• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

gitmo

Steve

Well-known member
The U.K. government intervened on behalf of its citizens detained at Guantánamo; most were released in 2004. President George W. Bush had Begg released without charge on 25 January 2005. The Pentagon, CIA, and FBI had objected, concerned that Begg could still be a dangerous terrorist.[11] Begg and other British citizens who had been detained at Guantánamo sued the British government for complicity in their alleged abuse and torture while in the custody of the United States. In November 2010, the British Government announced that it had reached a financial settlement out of court with several men, including Begg

poor guy was just visiting Afghanistan and wrongly accused ...

I remember the Brits' and our liberals having a fit over this guy... even paid him off...

must have had enough for another vacation...

On 25 February 2014, Begg was arrested by the West Midlands police on suspicion of attending a terrorist training camp and facilitating terrorism overseas.[1] West Midlands Police said: "This is an arrest, not a charge, and ... our naming does not imply any guilt."[15]

On 1 March 2014, Begg was charged with providing terrorist training and funding terrorism overseas, regarding Syria, and appeared at Westminster Magistrates' Court, entering a plea of not guilty. He appeared along with a woman, Gerrie Tahari, 44, from Sparkbrook, Birmingham, also accused of funding terrorism overseas.[16] He is scheduled for a plea hearing on 14 July, provisionally followed by a trial at the Old Bailey on 6 October 2014.[17]

U.K. charges ex-Gitmo detainee with terrorism, attending ISIL training camp.

The situation comes less than a month after another former Gitmo detainee, Lahcen Ikassrien, was arrested in Spain for recruiting jihadist fighters for the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant.

maybe he was just visiting old friends... :roll:
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
iwannabeacowboy said:
6 more are being released next month to rejoin the fight.

It gives OT the chuckles.

He's still busy hiking up his skirt, cutting and running from his established position on the border.

Call it his "desert sandbox", as he spends $trillions taking care of the problems of all the Countries south of him. :wink:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
hypocritexposer said:
iwannabeacowboy said:
6 more are being released next month to rejoin the fight.

It gives OT the chuckles.

He's still busy hiking up his skirt, cutting and running from his established position on the border.

Call it his "desert sandbox", as he spends $trillions taking care of the problems of all the Countries south of him. :wink:

I'm not convinced that once we are out of Afghanistan- and no longer have military folks fighting anywhere- that the courts will continue to support holding "enemy combatants" for indeterminate periods....
The Supreme Court was kind of hinky about the "combatant" designation when they ruled against Bush in Boumediene v. Bush, and told Bush he had to reinstate their right to the Federal Courts and their right to habeas corpus...

And since then there have been several rulings questioning how long they can be held..
In 2008 US District Court Judge Richard J. Leon ruled:
“ ‘Enemy combatant’ shall mean an individual who was part of or supporting Taliban or al Qaeda forces, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners. This includes any person who has committed belligerent act or has directly supported hostilities in aid of enemy armed forces.”

Which immediately raised the question-what happens when we are no longer fighting in Iraq or Afghanistan... And there is no longer coalition partners... :???:

Many legal folks believe the courts (and the world court of public opinion) will force the release of what they are now calling "detainees"...

The reason it may play out best to get these characters out of Gitmo- before a court ruling opens the doors for them... My experience is when you wait around for a court ruling you often get the wrong end of the stick..
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
What's Iraq and Afghanistan have to do with your President spending $trillions on taking care of the foreign troubles in the "sandbox" south of you?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
hypocritexposer said:
What's Iraq and Afghanistan have to do with your President spending $trillions on taking care of the foreign troubles in the "sandbox" south of you?


:???: Your getting as looney as you buddies Hopscotch and Whitey.. The subject was Gitmo and the release of more detainees...
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
you replied to this, looney.


hypocritexposer said:
He's still busy hiking up his skirt, cutting and running from his established position on the border.

Call it his "desert sandbox", as he spends $trillions taking care of the problems of all the Countries south of him. :wink:
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
hypocritexposer said:
iwannabeacowboy said:
6 more are being released next month to rejoin the fight.

It gives OT the chuckles.

He's still busy hiking up his skirt, cutting and running from his established position on the border.

Call it his "desert sandbox", as he spends $trillions taking care of the problems of all the Countries south of him. :wink:

I'm not convinced that once we are out of Afghanistan- and no longer have military folks fighting anywhere- that the courts will continue to support holding "enemy combatants" for indeterminate periods....
The Supreme Court was kind of hinky about the "combatant" designation when they ruled against Bush in Boumediene v. Bush, and told Bush he had to reinstate their right to the Federal Courts and their right to habeas corpus...

And since then there have been several rulings questioning how long they can be held..
In 2008 US District Court Judge Richard J. Leon ruled:
“ ‘Enemy combatant’ shall mean an individual who was part of or supporting Taliban or al Qaeda forces, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners. This includes any person who has committed belligerent act or has directly supported hostilities in aid of enemy armed forces.”

Which immediately raised the question-what happens when we are no longer fighting in Iraq or Afghanistan... And there is no longer coalition partners... :???:

Many legal folks believe the courts (and the world court of public opinion) will force the release of what they are now calling "detainees"...

The reason it may play out best to get these characters out of Gitmo- before a court ruling opens the doors for them... My experience is when you wait around for a court ruling you often get the wrong end of the stick..
 

Steve

Well-known member
many of the existing detainees can be tried,... and convicted..

the five that were released could have been convicted..

I am not sure why none have been convicted,.. but it is about time they go to "jail" even if that jail is in Gitmo...

should he and the others involved in Sept 11th terrorist attacks be released .. ?


Khalid Sheikh Mohammed
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Steve said:
many of the existing detainees can be tried,... and convicted..

the five that were released could have been convicted..

I am not sure why none have been convicted,.. but it is about time they go to "jail" even if that jail is in Gitmo...

should he and the others involved in Sept 11th terrorist attacks be released .. ?


Khalid Sheikh Mohammed

I agree- all those that can be tried for a criminal charge should be- and then if convicted sentenced into the Federal Prison system.. Do away with Gitmo- and the worldwide political aspersions it puts on the US...
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Mike said:
No. They have no rights in the U.S.

Sometimes choices have consequences..........................

The SCOTUS in Boumediene v. Bush, disagrees with you...


On June 12, 2008, Justice Kennedy delivered the opinion for the 5-4 majority, holding that the prisoners had a right to the habeas corpus under the United States Constitution and that the Military Commissions Act of 2006 was an unconstitutional suspension of that right. The Court applied the Insular Cases, by the fact that the United States, by virtue of its complete jurisdiction and control, maintains "de facto" sovereignty over this territory, while Cuba retained ultimate sovereignty over the territory, to hold that the aliens detained as enemy combatants on that territory were entitled to the writ of habeas corpus protected in Article I, Section 9 of the U.S. Constitution. The lower court had expressly indicated that no constitutional rights (not merely the right to habeas) extend to the Guantanamo detainees, rejecting petitioners' arguments, but the Supreme Court held that fundamental rights afforded by the Constitution extend to the Guantanamo detainees as well.
 

Mike

Well-known member
Washington Post By Robert Barnes June 11, 2012 

The Supreme Court on Monday signaled that it is not ready to intervene again in determining the legal rights of foreign nationals detained at Guantanamo Bay.

The court declined to hear appeals from seven of the 169 men being held in the military prison at a U.S. naval base in Cuba. The action came four years after the court’s controversial decision in Boumediene v. Bush established that detainees had the right to turn to the American judicial system for a “meaningful opportunity” to challenge their confinement.

Human rights lawyers representing the detainees have complained that conservative judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, designated to hear all cases from Guantanamo, have thwarted that promise.

If the justices are upset, however, they have not shown it with their actions.

“The court’s decision in Boumediene v. Bush was a historic ruling, but unfortunately it has been severely undermined by a series of decisions from the federal appeals court in Washington,” said Hina Shamsi, director of the American Civil Liberties Union’s National Security Project.


“The Supreme Court’s refusal to hear even a single habeas appeal by a Guantanamo detainee in the past four years despite those decisions is inexplicable.”

Vincent Warren, executive director of the Center for Constitutional Rights, said the court’s action “abandons the promise of its own ruling guaranteeing detainees a constitutional right to meaningful review of the legality of their detention.”

The court did not say why it declined to review the cases.

While the Supreme Court in the 2008 decision established a habeas right for detainees, it left the details on how the claims should proceed to the district court in Washington.

The judges agreed in multiple cases that the government had not made the case that the men should be detained. But the Obama administration fought all plans for release, and judges on the circuit court in DC have not held that a detainee should be freed.

As a result of the circuit court directions, fewer detainees are winning at the lower level.



In addition, several judges on the D.C. circuit have been openly skeptical and even disdainful of the Boumediene decision. In one of the cases at the Supreme Court on Monday, Circuit Judge Janice Rogers Brown wrote that “Boumediene’s airy suppositions have caused great difficulty for the executive and the courts.”


That case involved Yemeni national Adnan Farhan Adbul Latif, who was captured in Pakistan three months after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. Latif and his lawyers contend that he had traveled to Afghanistan and Pakistan to seek medical care for a head injury he suffered in a car accident.

A government report said he followed the same path as other terrorist recruits, and that he received military training and joined Taliban forces.

District Judge Henry H. Kennedy Jr. ordered Latif released, saying the government’s intelligence report was unreliable. It was the only win for a detainee among the past dozen the district court has considered.

But a panel of circuit judges reversed the decision. In an opinion that, when made public contained large sections of redactions, Brown acknowledged the report’s flaws but nonetheless said such documents have a “presumption of regularity.”


Circuit Judge David S. Tatel objected in a lengthy dissent. He argued that the circuit court had “moved the goal posts” whenever a detainee had seemed to prove his case, and said his colleagues’ decisions have made it “hard to see what is left” of the Boumediene decision.

It is because of Kennedy’s decision and Tatel’s dissent that lawyers for detainees hoped they finally had come up with a case that the Supreme Court would see fit to grant. The justices reviewed the Latif decision and the other cases for weeks, but the result was the same.
:lol: :lol:

Unfortunately, that SCOTUS decision was not written in stone. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: You don't keep up do you? :lol: :lol:
 

Latest posts

Top