“What the last British citizen in Guantánamo Bay couldn’t tell me”

He isn’t a citizen.

The reason that he’s there is because Moazzam Begg told them that he was Al Qaeda.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204468004577164904145708474.html

Oh come on, doesn’t anybody want to argue?

Surely there’s somebody out there who thinks that we ought to act quickly to import this imprisoned Al Qaeda militant who was briefly a UK resident into the United Kingdom?

@2
I think you missed the point somewhat.The contribution is about UK collusion with the US , the suppression of justice , covering up torture and other politically sensitive events through the illicit use of secrecy laws.

That usage of ‘citizen’ over ‘resident’ was my mistake, not that of the author. Clive used the correct terminology. Now amended.

“Surely there’s somebody out there who thinks that we ought to act quickly to import this imprisoned Al Qaeda militant who was briefly a UK resident into the United Kingdom?”

No, we ought to act quickly to bring charges against an individual guilty of serious crimes, so he can spend the rest of his life in jail once found guilty. Because that way we show we are better than the terrorists, and that countries with legal systems and the rule of the law are better than ones without. That way fewer people join organizations who want countries to be run as theocracies rather than democracies. Although that would certainly reduce republican party membership as well.

“The reason that he’s there is because Moazzam Begg told them that he was Al Qaeda. ”

If they wanted, he’d probably have said you were too.

As for using a WSJ oped as your argument from authority, really?

Clive Stafford Smith’s post has further poignancy because the Protection of Freedoms Act became law today. A few illiberal laws have been pulled back. Not enough of them, of course.

A couple of Bob-style links:
http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2010-12/protectionoffreedoms.html

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/diary/diary-a-freedom-too-late-for-the-enigma-codebreaker-7704261.html

Planeshift @5:

“No, we ought to act quickly to bring charges against an individual guilty of serious crimes…”

I thought that people weren’t, y’know, actually guilty until after they’ve faced something called ‘a trial’? No-one should be considered guilty merely because the bizzies or the spooks (or the meeja) say so.

Man on Clapham Omnibus

I think you missed the point somewhat.The contribution is about UK collusion with the US , the suppression of justice , covering up torture and other politically sensitive events through the illicit use of secrecy laws.

What collusion? There is none here. What suppression of justice? There is no evidence of torture. Never has been. As for the rest, that is just fantasy.

Planeshift

No, we ought to act quickly to bring charges against an individual guilty of serious crimes, so he can spend the rest of his life in jail once found guilty.

For what? He is not British. He did not commit any crimes in Britain. We have no interest in this man whatsoever. Maybe the Americans ought to act quickly to bring charges, but it is literally none of our business.

Because that way we show we are better than the terrorists, and that countries with legal systems and the rule of the law are better than ones without. That way fewer people join organizations who want countries to be run as theocracies rather than democracies. Although that would certainly reduce republican party membership as well.

Funny. But not true. The Left prefers countries without the rule of law. So does the media. People join such organisations because they hate liberal democracy not because they torture. As can be seen by the fact Al-Qaeda is uninterested in fighting Arab countries that oppress Muslims but is countries like Denmark which do not.

Jimmy

If they wanted, he’d probably have said you were too.

Why? Are you saying he is a lying weasel?

Why? Are you saying he is a lying weasel?

Torture is a very reliable method to retrieve information. Whether or not that information is actually accurate is anyone’s guess. I mean, if we strapped you to a chair and started demanding you to name names while waterboarding you, I’m sure it wouldn’t be long till we got the names of someone or other out of you.

“Why? Are you saying he is a lying weasel?”

No more than any of us I suspect. If someone asked me to name you as a terrorist operative in return for removing electrodes from my meat and two veg I’m ashamed to admit I’d probably think it a fair exchange. Don’t take it personally. Torture will usually motivate the victim to tell his interrogator whatever he thinks will make him stop. He is unlikely to be primarily concerned with accuracy. This has always struck me as a blindingly obvious observation.

There’s nothing wrong with a ”hole in the ground” toilet. He comes from the Middle East where they are the norm.

Is he still being tortured? The OP can’t say – so he might not be. It would be odd if they were still torturing prisoners who have nothing more to say because they’ve said it all already.

Is he getting medical treatment? The OP can’t say so what’s the point in saying that?
Have other prisoners received medical treatment? I’m sure the answer is yes.

It’s not ideal I admit. But it’s how Barack Obama wishes it to be.

Our apologist trolls are failing today.

Let’s assume this man is a mass murderer. Let’s assume, even though he hasn’t, that he’s been convicted by due process.

In that case, would it be fair for any government to ban the reporting of his treatment in jail? If Ian Huntley were being tortured by his guards with the consent of Ken Clarke, would that be ok? Would it be ok for Ken to ban reporting on the question of whether or not Huntley was being tortured?

@7 “The Judge”

“No, we ought to act quickly to bring charges against an individual guilty of serious crimes…”

You quote a sentence (above) that doesn’t say the person in the article is considered guilty, as a reason for due process. Charges should most definitely be brought against a person guilty of serious crimes, whether the person mentioned in this article is guilty or not is a totally separate matter. This is of course totally independent of whether the “bizzies or the spooks (or the meeja) say so.”.

10. Cylux

Torture is a very reliable method to retrieve information. Whether or not that information is actually accurate is anyone’s guess. I mean, if we strapped you to a chair and started demanding you to name names while waterboarding you, I’m sure it wouldn’t be long till we got the names of someone or other out of you.

It is indeed. Except Mr Begg has said that he was not tortured in Guantanamo. Claims of maltreatment have been investigated and the conclusion is that there is no evidence whatsoever that Mr Begg was maltreated in US custody. Therefore you have no reason to think he was tortured.

11. Jimmy

No more than any of us I suspect. If someone asked me to name you as a terrorist operative in return for removing electrodes from my meat and two veg I’m ashamed to admit I’d probably think it a fair exchange. Don’t take it personally. Torture will usually motivate the victim to tell his interrogator whatever he thinks will make him stop. He is unlikely to be primarily concerned with accuracy. This has always struck me as a blindingly obvious observation.

Indeed it is a blindingly obvious observation. As is the fact that the interrogator is most interested in the truth. Which is why torture so often works. However it is irrelevant here as Mr Begg did not have electrodes placed on his meat and two vegs.

12. damon

There’s nothing wrong with a ”hole in the ground” toilet. He comes from the Middle East where they are the norm.

Yes that was very culturally insensitive wasn’t it? Almost, dare I say it, racist. What is wrong with an Asian-style toilet?

Is he still being tortured? The OP can’t say – so he might not be. It would be odd if they were still torturing prisoners who have nothing more to say because they’ve said it all already.

No, the OP says he can’t say. But that is not true. He can say if the US censors allow him. He was only there last week. I expect that he is quite deliberately posting before they have made their decision so that he can claim his hands are tied. When in fact they are not.

13. John b

Let’s assume this man is a mass murderer. Let’s assume, even though he hasn’t, that he’s been convicted by due process.

In that case, would it be fair for any government to ban the reporting of his treatment in jail?

He is not in jail and he is not a criminal like other criminals. The normal laws do not apply. Guantanamo is a military facility where military rules apply.

14. Polfromthesl

Charges should most definitely be brought against a person guilty of serious crimes, whether the person mentioned in this article is guilty or not is a totally separate matter.

Umm, if he is guilty why bother bringing charges? You mean that someone who has provided a strong reason to believe is guilty should have charges brought?

Incidentally, we’ve found a solution to the problem of Guantanamo. We used it with a particularly nasty chap who was an Al Qaeda fundraiser, called Abu Rideh.

1. We let him leave the UK
2. He went to Afghanistan
3. We killed him there.

Easy!

Because you’re allowed to kill your enemies during a war.

Polfromthesl @14:

“Charges should most definitely be brought against a person guilty of serious crimes”

That’s two if you who have missed the point now.

The proper order of events is this: charged -> tried -> found guilty (if found guilty)

Not: found guilty (“We know ‘e did it, yerhonner, he’s a Bad Sort” -> charged -> tried.