Fiddler on the roof and everywhere else

This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.

Fiddler on the roof and everywhere else

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Page 6 of 6 << First < 2 3 4 5 6

OknotOK Cockfosters, London 22 Feb 17 2.39pm
Originally posted by Cucking Funt Surely you're not going to accept this denial from a man who swore blind to parliament and the electorate that the Iraqis possessed WMDs, are you? Oh, I see. You are. I'm not sure it's relevant anyway who did pay out the compensation, the liar Blair, the liar Brown, or the liar Cameron - although I believe it is a statement of fact that any compensation paid out was done so post 2010 so not under Blair. It is also a statement of fact that the Daily Mail and other tabloids did celebrate the release of the 5 British Guantanamo detainees. The fact is that many of those picked up and held at Guantanamo will have been guilty of terrorism or terrorist sympathies. But all British citizens are entitled to the same legal treatment and the state failed to provide that. So they were due compensation. Had they been held in appropriate circumstances, charged, and then tried, they would have been due nothing. Edited by OknotOK (22 Feb 2017 2.44pm) "It's almost like a moral decision. Except not really cos noone is going to find out," Jez, Peep Show
Alert a moderator to this post

OknotOK

Cockfosters, London 22 Feb 17 2.39pm

Originally posted by Cucking Funt

Surely you're not going to accept this denial from a man who swore blind to parliament and the electorate that the Iraqis possessed WMDs, are you?

Oh, I see. You are.

I'm not sure it's relevant anyway who did pay out the compensation, the liar Blair, the liar Brown, or the liar Cameron - although I believe it is a statement of fact that any compensation paid out was done so post 2010 so not under Blair.

It is also a statement of fact that the Daily Mail and other tabloids did celebrate the release of the 5 British Guantanamo detainees.

The fact is that many of those picked up and held at Guantanamo will have been guilty of terrorism or terrorist sympathies. But all British citizens are entitled to the same legal treatment and the state failed to provide that. So they were due compensation.

Had they been held in appropriate circumstances, charged, and then tried, they would have been due nothing.

Edited by OknotOK (22 Feb 2017 2.44pm)

"It's almost like a moral decision. Except not really cos noone is going to find out," Jez, Peep Show

Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721 Reading 22 Feb 17 2.44pm
Indeed, just because I believe that rape suspects should be detained until proven innocent, doesn't mean that I think its workable "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721

Reading 22 Feb 17 2.44pm

Indeed, just because I believe that rape suspects should be detained until proven innocent, doesn't mean that I think its workable

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

Hrolf The Ganger 22 Feb 17 2.49pm
Originally posted by jamiemartin721 Well if Tony Blair said it, then it must be sooo true. I don't think it matters whether or not he was paid compensation, given the circumstances of his detention without trial etc. Am I missing something here or did a former detainee of Guantanamo Bay get released because of his supposed innocence and cooperation then go on to be suicide bomber. Does this not suggest that the Americans were right to detain him in the first place? If he was compensated it just shows how easy it is to abuse the legal system. The only other conclusion is that he was an informant.
Alert a moderator to this post

Hrolf The Ganger

22 Feb 17 2.49pm

Send a Private Message to Hrolf The Ganger

Originally posted by jamiemartin721

Well if Tony Blair said it, then it must be sooo true. I don't think it matters whether or not he was paid compensation, given the circumstances of his detention without trial etc.

Am I missing something here or did a former detainee of Guantanamo Bay get released because of his supposed innocence and cooperation then go on to be suicide bomber. Does this not suggest that the Americans were right to detain him in the first place? If he was compensated it just shows how easy it is to abuse the legal system. The only other conclusion is that he was an informant.

Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721 Reading 22 Feb 17 2.55pm
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger Am I missing something here or did a former detainee of Guantanamo Bay get released because of his supposed innocence and cooperation then go on to be suicide bomber. Does this not suggest that the Americans were right to detain him in the first place? If he was compensated it just shows how easy it is to abuse the legal system. The only other conclusion is that he was an informant. Only with the benefit of hindsight, which isn't really applicable when making a decision in the present - The important thing isn't whether one decision turned out to be right, but whether the decisions of state are lawful. Of course it was also just as wrong in hindsight to release him, which the US did. I don't think its actually easy to abuse the system for compensation. The state was complicit in his illegal detention. When making legal decisions, we can only make a decision based in the now. The law must be as applicable to the state, as it is a citizen. When a person acts unlawfully, we penalise them, thus we must do the same when the state acts unlawfully, even if they turn out to be right. The ends never justify the means. "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721

Reading 22 Feb 17 2.55pm

Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger

Only with the benefit of hindsight, which isn't really applicable when making a decision in the present - The important thing isn't whether one decision turned out to be right, but whether the decisions of state are lawful.

Of course it was also just as wrong in hindsight to release him, which the US did.

I don't think its actually easy to abuse the system for compensation. The state was complicit in his illegal detention.

When making legal decisions, we can only make a decision based in the now. The law must be as applicable to the state, as it is a citizen. When a person acts unlawfully, we penalise them, thus we must do the same when the state acts unlawfully, even if they turn out to be right.

The ends never justify the means.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

Hrolf The Ganger 22 Feb 17 3.02pm
Originally posted by jamiemartin721 Only with the benefit of hindsight, which isn't really applicable when making a decision in the present - The important thing isn't whether one decision turned out to be right, but whether the decisions of state are lawful. Of course it was also just as wrong in hindsight to release him, which the US did. I don't think its actually easy to abuse the system for compensation. The state was complicit in his illegal detention. When making legal decisions, we can only make a decision based in the now. The law must be as applicable to the state, as it is a citizen. When a person acts unlawfully, we penalise them, thus we must do the same when the state acts unlawfully, even if they turn out to be right. The ends never justify the means. That is a bold statement. Surely Guantanamo was all about pre empting terrorism rather than wishing they had done more with hindsight. Surely this sort of policy is born from experience.
Alert a moderator to this post

Hrolf The Ganger

22 Feb 17 3.02pm

Originally posted by jamiemartin721

Of course it was also just as wrong in hindsight to release him, which the US did.

I don't think its actually easy to abuse the system for compensation. The state was complicit in his illegal detention.

The ends never justify the means.

That is a bold statement.

Surely Guantanamo was all about pre empting terrorism rather than wishing they had done more with hindsight.
Surely this sort of policy is born from experience.

Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721 Reading 22 Feb 17 3.22pm
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger That is a bold statement. Surely Guantanamo was all about pre empting terrorism rather than wishing they had done more with hindsight. Surely this sort of policy is born from experience. I think its more born from pressure and anger. The US couldn't have done more to abandon the moral high ground and position as a 'free country' than the debacle of Guantanmo bay, and the assorted renditions, torture incidents and prison abuse scandals. I have no problem with pre-empting terrorism, that's what conspiracy to commit terrorism charges are for, along with a trial in front of a jury. By the US definition, anyone who potentially fought against them in Afghanistan was an 'enemy combatant'. And the implication of Camp X-Ray, black sites, torture and rendition, all behind a veil of secrecy and legal avoidance, hasn't resolved the problem, its just escalated the situation. The state must always remain within the law, and the spirit of the law. Democracies that act out like tyrants, aren't really democratic at all (ala Russia). "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721

Reading 22 Feb 17 3.22pm

Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger

That is a bold statement.

Surely Guantanamo was all about pre empting terrorism rather than wishing they had done more with hindsight.
Surely this sort of policy is born from experience.

I think its more born from pressure and anger. The US couldn't have done more to abandon the moral high ground and position as a 'free country' than the debacle of Guantanmo bay, and the assorted renditions, torture incidents and prison abuse scandals.

I have no problem with pre-empting terrorism, that's what conspiracy to commit terrorism charges are for, along with a trial in front of a jury. By the US definition, anyone who potentially fought against them in Afghanistan was an 'enemy combatant'.

And the implication of Camp X-Ray, black sites, torture and rendition, all behind a veil of secrecy and legal avoidance, hasn't resolved the problem, its just escalated the situation.

The state must always remain within the law, and the spirit of the law. Democracies that act out like tyrants, aren't really democratic at all (ala Russia).

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

Page 6 of 6 << First < 2 3 4 5 6

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Crystal Palace FC Supporters' Website - The Holmesdale Online

Fiddler on the roof and everywhere else

Site Map

New users

Existing users

Sponsors