Petem95

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/3959635.stm

Of course theyre totally innocent, were just at a wedding in the middle of a war zone and got taken as POW's

How about trying them for treason? b@stards were out there to kill our troops

the moose

You have proof of this?

If there *is* proof, why on earth weren't they charged, tried and convicted, eh?

CrisPDuk

Historically, American military policy has always been 'the only good redcoat/redskin/******/jap/gook/raghead* is a dead one'.

On that basis I would say that there is a pretty good chance that these four were indeed probably innocent parties, especially given the yanks known propensity for bombing moslem wedding ceremonies.

*delete as applicable

Abdabz

Yip innocent - we all holiday in enemy territory when there's a war on dont we?

Got my Going Places brochure for Nigeria today - The Hotel Opposition - looks nice, Dinner, bed and Butchery for £50 pp/pn.

Or Maybe 3 nights B&B at the hotel Anti-Marriott in Faluja???

LOL - Pure as the driven snow each and every one in guantanamo bay - give them as much of my hard earned taxes as possible...

Oooops I sense some sarcasm in my post

Leslie

Sarcasm is all very well, as well as gross assumption of the facts.

They were kept in an illegal prison and their experience there must have been pretty horrific since they had no rights whatsoever. That prison camp is an anachronism and is there purely for US convenience since they cannot be held responsible for the treatment of those prisoners held there without charge. The KGB used to declare people insane if they were inconvenient to have around and lock them up in an asylum. Not a lot different I think.

It is a fundamental fact in law that someone is held to be innocent unless they have been charged and found guilty in a fair trial. If you throw that out of the window then you are making a very unpleasant bed for yourself in the future.

These men were investigated and could not be charged with any offence, therefore to say or to infer they are guilty is wrong regardless of how they were caught and imprisoned by the US.

Les

the moose

Well said, Les.

moses

alot of british muslims were their long time before the british and us army went their , some were studying and somewhere fighting against the northern alliance


they werent terrorists

MJW

A war zone created by the US, don't forget.

moses

it sure was


to get one man osama they were willing to kill thousands and thousands of innocent afghani's and the war crimes they commited and other warlods they hired to help them , its shocking and they got away with it

those boys had every right to be their, they were their long time before as i said and accusing them of fighting against the british and americans was a bad thing anyway, what do u want them to do the ones who were fighting against the british and american soldiers, while the brits and americans were out their to kill them and shoot them down, did u want these boys just to stand their and get shot at, they had every right to defend themselves too, dont u agree, war was brought upon them, they def aint terrorists

rfowler

look its simple, people are allowed to go where poeple want when they want, if the american's had prof of any wrong doing they would have made a big thing about it? We are bombarded with properganda and just one view one sided, you see what they did to the innocent iraq's in the prison, imagine the kind of torture in the camp. i think the real terror is from america. *******

moses

true americans are the real terrorists, check out their doing in the world, osama is their ex man so was saddam

CrisPDuk

Actually most people prefer to get married in their home town, or where their family are, and these people have stated right through that they were there for a friend's wedding.
I assume, being the narrow minded muppet that you are, you have no Moslem friends (no friends probably), who may or may not want to exercise their right to get married wherever the **** they want to.

My mate has just recently got back from his bird's Libyan best mate's wedding in Beirut, based on your logic, they should have told her they weren't going, that would've made her day

Abdabz

LOL at your comical post!! See you at the Edinburgh Fringe next year I expect??
I work with and manage muslims, classing many as friends and am aware of their family ties back home. I break company policy to allow them up to a months leave at once to go and see their families back home. I respect their beliefs, their background, their attitudes etc and I am not narrow minded nor am I a muppet. This type of insult throwing really floors your argument and I pity it.
If your going to have a wedding in St Albans in January and in December there is a war between High Wycombe and St Albans, bombs going off everywhere, High Wycombees blowing up random things while searching for Ozzy Bin Lidlicker the St Albans Mayor, would you go ahead with the wedding or use a tad of common sense and wait till the war had ended? Ooooo tough'un that!
Sooo I've established the wedding story is a p155 poor reason to be over there when there's a war on - but possibly the truth.
So the yanks stuffed them full of truth telling drugs and it transpires theyre not actually terrorists. Fair enough - but if your that bloody daft to holiday in a war zone (wedding or flipping not) you should be thankful you're alive, not be busy trying to screw your new homeland out of millions of pounds!!!

Oh and if my girlfriends best mate was getting married on a bus in Israel, or on a white mans farm in Zimbabwe, then no we wouldnt flippin go - dumb-***'s!!!!!!!
P

brendy

Most importantly who is paying for this very expensive legal case - legal aid by any chance?

CrisPDuk

My apologies, obviously you are a broader minded person than I originally gave you credit for being.

However to put a slight hole in your argument whilst using your example. Say I do choose to hold that wedding in St Albans in January, whilst my nuptials are taking place, the Mayor of High Wycombe decided to seek revenge upon his former puppet, the mayor of St Albans, over whom he has ceased to have any control. This revenge takes the form of a ''blitzkrieg' style attack, killing or capturing all before him, he then ships the surviving population to a tower block he retains on the outskirts of The Peoples Republic of Brent, the leader of which he fell out with many years before, when the people exercised the right to run their town in THEIR interests. Whilst detained in this tower block the captives are tortured and abused indiscriminately without hope of legal assistance or redress, and are finally released to return home without explanation or apology. Would you not be even slightly aggrieved if you were on the receiving end.



PS The US Marine Corp's penchant for gatecrashing wedding parties was well established during the annexing of Iraq.

Leslie

Well put

Les

CrisPDuk

I must admit, looking at it in the sober, albeit slightly hungover light of day, that I am amazed that there are no typo's

Abdabz

V.good argument CrisPDuk - it hasnt changed my opinion of the situation, but fair play and good reteric well used...Nice to see some satirical witty retort between us who agree to disagree! have a good weekend
P

Brendan Hughes

I look at it this way. The UK police have, I think, 48 hours after arresting someone before they must either charge or release them. This can be extended up to, I think, a week in special circumstances. This is just charging, mind; prosecution may come some months later. That's what our judicial system considers fair.

AIUI, these people at Guantanamo have been held for THREE YEARS without CHARGE.

If you can't find enough evidence to even charge someone in THREE YEARS, just how guilty are they?

But that's OK - hey, America's the land of the Free, isn't it?

Abdabz

In our country I believe you can be held indefinately under the prevention of terrorism act??

Brendan Hughes

You may be right, I'll let someone else answer that.

rfowler

being held for 3 years is no joke, we starting getting upset if we cant leave our house for like 3 hours, imagine what they must of went through in that camp, being cuffed 24/7 wearing that orange suits, listen if the americans had anything they would have nailed them buy now but they dont? this is worst then what Hitler did to the jews mate no sorry infact its right up there? American the big bullies.

MJW

Yes, but it must be reviewed every 6 months ie. to see if there actually is any evidence of terrorist activity. The modification to the law was brought in after the Sep 11 attacks (the 'Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Bill'), but there are conflicts with Human Rights legislation. The definition of a terrorist has been expanded to include those who support and assist known terrorists, so theoretically guilt by association is implied.

The US has circumvented international law with Guantanamo Bay firstly by siting the prison in Cuba it means they can evade their own domestic law. Secondly by referring to the prisoners as 'battlefield detainees' they circumvent the Geneva Convention and the rights given to Prisoners of War. The US managed to get away with the PoW classification for these people as many of them are not indigenous Afghans ergo they must be terrorists.

scoobynutta555

Try looking at your own country
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspap...4682_1,00.html

Apparently, of 9 men in the hearing, some have been detained in Uk jails for 3 years without trial.

angrynorth

A lot of people said about Ken Bigley on here that he knew the risks before he went to work there and thus his fate was his own fault.

Well, these idiots also knew the risks before they went to this "wedding" deep within enemy territory. The possibility of being held as prisoners of war was obviously a calculated risk for them.

So, no sympathy.

Squizz

I'm afraid be they guilty or not, I see the detention of these people in such circumstances to be contrary to everything that the governments of America and the UK are supposed to be upholding...

...I cannot believe we've been so hypocritical to such a ludicrous degree and find it hard to believe we can justify any action taken whilst this is allowed to continue.

I'm sickened that the Prime Minisiter of our country has not publicly made a statement condemning this state of affairs and doing whatever he can to change it.

No f*ckers got any integrity in our political system.

Brendan Hughes

SN555, can you paste it please? Can't be arsed to register

BTW, well aware that the UK I think had the highest number of tellings off by the European Court of Human Rights due to our policies in N. Ireland...

Leslie

Well what about the Prevention of Terrorism act then? that seems to be yet another convenient law that the Government can hide under very similar to Camp X-Ray. Its a fiddle to provide what appears to be a respectable action when the people are being held yet again without charge. As Brendan said, our laws have always been strict in their protection of people by requiring them to be charged within a finite time or released if that cannot be done. Keeping people on mere suspicion is a very dangerous road as far as the rest of us are concerned. Fine for the authorities but only too easy to apply to anyone else if they are an irritation to those in charge. This government has also proposed a change in the insanity laws to enable the authorities to declare someone insane and lock them away in an asylum. I dont know about you but I find that idea a bit of a worry! The KGB loved that one in the USSR!

In recent times I see our personal and traditional freedoms being undermined and like UB I sense a frightening hidden agenda here.

Les