce and Corin Redgrave are involved... makes me think they're guilty already!

http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=4047585

[Training Risky]

Are there certain lawyers on this thread who are touchy about reaping a vast swath of legal aid by being involved in the defence of the accused?

I'll bet there are!

...toot,toot....the legal aid gravy boat is on its way....(like a gravy train, but it moves slower so lawyers can take bigger helpings)....

[hyd3failure]

If the Americans had hard evidence that these guys were terrorists do you think they would have let them go?

[Navaleye]

SASless: Revenge is a dish best served cold, and its very cold at 40,000ft

Pr00ne: I'm not going to waste any more words on you.

hyd3failure: There's no smoke without fire.

[DSAT Man]

I heard that they had a 3 hour wait at Northolt when they landed because MT didn't turn up for them.

[FatBaldChief]

FatBaldChief....sorry to burst yer bubble....the war was on for years before the concentration camps became an issue of any discussion. The troops never did fight to the death because of that....except for very limited individual cases.


Sasless,

I was merely stating that we fought against a regime that employed such incarceration without trial tactics in the broader sense. Was that not obvious?
Maybe I should draw pictures next time. With a big fat crayon.
:8

[buoy15]

Jacko

From your threads, I suspect you are an ambulance chaser - I also suspect you would argue that if a cat had her kittens in the oven, they would be called cakes!

Love many, Trust a few, Always paddle your own canoe!

[brakedwell]

>Nice one son, any more religious bigotry and zenophobic trash in your banter box?<

Proone my old PC matey, the locker is well stocked with antidotes for Prating Ninnies like you.

[KPax]

On the same sort of subject, the newspapers reported 2 weeks ago that a Mr Adair recently released loyalist terrorist was flown from NI to the Bolton area by RAF Helo to be with his family. What was wrong with the Ferry or BA.

[Jackonicko]

The difference is that Mr Adair was a released prisoner who had been legally arrested, who had been properly and fairly tried, judicially sentanced and legally imprisoned by the independent judicial apparatus of his own State. Mr Adair had been charged with specific offences, and had been legally represented. He was not kidnapped from one country to face summary punishment for what he had supposedly done in a second, by agents of a third, without the protection of his own (fourth) country. He was not subject to extended solitary confinement, or torture, nor did he have the threat of capital punishment hanging over him.

In the UK, our legal system is not based on the concept that "there's no smoke without fire." Nor do we work on the basis that membership of a particular religious or ethnic group (with or without untried circumstantial evidence) is sufficient justification to lock someone up. We don't lock up people without trial on a 'better safe than sorry' basis.

People keep referring to 'these people'. "These People" are UK citizens who have been illegally detained by the USA without proper legal representation and without trial, and who have now been released without charge.

Until some evidence against them is offered, then they are legally innocent.

[Navaleye]

He was not subject to extended solitary confinement, or torture, nor did he have the threat of capital punishment hanging over him.

We have no proof that any of terrorist suspects were tortured at Gitmo. I would not call military interrogation techniques torture. These are unsubstantiated claims aimed at stirring up trouble and extracting compensation. For the record, did Mr Blair not state recently that the bunch that were released a while back have been up to no good again?

[BEagle]

But who - except pr00ne - believes a word Bliar says?

[PileUp Officer]

I fully believe that they have been tortured in there. You say would not call military interrogation techniques torture, I certainly would!
Tom Ridge, from the US Dept of Homeland security said it was "human nature" that torture might be employed in certain exceptional cases, he admitted there was "a real question" whether using torture on terrorists would actually gain the information required "given the nature of the enemy".

Allegations from Guantanamo include:
Prisoners were repeatedly punched, kicked, slapped, forcibly injected with drugs, deprived of sleep, hooded, photographed naked and subjected to body cavity searches and sexual and religious humiliations

One American guard told the inmates: "The world does not know you're here - we would kill you and no-one would know"

One of the soldiers told an inmate: "You killed my family in the towers and now it's time to get you back.

MI5 officer had told prisoners during interrogations that they would be detained in Guantanamo for life

Men said they saw the beating of mentally ill inmates

Another man was left brain damaged after a beating by soldiers as punishment for attempting suicide

A Briton said an inmate told them he was shown a video of hooded men - apparently inmates - being forced to sodomise one another

Guards threw prisoners' Korans into toilets and tried to force them to give up their religion

The men allege that when a new camp commander, Maj Gen Geoffrey Miller, took charge, new practices began, including the shaving of beards, playing loud music, shackling detainees in squatting positions and locking them naked in cells.

The report says: "It was very clear to all three that MI5 was content to benefit from the effect of the isolation, sleep deprivation and other forms of acutely painful and degrading treatment, including short shackling.
"There was never any suggestion on the part of the British interrogators that this treatment was wrong."
“ All the time I was kneeling with a guy standing on the backs of my legs and another holding a gun to my head” Ruhal Ahmed
The trio said they had eventually wrongfully confessed to appearing in a video with al-Qaeda chief Osama Bin Laden and Mohammed Atta, one of the 11 September hijackers.
In the report, it is understood Mr Ahmed says shortly after his capture in northern Afghanistan in 2001 he was questioned by a British interrogator, who identified himself as an SAS officer, while an American soldier held a gun to his head, threatening to shoot him.
The UK Ministry of Defence acknowledged that such behaviour is contrary to the Geneva Conventions and has promised to investigate any such allegation.
Lawyer Gareth Pierce told BBC News: "There was not a single method that was not used to break their will to make them confess to something they were not guilty of, and all three did."

Most of that is from the BBC and although they are still allegations even the MOD has admitted that this is against the Geneva Convention so technically it is torture.

How the hell are they supposed to get proof of what went on in there??

[TurbineTooHot]

Simple answer,

Get intell out of them in theatre, then bullet in back of head.

WITHOUT TELLING ANYONE.

Thus no-one can kick up a stink about "illegal detention" and treatment of prisoners, cos there aren't any.

Points, questions.

And btw. What prey tell do you think those so called British citizens were doing over there? Do you honestly believe they were tourists/aid workers? Come on. Are you really that naive.

Anyone who takes up arms, or plots to, against their own country reliquishes his/her rights as a citizen and should be thown to whichever wolves want to deal with them.

Oh, sorry. Lets give them a hug and some nice compensation.

Yours cynically

TTH

[FatBaldChief]

Bloody Hell TTH.
You will be bidding for the contract to install the new 'Showers' in the Cuban camp next.
Austrian by birth are you?

Fatbaldandbewildered:8:(

[brakedwell]

PileUp Officer
I have some sympathy for the Afghan Nationals held in Guantanamo who were fighting for their "cause". But what were the "British" group doing in that part of the world - playing cricket? Once released I'm not surprised they will say anything to further their case for compensation, and shed a bad light on the USA. Terrorism is a dirty game with no rules. Sometimes dirty tactics are needed to combat it.

[TurbineTooHot]

Just suggesting solutions.


I would like to point out that I am not a Bush/Rumsfeld apologist. I think they have handled the "War on Terror" terribly.

I also believe that if we are seen to lose the moral highground then we risk becoming as bad as those we are fighting against.

I do believe that sometimes action which is fairly unpallettable for the general populus, and frankly scandalous to the media, is necessary.

We face a very different threat than we have every faced before. Terrorists with no regard for their own lives, let alone anyone elses.

So far bloody good intelligence has saved us from attacks, but for how long? Where has this come from? I'd suggest that some would have come from suspects held without trial both here and in the US, maybe not Gitmo (they've been in there a bit long for current activities).

The justice suggested by some of our more liberal posters would rely on action after an event, rather than prevention of that action. Even with only circumstantial evidence, I would gladly take one step down from the highest of moral grounds if it meant protecting the lives of my fellow countrymen.

Or are the lives of a few treacherous passport holders more important?

TTH.

[Navaleye]

How the hell are they supposed to get proof of what went on in there??

Good question. But surely the camp staff are entitled to the same presumption of innocence as terrorist suspects. You can't have double standards. They will have to prove their allegations and even if they did, I suspect Uncle Sam will tell them to take a hike.

Its a shame we'll never know the intel on them that led to their arrest in the first place.

[Jackonicko]

TTH, Brakedwell,

I suspect that Feroz Abbasi may have been up to no good, since he was captured on the battlefield. That's enough for me to have little sympathy for him, though obviously you need proof BEFORE punishing him, and any punishment we mete out must be as civilised as that we'd mete out to any other criminal. Torture and capital punishment have no place in a civilised society, though I think that we go a bit too easy on terrorists (IRA or Al Qaeda alike).

"What prey tell do you think those so called British citizens were doing over there? Do you honestly believe they were tourists/aid workers? Come on. Are you really that naive." and "what were the "British" group doing in that part of the world - playing cricket?"

Over where? In what part of the world?

Begg had set up a school for blind children, and had taken his wife and children with him. He was arrested in Pakistan. Belmar was also taken in Pakistan. Whatever they were doing, they weren't taking up arms against us on the battlefield, and in any case, the kneejerk prejudice of racist bigots is not sufficient grounds for criminal sanction against these people. However convinced you are that these ragheads (as you'd doubtless label them) are guilty, there needs to be evidence that stands up in court.

"Are the lives of a few treacherous passport holders more important?"

Don't you have to prove such alleged treachery, or is Mr Blair's say so (do you remember: "Yeah yeah, the Iraqi's have WMD within 45 minutes readiness, there and ready to go") sufficient proof? And have you forgotten that "these people" are your "fellow countrymen".

Navaleye,

The difference is that there is mounting evidence of US torture of detainees, at Guantanamo, at Bagram, and in third countries (Egypt, Jordan, etc.). Since much of this is based on the testimony of prisoners, it naturally has a 'caution' rating attached, though there is also some independent evidence. Whereas no evidence as to what Mr Begg (for example) is supposed to have done has been released.

[brakedwell]

Jackonicko
>the kneejerk prejudice of racist bigots is not sufficient grounds for criminal sanction against these people. <
These people were held as a result of murderous terrorist attack on innocent civilians. The real racist bigots are the fundamentalist Imams who preach hatred and incite gullible young Muslims to take up arms against their fellow countrymen. Try saying that in public and you will be accused of racism by the PC brigade. Terrorism is a dirty business. Fighting it means that no holds are barred.

[Jackonicko]

Braked,

"These people were held as a result of murderous terrorist attack on innocent civilians."

Yes, perhaps. But if they had nothing to do with these murderous attacks (and there is no evidence to suggest that they did) then to imprison them without trial and to torture them makes us no better than those you condemn.

If I just happened to decide that I thought you were guilty of supporting a plot to assassinate Dubya, would the CIA be right to come and lock you up, without trial, and to break the tedium of your existence in a Cuban cage with a nice trip to the Yemen for some testicular electro convulsive therapy?

You need to prove that they have anything to do with "fundamentalist Imams who preach hatred" or that they are "gullible young Muslims to take up arms against their fellow countrymen."

You say that: "Terrorism is a dirty business. Fighting it means that no holds are barred." Actually, some holds - those that involve taking action against innocent people - are barred.

[Flatus Veteranus]

Those who preach the sanctity of the Law and Human Rights and point to Magna Carta as the source of liberty in the Western World, have much history on their side, and hold (at the moment) the moral high ground. If, (God forbid), there were another terrorist outrage - this time in the UK and costing hundreds of thousands of lives - the legalists and civil libertarians would have molto eggonfacia.

If they were wise they would start shifting their stance a little. There were no WMD at Runnymede in the 13th Century, and international terrorism of the fanatical, suicidal kind, was not an issue when the Great and the Good drafted and signed the European Convention on Human Rights.

It is true to say that some of the uses to which that convention have been put in recent years were not envisaged by its progenitors, and it is long past high time that it were revised.

Regrettably, it seems that some of the rocks on which the British legal stystem is founded may cause it to founder unless they are blasted out of the way. Eg, the rules of evidence on electronic intercepts, and hearsay in terrorist-related cases. Jury trials may be impracticable in such cases; perhaps technically-qualified assessors should aid the judge - as in Courts Martial. And most trials based on evidence from sensitive intelligence sources will clearly have to be "in camera" with press and public excluded. And the standard of proof may have to be reduced from "beyond all reasonable doubt" to "balance of probability".

Otherwise the system will remain loaded in favour of the terrorists and against the security of the people.

[Navaleye]

Flatus and Brakedwell are spot on. The values on which our legal process works are used against by those that would do us harm. It has to evolve and adapt to meet the threat. If that upsets anyone so be it, I want my family protected. The people we are deling with have the same mindset that murdered Margaret Hassan and should be dealt with accordingly. The looney left apologists for them should remember that.

[BillHicksRules]

Naval/Flatus/Braked,

I think you may have gotten yourselves confused on this issue.

Let me clear a few things up for you.

1) "But surely the camp staff are entitled to the same presumption of innocence as terrorist suspects. You can't have double standards."
Naval, it is you that is imposing the double standards. You are demanding different treatment for the camp staff than for those who have been interred there.

2)"These people were held as a result of murderous terrorist attack on innocent civilians."
Braked, no they were not. There has been nothing released to link the Britons held at Gitmo with either the 911, Madrid or Bali attacks.

3)"If, (God forbid), there were another terrorist outrage - this time in the UK and costing hundreds of thousands of lives - the legalists and civil libertarians would have molto eggonfacia."
Flatus, those who will have to explain themselves will be those like Bush and Blair. Those who say that we need to sacrifice our laws and our freedoms to prevent further atrocities.

I ask you all this one question.Can none of you see the similarities between what is happening here and in the US with the changes that took place in Germany in the 1930's

Some imagined enemy that was both hell bent on and capable of destroying our way of life. Such an enemy is as much a fallacy now as it was then.

I will not disagree with you that there are those out there who wish to cause harm to us in the western democracies. However, that has always been the case.

We beat them by being better than them not worse.

Naval, as for lumping everyone that disagrees with you as "looney left apologists" for those who murdered Margaret Hassan. This does you a disservice. Furthermore it is immensely offensive. Just because I do not feel that US should not be allowed to imprison and torture anyone it feels like does not mean I am not filled with revulsion and disgust for those who carried out the brutal murder of Mrs Hassan ( or Ken Bigley or any of the others who have been taken before their time).


Cheers

BHR

[FatBaldChief]

Bill Hicks Rules Billhicksrules! Nice to see the genius is not forgotten!

Thank you for stating
'I ask you all this one question.Can none of you see the similarities between what is happening here and in the US with the changes that took place in Germany in the 1930's'

I could not agree more. History cannot be repeated. No matter who does the repeating. If you are human you deserve human rights. If you are proven guilty you will be punished.



:8

[Jackonicko]

While the TV and papers are full of coverage of the anniversary of Auschwitz, it seems ironic that people are seriously advocating the suspension of the human rights of those they perceive to be a threat, based entirely on their religious and ethnic background.

[BEagle]

All 4 have been released without having been charged......

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4210815.stm

[SASless]

billy boy...

How would you deal with the killers of Maggie and those who so brutallly hack the heads off of innocent people and video tape the horrific crime for broadcast to the world?

Invite them down to cooperate with the investigation?

Or track the garbage down and drop 2000 pound precision bombs on top of their noggins?

[Darth Nigel]

First I'd find the right people.

Now one way of doing that might well be to sweep through an area and grab everyone. But the key point is that in any such search you will undoubtedly get a mix of innocent-but-in-the-wrong-place, innocent-but-associated-with-the-bad-guys, abd them-wot-dunnit. You'll also probably miss a few of them-wot-dunnit, because the guilty, not being stupid, will have buggered off sharpish once the deed has been done.

You then process the people you have grabbed and separate the sheep from the goats in a timely manner, so you can concentrate your efforts on the ones most likely to have been them-wot-dunnit. Those you bring to public trial as an example for the others. Justice (not revenge) should be seen to work quickly and publicly.

Conversely, dropping a big :mad: bomb on the "garbage" (assuming it isn't an arbitrary civilian house, Chinese embassy, Canadian Troop Exercise or the forces of a Coalition "partner" -- I recall various issues with target recognition) doesn't do much to further the cause. Especially when you claim that any innocent casualties are either not innocent or "collateral damage".

[SASless]

Darth,

I think the connotation of "track the garbage down" would mean those wot dunnit don't you agree. In order to "track" something one would have to have something to track....and thus after you follow the trail such as it is....and find hoof in dirt at the end of it....you have then found said "garbage". At that time....knowing where the hoof meets the dirt....you free their spirit and send them off to the Great Virgin Bonking in the sky.

I have no argument about ensuring only the garbage gets collected....that is as it should be. Done spot on target...no mercy, no quarter, no mistake, no statute of limitations and no drawn out trial.

Those we seek do not respect law, morality, ethics....and they shall not be converted by any argument....but with enough cordite on their turbaned heads....they will immediately understand the error of their ways. It will come to them in a flash. They will not hang around to hear the boom however!

[Jackonicko]

"How would you deal with the killers of Maggie and those who so brutallly hack the heads off of innocent people and video tape the horrific crime for broadcast to the world?

Invite them down to cooperate with the investigation?"

Presumably your answer is simply to lock up and torture as many people as you can who fit broadly the same ethnic and religious profile, on the basis that: "Vey're all vuh fackin same, innit?"

[buoy15]

As a very young lad, I was given some advice (although I didn't appreciate it at the time)

A labourer is always worthy of his hire

Do to others as they would do to you

All is fair in love and war

Seemed to have got by on that

Love many, Trust a few, Always paddle you own canoe!

[Navaleye]

For those that have been to Staff College: Do you wait for your enemy to pre-empt on you or do you pre-empt on them?

[SASless]

Jacko....

How do you arrive at ethnicity and religion being the only criteria used? Can you state with precision the exact circumstances these four came into American hands? If those are the criteria used for detemining whether we snatch people from their homes....how come we have not scooped up millions and placed them into concentration camps in this country?

Does it strike you as odd....the very same government you accuse of such gross behaviour is the same government that investigates any kind of assault on those same kinds of people as being "Hate Crimes" which carry severe penalites?


Is it racial profiling for us to look for Arab/ Middle Eastern men from the ages of 17-42 as being potential hijackers?

Why are we body searching 70 year old white women and 5 year old blonde headed blue eyed children.....if the vast preponderance of hijackers that have attacked us in the past umpteen years have been Arab/Middle Eastern men in that age range?

We see the results of the Liberal dumbing down of our society in the amount of attacks that we have had in the past.

You and I have argued this before....if you and I stand in the park and I slap you in the face over and over a over....at what point do you reach up and grab my arm and stop me from striking you again? At some time you will...even the Liberal awakes to this at some point.

What is different here....they bomb us...they cut people's heads off....and it ain't Scandanavians doing it.

[BillHicksRules]

SASless,

Why only two choices?

Why also do those two choices have to be at the extremes of the spectrum?

It is that kind of "you are either with us or against us" limited thinking that is the biggest problem here. On both sides of the equation.

It is fundamentalism on both sides that is causing such grief for the normal people in the middle.

Murderous fundamentalists blow up WTC, Pentagon, Madrid trains, Bali nightclub etc.

The response is that murderous fundamentalists on the opposing side bomb, shoot, maim, torture their way through two soveriegn countries and counting.

This is not a conflict about who is right and who is wrong. It is turning into the same old story. Kill all those who either look, think or talk different to you.

Cheers

BHR

P.S. Sasless, If the 911 attacks were funded by Saudi money, carried out by Saudi nationals and ordered by a member of a wealthy and influential Saudi family, why has Afghanistan and Iraq been the targets?

[Jackonicko]

"Is it racial profiling for us to look for Arab/ Middle Eastern men from the ages of 17-42 as being potential hijackers?"

Yes, it's racial profiling. And I'm all for it in that context. Look at them far more closely at airports than you'd look at anyone else. Give their bags extra scrutiny.

And I'm all for arresting people and questioning them.

What I'm against is keeping people detained without trial and without legal representation for extended periods, and with no evidence (beyond that extracted by torture). And I'm against torture.

And we have to see and recognise that it's a tiny minority of extremist Moslems who are guilty of even supporting Al Qaeda's war against the West, and that we cannot declare war on the whole of Moslem society because of them, any more than we'd have been right to imprison any catholic on the basis that most IRA members happened to be mackerel slappers too, or to imprison religious nutcases just because that description applied to McVeigh and Koresh. You and those on your side of the argument keep referring to the freed detainees as 'the enemy' and yet there is no proof that they are. Your suspicion of them, your miustrust of Muslims, does not make it true.

Some Jews in Germany in the 1920s probably had profiteered during the war. Some had probably been among the political groups that caused the collapse on the home front (thereby 'stabbing the brave soldiers in the back') just as Hitler claimed. A handful of people. But their actions were used to justify discrimination, imprisonment without trial, torture and eventually genocide.

If they're PoWs then extend them the protection of the Geneva convention and hold them for the duration, and then prosecute them for war crimes if you have the evidence.

If they're criminals then prosecute them and punish them.

But if they're not PoWs and you can't build a criminal case against them, then
you have to let them go.

We're supposed to be a civilised society. The ends don't justify the means.

[buoy15]

Jacko

Quote

"Yes, it's racial profiling. And I'm all for it in that context. Look at them far more closely at airports than you'd look at anyone else. Give their bags extra scrutiny. And I'm all for arresting people and questioning them. "

Enoch Powell was right - despite what you say - had we heeded his advice, we would probably not be in the situation we are in now.

Moreover, had he become Prime Minister, this country would have become Great again

Youngest General ever in the Army, spoke about 12 languages, fluent in 5 - translated Homer - never done before - MP for most of his life - made an honest statement (Rivers of blood speech) which has now proved correct and he was banished to the wilderness (Northern Ireland)

I think his Brummy accent let him down

As Jacko suggests, a good day out if you are bored

Walk around a London airport and try to spot the terrorist

You will not be spoilt for choice

[hyd3failure]

Well hopefully the event has now closed. The 4 British citizens have been released and are free to come and go as they please. Hurray for that. Justice has prevailed.

[BEagle]

I suspect that it won't be quite that simple...... Doubtless a discrete eye will be kept on them for quite some time.

[hyd3failure]

True, True. Mind you. Big Brother keeps a wary eye on all of us.

[Navaleye]

The Americans say that all four of these worms attended terrorist training camps and we are letting them roam free? Its too late to sling them out of a plane, but not too late to put them im Belmarsh.

[ukatco_535]

Navaleye,

So do you believe everything the americans say? Watch channel four tonight (farenheit 9/11). Although M Moore may be over the top, it is scary to see some of the things on it. I for one do not believe everything Moore says in his 'documentary' but there is a hell of a lot of evidence showing the ineptitude of the security forces in America - one instance alone talks about allowing the Bin Laden family to leave the country despite flights being grounded.
As the ex FBI (i think, i cannot remember rightly) agent says on film, if you are hunting a murder suspect, the very least you do is interview his family to try to establish whereabouts. This is just one of many glaring errors.

As for 'these worms' attending terrorist training camps, where is the evidence?? Show it, then if they are guilty, execute them.

Weapons of mass invisibility aside, Bush and his sycophantic puppy Blair invaded Iraq to 'rid the country of a dictator'who killed, tortured or incarcerated innocent people. So what are the CIA doing differently in Egypt or Gitmo?

We are allowing bombastic power happy politicians to drag our allegedly democratic countries into the gutter. We now wonder why over a 1000 yanks have died in iraq. The US forces do not understand hearts and minds as we do (or at least used to), but in this day and age of worldwide media coverage, hearts and minds campaigns do not just stop in the country of operation, they have to be seen to be operating all over.

[hyd3failure]

The americans believe our boys were terrorists? And they base their suspicions on the fact that the Prisoners were repeatedly punched, kicked, slapped, forcibly injected with drugs, deprived of sleep, hooded, photographed naked and subjected to body cavity searches and sexual and religious humiliations.

[Big Unit Specialist]

Talking of winning hearts and minds did anyone see Sky News this am when one of its reporters travelled with some Americans in Baghdad. They were driving along playing very loud Heavy Metal music - to get the traffic to move out of the way - might work but how many people are they going to p!$$ off as they proceed? This was, according to the report, an official tactic
- bo!!ock$ - it might have worked to get Noriega to surrender but all you're going to in Baghdad is attract the wrong kind of attention!

Well at least when the insurgents are targetting the Americans they aren't targeting the Brits who go about their business quietly and with due consideration.

[Purr Harder]

Hyd3


They might be 'your boys', but they certainly are not mine .:*

[hyd3failure]

why not.. There British eh? So whats the difference between them and Joe Bloggs?

[brakedwell]

A very nice sun tan?

[hyd3failure]

yep, I thought that was the case. Well, if the reason you feel that they are terrorists is because they have

a very nice sun tan

then its time I left this thread. Sorry guys but I'm not prepared to discuss matters like this with people like that when the only bones of their argument is the colour of peoples skin.

I leave in disgust

[Navaleye]

To quote Mr Spock freely

The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one, or the few

I think we've beaten this one to death now, so I'm off, thanks for an interesting debate everyone (even you Pr00ne).

[teeteringhead]

What I'm against is keeping people detained without trial and without legal representation for extended periods, and with no evidence .. presumably Jacko, that would include being put under house arrest at the whim of a politician with no recourse to a judge.....

As has been said, if only the weather was better we could be a Third World country....

[Flatus Veteranus]

To those who note similarities between events in UK and USA today and those in Germany in the 1930s, I would reply that the similarities are hugely outweighed by a fundamental difference. Blair and Bush and their advisers are accountable periodically to their electorates - Blair quite soon. I do not recall that Adolf Hitler was ever elected by the general public (although he might well have been!)

[skydriller]

I thought that Adolf Hitler WAS elected?

[SASless]

Elected or not....he did have a bit of support from within and from outside his government....and as I recall....at least one group that felt he needed to go, cared enough to put a bomb in his map room....and paid a horrible price for failure.

I see we brought home a 19 year old soldier from a foxhole grave....after 60 years....only 78,000 more remain missing from that war. American missing that is....eqivalent to about six full infantry divisions. But...that is a topic for another thread.

[hyd3failure]

"A bit of support"? he was one of the greatest leaders of this century.

[Training Risky]

Are you stirring for a reaction to that?

You lame Lynx Lefty

[hyd3failure]

OK... Here we have a guy with no formal qualifications, he had become an aimless drifter and failed artist before joining the army on the outbreak of war in August 1914. There he was not considered worthy of promotion because of 'a lack of leadership qualities', although his award of the Iron Cross First Class showed that he did not lack courage.

Yet during the next 26 years he succeeded in gaining and exercising supreme power in Germany and, in the process, arguably had more impact on the history of the world in the 20th century than any other political figure. So, that is why he was a great leader. He succesfully led the entire German people to follow him into war.

anyway, why are we discussing this tyrant when the thread is about British citizens being released by the USA?

[PileUp Officer]

SASLess in particular-

Do you honestly think that bombing innocent people (it doesn’t matter to their family whether it was accidental or ‘collateral damage’), detaining people without trial and enacting draconian laws which limit freedoms will actually make you any safer??

Wake up!!

Try looking at international news sources rather than American ones.

[Trumpet_trousers]

Here we have a guy with no formal qualifications, he had become an aimless drifter and failed artist before joining the army on the outbreak of war in August 1914. There he was not considered worthy of promotion because of 'a lack of leadership qualities', although his award of the Iron Cross First Class showed that he did not lack courage.

...and all this from the man that allegedly raped his niece, gave her an STD, and then had her murdered to keep her quiet.....
...yeah, a great man indeed :mad:

[hyd3failure]

I know.. A complete and utter tyrant...No denying that.

But no denying that he was a brilliant leader and a skilful politician and organizer.

[WE Branch Fanatic]

No doubt he would have been impressed with the EU and its new constitution. An unelected body that has no accountbility able to issue arrest warrants EU wide for crimes such as political dissent.......

Did Blair ask YOU before he signed?

[Pilgrim101]

Hitler ? Off track a bit now ? Anyway, the four scroats are going to coin it when the dust settles despite admissions that one or more of them met their hero Osama and no doubt kissed his ass royally when they did so. Anyone else see the injustice in all of this, in terms of the likely pathetic compensation to our war injured, to preserve the illusion of a politically correct, intellectually (?) elitist society who thrive under this bunch of Blairite w:mad: s

I do hope they rejoin the fray and next time when they hold their passports up as some kind of escape card, my erstwhile colleagues in Afghanistan and/or Iraq finish the job without the due process which is in short supply on the battlefield (most certainly there is no quarter expected for prisoners/hostages of our side held by the 'Islamists').

Where is the clamour from the legal profession and civil rights industry whenever a westerner is cruelly, mentally tortured for weeks before the ritual exhibition killing which is the recognised trademark of our adversaries ?

I work in Iraq now for a private concern and it grips my s:mad: t to see the legal aid and human rights lawyers queuing up to skim whatever they can out of these former terrorist supporters/sympathisers or whatever guise they present to the liberals who'll fight to death to defend their human rights and totally ignore those of the victims of terrorist atrocities - no cash or pc kudos in it you see :hmm:

Hyd3

Yeah, he made the trains run on time..................................., to Belsen, Auschwitz, Babi Yar etc etc etc :hmm:

[TurbineTooHot]

Enough of Hitler,

Did anyone see the Current Bun this morning.

Apparently one of our little darlings has admitted his attendance at a training camp with Osama Bin Lid.

www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2005042169,00.html (http://)


Also while your there have a look at the Top less Gun story.

Sweet Work 1(F). You should arrange a visit for em!


Back to the thread.

So, where does this leave us? What should we do with him?

Cup of tea and a medal?

I suppose you apologists will put that admission down to torture....

If the story was sold, then proceeds should pay for the trial that the little sod should be getting, but I suppose we'll all have to stump up for that in Legal Aid.....:yuk:

Oh well,

Turbs

Pilgrim: Couldn't agree more.

[crossbow]

Does meeting Osama Bin Laden make you a terrorist...? Opps... well I met Idi Amin a few years ago...does that mean Im a nasty as well?


Did he admit to attending a Terrorist training camp whilst he was under the influence of somehting horrid administered by a syringe by the nice American prison wardens?

[BEagle]

Can't help wondering whether Adolf H wished he'd stopped after coming up with autobahns and Volkswagen.....

Dictators don't 'lead' people - they force them.

[TurbineTooHot]

Does meeting Osama Bin Laden make you a terrorist...? Opps... well I met Idi Amin a few years ago...does that mean Im a nasty as well?

Did Idi Amin and his lot train you in the use of weapons and tactics to be employed against "your" country? That'll make you a nasty mate.

Oh and they'll be selling their stories according to one of their fathers.

Then we will obviously hear the truth from these "victims" of the greatest dictatorships in the world.

Did he admit to attending a Terrorist training camp whilst he was under the influence of somehting horrid administered by a syringe by the nice American prison wardens?

I knew you were going to say that!

[crossbow]

Did Idi Amin train us...? don't be daft. They were the students.... We were the Instructors.
Oh and they'll be selling their stories according to one of their fathers. Good. Nice to hear something positive will come of this and hopefully they will get their day in court when the sue Uncle Sam.

Very true Beagle

[Navaleye]

And the last bunch (wrongly) released from Gitmo weren't the only Muslim traitors with UK connections out there. See this (http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-13350770,00.html) from Sky news.

[SASless]

Pilgrim....

I completely agree with you....a double tap to the noggin simplifies things greatly. To those that find that offensive....if you do not wish to be a victim of a drive by shooting...stay off the street corners where the gang members hang out....and call the police when you see the perps committing crimes. The old fashioned team police concept incorporating a Neighborhood Watch organization. Be on the side of law and order....or be on the side of the criminals perpertrating evil.

Funny how those that wish to destroy our freedom and human rights....throw up their hands and beseech those very same protections from the very system they seek to destroy. If one opts out of the system....it should be a permanent decision. In or out....no fence straddling.:mad:

[Check 6]

You are singing to the choir SASless. They are either part of the solution, or part of the problem.

As Mr. John Walsh of America's Most Wanted television program said recently in referring to pedophiles (works for terrorists also), "give them the needle and they can come back as a dolphin."

Works for me.

Check 6

:ok: