Binyam Mohamed
Binyam Mohamed, an Ethiopian resident in Britain (application for permenant stay still pending, I think) returned from Guantanamo Bay to Britain today. He was resident in Britain for 7 years prior to visiting Pakistan where, following passport irregularity, he was held by US forces and accused of training for terror in Kabul. Confessions were drawn from him following grim torture in Morocco (including looped music by Dr Dre and Eminem I might add). He was held by the US for 4 years.
So, I'm wondering:
Do you assume Binyam Mohammed to be innocent or guilty of plotting horrific acts of terror?
Is the US (and/or Britain) innocent or guilty of torture in this case?
Does the torture of terror suspects make the world safer or more dangerous?
So, I'm wondering:
Do you assume Binyam Mohammed to be innocent or guilty of plotting horrific acts of terror?
Is the US (and/or Britain) innocent or guilty of torture in this case?
Does the torture of terror suspects make the world safer or more dangerous?
Post edited by Jumping Stack on
Comments
US a/o UK are guilty of torture by proxy, and have admitted as much.
Torture only muddies the waters when it comes to investigations - information gained from torture should only be used for leads, rather than "evidence", as any information given under torture can only ever be highly questionable.
If the US had evidence against the guantanomo lot then take them to court, if they havent or not enough then we live in a world where you set them free.
I watched the film about the other british guantanamo inmates (forget the name of it, the one Channel 4 helped make), I'm still stunned they even risked going to Afghanistan when there was a war on. I would stay away 100%, dont even risk it. If i have a dodgy passport then dont go to Afghanistan/Pakistan whilst theres a huge war going on.
I think its a bit of 50/50, i'm sure many people are innocent but might have been in the wrong place at the wrong time, i think some people were dodgy as anything when they were picked up with 'supposed' weapons and other stuff. His solicitor says he is 100% innocent but you've never heard of anyone being released from prison saying 'well actually yeah i did do it' !
Sadly due to the current climate of sleeper cells etc etc it must be difficult as anything, its not like the enemy hold up signs saying 'we're the bad guys'. If they have evidence that he was guilty then share it in a court and send him to jail, just cant hold someone for that amount of time without putting them through a trial.
(I think if they looped music by Boyzone and Steps they would have got a confession much quicker)
I don't normally comment on these stories as it's possible we don't have all the facts because the media weren't given them or (more likely) deliberately ignored them for the sake of sensationalism/provoking a certain reaction.
But these people were never tried. They were never proven to be terrorists, yet they were tortured anyway, and that is not acceptable at all. If they were suspected terrorists then yes, certainly detain them (obviously, as if they were terrorists then if they were let out they'd go into hiding), but detain them in decent conditions, and try them fairly. If they are indeed proven to be terrorists then send them to Guantanomo Bay or anywhere, or use them for spare parts (like their kidneys, hearts, glands etc, seriously, they don't deserve to live, so let them do some good (albeit unwillingly) by allowing others to live*).
But to subject these untried people to what they've been put through is nothing less than utterly appalling, and a crime against humanity. America's government is hugely at fault here, and our own (useless) British government is equally guilty of turning a blind eye to our ally's cruelty. If any other country had done this, then America would have been calling it morally and ethically unacceptable, and if that country had oil then America might well have used it as grounds for invasion.
* Regardless of whether or not you share my hatred of terrorists and subhuman scum, or however you feel they should be punished, is not the issue here. The issue is, to me, that these people were punished unjustly as they hadn't been proven guilty. And any of us can be wrongly accused of something - you could get arrested tomorrow for something you haven't done, be it murder, armed robbery, arson, car theft, anything. We're all entitled by law to a fair trial (and if I ever have to go to court, I bloody hope it's fair) and these alledged terrorists deserved a trial just as much as any of us would.
Yeah i agree, its easy to say he did nothing wrong and was in the wrong place at the wrong time BUT who really knows. I used to think 'well they held him for long enough, they must have some strong evidence against him' but then theres no trial and they set him free giving me huge huge doubts.
I'm sure we'll never find out the truth
But like ewgf says either take them to court and if found guilty put them in jail, if not we live in a 'free' society so you have to set them free if you dont have enough evidence, holding them for 4 years without trial is very wrong.
Just been reading this....
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7870387.stm
If i was him and there was a war on terror the last thing i would do is to travel to Afghanistan ! NOT saying arrest every foreigner in Afghanistan but surely you would stay away ? If i was an american and wanted to go on holiday in the early 70's i wouldnt choose to go to North Vietnam as theres a huge chance the Vietcong would get me and kill me ! Right now with the mess in Afghanistan if i was a pakistani I would stay away from there 100% !! NOT saying its any reason to arrest him but he 'apparently' had problems with his passport so that'll add to the problems if you were arrested.
Whatever race/religion I am i would stay away from any countries who are in the middle of a war !
Pathetic Gitmo doesn't work, but it gives so called allied countries the right to "interogate suspects" offshore, so they don't have to answer to human rights infringements.
Like I'm sure a few people maybe tried to get the message across many of hundreds of years ago torture will not get you a legit confession. Of course them saying this probably resulted in them being banded up and tortured.
I've heard some of the inmates are heading to Britain to claim asylum when they are released.
I've no idea because I've not seen the evidence in his case.
The US supposedly used "waterboarding" at GB which, whilst not officially torture due to a legal loophole, basically is and will probably officially become so quite soon. Using torture, as people have to point out time and time again, is incredibly stupid because any evidence obtained under it is always regarded as highly questionable. From what I can gather, countries that use it as a matter of course (such as Iran or Syria) don't use it to obtain information but instead as punishment or to force confessions out of unwilling suspects. We don't ban landmines or nuclear weapons because we can concieve of a sitution where they would be necessary, horrible though they are, but we banned torture a long time ago. There's a lesson there. If our governments really thought torture had a genuine use then it would never have been banned outright in the first place.
More dangerous. There are ways of getting information out of people without torturing them and evidence obtained under torture is suspect because the person will say what they think the interrogator wants to hear which isn't necessarily what's true. Using torture appeals to machismo, the idea that if someone hurts us then we'll do this horrible thing to them and bend them to our will, but on balance it just gets you into a lot of trouble and gives your enemies moral brickbats against you.