Free my dad from Guantanamo, 12-year-old asks Brown, page 1

privacy

Pages: << 1 2 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 7 times

Topic started on 30-1-2010 @ 05:52 AM by December_Rain

Here is a person imprisoned and tortured for 8 long years all in the name of 'War On Terror' without ever a charge filed against him.

Shaker Aamer, 42 - the final British resident in Guantanamo Bay - with two of his children, son Michael and daughter Johina - now aged 12

It is an anquished plea from a daughter for a father who has been imprisoned for a crime she believes he did not commit.

But Johina Aamer’s two-page hand written letter to Gordon Brown is not like any other child’s request for state intervention in a miscarriage of justice.

Johina’s father is Shaker Aamer, the last recognised British resident at Guantanamo Bay where the Americans have held him for eight years without ever charging him with a crime.

His continued absence from the family home in south London is hard for Johina, 12, and her young three brothers to understand. Two years ago they were told that their father had been cleared for release and they expected him to be flown back to Britain with fellow prisoner Binyam Mohamed when he was released from Guantanamo last February. Then last year the Aamer family watched Barack Obama promise the world that within 12 months he would close the notorious prison camp at the US naval base in Cuba. Yet still the Aamer family wait.

Source

Here are the original two page letters the girl wrote to Brown in which she pleads for returning his father:

Source

Johina’s younger brother Faris, eight, has never seen his father because he was born after the family were separated during the US-led invasion of Afghanistan in 2001.

In her letter, Johina tells Mr Brown: “He has never felt what it’s like to be with a father like every child does. He misses him a lot. Sometimes he thinks other people are his father. Once a man came to our garden and after he left Faris asked my mum ‘is that my dad’.”

The eight-year ordeal has also taken a terrible toll on Johina’s mother.

“My mother," Johina tells Mr Brown, "is very patient but sometimes when she misses him too much she gets depressed. My Mother is also a psychiatric patient. Whenever she gets depressed we have to go to my grandparents house where my grandparents look after her when she is ill she is in bed day and night and can’t do much. I really hate it when she gets depressed.”

Johina says in her letter to the Prime Mininister: “At school when it is time to go home most of the children have their fathers pick them up which makes me miss him even more. Also there is no reason fro my father to be in prison. There have never been any charges against and he is innocent.”

There are 47 more people which will be held indefinitely without any charges filed against them. Those are 47 whole families and countless more who were abused, tortured and imprisoned in this 'War On Terror'.

reply posted on 30-1-2010 @ 08:25 AM by jpmail

I would be interested to know was this guy picked up in London or in Iraq or Afghanistan? If so what was he doing there? was he fighting against the troops was he an insurgent.

Or was he a happy go lucky guy that just happened to be with a bunch of insurgents and he did not know what they where upto.

This little girl wants her dad back fair enough but he must be tried and found guilty/innocent and pay for his crime or set free.

In my opinion all Gitmo detaniees should be tried in courts.

I also wonder did he think of the impact it would have on his family if he went to fight against the troops from his own country and died or be captured.

No I bet he thought along the lines of "I am fighting the infedel and doing my religous duty"

This man in no way thought of his family.

reply posted on 30-1-2010 @ 08:32 AM by IntastellaBurst

By the time everything is said an done this little girl might be in Gitmo as well.

how frightening must it be to live in a cell with no idea when you'll ever get out, .... even people in prison can look foward to getting out..... but anyone in county jail will tell you, the most stressful time is before you go to court, because you have no idea what sentence you might get.

but who knows, ... maybe this guy killed women, children, and kittens back in iraq. It takes alot to put faith in a government perpetrating these crimes.

reply posted on 30-1-2010 @ 08:41 AM by December_Rain

reply to post by jpmail

You can find all about him here www.reprieve.org.uk...
or the usual wiki en.wikipedia.org...

[edit on 30-1-2010 by December_Rain]

[edit on 30-1-2010 by December_Rain]

reply posted on 30-1-2010 @ 09:45 AM by makeitso

Originally posted by December_Rain

You can find all about him here www.reprieve.org.uk...
or the usual wiki en.wikipedia.org...

No you cannot find out all about him from those links.
Those links mysteriously leave out many aspects of his life.

Like the part where he fought beside, and taught islamic extremist fighters in Bosnia for 2 years. Or the part where he shared an apartment with Zacarias Moussaoui. Or how he met the shoe bomber Richard Reid. Or the part where he got to Afghanistan in 1999 using a stolen passport. Or how he lived with the Taliban and AQ in their training camps for a couple years. How he recieved money directly from, and worked with OBL. Or that he was leading a group of Taliban fighters in Tora Bora.

Etc. Etc. Etc.

Of course, those and the many other aspect of his life are just tiny insignificant little details, not even worth mentioning. Right?

[edit on 1/30/10 by makeitso]

reply posted on 30-1-2010 @ 10:02 AM by December_Rain

reply to post by makeitso

Someone who was never convicted of a crime was held indefinitely in prison and tortured. The fact that this is a bad thing should go without saying.

Had there been any evidence against the person the charges would have been filed or he would have been convicted in Court Of Law. Every person who is detained should be tried equally in Court else it's illegal detention and torture and constitutes to Crimes against Humanity.

reply posted on 30-1-2010 @ 10:03 AM by GAOTU789

How hard was his absence for the kids when he was off fighting in Afghanistan?

He isn't a British citizen so Brown has no need to seek his repatriation. The guy deserves a trial but Brown isn't obligated to seek his release.

I found this part kinda funny.

He spent the next few years travelling in Europe and the Middle East, before moving to London where he met his wife and married. Their first child, Johina, was born in 1997.

That's a funny way to describe fighting in wars on foreign soil for countries that you don't have any ties to.

reply posted on 30-1-2010 @ 11:24 AM by pujols5

Originally posted by jpmail
I would be interested to know was this guy picked up in London or in Iraq or Afghanistan? If so what was he doing there? was he fighting against the troops was he an insurgent.

Or was he a happy go lucky guy that just happened to be with a bunch of insurgents and he did not know what they where upto.

This little girl wants her dad back fair enough but he must be tried and found guilty/innocent and pay for his crime or set free.

In my opinion all Gitmo detaniees should be tried in courts.

I also wonder did he think of the impact it would have on his family if he went to fight against the troops from his own country and died or be captured.

No I bet he thought along the lines of "I am fighting the infedel and doing my religous duty"

This man in no way thought of his family.

Dude do you even bother reading about this guy, what are you referring to when you say tried. There are lots of people in or were in Guanatanamo who are simply there because they look suspicious, or just because the us wants them there. How many people are the us going to punish and execute simply to maintain their false propaganda on a war on oil.

If that was your daughter i bet you would have a change of heart then. S** how would you feel if you went to england and was locked up simply becuase they SUSPECTED BUT NEVER CONVICTED YOU OF A CRIME. This man is a prime example as to why the world cant wait till these maniacs in washington bring this country down. What do you mean tried? tried for what, for looking like a muslim or for having facial features similar to those of the muslim religion. Get over yourself, whether you are american or not, everyone who has the least bit of knowledge knows this country is corrupt from top to bottom.

If you ask any random american as to wat the he** the us is still doing in iraq, they wouldn't be able to answer. That right there my friend is when you know you have a brainwashed country and nation. What the us has become really makes me sick and now i just stand back and watch these mother f***ers in washington bring this country down to sh**.

[edit on 30-1-2010 by pujols5]

reply posted on 30-1-2010 @ 01:06 PM by makeitso

Originally posted by December_Rain
reply to post by makeitso

Someone who was never convicted of a crime was held indefinitely in prison and tortured. The fact that this is a bad thing should go without saying.

Had there been any evidence against the person the charges would have been filed or he would have been convicted in Court Of Law. Every person who is detained should be tried equally in Court else it's illegal detention and torture and constitutes to Crimes against Humanity.

First, I note that you chose not to address those minor issues in his past that went unreported in the links you said reported ALL about him. His fighting in Bosnia, etc.

Second, the premise of your argument appears to be flawed, from both a logical perspective, and a legal standing.

Logically speaking; The bad thing is that he freely chose to fight, and provide aid and combat support illegally to a known terrorist agency, just like he did in Bosnia. He had the option to join the Afghan Armed Forces, wear a uniform, and fight legally. He would not be in the position he is in had he chosen the latter.

Legally speaking; As recently as this month the court has ruled that detention without a court trial is not illegal, not torture, nor a crime against humanity.

For a better understanding of U.S. Law, reading
United States Court of Appeals No. 09-5051 GHALEB NASSAR AL-BIHANI v. BARACK OBAMA

and follow that reading with news reports explaining the ruling may help.

LA Times - Court upholds US right to hold Guantanamo prisoners
NY Times - Court Backs War Powers Over Rights of Detainees
Washington Post - Appeals court upholds ruling to detain terror suspect

[edit on 1/30/10 by makeitso]

reply posted on 30-1-2010 @ 01:37 PM by December_Rain

Originally posted by makeitso
/pg1#pid8006440]post by makeitso[/url]

First, I note that you chose not to address those minor issues in his past that went unreported in the links you said reported ALL about him. His fighting in Bosnia, etc.

If there is proof why is he not tried in court without charges filed against him? Just saying so doesn't make it so.

Second, the premise of your argument appears to be flawed, from both a logical perspective, and a legal standing.

Logically speaking; The bad thing is that he freely chose to fight, and provide aid and combat support illegally to a known terrorist agency, just like he did in Bosnia. He had the option to join the Afghan Armed Forces, wear a uniform, and fight legally. He would not be in the position he is in had he chosen the latter.

Again what's the evidence? NONE! ZERO! The FACT no charges has been filed against him in 8 years in court says itself.

Legally speaking; As recently as this month the court has ruled that detention without a court trial is not illegal, not torture, nor a crime against humanity. For a better understanding of U.S. Law, reading
United States Court of Appeals No. 09-5051 GHALEB NASSAR AL-BIHANI v. BARACK OBAMA
and follow that reading with news reports explaining the ruling may help.

LA Times - Court upholds US right to hold Guantanamo prisoners
NY Times - Court Backs War Powers Over Rights of Detainees
Washington Post - Appeals court upholds ruling to detain terror suspect [edit on 1/30/10 by makeitso]

For better understanding of International Human Laws and Crimes against Humanity I recommend you familiriase yourself with
www1.umn.edu...
Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, 75 U.N.T.S. 135, entered into force Oct. 21, 1950.
Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War. Geneva, 27 July 1929.
Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War
International Criminal Law

reply posted on 30-1-2010 @ 02:01 PM by makeitso

Originally posted by December_Rain

If there is proof why is he not tried in court without charges filed against him? Just saying so doesn't make it so.

A court trial is not required by U.S. Law.

For better understanding of International Human Laws and Crimes against Humanity I recommend you familiriase yourself with...

If you take the time to read the court ruling you will have a better understanding of the application of international law, its relevance / interaction with U.S. law and how the international laws are fluid, sometime both ill defined, and inappliable to U.S. Law.

Perhaps the below quote from the U.S. Court ruling will help you have a better understanding of the flaw in your legal premise.

Before considering these arguments in detail, we note that all of them rely heavily on the premise that the war powers granted by the AUMF and other statutes are limited by the international laws of war. This premise is mistaken. There is no indication in the AUMF, the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005, Pub. L. No. 109-148, div. A, tit. X, 119 Stat. 2739, 2741–43, or the MCA of 2006 or 2009, that Congress intended the international laws of war to act as extra-textual limiting principles for the President’s war powers under the AUMF. The international laws of war as a whole have not been implemented domestically by Congress and are therefore not a source of authority for U.S. courts. See RESTATEMENT (THIRD) OF FOREIGN RELATIONS LAW OF THE UNITED STATES § 111(3)–(4) (1987).

Even assuming Congress had at some earlier point implemented the laws of war as domestic law through appropriate legislation, Congress had the power to authorize the President in the AUMF and other later statutes to exceed those bounds. See id. § 115(1)(a). Further weakening their relevance to this case, the international laws of war are not a fixed code. Their dictates and application to actual events are by nature contestable and fluid. See id. § 102 cmts. b & c (stating there is “no precise formula” to identify a practice as custom and that “t is often difficult to determine when [a custom’s] transformation into law has taken place”). Therefore, while the international laws of war are helpful to courts when identifying the general set of war powers to which the AUMF speaks, see Hamdi, 542 U.S. at 520, their lack of controlling legal force and firm definition render their use both inapposite and inadvisable when courts seek to determine the limits of the President’s war powers.

See my previous link for a full reading of the ruling.

[edit on 1/30/10 by makeitso]

reply posted on 30-1-2010 @ 02:11 PM by jpmail

reply to post by pujols5

Might I point out that I would never go to another country or any country for that mater to potentialy fight soliders from the country I was living in or leave my daughter,son and wife behind to do so.

Funny how when the # hits the fan for this guy he wants it both ways be able to fight his supposed enemy and have them rescue him from the big bad nasty Americans.

As for him being tried he was either giving AID to the enemy or fighting with them or just so happened to be on holiday at the wrong time in the wrong place.

Do you seriously think he was only lifted for looking muslim in a muslim nation? wow what a fantastic peace or reasoning there.

As you and I know the war is about oil but dare I ask have you stopped using all oil based products in protest?

Have you traveled to any of these countries to give aid, help the poor or are you sitting comfortable at home with the protection your counrty offers being all morally high and mighty.

Also who do you think is gonna run America if it falls not the people another power will try to step in might be a case of staying with the lesser of evils.

[edit on 30-1-2010 by jpmail]

reply posted on 30-1-2010 @ 02:19 PM by December_Rain

Originally posted by makeitso
[A court trial is not required by U.S. Law.

Court trial is not required, that's right coz if they are not guilty of crimes what can the govt. prove in court? Thank you for proving my point that the detention is illegal and the prisoners are not guilty.

The news came as the deadline US President Barack Obama had set himself for closing the prison camp passed.

The task force, led by the US justice department, recommended that while 35 people could be prosecuted, 110 could be released either now or at a later date, unnamed officials said.

The other nearly 50 detainees are considered too dangerous to release, but cannot be tried because the evidence against them is too flimsy or was extracted from them by coercion, so would not hold up in court.

Source:50 Guantanamo detainees to be held without trial: report

Ironic isn't it, the U.S Govt. invaded Iraq giving wmd..oh' nvm that what was second excuse oh' ya...humanitarian reason and the excuse of afghanistan war what finding ghost OBL and maintaining humanity, and they themselves are breaking humanitarian law. The whole shamble and mock staged drama from politicians and home grown court does not hide the illegality of the crimes.

International human rights law abhors a legal black hole. It applies wherever a State exercises its jurisdiction, not only in peacetime but also during armed conflict, as a compliment to humanitarian law. The deprivation of liberty is subject to certain conditions, and even initially lawful detention becomes arbitrary and contrary to law if it is not subject to periodic review. Indefinite detention is incompatible with Article 9 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. While temporary derogation from this provision is allowed in Article 4 of the ICCPR, such derogation is only possible “in time of public emergency which threatens the life of the nation” and “to the extent strictly required by the exigencies of the situation.” Persons deprived of their liberty are entitled to a prompt trial or release, and in cases of arbitrary detention, they are entitled to compensation. Neither the war on terror nor restrictive immigration policies justify indefinite detention.

Source: www.icrc.org...$File/irrc_857_Zayas.pdf

[edit on 30-1-2010 by December_Rain]

[edit on 30-1-2010 by December_Rain]

reply posted on 30-1-2010 @ 02:31 PM by December_Rain

Just to add about the Torture part which you have completely skipped:

Torture and other cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment are illegal under U.S. and international law:

* The United States Bill of Rights (1789) Amendment 8: ―…nor (shall) cruel or unusual punishment be inflicted.

* U.N. Convention Against Torture (1984): ―No state may permit or tolerate torture…Exceptional circumstances such as a state of war…or any other public emergency may not be invoked as a justification of torture or other cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment.‖

* Geneva Conventions (1949) Article 99, Third Convention: ―no moral or physical coercion may be exerted on a prisoner of war in order to admit himself guilty of the act of which he is accused.‖

Furthermore, the prohibition of torture has a special status in international law. It is part of customary international law, which means it is binding on all states, whether they have ratified any of the international human rights treaties. The prohibition on torture is also a ―peremptory norm,‖ which means that it cannot be overruled by any other law or local custom.

Source: www.amnestyusa.org...

reply posted on 30-1-2010 @ 02:36 PM by December_Rain

- There is no circumstance where a person, however classified, can be placed outside the protection of international human rights or humanitarian law.

- No person should be convicted on the basis of evidence obtained by torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

- No person should be convicted on the basis of secret evidence that the accused can neither see nor rebut.

- There should be no departure from minimum standards for the treatment of detainees under international law, including those contained in common article 3 of the Geneva Conventions.

- There should be no impunity for serious violations of international human rights or humanitarian law.

- All detainees should be entitled to have the legality of their detention determined by an independent court and effective remedies for serious human rights violations, such as torture or ill-treatment.

- All persons convicted of crimes should have a right to full judicial review before an independent and impartial court.

Source:ejp.icj.org...
[ USA: Eminent Jurists Panel concludes US hearings- International Commission of Justice]

reply posted on 30-1-2010 @ 02:43 PM by makeitso

Originally posted by December_Rain

Originally posted by makeitso
[A court trial is not required by U.S. Law.

Court trial is not required, that's right coz if they are not guilty of crimes what can the govt. prove in court? Thank you for proving my point that the detention is illegal and the prisoners are not guilty.

Are you here to have a discussion, or just to continually obfuscate and make false proclamations based on ill informed personal opinion?
The latter appears to be the case so far.

The court trial is not required by current U.S. Law as I have shown by posting the specific court ruling. Neither does the particular International Law limit the Presidents powers of detention, as I have also shown. Even if it did, Congress has the authority to over rule it, as The Courts have shown.

You broadly stating that the prisoners are not guilty, and repeatedly stating that the detention is illegal is both incorrect, and willfully false.

reply posted on 30-1-2010 @ 02:55 PM by December_Rain

Originally posted by makeitso
Are you here to have a discussion, or just to continually obfuscate and make false proclamations based on ill informed personal opinion?The latter appears to be the case so far.

I am actually proclaiming what the facts suggests on the illegality of the 'indefinite detention' without any 'charges filed'

The court trial is not required by current U.S. Law as I have shown by posting the specific court ruling. Neither does the particular International Law limit the Presidents powers of detention, as I have also shown. Even if it did, Congress has the authority to over rule it, as The Courts have shown.

As per the International Law mentioned here and here both the court orders are against it. Both orders violate International Laws and constitues to Crimes against Humanity.

You broadly stating that the prisoners are not guilty, and repeatedly stating that the detention is illegal is both incorrect, and willfully false.

I am not broadly stating that, it's on the basis of 'inaction' of US govt. and no charges filed against the prisoner and illegal indefinite detention. If he was guilty for sure try him in court of law. The mere fact he was tortured and detained for 8 long years without any charges filed against him is wrong.

Even the Nazis were tried in Court and no Govt. or nation is above International Law.

reply posted on 30-1-2010 @ 04:08 PM by makeitso

Originally posted by December_Rain
As per the International Law mentioned here and here both the court orders are against it. Both orders violate International Laws and constitues to Crimes against Humanity.

This premise is mistaken. The court has pointed that out clearly in its ruling. I posted an exceprt of that for you previously, underlined and bolded for your clarification. That is the ruling from the legal body that has the power to make that decision, and is binding until such time that it is overruled. Until that time, your premise is mistaken.

I am not broadly stating that, it's on the basis of 'inaction' of US govt. and no charges filed against the prisoner and illegal indefinite detention.

That is not correct. The U.S. took action. It detained an illegal combatant, and its power to detain is legal under the law.

If he was guilty for sure try him in court of law. The mere fact he was tortured and detained for 8 long years without any charges filed against him is wrong.

I understand that is your opinion, but you are not the court, your premise that he is being detained illegally is mistaken.

Even the Nazis were tried in Court and no Govt. or nation is above International Law.

After hostilities had ceased, and peace was restored, (it has not been in Afghanistan). Some Nazis were tried. At the Nuremberg Trials. Which were a Military Tribunal. Not a Civilian Court.

[edit on 1/30/10 by makeitso]

reply posted on 30-1-2010 @ 04:18 PM by December_Rain

Originally posted by makeitso
[This premise is mistaken. The court has pointed that out clearly in its ruling. I posted an exceprt of that for you previously, underlined and bolded for your clarification. That is the ruling from the legal body that has the power to make that decision, and is binding until such time that it is overruled. Until that time, your premise is mistaken.

Not under the International Law. It is 100% correct. I find it funny how much faith some people have in the "system". As if everyone that gets arrested or detained has it coming.

That is not correct. The U.S. took action. It detained an illegal combatant, and its power to detain is legal under the law.

Under it's own law which contradicts the International Law on Crimes.

I understand that is your opinion, but you are not the court, your premise that he is being detained illegally is mistaken.

No it is not opinion, it is International Law for which I have posted several links above.

Furthermore, the prohibition of torture has a special status in international law. It is part of customary international law, which means it is binding on all states, whether they have ratified any of the international human rights treaties. The prohibition on torture is also a ―peremptory norm,‖ which means that it cannot be overruled by any other law or local custom.

After all combat had ceased, and peace was restored. Some Nazis were tried. Which is a subject also addressed in the court ruling.

Neither the war on terror nor restrictive immigration policies justify indefinite detention.

[edit on 1/30/10 by makeitso]

reply posted on 30-1-2010 @ 04:56 PM by makeitso

Originally posted by December_Rain

Not under the International Law. It is 100% correct.

According to the court ruling, you are incorrect, and basing your assumption on a mistaken premise.

all of them rely heavily on the premise that the war powers
granted by the AUMF and other statutes are limited by the
international laws of war. This premise is mistaken.

I find it funny how much faith some people have in the "system". As if everyone that gets arrested or detained has it coming.

Not quite sure what that has to do with the court ruling which says the detention is legal.

Under it's own law which contradicts the International Law on Crimes.

I'll just quote the ruling, since they say it better than I.

The international laws of war as a whole have not been implemented domestically by Congress and are therefore not a source of authority for U.S. courts. See RESTATEMENT (THIRD) OF FOREIGN RELATIONS LAW OF THE UNITED STATES § 111(3)–(4) (1987).

No it is not opinion, it is International Law for which I have posted several links above.

the international laws of war are not a fixed code. Their dictates and application to actual events are by nature contestable and fluid. See id. §
102 cmts. b & c (stating there is “no precise formula” to identify a practice as custom and that “t is often difficult to determine when [a custom’s] transformation into law has taken place”). Therefore, while the international laws of war are helpful to courts when identifying the general set of war powers to which the AUMF speaks, see Hamdi, 542 U.S. at 520, their lack of controlling legal force and firm definition render their use both inapposite and inadvisable when courts seek to determine the limits of the President’s war powers.

Neither the war on terror nor restrictive immigration policies justify indefinite detention.

The court says the detention is legal.

[edit on 1/30/10 by makeitso]