Printable View
I would not assume a future British government could release them; what am I missing here?Quote:
Originally posted by Neil__@9 July 2003 - 06:14
Don't forget j2k4 if they are guilty then any future British government releasing them would have us to answer to.
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's up to the government to decide how long they serveand in a situation like "Treason" they won'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'll become clear to us what they have done.
Just saw this on the bbc website, hope no one else has posted it:
Original
Quote:
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'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' 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'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'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'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'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'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.
Nice one ilw,
I wish I'd heard all of PMq's
well the ball is rolling.
And he's going to whisper his request in bush's ear.
Thank Tony for showing the world why we've got great in Great Britain.
At least he admits "even if it is shrouded in SPIN" we have to have them back.
Neil.
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 prideQuote:
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".
We clean our own house.
Neil
It's not "our house" they messed up.
Fuck'em.
Just CuriousQuote:
Originally posted by barbarossa@9 July 2003 - 15:10
It's not "our house" they messed up.
Fuck'em.
Who's problem is treason to the U.K. then
Neil
I dissagree that we should extrodite Britains to be executedandQuote:
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
The simple answer is YES.Quote:
But would you extradite a british citezen to the electric chair
when we can jail them forever here?
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.
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:
The Law in the UK doesnt agree with me on this matter...Quote:
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,
The UK Government released LOADS of terrorists as part of the Good Friday agreement.
I'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. ;)
What happened to "innocent till proven guilty"?Quote:
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".