HomeHome  RegisterRegister  Log inLog in  

Share | 
 

 Release or Not?

View previous topic View next topic Go down 
AuthorMessage
Admin
Admin


Number of posts : 195
Location : The Universe
Registration date : 2008-02-03

PostSubject: Release or Not?   15th December 2011, 9:14 pm

Internment occurs through fear and when Troops are used as Policemen, resentment and anger rise and the problems escalate. Although internment may seem a new method of control, it was used by the US during WWII against the Japanese Americans. And I suppose in one way the Germans did the same thing when they held and killed millions of Jewish people who had committed no crime except to believe and be successful after centuries of struggle and persecution. Internment is imprisonment and a torture to those who feel its wrath, Sometimes it is the means to an end. Internment as a hostage or kidnapping would be punishable under law, yet it is over looked and accepted as soon as Soldiers are the pawn of its use. America seems to have invented and repeatedly perfected Internment and coupled with Torture have learned to initiate it in every conflict against the innocent since WWII. Saddam Hussein was Hanged because of the violent way he ruled and treated the Iraqi people! But where do you draw the line? How far is acceptable and how far is too much? And who makes the decisions to intern? During the Northern Ireland Civil War/Police Action/Troubles/Rebellion Internment was an everyday event in used control protesters and suspects by removing them from potential future riots and problems. Known ring leaders were especially rounded up with the object of keeping them out of the way for unspecified time periods. There were also a few sentences handed down to innocent people like Bobby Sands who died after a hunger strike for being wrongly charged, found guilty and jailed for the Guilford bombings. Like Sands convictions and internments were the used to control those having committed no crime other than being in the wrong place at the wrong time. It has now been released internment has been used in Iraq and Afghanistan since the beginning of the unrest, with the same dire consequences. Innocent people are imprisoned and treated in inhumane conditions. Resulting in physiological effects the will last the internees the rest of their lives. Should they and their families be compensated and if so who should pay the UK the USA or Both.



UK Ordered To Release Bagram Prisoner
Wednesday, December 14, 2011
Source: BFBs


The British government has today been ordered by the Court of Appeal to release a prisoner held without charge in an Afghan jail for the last eight years.
Yunus Rahmatullah was seized by British forces in Iraq in February 2004, handed to the US and allegedly illegally rendered to Afghanistan, where he has been held at the US military prison at Bagram Airbase.
It’s the first time any civilian legal system has forced the release of one of Bagram’s estimated 3,000 prisoners.
A habeas corpus application by legal action charity Reprieve, saw appeal court judges rule the prisoner should be released.
Yunus, a Pakistani, has only recently made telephone contact with his family. His physical and mental state has been described as ‘catastrophic’.
The UK Government now has seven days to secure Yunus's release, or to explain to the court why they cannot.

The British government says Yunus Rahmatullah, held in Afghanistan, is the responsibility of the Americans, but the court of appeal has ordered him to be set free by December 21. Photograph: Reprieve/PA
What is your most terrible nightmare? Is it worse than being trapped in a distant black hole, in an unknown country, unable to contact your family? Is it more terrifying than torture, by day and by night, when your family does not even know whether you are dead or alive? Is your greatest fear, then, worse than Yunus Rahmatullah's reality?

The law does not concern itself with trifles, and if you ever find yourself held beyond the reach of basic decency, you will be glad that the arm of the law is long. On Wednesday the rule of law finally caught up with Rahmatullah, and shone a light into the cavern where he has been held for almost eight years. The court of appeal granted his application for habeas corpus, the historic writ that is sometimes said to stem from the Magna Carta itself, when King John was admonished that "no Freeman shall be taken or imprisoned … but by lawful judgment of his Peers, or by the Law of the land."

Rahmatullah was originally placed in his particular black hole by the British authorities. He was detained in Iraq in early 2004. The British delivered him to the United States for illegal rendition to Bagram air force base in Afghanistan – a country he had never even visited. For five years, the British government pretended that he did not exist.

It is ironic that the government is currently chastising the media for tarring the good name of a celebrity, without offering him a fair right of reply. Such a slur might only appear in one paper, and the celebrity is free to hire Carter Ruck to cash in some damages. Most important, without disparaging Hugh Grant's complaints, even the News of the World never held a celebrity incommunicado in a gloomy cell for most of a decade.

Rupert Murdoch never abused his power as did the British ministers who, when Rahmatullah's plight finally came to light, loudly proclaimed that he was a member of a Sunni Muslim terrorist group Lashkar-e-Taiba (LET). Of course, the ministers did this while cowering behind the barricades of parliamentary privilege; Rahmatullah was locked in his cell, without a right to reply at all. The lie was broadcast around the world, and used to justify his indefinite detention without trial.

When we finally tracked Rahmatullah's family down, offered to help him without payment, and brought his case to court, the British government retreated to a secondary line of defence: they did not pretend his detention was lawful but insisted, playing Pontius Pilate, that they could do nothing about it. Rahmatullah was now in American hands. His family should pay to take his case to Washington and ask their courts to set him free. Indeed, the UK was not willing even to ask President Obama to treat him fairly, they said, because such a demand would be "futile".

Lord Neuberger, writing for a unanimous court of appeal, poured polite scorn on this position. The UK was, we had argued, probably conspiring with the US to commit what is termed a "grave crime" under the fourth Geneva convention (which applies to civilian detainees). The court was generous, and chose to give the government the chance to avoid conviction, but pointed out that the US was legally bound to return Rahmatullah into British custody so that he could immediately be set free. To do otherwise, of course, would be to compound the crime.

Rahmatullah was cleared for release by the US military more than 18 months ago: he is concededly no threat to anyone. He only remains in his Bagram black hole because of internecine politics in the US. As a presidential election looms, neither party wants to seem soft on terror (or even, in this case, just soft on someone with a beard and a Muslim name). The judges gave the British government seven days to set Rahmatullah free, until 21 December.

The court described habeas corpus, a practice that has evolved over 800 years, as "the most efficient protection yet developed for … liberty." It is indeed more efficient than the British government. Yunus Rahmatullah has finally been permitted his right to reply.


Link to Wikipedia;

Yunus Rahmatullah, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yunus_Rahmat
ullah

.
Back to top Go down
http://squadron-lines.aforumfree.com
 
Release or Not?
View previous topic View next topic Back to top 
Page 1 of 1

Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum
 :: Battle Ground :: Civil War-
Jump to:  
.Free forum | © phpBB | Free forum support | Contact | Report an abuse | Free forum.