5 "Britons" held in Guantanamo

[fzbucks]

our troops in Gambia? Must have missed that deployment.

And as for the others, nobody is saying that they shouldn't be tried if there's evidence against them, just that they are entitled to a trial and defence to determine whether they are guilty.

sorry i forgot alqueda only operated in afganistan and iraq and only used people who were verified terrorists with jihadi stamped on their uniforms in clear white text to differentiate from the public

[Old Greg]

sorry i forgot alqueda only operated in afganistan and iraq and only used people who were verified terrorists with jihadi stamped on their uniforms in clear white text to differentiate from the public

So exactly how does 'erm because they went to fight our troops' apply to the guy who went to Gambia?

[fzbucks]

So exactly how does 'erm because they went to fight our troops' apply to the guy who went to Gambia?

I replied that to a general comment about people being xenophobic with regards to not helping refugee status peoples who are held in gitmo

if people can't understand why the general population have little or no sympathy then they are very naive in my opinion - why was this man who could only get assylum in britain in gambia - why did he not go straight there - would seem convenient for his business, whay was he ding to arouse the suspicions of the USA - they did not arrest every muslim etc etc. as has already been pointed out on this forum, there are likely to be people who are held unjustly - no different to a legal prison in this country

of course all the people held in gitmo should have been entitled to due process many years ago in some cases, however I do not believe it is the responsibility of out government to intervene or provie assistance - which they have already done for the Britsh residents who were held there.

[Old Greg]

I replied that to a general comment about people being xenophobic with regards to not helping refugee status peoples who are held in gitmo

if people can't understand why the general population have little or no sympathy then they are very naive in my opinion - why was this man who could only get assylum in britain in gambia - why did he not go straight there - would seem convenient for his business, whay was he ding to arouse the suspicions of the USA - they did not arrest every muslim etc etc. as has already been pointed out on this forum, there are likely to be people who are held unjustly - no different to a legal prison in this country

of course all the people held in gitmo should have been entitled to due process many years ago in some cases, however I do not believe it is the responsibility of out government to intervene or provie assistance - which they have already done for the Britsh residents who were held there.

The guy's entitled to travel to Gambia on a business trip on British issued travel documentation. Being a refugee shouldn't mean you can't get on with your life and run a business. Once again, if the US have evidence, let them charge him and present that evidence. In the meantime, as a refugee to this country, who has been kidnapped, possibly tortured and is being held extrajudicially, the UK government should make some efforts to represent his interests - and it's not like the government is putting its back into it.

[shaunbhoy]

So what exactly has Jamil El-Banna done wrong that he should receive such treatment?

Perhaps a more pertinent question might be just why he had to flee Jordan to come to Blighty in the first place. Jordan is hardly a war zone AFAIK.

[fzbucks]

The guy's entitled to travel to Gambia on a business trip on British issued travel documentation. Being a refugee shouldn't mean you can't get on with your life and run a business. Once again, if the US have evidence, let them charge him and present that evidence. In the meantime, as a refugee to this country, who has been kidnapped, possibly tortured and is being held extrajudicially, the UK government should make some efforts to represent his interests - and it's not like the government is putting its back into it.

the governemnt shouldn't put it's back into helping every refugee who comes to this country - there'd be sod all else they could do.

I suggest you search the foreign office website as they have already answered the reasons as to why they haven't done the same for these 5 as they did for the actual british citizens held there.

[Old Greg]

the governemnt shouldn't put it's back into helping every refugee who comes to this country - there'd be sod all else they could do.

I suggest you search the foreign office website as they have already answered the reasons as to why they haven't done the same for these 5 as they did for the actual british citizens held there.

I suspect they've done f-all so as not to upset the Americans. I think they've only asked for these guys back because the Americans want them out of Gitmo and need somewhere to send them (may have got that last but wrong and can't be bothered to look it up).

But we're not talking about helping every refugee. This is a very unusual circumstance. The combination of sitting in an extrajudicial detention camp and being stateless does not apply to 'every refugee'.

[fzbucks]

I suspect they've done f-all so as not to upset the Americans. I think they've only asked for these guys back because the Americans want them out of Gitmo and need somewhere to send them (may have got that last but wrong and can't be bothered to look it up).

But we're not talking about helping every refugee. This is a very unusual circumstance. The combination of sitting in an extrajudicial detention camp and being stateless does not apply to 'every refugee'.

They've done F-All as you put it because they shouldn't do F-All whilst a refugee may be entitled to protection whilst IN the country providing refugee status to him, why should he be afforded the same protections as a british citizen abroad?

[Not So Wise]

if people can't understand why the general population have little or no sympathy then they are very naive in my opinion

Some shady "intelligence" official/burocrat says X is criminal/terrorist
X is kidnapped from a foreign country (and probably breaking the laws of said country)
No evidence is presented beyond the accusers governments "word" that X is guilty (without ever saying guilty of what exactly, except being a "terrorist" or that made up term "unlawful enemy combatant")
No chance for X to view the evidence or dispute it or face his accusers
X is locked up in gitmo (an intentional legal limbo where no rights or rule of law exist), mentally tortured, not allowed access legal representation for an opened period of time

ANYONE who does not have a serious problem with this would be quite comfortable in a facist/communist/dictatorial regime.....at least untill they become 'X'

As to why a country should "look out for" accepted refugee's, even when they are outside the country they are taking refugee in, because when you accept their refugee status you, as a country, become responsible for them and remain responsible for them until you either rescind their status or someone else (another country) takes responsibility for them. Don't want to responsibility? Don't accept them as refugee's

[fzbucks]

Some shady "intelligence" official/burocrat says X is criminal/terrorist
X is kidnapped from a foreign country (and probably breaking the laws of said country)
No evidence is presented beyond the accusers governments "word" that X is guilty (without ever saying guilty of what exactly, except being a "terrorist" or that made up term "unlawful enemy combatant")
No chance for X to view the evidence or dispute it or face his accusers
X is locked up in gitmo (an intentional legal limbo where no rights or rule of law exist), mentally tortured, not allowed access legal representation for an opened period of time

ANYONE who does not have a serious problem with this would be quite comfortable in a facist/communist/dictatorial regime.....at least untill they become 'X'

As to why a country should "look out for" accepted refugee's, even when they are outside the country they are taking refugee in, because when you accept their refugee status you, as a country, become responsible for them and remain responsible for them until you either rescind their status or someone else (another country) takes responsibility for them. Don't want to responsibility? Don't accept them as refugee's

1 - who's says the intel is shady?
2 - Apparently we DO NOT "look out for" accepted refugees as these cases prove it. The Foreign Office worked to get the British citizens out of gitmo but hasn't for these 5 - why?