Thursday - December 13, 2007

Why should Guantanamo detainees return?

THIS ONE’S FROM ANOTHER PAPER, THE TELEGRAPH. AND A VERY INTERESTING READ AS WELL. CHECK IT OUT.

Why should Guantanamo detainees return?

By Philip Johnston
Last Updated: 12:01am GMT 10/12/2007

Let’s just get this straight, shall we, because I am afraid that the logic escapes me. Gordon Brown says that settling in Britain should be a privilege, not a right, and one linked to a commitment to shared values. Last week, new rules were proposed whereby spouses coming to this country would have to be able to speak English before being allowed in.

Imagine, for the sake of argument, that I am unmarried and I am sent by The Daily Telegraph to be Tokyo correspondent for several years. There I meet a Japanese woman, marry her and we have children. After a few years, I am recalled home. My wife speaks no English, or very little - not surprisingly since we have lived in Japan for some time.

Under these Government proposals, I would be forced either to leave my family in Japan or take the children to Britain while their mother stayed behind trying to learn enough English to pass a test set by the Government. She poses no threat to this country.

Were she to come to Britain, she would no doubt want to learn the language and would be an enthusiastic pupil. She shares many of the British values that the Government is seeking to preserve through measures such as these. Yet even though she is the wife of a British subject, she would not be allowed to join me until she spoke enough English, which, theoretically, could be never.

Now consider this. Three men, picked up in dubious circumstances as part of the “war on terror” and held by the Americans at Guantanamo Bay, are shortly to be released. Omar Deghayes is a Libyan, Jamil el-Banna is a Jordanian and Abdenour Samuer is an Algerian. And where are they going to live? In Britain, of course, for no obvious reason other than that they were all resident here before the Afghan invasion in 2002.
Most people, I suspect, find the Guantanamo camp offensive to any notion of natural justice. People have been held there without trial or any prospect of one, effectively as prisoners of a war that might never end. They included several British citizens on whose behalf the Government interceded with the American authorities, who returned them home. None was ever prosecuted here, though police questioned them on their return over what they were doing in Afghanistan or Pakistan in the first place.

Well now, here’s where I part company with Mr. Johnston tho I read him and agree with his conservative stance most times. I find nothing offensive about Gitmo, as an American I will NOT apologize for it and I am sick of foreigners trying to tell us how to handle our national security.  It’s my country damn and if someone doesn’t like our Gitmo policy, tuff. Phuck off and leave us alone. T’aint yer business!

<

b>But what obligations does Britain owe these former residents who are about to be freed from Guantanamo? There are no legal duties.
This was the position adopted consistently by the Government when Tony Blair was prime minister. They were not entitled to consular or diplomatic support. They received no visits from FCO staff nor were their interests represented in the way that those of the British citizens held at the camp were.

This uncompromising attitude was tested several times in the courts, which confirmed the Government’s view that it was under no legal obligation to act.

However, representations were made to the Americans on humanitarian grounds and ministers did meet their families. Last year, there were semi-formal approaches about releasing these former residents; and when Gordon Brown became Prime Minister, things began to move more swiftly. He clearly felt that whether or not there were legal obligations, there were moral ones. But it is one thing to press for the release of these men, and to secure it. On what grounds should they be allowed to come to Britain?

Deghayes was living in Pakistan with his Afghan wife and their children when he was detained in 2002. They may well have been living blameless lives. I have no idea why he was picked up. His supporters claim he was the victim of mistaken identity. But his whereabouts at the time do not appear to demonstrate a great commitment to this country, of which he is not a citizen.

Deghayes was linked to a mosque in Brighton where some worshippers were suspected of having fought as “mercenaries” abroad. It has been alleged, too, that he helped a man called David Courtailler - a convicted supporter of al-Qa’eda who is connected to a number of terrorists responsible for the Madrid bombings and 9/11 - travel to a jihad training camp in Afghanistan. This may or may not be true. It is also not direct evidence of a crime. But it does suggest a possible lack of commitment to the values of Britain and the West.

Samuer fled to Britain from Algeria and was granted asylum in 2000. He says a man at the Finsbury Park mosque in London gave him money to travel to Afghanistan after the attacks on America in 2001. The United States says he received combat training in Afghanistan and he was captured on the Pakistan border. His campaigners say his presence there was innocent.

What on earth was he doing in a war zone after the worst terrorist attack in history?
Jamil el-Banna was granted refugee status in Britain in 2000 after seeking sanctuary from persecution by the authorities in his native Jordan. He was granted indefinite leave to remain but this has now lapsed.

In November 2002 he was arrested in the Gambia while on a business trip to set up a peanut-oil processing plant. His family say he became mired in allegations of conspiracy with which he had no connection. The Americans claim he was a prominent al-Qa’eda recruiter and financier. I have no idea which of these stories is true.

Supporters of the detainees are adamant that they have done nothing wrong despite the peculiar circumstances in which they were captured. They say all the claims about them are smears and we should take their stories at face value.

Certainly, the way they were subsequently treated was pretty appalling, whatever they had done. But should they be allowed to come and settle in Britain, given all the security paraphernalia that is now to be set up to keep an eye on them?

Moreover, have they shown the necessary commitment to British values that Gordon Brown believes is so important that he would deny my fictitious Japanese wife the right to join me and our children because she could not speak English?

Posted by Drew458     on 12/13/2007 at 05:49 AM   
Filed Under: • Miscellaneous •  
• Comments (2) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

DISCLAIMER

THE SERVICES AND MATERIALS ON THIS WEBSITE ARE PROVIDED "AS IS" AND THE HOSTS OF THIS SITE EXPRESSLY DISCLAIMS ANY AND ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY LAW INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF SATISFACTORY QUALITY, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, WITH RESPECT TO THE SERVICE OR ANY MATERIALS.

Not that very many people ever read this far down, but this blog was the creation of Allan Kelly and his friend Vilmar. Vilmar moved on to his own blog some time ago, and Allan ran this place alone until his sudden and unexpected death partway through 2006. We all miss him. A lot. Even though he is gone this site will always still be more than a little bit his. We who are left to carry on the BMEWS tradition owe him a great debt of gratitude, and we hope to be able to pay that back by following his last advice to us all:

1. Keep a firm grasp of Right and Wrong
2. Stay involved with government on every level and don't let those bastards get away with a thing
3. Use every legal means to defend yourself in the event of real internal trouble, and, most importantly:
4. Keep talking to each other, whether here or elsewhere

It's been a long strange trip without you Skipper, but thanks for pointing us in the right direction and giving us a swift kick in the behind to get us going. Keep lookin' down on us, will ya? Thanks.

THE INFORMATION AND OTHER CONTENTS OF THIS WEBSITE ARE DESIGNED TO COMPLY WITH THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. THIS WEBSITE SHALL BE GOVERNED BY AND CONSTRUED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND ALL PARTIES IRREVOCABLY SUBMIT TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE AMERICAN COURTS. IF ANYTHING ON THIS WEBSITE IS CONSTRUED AS BEING CONTRARY TO THE LAWS APPLICABLE IN ANY OTHER COUNTRY, THEN THIS WEBSITE IS NOT INTENDED TO BE ACCESSED BY PERSONS FROM THAT COUNTRY AND ANY PERSONS WHO ARE SUBJECT TO SUCH LAWS SHALL NOT BE ENTITLED TO USE OUR SERVICES UNLESS THEY CAN SATISFY US THAT SUCH USE WOULD BE LAWFUL.

Copyright © 2004-2015 Domain Owner