We Fought for Freedom

Discussion in 'The Constitutional & RKBA Forum' started by Shizamus, Jul 17, 2003.

  1. Shizamus

    Shizamus New Member

    Jun 27, 2001

    Tony Blair and George Bush declared war on international terrorism to protect and preserve the basic values of the civilised world.

    But the sickening scenario being played out at the US military base at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba makes a mockery of that cause.

    Two British citizens are among those who face possible execution at Camp X-Ray if found guilty of terrorist acts.

    The death chamber is already planned. The trials of Moazzem Begg and Feroz Abassi will be carried out in secret under military law.

    There will be no right of appeal before the lethal injections are administered.

    What sort of justice is that to hold up in the face of the evil of Al Qaeda?

    Those who deal in terror should be punished severely. But it is fundamental to western values that justice is fair and open.

    The system planned for the inmates of Camp X-Ray denies the defendants basic human rights. It would be the envy of any repressive dictator.

    The island base has been deliberately chosen because it is outside the reach of American civil courts.

    That decision shames the American nation and raises a question mark over the principles on which the West has built its freedoms.

    It is the aim of terrorists to undermine the fabric of western society.

    Mr Blair must intervene to ensure any British citizen gets a fair trial, without the threat of the death penalty.

    The alternative is a victory for terror.

    ONE of the Britons due to face trial at Guantanamo Bay
    has tried to kill himself.
    Feroz Abbasi, 23, attempted to hang himself with a
    towel - one of the few possessions allowed in the
    harsh Cuban detention centre. He was spotted by a
    guard at the US military base who alerted marines.
    They raced to the tiny wire cell where he has been
    incarcerated for 18 months to rescue him
    Last edited: Jul 17, 2003
  2. 1952Sniper

    1952Sniper New Member

    Aug 22, 2002
    Why just British citizens? Are human rights only applicable to white folks? I am assuming that this was originally written by a Brit. But his argument should apply to any human of any national origin.

    I don't like secret government tribunals. I don't like secret government prison camps. I don't like secret government executions. The author is correct: this makes a mockery of basic American ideals and human rights. If these people are terrorists, then let them be tried in open court where the world can see it and know them for what they are! What are we trying to hide?

    The same applies to US citizens. The USA Patriot Act gives our government the authority to treat us the same way. We can be arrested, held in secret (without them even telling your loved ones where you are or even that you have been arrested). You can be tried by a military tribunal with no representation and none of the rights that you are guaranteed under the Constitution, and you can then be executed.

    Now who is the terrorist?

  3. FN_Project90

    FN_Project90 New Member

    Jun 5, 2003
    Atlanta, GA, USA
    the guy was not white I do not believe, he has Persian blood either way
  4. inplanotx

    inplanotx Active Member

    Jan 28, 2002
    Last edited: Jul 18, 2003
  5. 1952Sniper

    1952Sniper New Member

    Aug 22, 2002
    That link wouldn't let me in without a login name and password. Can you cut/paste it?
  6. 1952Sniper

    1952Sniper New Member

    Aug 22, 2002
  7. inplanotx

    inplanotx Active Member

    Jan 28, 2002
    Here ya go Toby, sorry about that.


    Bush Reconsiders Sending British Suspects to Tribunals

    ASHINGTON, July 18 - After being pressed by Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain, President Bush said today that his administration was reconsidering whether to bring any British citizens captured in the Afghanistan war before American military tribunals.

    Mr. Bush, in a statement released in Texas where he was traveling today, also said that any Australian citizens who were subject to a military tribunal would similarly have their cases reconsidered. He said delegations of legal experts from both Britain and Australia would come to Washington next week to negotiate with American officials about the disposition of these prisoners, who are being held at the American naval base at GuantÀanamo Bay, Cuba.

    Mr. Bush's decision was seen as a concession to Mr. Blair, whose government was his staunchest ally in the war against Iraq, despite significant opposition in Britain and the rest of Europe.

    With the war concluded, Mr. Blair has found himself fiercely challenged by his critics over the issue of the United States' assuming custody of Britons captured in the earlier war in Afghanistan.

    Complaints about the impending military tribunals have come from a wide spectrum of British society, with critics charging that the proceedings are inherently unfair. Members of Parliament and newspapers, among others, have also asserted that the tribunals would violate international law and that defendants could be sentenced to death, which is outlawed in Britain.

    One senior administration official today said that the decision was made in recognition that the two countries ``are very important allies, partners.''

    ``It's important that we take notice of their complaints,'' he said, speaking on condition of anonymity.

    After making the gesture to reconsider the status of the Britons and Australians, the official said the Bush administration was likely to offer some measure of help.

    It was unclear what compromises or assurances could be made, he said. One option could be to agree that the Britons and Australians would not be charged with any offenses that would carry the death penalty.

    But a British official said today that that his country's legal delegation would discuss a range of options with their American counterparts, including sending the nine Britons now in custody to Britain. But a problem with such repatriation, the official acknowledged, is that the British government may not then be able to guarantee that they would be prosecuted in Britain. Those decisions are made independently by law enforcement agencies and the Crown prosecution service.

    An Australian official noted today that the government was generally supportive of the military tribunals and said the Australian delegation would most likely seek assurances of procedural steps to guarantee a fair trial. The official said Australia was unlikely to seek repatriation of its two citizens held at GuantÀanamo Bay.

    Another American official who also spoke on the condition of anonymity said Mr. Blair made it clear in his discussions with Mr. Bush that this was an important political issue for him.

    The public outcry in Britain rose to new levels this month after Mr. Bush included two Britons and one Australian in the first batch of six prisoners to be eligible for a military trial as early as this summer. The two Britons are Feroz Abassi, 23, and Moazzam Begg, 35. The Australian is David Hicks, 27.

    The military will not disclose the nationalities of the 680 prisoners being held at GuantÀanamo Bay other than to say that they represent more than 40 different countries.

    Mr. Bush and Mr. Blair discussed the issue of the detainees on Thursday, according to a White House statement. The British leader previously said he intended to raise the issue of the British detainees with Mr. Bush and recommend that they be returned to the Britain for trial.

    ``The president and the prime minister have asked American and British legal experts to meet to discuss a range of options for disposition of the British detainees,'' the White House statement said. ``Pending these discussions, the president has determined not to commence any military commission proceedings against U.K. nationals. The president and the prime minister are confident that their experts will be able to agree on a solution that satisfies the mutual interests of the U.S. and the U.K.''

    The statement said the same reconsideration would apply to Australian nationals.

    While the agreement may help lessen criticism in Britain and Australia, it produced a burst of anger among those countries whose citizens are not included.

    Thomas Wilner, a Washington lawyer who represents 12 Kuwaiti citizens, said that today's action ``underscores the lack of a clear U.S. policy and it emphasizes even more the inconsistency of that policy.'' He said the United States should not ``discriminate on the basis of the defendants' home countries.''

    The British delegation will be led by the country's attorney general, Lord Goldsmith, and the Australian delegation will be composed of senior officials from that government's Attorney-Generals Department.

    Steven Watt, a Scottish lawyer with the Center for Constitutional Rights in New York is representing two Britons, Shafiq Rasul and Aasis Iqbal, as well as both Australians in custody, Mr. Hicks and Mamdouh Habid. He said today that the president's announcement ``was great for them but totally unfair for the other persons.''

    Stephen Kenny, an Australian lawyer who also represents Mr. Hicks, said in an interview today that the Australian government had been generally complacent about raising objections with Washington. ``It's clear that it's the Brits who have been pushing this,'' he said.

    In London, a spokeswoman for the foreign office said Lord Goldsmith's delegation would be in Washington from Sunday through Tuesday to ``discuss with the U.S. administration the legal issues surrounding the nine U.K. detainees at GuantÀanamo Bay.''

    Today's development, she said, ``demonstrates that the U.S. is taking our concerns about the military commissions process seriously
Similar Threads
Forum Title Date
The Constitutional & RKBA Forum The Foundation of Freedom Nov 5, 2015
The Constitutional & RKBA Forum Its not about firearms its about FREEDOM!!! Dec 23, 2012
The Constitutional & RKBA Forum another freedom gone Jul 16, 2012
The Constitutional & RKBA Forum The Freedom Group - Firearms Holdings Co. Soros?? Nov 15, 2011