MJW

Just reading on the news about the 'trials' of the Guantanamo Bay detainees, and noticed one of the first up before the beak (if you can call a panel of govt. selected non-legally trained military personnel judges, that is) is an Ozzy ! He's pleaded not guilty despite the photo of him toting an RPG-7V, but I was wondering what everyone else thought of this 'legal process'. Do you think the prisoners should be tried this way, or is it just a load of tosh ?

link to bbc news article

Faire D'Income

Regardless of whether they are guilty or not, it seems to me that they are being denied their basic human rights and whilst I far from being an expert I doubt the legality of it all. Unsurprisingly, the US opted out of the recent amendments to International Law so it seems to me as if they just pick and chose when they want the Geneva Convention or International Courts to work in their favour or not.

The outrage in the US if American citizens were being held by a foreign country without proper trial would be interesting....

gsm1

Basically the American Govt couldn't give a sh*t. They're the biggest so they can do what they like, is their attitude.
The Australian public should be outraged by their PM's response to this all. Howard is so desperate to give Bush more head than Blair.

Suresh

Agree that the behaviour of the Americans in this case is nothing short of disgraceful at first glance. It could be forgiven of course if Abu Hamza were to be accomodated there for the duration. It seems Britains laws can't touch him, even though he is apparently a threat to national security.

Seriosly though, the real problem is that the burden of proof currently required under domestic law would never give a secure conviction against these "suspects". The two choices I guess are to change domestic law and further restrict (remove?) the freedom of the individual and make it easier to convict (= Osama wins ) , or hold them illegally, but offshore as they are doing now. Under these circumstances maybe the behaviour of the yanks doesn't look so disgraceful afterall, but merely a necessity to protect the rights of domestic citizens.

Suresh

gsm1

So was Iraq according to the Brit and US 'intelligence'. You've either got evidence against him or you haven't.

Suresh

Not really. Like I said, it's about burden of proof. It is possible to stir up sh*t like a terrorist-supporting traitor and still be technically within the law - and therefore there's not a fig anyone can (legally) do about it. The specific laws could be repealed, but then everyone would suffer.

So are you actually happy that Abu Hamza would be a free man under UK law? or are you just trolling?

Suresh

gsm1

I personally couldn't give a crap about the guy but tell me what evidence you've got against him that is anymore than the sh*te other extremist groups spout?

Brendan Hughes

A phrase in this article caught my eye.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story...290828,00.html

"A spokesman said it was MoD policy not to comment on arrests, but it would be wrong to infer guilt or innocence from an arrest. "

Apparently that applies to British soldiers but not Afghan ones?