Looks Like a GITMO Detainee Was There for a Good Reason

mr_goo

With the news that Moazzam Begg has been charged with Terrorists offences in Syria. Perhaps the bleeding hearts of the liberal left in the last administration should not have petitioned George W and sought the release for this so called UK citizen. Seems he was being detained for a very good reason.

I think there are plenty more of Begg's colleagues in the UK that could do with a holiday at the all inclusive resort of Guantanamo Bay.

Discuss.

RDW

Has he been convicted of anything?

VTech

This is yet another example of how media rule our country (thats a fact don't you know!) and not the legal/government system.
Terrorism is not for public information, we should not be told about the happenings of this or any of these guys, it only fans the flame of what is coming.
Guilty or not guilty, there are some things that do not belong in the public domain.

mr_goo

VTech wrote:

This is yet another example of how media rule our country (thats a fact don't you know!) and not the legal/government system.
Terrorism is not for public information, we should not be told about the happenings of this or any of these guys, it only fans the flame of what is coming.
Guilty or not guilty, there are some things that do not belong in the public domain.

Our whole lives and existence are governed by media, that is not news (scuse the pun). I do agree with you that issues on any countries security should not be made public. However the news services have lines into most organisations, so any development that one feels should not be public knowledge, will be. Yet there are some that will be permanently embargoed ie; David Kelly and the WMD dossier.

ballysmate

Hands up all of you who are surprised.

mr_goo

Ballysmate wrote:

Hands up all of you who are surprised.

I take it you mean Begg being found out as a terrorist. Of course this is no surprise. Our security services are pretty much on the ball with most of our home grown would be martyrs to the cause. What grinds my gears is that Blair and Co (probably that bleeding heart Peter Haine as the driver) wanted these people released from GITMO. Whilst there was no evidence that they were terrorists, the US obviously knew that the activities of Begg and his ilk was not conducive to allow them to remain at large.

Mike Healey

So, let's see. a man is detained without trial for 3 years and is released because there was no evidence which could be used to try him. Of course, our western system of Democracy and the Rule of Law shows how superior we are, does it not? We might also bear in mind that 13 and 14 year old children were amongst Guantanamo detainees, listed as "unlawful enemy combatants" There's no evidence that they were subjected to the non-torturing water board treatment (aka enhanced interrogation techniques which are definitely not torture)

What we know so far is extremely limited and should be read in the knowledge that the majority of arrests under terrorism legislation have not proceded to trial, or have resulted in the accused being acquitted.

As far as terrorism is concerned, we seem to be in a bit of a quandary over Syria. Aren't the majority of Syrians fighting against a tyrannical, vicious and brutal regime which routinely uses torture and murder, so they must be freedom fighters, mustn't they - just like those who rose up against the odious Ghadaffi, eh? Er, no, they're terrorists. Why? Because we say so.

I have no idea whether or not he has been involved in terror related activities, but assuming that our intelligence services are automatically telling the truth, or not making a mistake, is a bit naive, given the history of the last 10 years or so.

ballysmate

As regards Syria, Libya etc I have to say I don't give a flying fornication if they kill each other. Not a position I am particularly proud of, but there you go. As far as I can see it is one lot of fanatical tyrants against other tyrants.
What i do care about is these fanatics bringing their murdering ways here.
The security services are not perfect, but it is the best system we have got with the checks, balances and accountability. As I said, not perfect.
At the end of the day, we have no reasonable option than to accept on trust, what the security services are willing to tell us.
Or you could just accept Begg's and the likes of the Tipton Three's word that they are good guys really.

finchy

We should remember that the security services, police, army, government are human - capable of intelligence, mistakes, lies, honesty and corruption.

So I'll stick to the presumption of innocence.

ballysmate

johnfinch wrote:

We should remember that the security services, police, army, government are human - capable of intelligence, mistakes, lies, honesty and corruption.

So I'll stick to the presumption of innocence.

Very noble in a perfect world I'm sure.
But in the real world, people have to make difficult decisions, knowing that inaction could have dire consequences.

finchy

So the next time I see a speeding driver can I shoot them? You know, just so they don't kill anyone else?

ballysmate

johnfinch wrote:

So the next time I see a speeding driver can I shoot them? You know, just so they don't kill anyone else?

Are you VTech in disguise?

If you have intelligence that someone is planning a terrorist act and you decide to do nothing and people lose their lives as a consequence, that is a question for your conscience.

In your absurd simile with the driver. If you saw that someone was following a course of action that would result in the loss of life, at which point would you step in, if at all?

finchy

Ballysmate wrote:

johnfinch wrote:

So the next time I see a speeding driver can I shoot them? You know, just so they don't kill anyone else?

Are you VTech in disguise?

If you have intelligence that someone is planning a terrorist act and you decide to do nothing and people lose their lives as a consequence, that is a question for your conscience.

In your absurd simile with the driver. If you saw that someone was following a course of action that would result in the loss of life, at which point would you step in, if at all?

If you have evidence that somebody is planning a terrorist attack, wouldn't you arrest them and charge them with the offence? As is being done now.

The point about the driver is that despite the fact that more people will be killed this week in road accidents than have died in the last decade in Britain through terrorist incidents, we don't suspend due process for car drivers, so why would we for terrorism?

ballysmate

If you saw that someone was following a course of action that would result in the loss of life, at which point would you step in, if at all?

finchy

Ballysmate wrote:

If you saw that someone was following a course of action that would result in the loss of life, at which point would you step in, if at all?

As soon as possible. What's your point?

ballysmate

johnfinch wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

If you saw that someone was following a course of action that would result in the loss of life, at which point would you step in, if at all?

As soon as possible. What's your point?

Is that not what you would expect the security services to do?

finchy

Yes. If they have evidence that someone is going to commit a terrorist act, they can have that person arrested and the sooner the better.

Pross

Maybe getting sent to Guantanamo ensured a previously decent person ended up getting radicalised? Just saying like!

MisterMuncher

This: See Operation Demetrius.

veronese68

Pross wrote:

Maybe getting sent to Guantanamo ensured a previously decent person ended up getting radicalised? Just saying like!

My thoughts exactly.

nathancom

I don't know what exactly he is accused of, but why is it terrorism for Muslims to go and fight on one side or the other in Syria but those who fought in the Spanish Civil War were freedom fighters. I know the times were different but we treat Muslims as dangerous just for being Muslim.

If Ukranians decided to go and fight Russia or engaged in the earlier revolution would they be arrested as terrorists? I do not think so.

DeVlaeminck

The main difference is that those who fought for the International Brigade were fighting for a worthwhile cause, jihad is not a worthwhile cause.

Cygnus

nathancom wrote:

If Ukranians decided to go and fight Russia or engaged in the earlier revolution would they be arrested as terrorists? I do not think so.

The Russians see them as terrorists.

nathancom

DeVlaeminck wrote:

The main difference is that those who fought for the International Brigade were fighting for a worthwhile cause, jihad is not a worthwhile cause.

It is for them. Anyway fighting against Assad doesn't seem like the least worthwhile cause currently.

nathancom

Cygnus wrote:

nathancom wrote:

If Ukranians decided to go and fight Russia or engaged in the earlier revolution would they be arrested as terrorists? I do not think so.

The Russians see them as terrorists.

Do they? Anyway that is a bit of a tangent from how British Muslims are unjustly treated by the British State. They are not being terrorists dimply by engaging in the Syrian conflict, however, they have been advised that they will be arrested and charged with terrorism simply for going to Syria. This is a unjust infringement of their rights based on their religion and ethnicity.