BS: Unlawful detention by US

Subject: RE: BS: Unlawful detention by US
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 Dec 11 - 04:55 AM

US war on Terrorism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_and_state_terrorism

US war on drugs
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_drug_trafficking

US war on poverty
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_the_United_States

Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Unlawful detention by US
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 20 Dec 11 - 04:42 AM

Teribus - if Yunus Rahmatullah gets a fair trial it will be the first that he has had.

The rest of your rant looks like a rush to get off the hook as far as the central content of this thread is concerned.

Subject: RE: BS: Unlawful detention by US
From: GUEST,Teribus
Date: 20 Dec 11 - 03:03 AM

Should the US "return" this man to the UK there will be no question of him being granted asylum, if he comes to the UK it will be to face charges, just because the US found him as posing "no threat" that does not necessarily mean that he is completely out of the woods.

Silly title of not:

Wars on Terror; Wars on Poverty; Wars on Drugs

All have to be fought and should be.

Had no "war on terror" been fought the following would be the case:

1: Afghan civilians would have continued to die at an average of 248 per day (The average today is 5 per day - 4 of those dying due to Taliban atrocities). The high death toll in Afghanistan would probably have increased due to malnutrition, disease, starvation.

2: In Iraq Saddam would have continued to "bat" his average of somewhere between 154 and 282 per day, or even more as by now we would be coming into the fifth year of the second Iran/Iraq War. There is no way on earth that Saddam would sit back and allow Iran to acquire nuclear weapons - I am pleased to see that nobody seriously puts forward that idiotic canard that Iran's nuclear ambitions are totally peaceful any more.

3: Iran, Syria and Libya would all still have "secret" nuclear weapons programmes. There is only one reason you develop a secret nuclear weapon - its main implication is that you intend to use it, then deny all knowledge of its existence.

4: The illegal nuclear weapons proliferation network of Dr A.Q.Khan would have remained undiscovered and would have continued to assist Iran, Syria and Libya.

5: The War on Terror brought democracy to Afghanistan and to Iraq, may be far from perfect but in both those countries the people have a voice that those in other Arab and Muslim countries have not. No "Arab" Spring necessary in Iraq, but look at what has unfolded in neighbouring Ba'athist Syria. In Iraq with Saddam in power any "popular uprising" would have been crushed as he attacked the Shia in the South and the Kurds in the North in 1991, the death toll numbering in the hundreds of thousand.

6: Since a young Tunisian poured fuel over himself and set himself alight about a year ago Al-Qaeda has become a total irrelevance. Al-Qaeda has shown that it incapable of delivering on any of its boasts or promises. All they were ever really good at was killing unarmed fellow Muslims.

Had the attacks of 9/11 been treated as a "criminal" act and pursued by the police forces of the world, the "investigations would have got nowhere.

Subject: RE: BS: Unlawful detention by US
From: Little Hawk
Date: 19 Dec 11 - 11:50 PM

The USA is engaged in a jihad too...a jihad all their own...but they call it "The War On Terror"...a laughably stupid title for any war, but it seems to have made quite an impression on those who support the absurd notion of such a war.

Subject: RE: BS: Unlawful detention by US
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 19 Dec 11 - 12:15 PM

I agree that the request will be a test of whether the USA will honour its agreements.

I believe the correct pathway would be for the US to return him to the UK and the UK to the appropriate place (unless maybe he claimed asylum).

I d not follow the logic of your last paragraph. If the LET is creature of Pakistani government forces why did they not ask for Rahmatullah back from Baghram?

Some information about LeT here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lashkar-e-Toiba. Te view that it is an ISI construct ins not universal.

Information stating it to be Sunni here http://www.fas.org/irp/world/para/lashkar.htm

and here http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2009/06/17/the_other_islamist_threat_in_pakistan/

and here http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-11923176

and here http://publicpolicy.stanford.edu/system/files/SunniMilitancyIndia_DIA.pdf

Subject: RE: BS: Unlawful detention by US
From: Teribus
Date: 19 Dec 11 - 03:27 AM

We shall see whether or not the UK's request will fall on deaf ears or not - all we can do is ask. If the US authorities refuse then there is little or nothing the UK Government could do about it. The US Government could of course see this as a convenient and very cheap solution for getting rid of one of their embarassments.

With us having left Iraq, and Yunus Rahmatullah never having been held by the British in custody it would appear that the only place we could return him to would be to the back seat of a taxi in down-town Baghdad.

Of course we could do a "Binyamin" on him and return him to the UK by executive jet to be lashed up right royally and paid off - probably by far and away the cheapest and easiest option.

Oh by the bye Richard the LET is entirely a Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence Agency construct - they run it - they say who is and who is not in it. It was formed in 1990 to foment trouble in Kashmir and there is absolutely no indication according to it's official website that it is solely a "Sunni" Terrorist organisation.

Subject: RE: BS: Unlawful detention by US
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 18 Dec 11 - 06:20 PM

There was argument that the first MoU had lapsed. It was not determined that it had done so.

The rest of your post is not up to your usual standards of clarity. Perhaps you wish to revisit it.

I should appreciate the origin of your alleged quote.   I might be more impressed if you recognised that "jihad" has a number of meanings within Islam and the mainstream meaning is the struggle for self improvement.

I have seen no challenge to the common perception that (even if, which is not admitted, Yunus Rahmatullah - the one the subject of the judgement of the UK court of Appeal - was intending to be a terrorist when first captured) his physical and mental health after his long confinement and torture are now such that he could no longer be so.

Subject: RE: BS: Unlawful detention by US
From: Teribus
Date: 18 Dec 11 - 06:05 PM

The US military kangaroo courts have stated many they have released to no longer be a threat, yet take a look at how many proved themselves to be (most are now dead thankfully).

As to the argument of him being in UK Custody I do think that that has come up yet as their first take on thinks was that your MOU has long since lapsed.

UK may request all it likes, if the US says no then that is that, perhaps the Pakistani's will have more joy when Reprieve go for the release of their Yunus Rahmatullah the one they transfered to bagram in 2003, after all if the details relating to his arrest and transfer are accurate he can hardly be -

"Yunus Rahmatullah, a Pakistani national, was seized by British soldiers in Iraq in 2004 and has been kept at Bagram airbase in Afghanistan after admitting he wanted to take part in "jihad"."

i.e. the Yunus Rhmatullah who Reprieve in the UK want returned.

Subject: RE: BS: Unlawful detention by US
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 18 Dec 11 - 07:37 AM

Since, reluctantly and following court order, the UK goverment has confirmed the identity of Yunus Rahmatullah as Yunus Rahmatullah, it seems very probable that he is indeed Yunus Rahmatullah.

The court has not ordered the UK government to do anything beyond its power. It has ordered it to request the return of Yunus Rahmatullah - something the memoranda of understanding oblige the US to do.

There is absolutely no doubt that conditions in Baghram do not comply with the Geneva conventions, and the memoranda of understanding oblige them so to do.

It is also clear that the minister(s) involved have repeatedly at least mislead and more likely lied to Parliament. The "consequences" are subject to a constitutional convention which is not justiciable and which is more honoured in the breach than the observance these days - particularly if the Prime Minister sees no downside for himself in sticking two fingers up to standards.

I am in no doubt that if the UK government thought it could hide behind the assertion that Rahmatullah had never been in their custody it would have run that argument in one at least of the two trials to date. It has not. Read the judgements.   

Your fantasies about what a Sunni and a Shia might have been up to in a taxi are quite irrelevant. No evidence that they were up to anything has been provided. One of the men in the taxi quite simply could not, ever, have been a member of the LET. The argument that the other (Rahmatullah) was in the LET is based on the fact that he was in a taxi with a member of the LET.   It is, therefore, unsupportable as a line of argument. Even the US military kangaroo courts have accepted that Rahmatullah is not a threat.

Subject: RE: BS: Unlawful detention by US
From: Teribus
Date: 18 Dec 11 - 03:54 AM

"Just because the British government - or any government - says something is the case that doesn't mean it is the case."

And I would reckon going on past record that more often than not when the British Government says something is the case, it usually turns out that what they state is the case.

The Court of Appeal has had a case put before it by an appellant and has instructed the British Government to do something that is beyond its power. There have been many well documented cases where the Law has proved itself to be an Ass.

1: The British Government would have known nothing about the actionable intelligence that led to this man's capture. I do not believe that at anytime between May 2003 and 15th December 2011 that US CENCOM sought the clearance of the British Government prior to undertaking any operation in Central or Western Iraq.

2: The British Government would have known nothing about the actual operation. On a day to day basis I would doubt very much if the British military authorities down in Basra would have been aware of it.

3: The British Military Authorities in Iraq in February 2004 at no time had this man in THEIR custody, a unit (possibly 8 men) of the British Army assigned to the operate in conjunction with US Forces under operational control of the US Command, took part in the operation, we do not know if they were accompanied by US Delta Force personnel or by Iraqi Police/Army.

4: The man was captured in February and transferred to Bagram in Afghanistan in March between the time he was captured and the time he was transferred the man was in US Custody. Reading Reprieve's version as "reported" in UK Press it was the British who transferred him to Bagram.

Reprieve in the UK and their partner organisation over in Pakistan are fishing. Still far, far too much about this is completely unknown for us to start draging out the ashes and sackcloth.

Subject: RE: BS: Unlawful detention by US
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 Dec 11 - 06:38 PM

Just because the British government - or any government - says something is the case that doesn't mean it is the case.

Just because the British government - or any government - or any NGO - or any individual - says something is the case that doesn't mean it is the case.

People do lie.
If a minister makes a statement that proves to be wrong, there are consequences.
If he makes a statement that proves to be a deception, there are more serious consequences for him.
They avoid statements that make them hostage to fortune.
This statement was unequivocal.
Is there a motive for lying?

If a captured terrorist lies, there are no bad consequences for him whatever happens, and he certainly has a motive.
He might, with the help of some gullible do-gooders, get to kill some more unsuspecting and undeserving people.

He could be innocent.
He may have the blood of hundreds on his hands and be lusting for more.
We can not know, so we must be cautious.

Subject: RE: BS: Unlawful detention by US
From: gnu
Date: 17 Dec 11 - 03:21 PM

Indeed McGrath.

Subject: RE: BS: Unlawful detention by US
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 17 Dec 11 - 09:55 AM

Just because the British government - or any government - says something is the case that doesn't mean it is the case.

I'd sooner go by the rule of law, not arbitrary decisions made in government offices by people who collude with torturers.

Subject: RE: BS: Unlawful detention by US
From: Teribus
Date: 17 Dec 11 - 07:19 AM

Are they sure that they are talking about the right man?

Reprieve here in the UK are hammering on about someone captured in Baghdad in February 2004, who was subsequently sent to Afghanistan about a month later.

Meanwhile Reprieve's partner organisation in Pakistan (the JPP) are challenging the "rendition" of seven Pakistani citizens (one of the named being Yunus Rahmatullah who was arrested by Pakistani Authorities and sent to Bagram in 2003

All the above from Reprieve.org.uk's website. So which one is it folks - can't be both.

As to why a Sunni Muslim, a member of LET, may be in a taxi with a Shia Muslim on a Shia pilgrimage in Baghdad in 2004 is a good question and one that could have a number of explanations not many of them being innocent.

AFAIK stated Richard - is that now the established "gospel" that can in no way be challenged.

The circumstances and detail relating to this mans arrest and capture I have seen no-where. So far all we have heard is Reprieve's version of events.

Subject: RE: BS: Unlawful detention by US
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 Dec 11 - 06:22 AM

Does UK no longer assert," the two individuals in question were insurgents captured in Baghdad as they posed an imperative threat to security of the Iraqi people and our armed forces. Their capture was legitimate and justified."?
Or, " We can confirm however that the ICRC [International Committee of the Red Cross] has access to the two individuals and they are held in a humane, safe and secure environment within US detention facilities in Afghanistan, which meets international standards."?

Subject: RE: BS: Unlawful detention by US
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 17 Dec 11 - 05:31 AM

The pasting was itself dishonest in that it was of an obsolete position that the UK government no longer asserts.

If you want to know the government position go and read the transcript - it is that the US will not comply with the memorandum of understanding (itself a somewhat damning view) to that the making of a request under the memorandum of understnding is futile. Secondly it argued that the matter was outside the jurisdiction of the courts, and the courts roundly rejected that.

Further reading reveals that the US Supreme court has 3 times accepted that the conditions in Guantanamo are not Geneva Convention compliant - and even so once Guantanamo internees do obtain legal representation 80% are acquitted of any crime.

Baghram is worse than Guantanamo.

It appears that the whole of the evidence against Rahmatullah (who is a Sunni) is that he was in a taxi with Amanatullah. Amanatullah is a Shia (indeed a rice farmer) and therefore cannot have been a member of LeT which is Sunni, anti Shia, and campaigns to dispossess Shi rice farmers. Since Amanatullah cannot have been a member of LeT, the case against Rahmatullah falls.

Frankly, Keith, I would rather that governments did not lie and torture, but that they did obey the rule of law.   It looks as if you think otherwise.

Subject: RE: BS: Unlawful detention by US
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 Dec 11 - 05:19 AM

I just pasted the view of UK gov. guv.
Would you prefer it was not presented on your thread Richard.
What are you afraid of?

Subject: RE: BS: Unlawful detention by US
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 17 Dec 11 - 04:17 AM

Some prize examples of issue dodging.

The report regarding withholding of the name was months out of date and obviously an obfuscation. The revelation of the name was a previous stage and not a requirement of the Court of Appeal judgement - the name had already been revealed - by a different order.

If the suspicion is of involvement in slaughter, then the suspects could be tried. The allegation at this stage - after even the US military "courts" have ruled that Rahmatullah is not a threat - seems odd.

The Pakistani courts have made rulings on what their government is obliged to do. The most obvious possible reason for foot-dragging by the Pakistani government is to preserve at least some benefit from the US. It is not a cause to impute guilt - particularly without trial, of Rahmatullah.

The obligation of the US under international law is to return Rahmatullah to the control of the UK. The obligations of the UK under the writ of habeas corpus then follow.

The Court of Appeal can order - and has ordered - the UK to require the return of Rahmatullah to the control of the UK. I did not say and nor did the court that it had jurisdiction over the US processes. The UK government did try to argue something similar, namely that a request for the return of Rahmatullah would be an exercise in futility, but Neuberger LJ was pretty scathing about that. It was not this court that ordered the revelation of Rahmatullah's name.

It was Teribus who first raised the argument that the UK never had control over Rahmatullah. It appears that the UK government never advanced such a point - which raises the inference that they knew it would not prevail.

I am rather adversely impressed by the attempts of the two hawks above to criticise the court process - in some parts by obvious irrelevancies. They do little to advance the acceptability of their right wing views.

Subject: RE: BS: Unlawful detention by US
From: Teribus
Date: 17 Dec 11 - 03:07 AM

Any reason suggested as to why Pakistan is not actively seeking the return of their citizens?

Were the two men taken prisoner at the same time during the same operation? If so then the question must be asked why a Sunni Muslim was on a Shia pilgrimage? Considering the sectarian violence that was prevalent in Baghdad at the time I could offer a couple of explanations, neither of them innocent.

Return Rahmatullah to where?

The Court of Appeal has got no say in what happens in US Courts (Civil or Military) It has no jurisdiction over any arrest or detention in Iraq, in Afghanistan, or in Pakistan for that matter. It can order the British Authorities to provide what information it has of bearing to the case but that is as far as it can go.

As for revealing identities:

"We are prevented from disclosing their identity and, indeed, the identity of all other detainees, under the Data Protection Act."

The Court of Appeal obviously removed whatever constraints were imposed by the Data Protection Act in this case.

The point of custody has never been brought up because it has never been an issue. Teams of SAS were operating under direct operational control of the US Forces responsible for security in Baghdad anyone they captured or arrested would automatically be under US Military Jurisdiction.

Subject: RE: BS: Unlawful detention by US
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 Dec 11 - 03:04 AM

I did not express a view.
I pasted a newspaper report of the British government's view.

If they are are right these 2 were involved in the indiscriminate mass slaughter of Iraqis in markets and Shiite shrines.

Subject: RE: BS: Unlawful detention by US
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 17 Dec 11 - 12:17 AM

An unlawful George W policy, and upheld by Obama...WHY does this surprise you????

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Unlawful detention by US
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 16 Dec 11 - 05:24 PM

Well, I think I prefer the views of the Court of Appeal to those of Keith or Teribus.

The identity of Yunus Rahmatullah was ordered to be revealed by the UK courts, and was subsequently revealed, so the pretence that the individual could not be identified was clearly shown to be a mere pretence.

Even the US has conceded under its kangaroo court military jurisdiction that Yunus Rahmatullah poses no threat, and AFAIK have determined that he was not in fact a member of LET.

There has never yet been a question before the court of whether the capture was proper. It is the rendition to a foreign power and then to a lawless place and the failure to observe the processes of justice that are in issue.

Banjoman: AFAIK no application for leave to appeal to the House of Lords was made nor has yet been made so it seems to me that the case of Yunus Rahmatullah is no longer sub judice - compare: http://www.headoflegal.com/2011/04/27/john-hemming-sub-judice-and-the-public-interest-no-abuse-of-parliamentary-procedure/.

I believe therefore that your MP is just trying to avoid the issue - what a surprise since he is a conservative.


The present options of the government are: -

1. Seek leave to appeal and appeal if leave is given.

2. Request the US to return Rahmatullah.


If the point was to be taken that Rahmatullah was never in UK control, only that of the US (which I doubt would prevail) it should have been taken by now and I infer that the UK government knows that that argument would not be soundly based.

So far the courts have held that they do have jurisdiction - so it is not solely a matter for governments (there is an area of government discretion within which proceedings will not run).   In general governments should obey the law.

If the UK does make a request of the US will the US abide by its international obligations - or stick two fingers (one, for US readers) up to the rule of law (again)?

Subject: RE: BS: Unlawful detention by US
From: Teribus
Date: 16 Dec 11 - 10:12 AM

"An MoD spokesman said: "As the then Secretary of State made clear to Parliament in February 2009, the two individuals in question were insurgents captured in Baghdad as they posed an imperative threat to security of the Iraqi people and our armed forces. Their capture was legitimate and justified."

Members of the LET and captured in Baghdad by British Forces.

That should tell us the following things:

1: Being members of the LET, most certainly their capture WAS legitimate and justified.

2: If captured in Baghdad they were at all times under US and not British "jurisdiction"

3: The only British Forces to operate in Baghdad were the SAS under the command of US General David Petraeus (who thought very highly of them)

4: Of course anybody captured in Baghdad would be handed over to the Americans, the British had no separate base in Baghdad and definitely no facilities for holding prisoners.

This is a matter solely for the Pakistani Government and the Government of the United States of America.

Subject: RE: BS: Unlawful detention by US
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 Dec 11 - 06:55 AM

In a statement to the House of Commons in February last year, the then Defence Secretary, John Hutton, alleged that the men were members of an extremist group called Lashkar e Taiba, a radical Sunni group blamed for the Mumbai attacks.

An MoD spokesman said: "As the then Secretary of State made clear to Parliament in February 2009, the two individuals in question were insurgents captured in Baghdad as they posed an imperative threat to security of the Iraqi people and our armed forces. Their capture was legitimate and justified. We are prevented from disclosing their identity and, indeed, the identity of all other detainees, under the Data Protection Act. We can confirm however that the ICRC [International Committee of the Red Cross] has access to the two individuals and they are held in a humane, safe and secure environment within US detention facilities in Afghanistan, which meets international standards."
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/family-of-rendition-victim-begins-legal-action-against-government-1946453.html?ac

Subject: RE: BS: Unlawful detention by US
From: banjoman
Date: 16 Dec 11 - 06:33 AM

I find it absolutely disgusting that this sort of action goes on in what is purported to be a civilized society.
Is there a petition or something that we can sign, or is there anything we can do. I have already asked my local MP (Tory) who says that he is "Confident" that this matter will be settled in the best interests of everyone concerned.
Richard - as a lawyer -is it true that an MP cannot raise this matter in Parliament because its in the hands of the courts which is what I was told by another Tory MP

Subject: RE: BS: Unlawful detention by US
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 15 Dec 11 - 01:58 PM

UK seized him, which is why the UK government is susceptible of the writ of habeas corpus. Yes, I should have been clearer on that.

Subject: RE: BS: Unlawful detention by US
From: GUEST,999
Date: 15 Dec 11 - 10:36 AM

"Judges yesterday used 14th-century common law to order the UK to secure the release of a Pakistani man seized by British special forces in Iraq in 2004 and handed to the US."

Subject: RE: BS: Unlawful detention by US
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 15 Dec 11 - 10:28 AM

Richard, your first sentence is not clear.

In 2004, in Iraq, WHO seized him and then unlawfully turned him over?

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: BS: Unlawful detention by US
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 15 Dec 11 - 08:42 AM

In 2004, in Iraq, seized Yunus Rahmatullah.

It then unlawfully (the UK Court of Appeal has held) handed him to US forces.

The US then unlawfully rendered him to its Parwan detention facility in Bagram, Afghanistan. 900 others are held there.

He has not been tried of any offence known to any law.

He has been accused of being a member of Laskar e Taliba. I understand that even the US's military kangaroo courts found that not to be the case.

He is still held in Parwan, beyond the reach of law. For 6 years he was not allowed to speak even to his family. He has still not been allowed to speak to a lawyer.

His physical and mental health have been destroyed by his captors and interrogators (or, as the bluntly spoken would say, torturers).

On 14 December 2011, the Court of Appeal issued a writ of habeas corpus ordering the British Government to ask the US for Yunus' return. The UK was given one week to secure his release or else to explain why it's not possible.

Treaty obligations between the UK and the US oblige the US to return him.