[Closed] Shaker Aamer: Why is he described as British?

[b]I really do not understand it.[/b]

He is Saudi with a British wife and kids and therefore has the right to permanent residence - understood but that is not British. AFAIK he has never applied for citizenship. I didn't post on this before as it will only attract the "pantomime villan" type responses from the usual suspects.

A victory for his supporters and campaigners to have gotten the press to describe him as such.

He is a Saudi

Because he's a British resident with a British wife and British children who, 14 years ago, was in the process of applying for British citizenship. Something must have happened to have delayed that application.

Because he's a British resident with a British wife and British children

He's not British then.

14 years ago, was in the process of applying for British citizenship.Something must have happened to have delayed that application.

He migrated to Afghanistan?

He is not described as British either by wiki or his own campaign "Shaker Aamer is a Saudi national and long-term British resident, with the right to return."
Problem solved. http://www.saveshaker.org/about

Because he's a British resident with a British wife and British children

I have a good friend who moved to Austria 20 years ago. Married an Austrian girl and has since had three kids with her.
They all live in Austria together, as they always have.

He is British. He would never describe himself as Austrian, and neither would anyone else.

[url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34675324 ]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34675324[/url]

The headline "Shaker Aamer: Last UK Guantanamo Bay detainee lands in Britain"

just one of many.

Er... that article starts with the words "the last british resident".

Because why pass over a good story when lax reporting and catchy headlines can whip up your readers into a froth?

If you google Shaker Ahmed only the Daily Mail describes him as British all other sources say Saudi or British Resident.

Er... that article starts with the words "the last british resident".

No it starts with a headline that indicates he is from the UK.

You realise a headline isn't meant to contain all the detail of the story? I can't see why anyone would get worked up about this, but even if you did, you have to read all of 4 words into the article for the headline to be "corrected".

All the articles I've read have said that he's a British resident rather than a citizen

Obviously it's more important to determine his exact nationally and residence status than if he was illegally imprisoned and tortured. I suspect there would be less hair splitting if he was, for example, a fast runner.

[img] [/img]

Yeah he is not British and that's the big issue.

Not the fact that he was detained for 14 years without trial by our closest ally in a conflict we played a major part in. Then as civilised societies we go and lecture other nations on human rights.

One year less than this fella:

[img] [/img]

The BBC has repeatedly called him the last British inmate at Guantanamo including on TV reports

Andrew Marr show had an interesting discussion on this today (and Chrissie Hinde closing the show !)

For the avoidance of doubt keeping people locked up for 14 years without trial is an issue as is torturing prisoners

I too am offende that people call Joanna Lumley British. She was born in blooming India! and that Sid James is a blooming African!

Time to take a stand .....or sit down.....and tut on mass, whilst having a cup of tea.

If it winds bigots up that much, he can be called whatever nationality achieves that the most.

what a delightful thread. 😐

So what exactly is the issue he is a British resident he is described by the BBC as a Saudi National ( just google his name) occasionally he is described as the last British Detainee perhaps because he is a British Resident . Who really has an issue with this or is confused ?

Obviously it's more important to determine his exact nationally and residence status than if he was illegally imprisoned and tortured.

Some things are more important than other things. That's obvious enough.

But does that mean that we can't have threads discussing the less important things ?

Next time someone starts a thread about a coffee grinder, maybe they should think twice. Surely people trafficking is a more important topic ?

Next time someone starts a thread about a coffee grinder, maybe they should think twice. Surely people trafficking is a more important topic ?

Has he got a good chance of getting us a gold medal in The Olympics?

Has he got a good chance of getting us a gold medal in The Olympics?

There are far more important topics than sport to be discussed.

How do you expect people to concentrate on such trivia while the entire universe is facing heat death.

The OP's question is about a British resident, who has been detained in Guantanamo bay (that's why it's in the news after all). It's a fair comment to make that of the two connected facts, it might be more important to concentrate on the legality of the detention and alleged torture (or interrogation as security agencies might prefer to call it) of said British resident than how "British" he is. It's not analogous to saying an entirely unconnected situation is of greater concern for example...I dunno...maybe saying "How can you worry about what coffee grinder to buy when people are being trafficked?"

Ok then. Fair point.

"How can you worry about what coffee grinder to buy when 2.5 million acres of Central American rainforest has been cut down to produce coffee in a more efficient way, drinking coffee is killing the rainforests"

😉

I didn't post on this before as it will only attract the "pantomime villan" type responses from the usual suspects.

For the avoidance of doubt keeping people locked up for 14 years without trial is an issue as is torturing prisoners[/quote
No one was doubting this was wrong

 

Still think he has a lot to answer as well, why would you move your family to "experience an Islamic atmosphere" in Afghanistan in 2001?

have a good friend who moved to Austria 20 years ago. Married an Austrian girl and has since had three kids with her.
They all live in Austria together

Sounds like an Aussie to me.

Easy mistake to make.

Are you a journalist 😉

What questions would those be, exactly?

One which springs to mind is what was the charity he was working for in Afghanistan?
Surely they have a name and would be able to have confirmed the charitable work.

Do you not think the Americans asked him that question ?

You'd have thought they'd have the answer by now.

They do have the answer , why not get the Americans to publish the complete transcripts of his interrogation together with a description of the circumstances of each session .

It would seem a lot easier just for Shaker to say in public what this charity was.
It shouldn't really be contentious should it?

It would seem a lot easier just for Shaker to say in public what this charity was.

Really? Let's pretend for a minute that you've been locked away for 13 years and have the might of the US criminal and intelligence services bearing down on you, trying to prove that you're a terrorist, d'you not think they might have checked that out? If there was a question over his reasons for being in Afghanistan, do you think the Bush administration would've agreed that he was innocent of all charges in 2009, and the Obama administration agreeing and reinforcing that in 2013?

I didn't post on this before as it will only attract the "pantomime villan" type responses from the usual suspects.

OH NO HE ISNT !

Given that he did say what the charity was and it was examined by the Americans what is your problem now ? Or does he have to be reinterrogated by you persoaaly before you accept the American conclusion.

Done forget after the Americans entered Afghanistan in 2001 people were being lifted willy nilly. Panorama highlighted the case of one man a successful local shopkeeper whose rivals reported for being affiliated to the Taliban and was soon 9n his way to Guantanamo. He was released a few years later but on return found his family on the street and all his property wealth gone. Shaker Amer British citizen or resident doesn't matter he still had a voice in th8s country and a legal framework to support him. Nobody knows the names 9f the poor buggers from Afghanistan who were wrongly carted off and lost everything.

It often wasn't as good as that, the youngest Gauntamano detainee was a child, and the "evidence" came down more or less to the difference between the Farsi word for friend and the Arabic word for money.

shameful episode in US history frankly.

He looks like he could use the services of a good barber.
Also I like the way he's grinning innanely in most of the photos of him, makes it much harder to hate him, curse him and his hairy grin!

[quote=IanMunro spake unto the masses, saying]You'd have thought they'd have the answer by now.

Maybe they just forgot to copy you on the memo. Have you asked them where it got to?

Really, I despair.

I have a good friend who moved to Austria 20 years ago. Married an Austrian girl and has since had three kids with her.
They all live in Austria together, as they always have.

He is British. He would never describe himself as Austrian, and neither would anyone else.

So, an Austrian Resident then?

So, an Austrian Resident then?

Yes.

I think youse are missing the important points of this story, by quite a distance! 😆

Why are people so concerned with this resident/nationality thing?
I read the story, it didn't even occur to me to think about that until I got to all the tedious comments underneath. Mostly I was horrified at the 14 years of torture and illegal imprisonment.

Just heard extracts of his interview on the radio. Cripes, even if half of it was made up, it's still pretty shocking.

Also, I've lived here for 22 years, am married to a British citizen and have a child with a British passport (I'll sort that one out when I have time 🙂 ). If I was whisked away to be detained without charge in another country, I'd hope that people in the UK would be more concerned about that than my nationality.

Nope you would be on your own you ****

[quote=deadlydarcy spake unto the masses, saying]
Also, I've lived here for 22 years, am married to a British citizen and have a child with a British passport (I'll sort that one out when I have time ). If I was whisked away to be detained without charge in another country, I'd hope that people in the UK would be more concerned about that than my nationality.

Well, that would depend on the key piece of personal information that you left out ....

Thanks guys. Nice to know whose support I can depend on. 😀

Well, that would depend on the key piece of personal information that you left out ....

Beard size?

Keep up Bravissimo. Oirish terrorists are just, loike, soooooooooooo last century. Bearded or otherwise 😉

So the fella in question (not darcy, the other one) has said that he doesn't intend to sue the British government, or anyone else. Does this quell your outrage a bit OP?

No he is still a massive fan of illegal rendition and state sponsored torture of folk who will never be charged now shut it you pathetic hand wringing left.

"So the fella in question (not darcy, the other one) has said that he doesn't intend to sue the British government, or anyone else. Does this quell your outrage a bit OP?"
Countdown to the suggestion that this is proof positive that he has something to hide and is therefore a baddy.

Given that he did say what the charity was and it was examined by the Americans what is your problem now ?

So what is the charity then?

If he shared an apartment with Zacarias Moussaoui, there may've been other motives for detaining him:

http://fortressamerica.gawker.com/the-case-that-the-saudis-did-9-11-explained-1683728623

.

Junkyard - lazarus

Nope you would be on your own you ****

I would forge tapes praising Emir Darcy and his blueprint for global jihad and send them to the Merican embassy. Look on the bright side DD,having a wet towel on your face would stop you from seeing the Munster/Cheats game...

IanMunro, could you provide us with exact details of your entire life/work history please, just so we can make sure you're not a terrorist? Thanks.

Of course I could, but as you don't actually think I'm a terrorist it would be a pointless waste of my time.
Anyway, apparently now he's said he wasn't working for a charity, just doing something similar to working for a charity, but not working for a charity. Should have got Lance Armstrong to vet his script first really.

Mostly I was horrified at the 14 years of torture and illegal imprisonment.

No it was legal. The imprisonment and torturing was done in Cuba - which made it all perfectly legal.

The United States has a strong commitment to uphold the rule of law.

Ian I owe you an apology on a more careful reading as opposed to memory his connection to a formal charity was prior to Afghanistan ( but after his work for the US Army.)

At what point did he live with Zacarias Moussaoui?

Oh no here comes the conspiracy.

What's a little puzzling is that since his guilt is so crystal clear, the evidence plain for all of STW to see, why did the Americans not avoid international condemnation and simply try him?

What's a little puzzling is.......

What certainly puzzles me is why the United States should hold prisoners on the basis of no evidence, or at best a vague hunch, in conditions which only the most repressive and totalitarian regimes would use, and continue to do so for many years after the complete futility of it has been established.

While undoubtedly the United States feels confident that it can never be held accountable in international courts for any war crimes and other violations of international laws, and that western governments and propaganda will continue to largely support them whatever they do, the Guantanamo torture camp seems to have been a highly costly project with no obvious benefit.

Nevertheless the United States clearly thought that snatching people who they thought looked shifty and transporting them across the world to torture them was necessary - why?

I would be genuinely interested in knowing what the thinking behind it all was. Was it perhaps simply to instil fear and terror?

I know for example it is said that Saddam Hussein didn't simply kill his political enemies and opponents but that he also deliberately had executed completely innocent and loyal Ba'ath Party members on trumped up charges.

Everyone including Saddam Hussein knew that they were innocent but targeting innocent people on trumped up charges creates a climate of terror which results in the minimal level of resistance.

I have recently been talking to someone working at a language school for Syrian refugees in Denmark. She has heard first hand from some of the students, and it is truly illuminating and horrifying to her some of the stories. For example, it is common for refugees to refuse to go to a hospital because their torturers dressed as doctors. If the teacher wears a white outfit the result can be the same. The torture is quite subtle and sophisticated - the purpose being to instill fear as a warning to others. Crowd noise was played during the torture and company logos prominently displayed (Coca Cola etc.), so that when released the victim has a fear of crowds, and a bad reaction to seeing the logos. As a result he lives in a permanent state of fear which is spread to the community. One student now cannot stand a closed room and insists on the windows being open - which makes learning in sub-zero weather difficult.

I must ask her to verify the charity work status of her students next time I see her.

I am not defending holding anyone for 14 years without trial, however the American diplomat on Andrew Marr show says quite rightly that conversations and treatment on the basis of civil law are irrelevant as this was a combat/war situation and different ruies apply. The US is still at war with Al-Q / IS etc so it can hold prisoners whilst that conflict is on-going. That's their logic.

Yeah the US government has been claiming that for the last 14 years.

And you are of course trying to defend them. The clue is in your use of the term [i]"quite rightly".[/i]

He says it quite wrongly war has a definition in international law if the US want to hold them as prisoners of war then a) they need to declare war on a state and b) they need to treat the prisoners as Prisoners of war in which case the Geneva Convention applies , someone will say no uniforms there for shoot but the Geneva convention requires a process albeit a summary one to identify spys .

Not logic but a sophistry to conceal wrong doing.

I'm not defending holding anyone for 14 years without trial

*then immediately tries to defend holding people for 14 years without trial*

This only applies to Muslims and/or people with brown skin though obviously, so it's ok.

Torture is always illegal too, regardless of war status.

[quote=ernie_lynch spake unto the masses, saying]Yeah the US government has been claiming that for the last 14 years.
And you are of course trying to defend them. The clue is in your use of the term "quite rightly".

I assumed he meant 'quite rightly' in the sense of being '100% correct', i.e. almost certainly complete bollox.

Torture is always illegal too, regardless of war status.

Torture in all forms is banned by the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), which the United States participated in drafting. The United States is a party to the following conventions (international treaties) that prohibits torture, such as the 1949 Geneva Conventions (signed 1949; ratified 1955), the American Convention on Human Rights (signed 1977), the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (signed 1977; ratified 1992), and the United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (signed 1988; ratified 1994). It has neither signed nor ratified the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture.[13] International law defines torture during an armed conflict as a war crime. It also mandates that any person involved in ordering, allowing, and even insufficiently preventing and prosecuting war crimes is criminally liable under the command responsibility doctrine.

crankboy - Member

He says it quite wrongly war has a definition in international law if the US want to hold them as prisoners of war then a) they need to declare war on a state and b) they need to treat the prisoners as Prisoners of war in which case the Geneva Convention applies , someone will say no uniforms there for shoot but the Geneva convention requires a process albeit a summary one to identify spys .

Not logic but a sophistry to conceal wrong doing.

Today's enemies of global peace are, generally, less rogue nations - one which one can 'officially' declare war - than rogue, guerilla groups. After the Paris attack though, France says they are at war...

What then?

An act of torture committed outside the United States by a U.S. national or a non-U.S. national who is present in the United States is punishable under 18 U.S.C. § 2340. The definition of torture used is as follows:

As used in this chapter—

(1) “torture” means an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control;
(2) “severe mental pain or suffering” means the prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from—
(A) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering;
(B) the administration or application, or threatened administration or application, of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality;
(C) the threat of imminent death; or
(D) the threat that another person will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering, or the administration or application of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or personality; and
(3) “United States” means the several states of the United States, the District of Columbia, and the commonwealths, territories, and possessions of the United States.

So the US law would suggest Shaker's treatment was torture and the us signed up to not doing it . I accept that they have passed laws retrospectively to say it was ok and grant immunity from prosecution.