Has George Bush

[Neil__]

And will it be death for his hand picked unlawfull combattants?

Neil

Edit:
Or will TONY be the leeding light and save the Britons from summary execution?

Edit 2

The're lawyer is chosen by BUSH?
It's a MILITARY court.
A cop out of the geneva contract.
Bush has no right to judge british citizens. and if he does then he will have commited a war crime or not.

[Rat Faced]

I moved this in here from the main area of the lounge, as it appeared to be a topical subject.


For me: Yes, he has..and they will die.

Otherwise they would be getting tried by due process, and not a micky mouse court run by the military.

[evilbagpuss]

Given that the only US taleban "illegal combatant" (John Walker Lindh) was given a 'normal' public civilian trial and allowed access to an independent legal team, can anyone enlighten me as to why the situation is different with regards to the rest of the alleged "illegal combatants"?

The formatting looks terrible in quotes, heres the original for an easier read.

Full story here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3044130.stm)


Originally posted by bbc

Two Britons are among six al-Qaeda suspects due to face a military tribunal in the US, the BBC has learned.

The two are Moazzam Begg, 35, from Sparkbrook, Birmingham, and Feroz Abbasi, 23, from Croydon, south London.

They have been held for many months by the US, along with 680 other detainees, in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, without being sent for trial.

But US President George W Bush has now ruled they and four other unnamed Guantanamo inmates can be tried by military tribunal.

The tribunals have come under heavy criticism from human rights organisations. If they go ahead, they would probably be held in secret and could order the death penalty.

Mr Begg's father Azmat said he feared his son, a father-of-four, would not get a fair hearing.

"The trial will be military, the judge will be military and yet my son is a civilian. This is just not right," he said.

"If the government or military are appointing people in the court, that is absolutely wrong. It should be an independent person." 

Foreign Office minister Baroness Symons said that the government was concerned about the use of a military commission to try the men, as well as about the way the commission would operate.

The Government will press America hard to satisfy concerns over access to lawyers, standards of evidence and appeals in the case of a guilty verdict, she said.

Speaking on BBC Radio 4's The World At One, she said: "It is far preferable, if they are British citizens, for them to come to the UK to face justice here."

But she said that the US decision appeared to have made this impossible.

Mr Begg repeated his claims that his son was innocent and the victim of mistaken identity.  "My son was never involved in al-Qaeda. He is a proper, family man."

Fair trial concerns

Stephen Jakobi, director of the British pressure group Fair Trials Abroad, also raised concerns about the hearings, which he said were being "fixed" to secure convictions.

"The US Department of Defence will appoint the judges and prosecutors, control the defence and make up the rules of the trial.

"It appears to have only one objective - to secure a conviction. 

"If they were prepared to take these people to American soil and try them under normal US prosecution, the evidence wouldn't stand up," he said.

Amnesty International too expressed alarm at the "second-class form of justice" which "falls short of international standards".

BBC security correspondent Frank Gardner said some aspects of such a tribunal would be "extremely worrying".

"It will almost certainly be held in secret, probably at Guantanamo Bay, and the really worrying thing is that there are reports... that an execution chamber is being built alongside it."

However, any execution order would have to be upheld by Mr Bush, he said, and the UK - which is against the death penalty - would protest strongly.

Draft charges

Mr Begg was arrested by the CIA in Pakistan in February 2002, before being flown to Afghanistan and then Guantanamo Bay.

Mr Abbasi was said to have been captured in Kunduz, Afghanistan, in late 2001.

Pentagon officials say all six suspects are believed to be either members of the al-Qaeda terrorist network or have other terrorist involvement such as training or fund-raising.

The next step is for the US authorities to draft charges against any or all of the six, and then make a decision on whether they will actually be tried.


There are seven other Britons in Guantanamo Bay, according to a recent Foreign Office statement. They are:

Shafiq Rasul, 24, of Tipton, West Midlands

Asif Iqbal, 20, also of Tipton

Ruhal Ahmed, 20, also of Tipton

Martin Mubanga, 29, from north London

Jamal Udeen, 35, from Manchester

Richard Belmar, 23, from London

Tarek Dergoul, 24, from east London.


Before the inevitable accusations of defending terrorists fly thick and fast, I would like to remind everyone about that old 'catchphrase' "innocent till proven guilty".

I am personally appalled at this treatment. As a practical alternative I would like to see these men given the same rights and opportunities to defend themselves as given to John Walker Lindh. No more no less.

Am I being unreasonable?

[Rat Faced]

Merged 2 threads on the same subject matter....

[Neil__]

Originally posted by Rat Faced@4 July 2003 - 23:35
I moved this in here from the main area of the lounge, as it appeared to be a topical subject.


For me: Yes, he has..and they will die.

Otherwise they would be getting tried by due process, and not a micky mouse court run by the military.


dont forget there is a moral superiority in a race that doesn't believe in murder as a just cause.
At least the american government could say that justice has been served rather than sold out

Punishment needs to be handed out but not by the most biased
America shouldn't be scared of world opinion, they are the greatest nation after all ant the land of the shafted.

Trial by S J R and her boot camp

Oh and what about the genever convention or have they copped out of that also

AMERICA doesn't have the right to try BRITISH citizzens in a kangaroo court
we died so that Bush could call it a coallition in Iraq and not just an invation. what more does bush want from us?

All I can say it is a war crime in the majing and 2 wrongs dont make a right this side of the texan border

Neil

[Rat Faced]

If they had broken a US law, in the US then I would say that they have every right to Judge them, and deal with them as they would anyone else that had broken that law. Irrespective of nationality.

I would expect a British Citizen found guilty of Murder in Texas, to face the Electric Chair...just like any other person guilty of murder in that State.



These people didnt break any US laws however.

Even if they did, they were on the other side of the planet, not withing the US jurisdiction.



The crimes they committed range from none (accused of being Taliban by someone with a grudge) to defending Afganistan from attack....remember the Taliban did not attack the USA/UK, they were the ones attacked, so they defended themselves...they just would not hand Al Queda over to the US. (although REMEMBER they DID offer to hand them over to a neutral nation for trial)

Then you have the 3rd lot...members of Al Queda.

Despite how much i despise these people and would wish to see them go down, even here there are problems.


They were located within another sovereign country, and so the US had no Jurisdiction (unless they are now telling us its OK to go into the US and forcably remove people wanted in other countries, without due process...eg Kissinger? )...being a member of Al Queda was not an offence in Afganistan.

Who says they are Al Queda? The local Warlord, getting rid of a rival, or have they got some real evidence?

If they have real evidence...then why not a real court? Oh yeh, a real court would throw the case out, as due process has not been followed and the evidence was illegaly obtained....and there is no way that they will ever get a fair trial in the USA. (No blame here, 9/11 was a horrific act)



The USA has created a rod for its own back (again)



If they are Tried in a military court, then why wasnt the Geneva Convention followed? There are strict guidlines as to the treatment of prisoners, many of which have been totally ignored.

If they are tried in a civil court then it complicates things...as there are so many countries involved, which do you look at as the standard for treatment of prisoners? The USA has an argument here that they are not in the USA, so US standards dont apply, but those of the country they are being held in.

However, they may not get convictions in a civil court....for many of the reasons given above.


It doesnt matter WHAT the USA does now....they are going to be attacked from every quarter on these prisoners.

I would suggest that they ratify the ICC and hand the problem over to them..however they are then in the boat of US citizens being brought before it, so this is just not going to happen.

[garydavidlewis]

my theory is if there are traiters and they get caught they shud be jialed for life at a prison set up for terroists

[Rat Faced]

Originally posted by garydavidlewis@6 July 2003 - 00:11
my theory is if there are traiters and they get caught they shud be jialed for life at a prison set up for terroists
Define "Traitor" and "Terrorist"

An example:

Hewitt slept with Diana then talked.

At the time she was a member of the Royal Family, and that act alone strictly speaking was "Treason". He also committed adultary with the wife of the Prince of Wales..again, strictly speaking "Treason" under the law.

Treason is the ONLY law in the UK that still carries the death penalty (less military law)......

So you would have him locked up as a terrorist?



If you mean the people in the US Camp (I assume you are)...again define Traitor.

95% were Afgans, fighting the US/UK forces which attacked them. Most were also conscripts in this army. Some werent anything to do with it, but were accused by others (like senile old sod).

How are any of these people "Traitors"?

If you are from the US, the ONLY prisoner that can be called a traitor (ie the only US citizen) has already been tried...under due process (ie a civilian court).

How are the citizens of every other country not worthy of this?

[Neil__]

Rat Faced
If America had real evidence then it would try these people fairly
And the fact that they are not tells me they haven't got enough evidence.
Also the hipocricy of America complaining for decades whenever its poeple were tried in this manner abroad.

and how can america say that as it is in cuba then american laws dont apply
if they dont apply in cuba how come they apply in iraq or afghanistan.

[thewizeard]

Treason is the ONLY law in the UK that still carries the death penalty (less military law)......

And Arson in Royal Navy Dockyards I believe.

It is irrelevant.

[Rat Faced]

Originally posted by nigel123@6 July 2003 - 17:43
Treason is the ONLY law in the UK that still carries the death penalty (less military law)......

And Arson in Royal Navy Dockyards I believe.

It is irrelevant.
True.

I was trying to make a point on the seriousness of the term "Traitor".

And how even when strictly speaking Treason has been done, its only in extreme circumstances that someone will be prosecuted (in the UK) on this charge.

[Neil__]

Originally posted by Rat Faced+6 July 2003 - 18:57--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Rat Faced @ 6 July 2003 - 18:57)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-nigel123@6 July 2003 - 17:43
Treason is the ONLY law in the UK that still carries the death penalty (less military law)......

And Arson in Royal Navy Dockyards I believe.

It is irrelevant.
True.

I was trying to make a point on the seriousness of the term "Traitor".

And how even when strictly speaking Treason has been done, its only in extreme circumstances that someone will be prosecuted (in the UK) on this charge. [/b][/quote]


their is a case to answer with the two brits
we have to concider that they might have commited treason and we need to decide that not America.

Treason is a crime so specific to one c ountry that NO other has any right interfeering.

[clocker]

What is all this talk about "treason"?
I&#39;ve not heard anywhere that the six men in question are being charged with treason.
Even that ridiculous screed posted by EBP doesn&#39;t mention the word.

[denis123]

Originally posted by Rat Faced+6 July 2003 - 00:44--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Rat Faced @ 6 July 2003 - 00:44)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-garydavidlewis@6 July 2003 - 00:11
my theory is if there are traiters and they get caught they shud be jialed for life at a prison set up for terroists
Define "Traitor" and "Terrorist"

An example:

Hewitt slept with Diana then talked.

At the time she was a member of the Royal Family, and that act alone strictly speaking was "Treason". He also committed adultary with the wife of the Prince of Wales..again, strictly speaking "Treason" under the law.

Treason is the ONLY law in the UK that still carries the death penalty (less military law)......

So you would have him locked up as a terrorist?



If you mean the people in the US Camp (I assume you are)...again define Traitor.

95% were Afgans, fighting the US/UK forces which attacked them. Most were also conscripts in this army. Some werent anything to do with it, but were accused by others (like senile old sod).

How are any of these people "Traitors"?

If you are from the US, the ONLY prisoner that can be called a traitor (ie the only US citizen) has already been tried...under due process (ie a civilian court).

How are the citizens of every other country not worthy of this? [/b][/quote]
Hello Clocker, It started within the quote that Rat faced highlighted.

[Neil__]

Originally posted by clocker@6 July 2003 - 20:08
What is all this talk about "treason"?
I&#39;ve not heard anywhere that the six men in question are being charged with treason.
Even that ridiculous screed posted by EBP doesn&#39;t mention the word.


I&#39;m saying it now as has Rat Faced befor me.
the two British men need to be returned to the United Kingdom to answer to the charge of treason, and only once they have spoken to us will we decide what to do with them

Edit rephrasing

P.S. The Queen requires her subjects to explain themselves.

Neil.

[evilbagpuss]

Originally posted by clocker
Even that ridiculous screed posted by EBP doesn&#39;t mention the word.


Clocker, what was ridiculous about it?

[clocker]

Originally posted by evilbagpuss+6 July 2003 - 16:12--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (evilbagpuss @ 6 July 2003 - 16:12)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-clocker
Even that ridiculous screed posted by EBP doesn&#39;t mention the word.


Clocker, what was ridiculous about it? [/b][/quote]
EBP,
As the piece is too long to dissect line by line I offer this one sentence as representative of the failings of the whole.

"It will almost certainly be held in secret, probably at Guantanamo Bay, and the really worrying thing is that there are reports... that an execution chamber is being built alongside it"
"Almost certainly", "probably" and "there are reports"

Sounds alot like "maybe", "I think" and " someone told me".

No facts to be found in this one sentence and few to be found anywhere else in the piece.

[evilbagpuss]

Originally posted by clocker
"Almost certainly", "probably" and "there are reports"


It will almost certainly be held in secret, probably at Guantanamo Bay, and the really worrying thing is that there are reports... that an execution chamber is being built alongside it"

"It will almost certainly be held in secret"

This issue of secrecy is a very important point. These are military tribunals. They are almost always held in secret. Secrecy is the rule rather than the exception. I think this is common knowledge.

The location of the trial and execution chamber are not critical elements as their legal rights are to be decided by the military and not the location where the trial occurs.

The phrase "really worrying" may seem emotive to you but remember we dont have the death penalty in the UK and this article is focused on the accused UK individuals and representing a UK point of view.

I dont think we should go through this line by line either, but I genuinely cant see any reason why anyone would write this article off as &#39;ridiculous&#39;.

Anyway, my point is that I dont think these men, who are certainly facing the death penalty, will get anything resembling a fair trial if they are going to be prosecuted under these conditions. I wanted to gauge the opinions of the board on this point.

[Neil__]

We demand America return our citizens so we can try them.

Or at least I demand.
and I&#39;m not alone.

You can shove your executions up your arse America you cannot kill our aleged traitors

and they havent been heard yet.

I want to hear what they have to say.
so bring them in frount of me and ask them.
the Queen and I want an answer

America Let them speak to us,
Or be Damned.

Neil.

[Neil__]

Rat Faced

I would expect a British Citizen found guilty of Murder in Texas, to face the Electric Chair...just like any other person guilty of murder in that State.


But would you extradite a british citezen to the electric chair
when we can jail them forever here?

And give them a chance to re-evaluate their world.
and maybe be released if they deserve to be

Our chouce America No others.

Neil

A Brit.
a citizen under Queen Elizabeth II
demand the return of my countrymen.
NOW.

Neil

[Neil__]

I think this forum is too lowly a place and we need to go to the horses mouth
I want my people back thanks America
And maybe it&#39;s time to ask the country.

Neil.

[Neil__]

Can&#39;t someone file a law suit against America in Geneva in the court of human rights challenging Americas right to "judge" European Citizens and summarally execute them?

[clocker]

A Brit.
a citizen under Queen Elizabeth II
demand the return of my countrymen.
NOW.

Neil

I thought that in another thread you said you were disgusted with Britian and hoped to move to Holland.
Is this vociforous display just a parting gift?

[Neil__]

I remember but it was off topic there

Bush has to account

Well an open question

Does anybody know anyone that can help look at the geneva thing and find out if we can slow down America?

or any other options to save our men.

Neil.

[hypoluxa3k]

For lil Dubya, i have a gift, two of my comrades that are gonna hunt down his gringo ass:

Cobra
http://www.netmovies.ch/cover/e/14778.jpg

and

Rambo
http://www.netmovies.ch/cover/e/12193.jpg

[clocker]

Originally posted by hypoluxa3k@7 July 2003 - 03:36
For lil Dubya, i have a gift, two of my comrades that are gonna hunt down his gringo ass:


In case you were unaware Hypo,
Both of your "comrades" are played by the same "actor".

I don&#39;t think that Bush has much to fear from a revolution fomented in a movie theater.

Planning on &#39;liberating&#39; the concession stand? I&#39;m a trifle peckish....

[j2k4]

Originally posted by clocker+7 July 2003 - 06:48--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (clocker &#064; 7 July 2003 - 06:48)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-hypoluxa3k@7 July 2003 - 03:36
For lil Dubya, i have a gift, two of my comrades that are gonna hunt down his gringo ass:


In case you were unaware Hypo,
Both of your "comrades" are played by the same "actor".

I don&#39;t think that Bush has much to fear from a revolution fomented in a movie theater.

Planning on &#39;liberating&#39; the concession stand? I&#39;m a trifle peckish.... [/b][/quote]
Why yes-

We have JuJu Beans, Milk Duds, Necco Wafers, Jordan Almonds, and lots of popcorn-

What&#39;ll you have, Clocker?

How about a SNICKERS?

[clocker]

Thanks.

I&#39;ll have a Chock Full &#39;o Nuts, please.

It&#39;s good to be a revolutionary.

[j2k4]

I&#39;ll say this:

I know absolutely nothing specifically about the men in question, but if the opportunity exists to have the U.K. try these men, then on the basis of our alliance with the U.K., that is what should happen.

This presupposes the U.K. is willing to actually try them, and doesn&#39;t intend on giving them a pass on the allegations.

[Rat Faced]

But would you extradite a british citezen to the electric chair
when we can jail them forever here?


The simple answer is YES.

In the example i gave, i would.

You visit a country, then its YOUR responsibility to abide by ITS laws, or suffer the consequences....and no, that is not saying im either in favour of the Death Penalty or not.

I would also expect them to lose a hand for theft in Saudie, as long as it could be shown that they had a fair trial.



However, the example i gave is NOT the case here.



The UK citizens were breaking no Laws in the country that they were in, in fact they were defending it...with the thanks of the legal Government there.

This means that the only possible "Crime" they have committed, is Treason against the UK...remembering that they were also defending against UK troops.

This being the case, they should be Tried in the UK....the USA doesnt have Jursidiction.

I also do not believe that ANY of the people will get a fair trial, or else it would be as public as OJ Simpson&#39;s trial, the world interest is GREATER in this case.

[j2k4]

Rat-

As I have admitted my ignorance in this case, enlighten me:

What is the status of the detainees with regard to U.K. law pending an exchange of custody?

[Rat Faced]

Simply put...the UK citizens could be tried for Treason...

However in the circumstances, it is not a forgone conclusion that the State would win.

In fact, it would probably be part of the defense that the UK troops were there illegaly under international law....and the LAST thing the UK government wants is to be formally told by the Criminal Court that there is no case to answer, as the UK was acting illegaly.

They are already fending off enough Civil cases trying to pin them down...the one thing that they have demonstrated above all else so far, is their unwillingness to go to court...even if it is the Government that is prosecuting.

This goes for the Iraq conflict too..


For example....

A VERY high percentage of TA soldiers that were "called up" refused to go...not one of them is being prosecuted.

A few British Soldiers that were out there refused to fire on some occasions (mutiny, and if found guilty a possible death penalty) not one of them is being prosecuted.


As far as i can see, the only other UK law that they have broken is membership of Al Queda (if they were), and as they were not in the UK, then there is a jurisdiction problem.

This doesnt mean they cant be tried for other things....there are an awful lot of Laws that most people (including myself) dont know about, and the State does hold a lot of power there.. (Just like Al Capone got hit with Tax Evasion)..it just takes an imagination to look it all up. If they did that though, then what are the "political" consequences with the electorate?


I havent a clue as to what "international" laws have been broken.

I suspect that the UK Government would immediately pass the buck, and hand them over to the ICC..and i certainly havent been hearing cries from the UK Government to turn the UK citizens over.

One thing that IS certain, if they are turned over...the USA will not get them back. Under the rules, they cant be extradited to face a possible Death Penalty or if they can show reasonable grounds that they will not receive a fair trial. I think they can demonstrate the latter certainly, and probably the former.

[j2k4]

Originally posted by Rat Faced@8 July 2003 - 11:59
One thing that IS certain, if they are turned over...the USA will not get them back. Under the rules, they cant be extradited to face a possible Death Penalty or if they can show reasonable grounds that they will not receive a fair trial. I think they can demonstrate the latter certainly, and probably the former.
I have a notion this last might be the hidden intent.

If the ICC ends up with jurisdiction and passes on prosecution, would the U.K. re-assume custody?

If they get a pass all the way around, where would they go? Do you think they could safely stay in the U.K.?

[Rat Faced]

If they get a pass all the way around, where would they go? Do you think they could safely stay in the U.K.?



Yes, they could stay here.

"Safely" will largely depend on where in the UK they go, i would have thought.


There are many parts of the UK, where some portions of the population will class them as hero&#39;s. (Parts of West Yorkshire for example)

Other areas where they would go out one night and just stop living....(Salisbury area for example)

Most of the UK they would just blend in, and most people would not know nor care who they are, as long as they stay out of trouble there.

[j2k4]

I&#39;ll have to stay tuned.

Thanks, Rat.

[Neil__]

Tont Blaire has just stated on live T.V. that he wants our citezens back so they can face a "FAIR TRIAL" on "TERRORIST" charges, and the British parlament is behind him.

and terrorism is a charge that carries A maximum jail term of Natural Life

Don&#39;t forget j2k4 if they are guilty then any future British government releasing them would have us to answer to.

I hope we don&#39;t have to demand them back as a whole country.
As that would gain America a lot of enemies in Britain.


Neil

[Neil__]

Originally posted by clocker@7 July 2003 - 02:35

A Brit.
a citizen under Queen Elizabeth II
demand the return of my countrymen.
NOW.

Neil

I thought that in another thread you said you were disgusted with Britian and hoped to move to Holland.
Is this vociforous display just a parting gift?


I have said that I am disgusted with tony blaire over the Ass kissing up to America
But how does that affect my status
and if you had cared to read further you would have found I said I would still be patriotic to Britain even if I gained Dutch Citezenship

SO if your going to quote, QUOTE
Don&#39;t MISSQUOTE
as it makes you look foolish

Neil

[Neil__]

Originally posted by Rat Faced@7 July 2003 - 19:55

But would you extradite a british citezen to the electric chair
when we can jail them forever here?


The simple answer is YES.

In the example i gave, i would.

You visit a country, then its YOUR responsibility to abide by ITS laws, or suffer the consequences....and no, that is not saying im either in favour of the Death Penalty or not.

I would also expect them to lose a hand for theft in Saudie, as long as it could be shown that they had a fair trial.







I dissagree that we should extrodite Britains to be executedand
if the crime was commited in the US and they were detained there then tough you deal with the laws of the country you are in but thats a far cry from sending a brit back to saudi to have a limb hacked off in public.

but I agree whole heartedly with the rest

Neil

[clocker]

Originally posted by Neil__@9 July 2003 - 05:20


SO if your going to quote, QUOTE
Don&#39;t MISSQUOTE
as it makes you look foolish


Neil,

1) I didn&#39;t quote anything.

2) Looking foolish is a hobby of mine.
Apparently you enjoy it also.

[Neil__]

Neil,

1) I didn&#39;t quote anything.

2) Looking foolish is a hobby of mine.
Apparently you enjoy it also.

Great minds think alike.

LOL

Neil.

[j2k4]

Originally posted by Neil__@9 July 2003 - 06:14
Don&#39;t forget j2k4 if they are guilty then any future British government releasing them would have us to answer to.


I would not assume a future British government could release them; what am I missing here?

[Neil__]

Right we have a mandatory LIFE sentence whitch has to be applied and under the LIFE term a prisoner can be "parolled"

so even though the sentence for murder is life on average Murderers serve an average of about 11 years

But with crimes like this it is up to the Home secretary to decide on any potential release and that can be any Home Sec in the future.

Basically it&#39;s up to the government to decide how long they serveand in a situation like "Treason" they won&#39;t dare release

They want to try on terrorism not treason as the case is sown up for terrorism and is dodgy for treasonBut I think it&#39;ll become clear to us what they have done.

[ilw]

Just saw this on the bbc website, hope no one else has posted it:

Original (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3055004.stm)



Tony Blair has been challenged to "put his foot down" and tell the Americans that the British men currently imprisoned at Guantanamo Bay should be tried in the UK.

At prime minister&#39;s questions, Mr Blair was pressed several times over fears that Moazzam Begg and Feroz Abbasi will not get a fair trial.

Mr Blair said the nature of the trials planned for the prisoners held at the base in Cuba had yet to be decided.

He promised to continue making "active representations" to the US Government to ensure the men had a fair trial.

MPs&#39; pressure

On Monday Foreign Office Minister Chris Mullin said the UK had "strong reservations" about US plans to use military tribunals to try the two men.

Under the proposed trial arrangements it is understood that Mr Begg and Mr Abbasi will be denied the right to choose their own legal representation.
According to a parliamentary motion signed by 70 MPs, they face a choice between pleading guilty and being given 20 years, or if they fail to do that and are convicted they face the death penalty.

The MPs also raise concern about the mental state of the two men after 18 months of incarceration in cages two metres wide and only 30 minutes of exercise twice a week.

Liberal Democrat leader Charles Kennedy took up those concerns on Wednesday, asking what the affair said about British influence in Washington.

"How long must it be that UK citizens are left to languish in this legal no-man&#39;s land," asked Mr Kennedy.

And Labour MP David Winnick told Mr Blair: "Put your foot down prime minister."

Fair trial appeals

Responding to those fears, Mr Blair told MPs there had to be a time when the detentions at Guantanamo Bay had to come to an end.

"There has to be no question about this at all," he said. "Any commission or tribunal that tries these men must be one conducted within proper canons of law so that a fair trial is both taking place and seen to take place."

He went on: "The precise nature of these trials has not yet been formulated and therefore it is important that we wait and see whether our representations have been heeded."

Mr Blair said Britain&#39;s opposition to the death penalty was well-known.

Foreign Secretary Jack Straw raised the concerns over the treatment of Mr Begg and Mr Abbasi when he spoke to his US counterpart Colin Powell at the weekend.

There are at least 680 suspected al-Qaeda and Taleban members at the US naval base in Cuba.

Legal black hole

US President George W Bush decided on Thursday that six of them, including Britons Mr Begg and Mr Abbasi and Australian David Hicks, should face trial in a military tribunal rather than in a regular court.

The announcement sparked a wave of protest from human rights groups who said the tribunals would be a "legal black hole".

The UK government has already expressed concern about the men&#39;s access to lawyers, the standards of evidence and their rights to appeal in the case of any guilty verdicts.

On Monday, former cabinet minister and Tory MP Douglas Hogg said that America&#39;s reputation would suffer if they proceeded with the trials by tribunal which he described as "wrong" and "potentially unjust".

Mr Mullin responded: "In our view it&#39;s strongly in the interests of the US that these trials are conducted in a credible and transparent fashion because it obviously will affect the respect with which the US is held throughout the world."

The minister insisted that the government would not indulge in "megaphone diplomacy" in order to get its point across.

[Neil__]

Nice one ilw,
I wish I&#39;d heard all of PMq&#39;s
well the ball is rolling.
And he&#39;s going to whisper his request in bush&#39;s ear.
Thank Tony for showing the world why we&#39;ve got great in Great Britain.

At least he admits "even if it is shrouded in SPIN" we have to have them back.

Neil.

[Barbarossa]

Why the hell do we want them back here? Leave them in Guantanamo to rot for all I care. I&#39;m a taxpayer, I don&#39;t want my money wasted on bringing them to "justice".

[Neil__]

Originally posted by barbarossa@9 July 2003 - 14:50
Why the hell do we want them back here? Leave them in Guantanamo to rot for all I care. I'm a taxpayer, I don't want my money wasted on bringing them to "justice".



Is money more important than national pride
We clean our own house.

Neil

[Barbarossa]

It&#39;s not "our house" they messed up.

Fuck&#39;em.

[Neil__]

Originally posted by barbarossa@9 July 2003 - 15:10
It's not "our house" they messed up.

Fuck'em.



Just Curious
Who's problem is treason to the U.K. then

Neil

[Rat Faced]

Originally posted by Neil__+9 July 2003 - 11:28--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Neil__ @ 9 July 2003 - 11:28)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Rat Faced@7 July 2003 - 19:55

But would you extradite a british citezen to the electric chair
when we can jail them forever here?


The simple answer is YES.

In the example i gave, i would.

You visit a country, then its YOUR responsibility to abide by ITS laws, or suffer the consequences....and no, that is not saying im either in favour of the Death Penalty or not.

I would also expect them to lose a hand for theft in Saudie, as long as it could be shown that they had a fair trial.







I dissagree that we should extrodite Britains to be executedand
if the crime was commited in the US and they were detained there then tough you deal with the laws of the country you are in but thats a far cry from sending a brit back to saudi to have a limb hacked off in public.

but I agree whole heartedly with the rest

Neil [/b][/quote]
I said "I" would.

You fuck up in another country, then i think you should pay the consequences.


As I said later:


One thing that IS certain, if they are turned over...the USA will not get them back. Under the rules, they cant be extradited to face a possible Death Penalty or if they can show reasonable grounds that they will not receive a fair trial. I think they can demonstrate the latter certainly, and probably the former.



The Law in the UK doesnt agree with me on this matter...

j2k4,

The UK Government released LOADS of terrorists as part of the Good Friday agreement.

I&#39;d like to see how they prove terrorism charges though, unless they can be linked to Terrorist action in the UK or a UK dependancy/colony....

Im pretty sure Blaire and co will be shouting very quietly on this one, they are probably gutted that they havent been tried/sentenced before Parliament started asking Questions in a forum where he has to answer. ;)

[evilbagpuss]

Originally posted by barbarossa
Why the hell do we want them back here? Leave them in Guantanamo to rot for all I care. I'm a taxpayer, I don't want my money wasted on bringing them to "justice".

What happened to "innocent till proven guilty"?

[Neil__]

Originally posted by evilbagpuss+9 July 2003 - 23:53--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (evilbagpuss @ 9 July 2003 - 23:53)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-barbarossa
Why the hell do we want them back here? Leave them in Guantanamo to rot for all I care. I'm a taxpayer, I don't want my money wasted on bringing them to "justice".

What happened to "innocent till proven guilty"? [/b][/quote]



America has redefined it.
or should I say rearanged the words.

Neil.

[clintonesque]

Yeah, they should go back to the UK for trial.
Bush has no business trying those British combatants. I think it would be kind of an insult to the British people if they where tried in America, after all Britain is a major coalition partner.
They can & should be able to deal with their own.

[Neil__]

Originally posted by clintonesque@10 July 2003 - 16:23
Yeah, they should go back to the UK for trial.
Bush has no business trying those British combatants. I think it would be kind of an insult to the British people if they where tried in America, after all Britain is a major coalition partner.
They can & should be able to deal with their own.



Thanks clintonesque

We ARE capable and WILL deal with them especially if they ARE guilty.
Also Bush has already insulted half the world so we don&#39;t take him seriously.

as for the coalition.We are still dying for America after all.

I&#39;m just glad that so many American&#39;s see my point in this matter
Maybe there is hope for mutual allegiance after all.

Neil

Edit for Rat Faced

[clintonesque]

We can&#39;t afford to loose the Brits.

[Neil__]

Originally posted by clintonesque@10 July 2003 - 16:37
We can&#39;t afford to loose the Brits.



Ditto America
We only wish it wasn&#39;t so one sided

Neil

[Rat Faced]

Maybe there is hope for our allegeance after all.


Want to change Allegiance to Alliance?


I, for one, do not owe "Allegiance" to the USA, only to her Majesty.

I do however regard the USA as an important ally and friend.


...just this friend seems to be going through a little bit of a mental breakdown at the moment. Like any friend, i want to help them sort their life out ;)

[Neil__]

I did mean ALLEGIANCE (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=allegiance) between countries
So no need to nit pick
But for you I have made it clear


allegiance

2. Devotion; loyalty; as, allegiance to science.

Syn: Loyalty; fealty.




Neil