Australian Gitmo inmate to be released

[KrazyHorse]

The uniform doesn't have to be there, BTW. Spontanteous resistors to an invading force who don't have time to get a uniform are to be treated as PoW.

Unprotected prisoners are those who use their lack of uniform as a disguise to facilitate their operations in enemy controlled territory.

[MikeH]

One of the Brits to be released was in prison in Afghanistan for a visa violation. He was in prison before, during and after the US invasion.

For this he gets 3 years interrogation and torture, without any charges being brought or a trial.

I have no problem with terrorist being held by governments, but I have a massive problem with governments locking anyone up they feel like with no charges or trials.

What if it was you?

The Brits, when returned, will face questioning to see if we are going to charge them. But at least they'll be back in some kind of official legal process.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4163641.stm

One of the most stunning things is that the prisoner's defence representative isn't even allowed to talk about the allegations of torture the prisoner has made?

Also here's one of the brits' letter to the US forces holding them:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3706428.stm

History will view Guantanemo with disgust.

[Drogue]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Of course, it does to those grabbed in Afghanistan and now in Iraq. Do the GC fanatics realise this?

Only if a preliminary hearing dictates that they are enemy combatants.

[MikeH]

One of the Brits was picked up in Pakistan by the CIA (then TAKEN to the war zone), and one was in Zambia.

I'm not even sure what allows them to be arrested and shipped to Gitmo, they can't be 'unlawful combatants' if they aren't even in a combat zone.

This seems to suggest that US intelligence forces can arrest people anywhere in the world, take them to Gitmo, leave them there as long as they want. Terrifying.

[Chemical Ollie]

Originally posted by Winston
Waahh. Heaven forbid that the US and its WOT allies take enemy combattants prisoner and hold them for a couple of years in less than five star quality accomodation.
---

In the specific case mentioned in the OP, what makes the man:

1) enemy?
2) combattant?

[C0ckney]

the brits won't be charged because we can't use the evidence gained by the americans (such as it is) against them in a british court.

it goes without saying that most of the people held by the US are guilty as sin, although there were some rather interesting stories to come out of the whole thing, such as the 'british' man who when picked up on the battlefield, claimed he had travelled there to attend a computer course...if you're going to tell a lie, may as well be a big one!

of course some are still considered to be dangerous and will be have to be watched 24/7 by the police/security services, this bill will run into £100000s annually, your taxes at work folks. personally i think they should have been left to rot.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Of course, it does to those grabbed in Afghanistan and now in Iraq. Do the GC fanatics realise this?

I'd agree that those nabbed in Pakistan were not captured in a war zone. I also believe the Bushies have a legitimate case for many unlawful combatants but that they have extended the definition to places it doesn't belong.

[Winston]

I haven't investigated the specific case mentioned in the OP, so I really couldn't tell you. The U.S. authorities must've had reasons to have him handed over from the Pakistanis though, other than that he worked as a cleaner, had kids and was on a bus don't you think?

[Dinner]

As I recall the captured Al Qaeda handbook advised terrorists to always claim they were tortured even if this is a total lie.

[MOBIUS]

Just like a massive **** like Winston to condone wanton torture and systematic breaches of human rights...

[Winston]

Where did I do that, and what exactly is your problem?

Do you really think you're gonna win over people with that charming attitude of yours?

[Gibsie]

Originally posted by Oerdin
As I recall the captured Al Qaeda handbook advised terrorists to always claim they were tortured even if this is a total lie.

So, in your eyes, if someone claims they were tortured they're basically admitting to being a terrorist?

[Alexander's Horse]

they are in denial

so next time a US citizen gets declared an enemy combatant by whoever and tortured for information I suppose that is okay too?

[MOBIUS]

Originally posted by Winston
Where did I do that, and what exactly is your problem?

you seem to be supporting the idea of Gitmo, so that is my 'problem' - that and your stupidity for asking a question where the answer was so obvious...

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Gibsie
So, in your eyes, if someone claims they were tortured they're basically admitting to being a terrorist?

No. In my mind it is a baseless accusation until hard evidence proves other wise.