You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Britain
10 Held Under Antiterror Law Ask British Court to Free Them
2004-07-08
Lawyers for 10 non-British prisoners held without trial under antiterrorism laws filed an appeal on Wednesday against the incarceration, arguing that evidence against the detainees may have been extracted under torture from terror suspects being held in United States prison camps. The lawyers went before the Court of Appeal in a preliminary case, seeking permission in part to bring evidence of "the commission of torture" in camps controlled by the United States in Afghanistan, Cuba and elsewhere. "We say that it is an affront to the public conscience for the state to rely in judicial proceedings on evidence obtained by torture," said Ben Emmerson, a lawyer for some of the 17 foreigners who have been declared terrorism suspects in Britain since the Sept. 11 attacks in the United States.
Apparently it's not an affront to the public conscience to kill people and blow stuff up.
The detention of foreign terror suspects without trial or charges - and in contravention of part of the European Convention on Human Rights - has become a sensitive issue for the government of Prime Minister Tony Blair. In late 2001, Britain adopted emergency laws that permitted, among other things, detention without trial. Human rights advocates have labeled that provision Britain's Guantánamo Bay. Mr. Blair is being pressed by rights advocates and legislators to do more to secure the release of four Britons held at the base in Cuba, and his government is under assault for using emergency powers to detain foreigners. The foreign detainees may leave Britain if another country says it will accept them. They may also challenge their detention before a secret tribunal called the Special Immigration Appeals Commission, but the tribunal is empowered to hear evidence from the authorities in the absence of the suspects or their lawyers and can order detention if it believes there are "reasonable grounds to suspect" links to international terror networks. In March, a Libyan detainee, identified publicly only as M, was set free after the tribunal ruled that there were no reasonable grounds to detain him. But it has ruled in the cases of other suspects that the British government has had "sound material" to support the suspects' detention.
So 'M' was released -- what happened to 'Q'?
Mr. Emmerson, who represents eight of the 10 suspects in the current appeal, said he wished to challenge the tribunal's decisions for a variety of reasons including the question of whether it was legally empowered to consider evidence produced by the alleged ill-treatment of prisoners. The 10 detainees represented at the hearing on Wednesday are being held at several locations, including two high security prisons and a high security psychiatric hospital. Some of them have been detained since December 2001.
Posted by:Steve White

#15  Um WTF? Abu Ghraib prisoners were criminals not POWs or suspected terrorists. You got some of your facts wrong. I also suspect you would feel more at home at moveone.org, however you would not be a losing troll there.
Posted by: FlameBait93268   2004-07-16 1:19:40 AM  

#14  Sigh. Since you are determined to make me have the last word, and spoil all my mischief, I will make a final point. I quoted the fourth convention for a reason. It deals with treatment of civilians and is applicable to persons detained in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties. The US is one of these and the prisoners referred to in the article were detained there and allegedly mistreated. It is this that I have been referring to, not to any subsequent dealings though the UK courts, or the source location of their capture.

Forget about the above article for a moment. There are around 600 suspected terrorists held at Guantanamo Bay by the US. Most of these have been held without charge. Many people throughout the world believe that alleged torture of these people is in breach of the Geneva Convention. Obviously this hasn't been tested in court so cannot be stated as a fact, but it is definately a common opinion. Other cases include humiliation of prisoners of war (yes they were POWs) at Abu Ghraib. View some of the following international or even US media for examples of public opinion:

"New cases of alleged prisoner abuse still surfacing in U.S. scandal"
http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/World/2004/07/15/544365-cp.html
"According to the International Red Cross, a number of people apparently in U.S. custody are unaccounted for. Most are believed to be held by the CIA in secret facilities outside the United States. Contrary to the Geneva Conventions, the detainees have never been visited by the Red Cross; contrary to U.S. and international law, some reportedly have been subjected to interrogation techniques that most legal authorities regard as torture." (The Washington Post, 15th July 2004)
"One rule for them"
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,921192,00.html
"Double Standards" and "U.S.: Bush Errs in Geneva Convention Rules Fails to Grant POW Status to Detainees"
http://www.hrw.org/doc/?t=usa_gitmo

The above article posted on Rantburg (by the way Steve White, I hope you are reading and enjoying this to and fro) does refer to the US so your comment that it "has zip to do with the US" is not accurate.

I'd love to know your opinion on who and what I am ("You prove who and what you are...") so if you feel like one last post, I'll try to come back and read it. Please let me know my political leanings, religion, age, education, sex, race etc.

Hope to dispute your opinion again at some other time or place.

Kind regards,
A5607


Posted by: Anonymous5607   2004-07-16 1:01:29 AM  

#13  Sigh. Are you willfully ignorant - or a troll? Regardless, I'll respond once more and then you'll have to play with yourself.

They're not POWs - get it? All of your googled stuff is pointless, though I'm sure you felt really self-righteous doing it. I read the Geneva Conventions 3 decades ago when I was a US soldier and I understand the gist of the various conventions, the reasons for each of them, and their importance regards maintaining some level of civility... Of COURSE the Geneva Conventions cover POWS... POW treament was one of the main purposes for drafting them. These jokers were arrested as suspected terrorists. They do not fight for any "country", they do not wear the uniforms of a country, they are not part of the chain of command of any country, there is no recognized authority that commands them - to fight or surrender, etc. They do not meet the criteria, they are not POWs. The Geneva Conventions do not apply to them. Period.

BTW, this is a story about the UK and a UK law. You prove who and what you are by trying to recast the issue in your automatic anti-US knee-jerk.

Have a look at a few sources other than your beloved Socialist Oz Newz:
http://www.techcentralstation.com/052104E.html
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110005144

When you "get it" and realize it has zip to do with the US, that the Geneva Conventions are not even part of the equation, and start thinking instead of regurgitating someone else's thoughts, you might be worth talking to. As it stands, you're a waste of bandwidth.
Posted by: .com   2004-07-15 8:00:11 PM  

#12  what the hell is Diego Garcia for if we and the brits can't do a little shark fishing. Today's bait? Uncooperative jihadis.....

Aliens 4: when you're in the middle of the friggin Indian Ocean nobody can hear you scream. But your 72 raisins know you wet yourself - they're not impressed
Posted by: Frank G   2004-07-15 7:41:00 PM  

#11  I LOVE the way people resort to insults to get their point across! Cheer up Howard, life is pretty good!
Posted by: Anonymous5607   2004-07-15 7:27:14 PM  

#10  A5607 Fuck you. Public safety comes first - having lived in London under the IRA I welcome any move to get the scum off the streets - have faith in the security services - by and large they know what they're doing. Ten lives vs three thousand.
Posted by: Howard UK   2004-07-15 4:15:34 AM  

#9  .com, if you actually read my post, you would realise that I have no sympathy for "jihadis". My sympathies lie with people accused of crimes for which no evidence has been presented. I would have a similar sympathy for you if you were draged out of your home and detained on suspicion of terrorism for a year or two.

The Geneva convention does cover prisoners of war, which any of these detainees are until they stand trial. Since you are such an expert on the Geneva Convention, I am only quoting it for the reference of other readers of this site:
"1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.

To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:

(a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;

(b) taking of hostages;

(c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment;

(d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples."

By the way, I said "(and every other convention)".

Where exactly did you get the figure of almost a billion people? From US propaganda?
[this is fun ;)]
Posted by: Anonymous5607   2004-07-15 3:55:18 AM  

#8  A5607 - If you actually read the Geneva Conventions, you would discover that your poor poor jihadis aren't covered.

BTW, how do you know you're getting the full story? I know it must make you feel all warm and snuggly to say it, but how do you know? You don't.

Funny, in the last 100 years, the US is directly responsible for freeing almost a billion people from dictatorships, communism, naziism, all sorts of rather unpleasant things, yet you buy into the hate game. You're weak and prefer fantasies. Facts and reality are not your strong suit. You are distinctly unaware of anything useful. Get back in your silly little line - and pray.
Posted by: .com   2004-07-15 1:11:19 AM  

#7  Dear ".com", you might be surprised to find out that I am a typical English ancestry third generation Australian. Like most Australians (and the rest of the well educated, non-xenophobic world) who luckily receive both sides of the story, rather than just US spread propaganda, I am well aware of the frequency of US breaches of the Geneva Convention (and every other convention).
Posted by: Anonymous5607   2004-07-15 12:45:38 AM  

#6  Can't we hope that this solicitor meets some youth" soccer hooligans" or famous english "binge drinkers" resulting in him getting his arse beat. Then he can report it to some human rights group and claim the UK government did it.

The man is a damm fool.
Posted by: FlameBait93268   2004-07-08 2:50:13 PM  

#5  Misread - already here - start the trials now - let's see the scum in our midst.
Posted by: Howard UK   2004-07-08 6:29:15 AM  

#4  I understand that these are the 'baddest of the bad' or the most 'misguided of the misguided' - put them on trial over here and lock them up if necessary [or let MI5 'handle' them]. The Tipton Taleban have remained out of the media focus since their return from Gitmo.
Posted by: Howard UK   2004-07-08 6:27:45 AM  

#3  A5607 - So true. I feel your pain and confusion! The US has been doing it for over 2 centuries. It's what we're known for. Now, anyway. But, for all you know, to quote your post, most of what you read, most of what you see on TV, and most of what you hear from friends and co-workers is just total fucking bullshit dreamt up by weak-minded multiculti sheep who would much prefer that the Caliphate was already in charge so they could just pay their dhimmi tax and be done with it. On the other hand, if we succeed in defeating the Izzoids, you'll be free to sit on your ass, wring your hands, and criticize us some more. Won't that be fun? Now go stand in line with the others and be very very moral, K?
Posted by: .com   2004-07-08 1:20:50 AM  

#2  If the allegations against these people are true, I agree wholeheartedly. But, for all we know, tommorrow the US could come in, remove us from our house, holiday or place of work on the basis of suspected terrorism, torture us to gain a confession (I'd tell them whatever they wanted to hear) and detain us for a few years without ever laying charges. That's immoral!
Posted by: Anonymous5607   2004-07-08 1:06:32 AM  

#1  Declare them criminally insane and toss 'em in a 300-year-old prison on a dank heath somwhere, to be detained "at Her Majestey's pleasure".
Posted by: mojo   2004-07-08 12:40:03 AM  

00:00