Re: Guantanamo

They were STILL innocent, because no properly constituted court had prosecuted, tried and passed sentence on them, until that is done these people are innocent.

Re: Guantanamo

Is that the Labour Party veiw ?
Terrorists are always innocent ?
Bring them back to the UK - we will have anyone ( except of course law abiding British citizens who have the temerity to marry a law abiding Canadian / Brazilian / Australian spouse .
Out you go you fffing hard working law abiders .)
Those innocent terrorists have a right to a family life especially those families we have been supporting on out benefit systems whilst they were away doing ' charity work ' in Afghanistan.

Oh hum with veiws of the crack pot reactionary labourites it looks like the Tories can sit back and relax .
It going to be a long hot summer .
David Cameron may well be a plonker.
But better a plonker than someone like Corbyn and his band of latter day Robbin hoods would like take from those who work and give it to every Tom Dick and Mohammed .
A party that hasn't just not moved on but is still singing the red flag and thinking they are latter day revolutionaries .

Re: Guantanamo

Hold on to that thought, I'll get to it in a second.

How exactly did you deduce they were not all innocent? Is it alright if I turn it round and ask how it is you know that some were guilty?

You also said in your opening paragraph that some WENT BACK to fighting with terrorist groups. If you have no proof of them being guilty (as you held and tortured them at Guantanamo) how can you make the claim that they WENT BACK to their “guilty” activities? The correct answer is, you cannot.

And then your additional point (don't know if you have any proof of it but we can just as well take your word for it) that some WENT ON to commit terrorist attacks. We probably should define terrorism before we begin but we don't have the time just now. But I wonder how much you know about human behaviour. If I were shunted off to Guantanamo (innocent of course) where I was held without charge, tortured and deprived of most of my human rights, I'd be bent on revenge when I'd get out. I'm not sure any terrorist group would need to seek me out either. I'd probably pay for the bus ticket to the recruiter from my own pocket.

I think it is as interesting as it is appalling that people from “our side” are so eager to explain away the rape of Democratic principles as “justified”. That is what you are doing, isn't it.

Re: Guantanamo

MDY: He is a terrorist!

CENTS: Is he? Do you have proof of it?

MDY: Why are members of the Labour Party so eager to defend terrorists like him?

CENTS: I am not defending anyone, merely stating that it needs first to be proved he really is a terrorist in a court of law.

MDY: People like him don't deserve a trial.

CENTS: Why is that?

MDY: Because he is a terrorist!

CENTS:

Re: Guantanamo

This is sarcasm.
More sarcasm/nastiness. I don't wish to discuss anything further.

It has nothing to do with me not accepting PM's, this facility is not open to me at the moment.

Re: Guantanamo

The first comment was not meant to be aimed too pointedly towards you, and in any case I really can't see it as anything so earth-shattering. The second most certainly was and was meant to be.

Pity about the PM. I wrote it in an earnest and friendly manner. There is a definite problem here that cannot be denied. I'd prefer to sort it out and bury it, but I refuse to wash it in public.

Re: Guantanamo

Hi

Interesting your take on things.

Firstly I can read, and do a modicum of research.

Over 100 released without charge, innocent to my way of thinking.

Secondly, an example.

On 24 July 2015, Belgium arrested on charges of terrorism two people released from Guantánamo Bay: "Moussa Zemmouri, a 37-year-old Belgian of Moroccan origin, and an Algerian whom the prosecutor's office identified as Soufiane A",

Thirdly, there is one big difference between us.

You would have become a Terrorist, I wouldn't.

If Terrorism is not a rape of Democratic principles, what is?

I do not like Terrorists at all, I think that they are scum.

Have you seen the news this morning?

Yet more innocents blown up in Belgium.

We are are totally opposite ends of the spectrum when it comes to Terrorism.

Re: Guantanamo

This "example" doesn't contradict what I wrote, though I am sure you think that it does. Maybe you can expound on it a bit?


You don't know either of those two things ...... for anything resembling fact. The situation is a conditional matter. It's not a stamp or a tattoo on your soul.

Again, you present that with the expectation that it contradicts something I've said. It doesn't.


But the discussion is about guilt (or definition), not about terrorism. You seem to be missing out quite a lot here.

Re: Guantanamo

Hi

A quote from you.

If I were shunted off to Guantanamo (innocent of course) where I was held without charge, tortured and deprived of most of my human rights, I'd be bent on revenge when I'd get out. I'm not sure any terrorist group would need to seek me out either. I'd probably pay for the bus ticket to the recruiter from my own pocket.

Nothing more I need to know, you would have become a Terrorist.

Re: Guantanamo

Swim and Muddy are right,the remaining 91 still at Gitmo were either caught fighting or were prisoners Previously.While they are there they are in limbo,they don't fall under U.S. jurisdiction,therefore our laws,they are prisoners of war and are treated as such.3 hots and a cot,is all they get,so AO and U. J. are just talking heads.Got no say so do you boys,Also can either of you prove they are being tortured? No as I said merely talking heads with again no proof.What you think and what you know are miles apart.So instead of assuming the worst like you 2 like to play, I trust the Government ,and the fact they are doing the right thing to the right people for the right reasons.GOD BLESS AMERICA.