Forum menu
So, an Austrian Resident then?
Yes.
I think youse are missing the important points of this story, by quite a distance! 😆
Why are people so concerned with this resident/nationality thing?
I read the story, it didn't even occur to me to think about that until I got to all the tedious comments underneath. Mostly I was horrified at the 14 years of torture and illegal imprisonment.
Just heard extracts of his interview on the radio. Cripes, even if half of it was made up, it's still pretty shocking.
Also, I've lived here for 22 years, am married to a British citizen and have a child with a British passport (I'll sort that one out when I have time 🙂 ). If I was whisked away to be detained without charge in another country, I'd hope that people in the UK would be more concerned about that than my nationality.
Nope you would be on your own you ****
[quote=deadlydarcy spake unto the masses, saying]
Also, I've lived here for 22 years, am married to a British citizen and have a child with a British passport (I'll sort that one out when I have time ). If I was whisked away to be detained without charge in another country, I'd hope that people in the UK would be more concerned about that than my nationality.
Well, that would depend on the key piece of personal information that you left out ....
Thanks guys. Nice to know whose support I can depend on. 😀
Well, that would depend on the key piece of personal information that you left out ....
Beard size?
Keep up Bravissimo. Oirish terrorists are just, loike, soooooooooooo last century. Bearded or otherwise 😉
So the fella in question (not darcy, the other one) has said that he doesn't intend to sue the British government, or anyone else. Does this quell your outrage a bit OP?
No he is still a massive fan of illegal rendition and state sponsored torture of folk who will never be charged now shut it you pathetic hand wringing left.
"So the fella in question (not darcy, the other one) has said that he doesn't intend to sue the British government, or anyone else. Does this quell your outrage a bit OP?"
Countdown to the suggestion that this is proof positive that he has something to hide and is therefore a baddy.
Given that he did say what the charity was and it was examined by the Americans what is your problem now ?
So what is the charity then?
If he shared an apartment with Zacarias Moussaoui, there may've been other motives for detaining him:
http://fortressamerica.gawker.com/the-case-that-the-saudis-did-9-11-explained-1683728623
.
Junkyard - lazarusNope you would be on your own you ****
A fine sentiment,but one that could be developed...
I would forge tapes praising Emir Darcy and his blueprint for global jihad and send them to the Merican embassy. Look on the bright side DD,having a wet towel on your face would stop you from seeing the Munster/Cheats game...
IanMunro, could you provide us with exact details of your entire life/work history please, just so we can make sure you're not a terrorist? Thanks.
Of course I could, but as you don't actually think I'm a terrorist it would be a pointless waste of my time.
Anyway, apparently now he's said he wasn't working for a charity, just doing something similar to working for a charity, but not working for a charity. Should have got Lance Armstrong to vet his script first really.
Mostly I was horrified at the 14 years of torture and illegal imprisonment.
No it was legal. The imprisonment and torturing was done in Cuba - which made it all perfectly legal.
The United States has a strong commitment to uphold the rule of law.
Ian I owe you an apology on a more careful reading as opposed to memory his connection to a formal charity was prior to Afghanistan ( but after his work for the US Army.)
At what point did he live with Zacarias Moussaoui?
Oh no here comes the conspiracy.
What's a little puzzling is that since his guilt is so crystal clear, the evidence plain for all of STW to see, why did the Americans not avoid international condemnation and simply try him?
What's a little puzzling is.......
What certainly puzzles me is why the United States should hold prisoners on the basis of no evidence, or at best a vague hunch, in conditions which only the most repressive and totalitarian regimes would use, and continue to do so for many years after the complete futility of it has been established.
While undoubtedly the United States feels confident that it can never be held accountable in international courts for any war crimes and other violations of international laws, and that western governments and propaganda will continue to largely support them whatever they do, the Guantanamo torture camp seems to have been a highly costly project with no obvious benefit.
Nevertheless the United States clearly thought that snatching people who they thought looked shifty and transporting them across the world to torture them was necessary - why?
I would be genuinely interested in knowing what the thinking behind it all was. Was it perhaps simply to instil fear and terror?
I know for example it is said that Saddam Hussein didn't simply kill his political enemies and opponents but that he also deliberately had executed completely innocent and loyal Ba'ath Party members on trumped up charges.
Everyone including Saddam Hussein knew that they were innocent but targeting innocent people on trumped up charges creates a climate of terror which results in the minimal level of resistance.
I have recently been talking to someone working at a language school for Syrian refugees in Denmark. She has heard first hand from some of the students, and it is truly illuminating and horrifying to her some of the stories. For example, it is common for refugees to refuse to go to a hospital because their torturers dressed as doctors. If the teacher wears a white outfit the result can be the same. The torture is quite subtle and sophisticated - the purpose being to instill fear as a warning to others. Crowd noise was played during the torture and company logos prominently displayed (Coca Cola etc.), so that when released the victim has a fear of crowds, and a bad reaction to seeing the logos. As a result he lives in a permanent state of fear which is spread to the community. One student now cannot stand a closed room and insists on the windows being open - which makes learning in sub-zero weather difficult.
I must ask her to verify the charity work status of her students next time I see her.
I am not defending holding anyone for 14 years without trial, however the American diplomat on Andrew Marr show says quite rightly that conversations and treatment on the basis of civil law are irrelevant as this was a combat/war situation and different ruies apply. The US is still at war with Al-Q / IS etc so it can hold prisoners whilst that conflict is on-going. That's their logic.
Yeah the US government has been claiming that for the last 14 years.
And you are of course trying to defend them. The clue is in your use of the term [i]"quite rightly".[/i]
He says it quite wrongly war has a definition in international law if the US want to hold them as prisoners of war then a) they need to declare war on a state and b) they need to treat the prisoners as Prisoners of war in which case the Geneva Convention applies , someone will say no uniforms there for shoot but the Geneva convention requires a process albeit a summary one to identify spys .
Not logic but a sophistry to conceal wrong doing.
I'm not defending holding anyone for 14 years without trial
*then immediately tries to defend holding people for 14 years without trial*
This only applies to Muslims and/or people with brown skin though obviously, so it's ok.
Torture is always illegal too, regardless of war status.
[quote=ernie_lynch spake unto the masses, saying]Yeah the US government has been claiming that for the last 14 years.
And you are of course trying to defend them. The clue is in your use of the term "quite rightly".
I assumed he meant 'quite rightly' in the sense of being '100% correct', i.e. almost certainly complete bollox.
Torture is always illegal too, regardless of war status.
Depends how you define torture, and whether you sign up to allow anyone to apply the law to you.
Torture in all forms is banned by the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), which the United States participated in drafting. The United States is a party to the following conventions (international treaties) that prohibits torture, such as the 1949 Geneva Conventions (signed 1949; ratified 1955), the American Convention on Human Rights (signed 1977), the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (signed 1977; ratified 1992), and the United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (signed 1988; ratified 1994). It has neither signed nor ratified the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture.[13] International law defines torture during an armed conflict as a war crime. It also mandates that any person involved in ordering, allowing, and even insufficiently preventing and prosecuting war crimes is criminally liable under the command responsibility doctrine.
I'm not saying you are wrong, but it brings up a rather awkward fact. Up until the start oft he last century, war mostly consisted of two armies forming opposing lines and charging toward each other into battle. fast forward through trench warfare and into the end of the last century and things get a lot murkier.crankboy - MemberHe says it quite wrongly war has a definition in international law if the US want to hold them as prisoners of war then a) they need to declare war on a state and b) they need to treat the prisoners as Prisoners of war in which case the Geneva Convention applies , someone will say no uniforms there for shoot but the Geneva convention requires a process albeit a summary one to identify spys .
Not logic but a sophistry to conceal wrong doing.
Today's enemies of global peace are, generally, less rogue nations - one which one can 'officially' declare war - than rogue, guerilla groups. After the Paris attack though, France says they are at war...
What then?
An act of torture committed outside the United States by a U.S. national or a non-U.S. national who is present in the United States is punishable under 18 U.S.C. § 2340. The definition of torture used is as follows:
As used in this chapter—
(1) “torture” means an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control;
(2) “severe mental pain or suffering” means the prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from—
(A) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering;
(B) the administration or application, or threatened administration or application, of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality;
(C) the threat of imminent death; or
(D) the threat that another person will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering, or the administration or application of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or personality; and
(3) “United States” means the several states of the United States, the District of Columbia, and the commonwealths, territories, and possessions of the United States.
So the US law would suggest Shaker's treatment was torture and the us signed up to not doing it . I accept that they have passed laws retrospectively to say it was ok and grant immunity from prosecution.
digga exactly the problem i agree.. The American solution of legal vacuum or grey sites is not the answer and the British of allowing rendition to the legal vacuum is as bad. If the "game" has changed we need to developnthe rules not abandon them.
Today's enemies of global peace
That us isnt it ?
We always seems to be at war...oops my mistake isnt it we are defending ourselve sby bombing foreign lands ...yet when they do this to us ts teroris,
Jamby The way you instantly contradict yourself and in the same sentence as well [ bonus points there] and get others to respond was a masterclass in trolling. Nice use of the appeal to authority. too short hence not full marks.
9/10.
says quite rightly that conversations and treatment on the basis of civil law are irrelevant as this was a combat/war situation and different ruies apply.
what "different rules" exactly? Either they're soldiers (military law, Red Cross, Geneva etc) or they're Civilians (civil or criminal law etc etc)
The US as I remember realised that both of these would mean that they'd have to treat these men they'd just snatched with something approaching their human rights. Which, as they wanted to torture them, they clearly couldn't do, hence the made up term "Enemy Combatant"
The US can thusly talk about "war on Terror" and couch it in terms of imminent danger and a battle for survival, which of course it clearly isn't, as the US is the single most powerful entity on the planet, and is in no real danger from disparate groups of terrorists, any more than we were from the IRA, or the Germans were from Baader-Mienhoff, etc etc ...
Propaganda is a glorious thing, no?
The US can thusly talk about......
I learn so much coming on here. I had no idea that such a word as "thusly" even existed.
As above, torture needs to be defined. What any of us might describe as bordering on torture is what the Americans call enhanced interrogation. This includes water boarding. I know Ahmed complained of having his head hit against a wall, I would imagine the world over thats been done as part of interrogation millions of times.
If you guys want to complain about it feel free to start up the conversation with the Americans. Obama said he'd close Guantanamo more than 8 years ago and he hasn't, that would suggest there are issues in doing so or he thinks it is achieving something. Likewise why did it take so long to release Ahmed ? The Anericans really do have better things to do than holding people purely for the sake of it.
If you want you can watch Andrew Marr on iPlayer and see for yourself the statement I posted here from the American diplomat.
hence the made up term "Enemy Combatant"
They made up the term "illegal combatant".
It actually had major repercussions for every civilian that the UK MoD employed "in support of war fighting", tank transporter drivers, etc.
Thanks Gobuchul, i knew it was something like that, couldn't be arsed to look it up.
I'm not sure it does ernie 😆
i don't think you can say the Americans call it "enhanced interogation" just one politician/lawyer who was told to draft an advice that said torture was not torture unless it would result in death most Americans including their lawyers and the senate easily worked out that the tactics at Guantanimo were in fact torture plus they have the handy codified definition quoted above.
What any of us might describe as bordering on torture is what the Americans call enhanced interrogation.
Well they're hardly going to describe what they're doing as torture, are they ?!
So instead of talking of kidnapping innocent people and torturing them, they talk about extraordinary rendition and enhanced interrogation. Which sounds quite OK and perfectly legal.