The Infamous Five should be left to rot in Guantanamo Bay

Blackleaf

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 9, 2004
48,340
1,650
113
Richard Littlejohn on why five potential Islamic terrorists should be left to rot in Guantanamo rather than be granted asylum in Britain when they aren't even British citizens, and why China's Terracotta Army, currently visiting Politically Correct Britain, is bound to be granted asylum, due to the Human Rights violation of it not being fed for 2000 years....



The Infamous Five should be left to rot in Guantanamo Bay

10th August 2007
Daily Mail
Richard Littlejohn


Strike up the band, roll out the red carpet, hoist the bunting. They're coming home, they're coming home. Let joy be unconfined. The Government has demanded the immediate release of five British "residents" held at Guantanamo Bay. And the U.S. seems certain to comply.

The moment they touch down at Heathrow, the infamous five will be feted by the media. There will be sympathetic interviews on the BBC, book deals, columns in The Guardian. They'll be flavour of the month on Facebook. We will be treated to lurid, tear-strewn accounts of their illegal incarceration and "torture".

Their implausible claims of mistaken identity and wrongful arrest will be swallowed without question by gullible reporters and commentators, anxious to grasp any stick with which to beat America and undermine the war on terror.

These poor lambs will be invited to denounce unprovoked Western aggression against Muslims, to tell us that Bush is "worse than Hitler". Fat claims for compensation will follow - on legal aid, naturally.

It will be Tipton Taliban time, all over again.

But before you reach for another bottle of Bollinger to celebrate this triumph for truth and justice and "yuman rites", it's worth a quick glance at the track record of these British "residents".


The Government demanded the immediate release of the five British 'residents'


None of them are British citizens and nor were any of them actually resident in Britain at the time they were detained.

All had been granted the right to remain here after arriving as asylum seekers. But when they were picked up, they were thousands of miles away in, variously, Pakistan, Afghanistan and Gambia.

Take Shaker Aamer, for instance. He's a Saudi national who came to the UK in 1996. When he was arrested he was working for a "charity" in Jelalabad.

According to his lawyer, the ubiquitous Clive Stafford Smith, Aamer went to Pakistan and then Afghanistan in 2001 to look for work after failing to find a job in the UK.

As you do. There you are, sitting in a council house in Birmingham, scouring the "sits vac" column of the Evening Mail. Since there's nothing suited to your talents, you decide you might as well up sticks and try your luck in Afghanistan.

Of course, it's not unknown for people to emigrate in search of a better life. Australia, New Zealand and the U.S. are popular destinations. But how many conclude that the grass is greener in Afghanistan?

At the time, the country was being ruled by the Taliban. Perhaps he hoped to get a job pushing walls on top of adulterous wives or beheading infidels.

Just for the record, when Aamer shipped up in Afghanistan, the official rate of unemployment in Kabul was 70 per cent.

Then there is Abdennour Sameur, an Algerian refugee granted asylum in Britain in April 2000. Two years later he was arrested in the mountains between Pakistan and Afghanistan, in the company of a gang of Arabs.

He said he'd gone there because it was impossible to live the life of a good Muslim in Britain. Only a madman would move to the middle of a war zone in search of a more spiritual existence.

How about Omar Deghayes, a Libyan with refugee status in the UK but also in Pakistan when he was arrested? His family now live in Afghanistan. By what stretch of the imagination is he a British 'resident'?

Surely, as a good Muslim, he should have applied for asylum in Pakistan, or Saudi Arabia.

Same goes for Binyam Mohammed, an Ethiopian refugee who converted to Islam in 2001 - a very good year for it. He, too, was arrested in Pakistan on explosives charges.

Jamil el-Banna is a Jordanian, granted refugee status in 2000. Captured in Gambia two years later, attempting to board a plane with a suspicious device. Linked to Abu Qatada, Al Qaeda's "ambassador in Europe".

El-Banna says he's only met Qatada once. So that's all right then.

Let's say I'm wrong - which I'm not - and all of these men are guilty of nothing more than being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

That's the whole point. As British "residents", the right place for them to be residing was Britain - not Pakistan, Afghanistan or Gambia.

They all came here claiming to be in fear of their lives. If Britain really was the only place, as Clarkson would say, in the wurrld, they could feel safe, why didn't they count their blessings and stay put?

Instead, shortly after getting residency, they disappeared to some of the most inhospitable, dangerous places on earth.

So why the hell does the Government think we have any obligation towards them?

Easy. This is all so that New Gordon can throw a fish to the Guardianistas and prove that he's not a poodle of the hated Bush regime.

This isn't about the five detainees, it is - like everything else he ever does - all about Gordon and Gordon's image.

Pathetic. One of them even admits he doesn't want to live in Britain. The rest all rejected our hospitality.

They are not British "residents", they are residents of Guantanamo Bay and have been for the past five years.

And as far as I'm concerned, they can stay there until they rot.
******************************************





More than 100 members of a Terracotta Army have escaped from the British Museum and are claiming asylum.

They came here from China to take part in an exhibition but now say that they could face inhuman treatment if they are sent back.

Last night, a leading lawyer said: "Just because they are terracotta, it doesn't mean they are not covered by the European Convention on Human Rights.

"They were press-ganged into the armed services and for the past 2,000 years have been kept in captivity without food or water, or access to legal advice.

"If that's not cruel and unusual punishment, I don't know what is. And, anyway, we've let everyone else in on far more spurious grounds, so a few terracotta Chinese won't make much difference."

dailymail.co.uk
 

Minority Observer84

Theism Exorcist
Sep 26, 2006
368
5
18
The Capitol
No Way , No How , and In no just or legal sense can anyone be imprisoned for years without a charge or trial . If these men are guilty of anything show us , charge them and let a jury decide if your so convinced that they are guilty the charge should stick . But of course it won't because most of the people in Gitmo are not terrorists , but don't worry a few years of American humiliation , torture and imprisonment will sure as hell turn them into terrorists .
 

EagleSmack

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 16, 2005
44,168
95
48
USA
Right... All of the lovely people in GITMO were in Afghanistan feeding the hungry and helping to build orphanages.
 

Avro

Time Out
Feb 12, 2007
7,815
65
48
54
Oshawa
It's possible they could be as guilty as Marar Arar, but withut a trial we will never know. Conservatives of old would be demading such a thing.
 

Pangloss

Council Member
Mar 16, 2007
1,535
41
48
Calgary, Alberta
Right... All of the lovely people in GITMO were in Afghanistan feeding the hungry and helping to build orphanages.

According to goodness knows how many different reports and investigations there are in fact vanishingly few actual "enemy combatants" at Gitmo - most were simply in the wrong place at the wrong time, or on somebody's list to be picked up.

Why have there been so few trials? Remember, a few really good convictions for serious offenses could put paid to so much of the anti-Gitmo criticism. There have been so few trials because the prisoners were picked up on the flimsiest of pretexts.

Sure some of them are bug eyed bomb throwers - the majority are not.

Your hyperbole does little to further the debate.,

Pangloss
 

EagleSmack

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 16, 2005
44,168
95
48
USA
Well like I said... they were all in Afghanistan building orphanages, finding honest work, and living peacefully in an Islamic Utopia... each and every one of them. :roll:
 

Avro

Time Out
Feb 12, 2007
7,815
65
48
54
Oshawa
Well like I said... they were all in Afghanistan building orphanages, finding honest work, and living peacefully in an Islamic Utopia... each and every one of them. :roll:

You have proof otherwise?

Perhaps they should have a trial.
 

EagleSmack

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 16, 2005
44,168
95
48
USA
Perhaps they should have been riddled where they stood and saved us the time and money.
 

Pangloss

Council Member
Mar 16, 2007
1,535
41
48
Calgary, Alberta
EagleSmack:

Are you off your meds? Is this the best rhetorical fight you can put up: "I'm rubber and you're glue - it bounces off me and sticks to you"?

Pathetic and infantile.

Pangloss
 

Colpy

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 5, 2005
21,887
847
113
69
Saint John, N.B.
Perhaps they should have been riddled where they stood and saved us the time and money.

Hmmmm.....

In Afghanistan, charged with posession of explosives?

A foreign national, wearing no uniform, engaged in acts of war in the country he was captured......up against the wall.

There may be some doubt about some of these guys.......so send them back to the countries of origin or where they were arrested.

To take them to Great Britain is simply lunacy.
 

EagleSmack

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 16, 2005
44,168
95
48
USA
EagleSmack:

Are you off your meds? Is this the best rhetorical fight you can put up: "I'm rubber and you're glue - it bounces off me and sticks to you"?

Pathetic and infantile.

Pangloss

I am momentarily sinking down to his level which is apparently the same as yours.
 

EagleSmack

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 16, 2005
44,168
95
48
USA
Well you haven't yet. You may have me on name calling but wits... I think not.

You see to debate... you need to use facts to form your argument. You have not used anything but your opinion and sophmoric insults.
 

Avro

Time Out
Feb 12, 2007
7,815
65
48
54
Oshawa
Well you haven't yet. You may have me on name calling but wits... I think not.

You see to debate... you need to use facts to form your argument. You have not used anything but your opinion and sophmoric insults.

Ditto.

When your man enough to take me on I'll be ready.

PM me to start on any subject, this will prevent you from running away.
 

EagleSmack

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 16, 2005
44,168
95
48
USA
I'm not going to PM you... I will do it right here so everyone can see. Your dribble is already destroying other threads where people have in the past debated, albeit heated sometimes, without having to get low into the mud.

Heck it is only a matter of time before you start posting other "dead baby" pictures on all threads and say

"SEE I'M RIGHT"
 

Avro

Time Out
Feb 12, 2007
7,815
65
48
54
Oshawa
I'm not going to PM you... I will do it right here so everyone can see. Your dribble is already destroying other threads where people have in the past debated, albeit heated sometimes, without having to get low into the mud.

Heck it is only a matter of time before you start posting other "dead baby" pictures on all threads and say

"SEE I'M RIGHT"

If you want to give up just say so.....I'm use to owning wittle cons like you.:lol: