Something of a shitstorm coming

ABritish Islamic State fighter who carried out a suicide bombing in Iraq this week is a former Guantanamo Bay detainee who was paid £1 million compensation by the government.

Jamal al-Harith, a Muslim convert born Ronald Fiddler who detonated a car bomb at an Iraqi army base near Mosul, was released from the US detention camp in 2004 and successfully claimed compensation after saying British agents knew or were complicit in his mistreatment.

He was freed following intense lobbying by Tony Blair’s Labour government.

Still shouldn’t lock people up without convicting them of something…..

24 comments on “Something of a shitstorm coming

  1. Still shouldn’t punish the British tax payer for something done by foreigners in a foreign land.

    For all his faults, at least Palmerston made the Greeks pay for being rude to some Dusky Gentleman with a dubious claim to a British passport. He did not make the British taxpayers fork out for it.

  2. Knew or were complicit? Well, which one? Because that makes a pretty big difference. If we’re complicit then, yes, naughty us, pay the man. If it’s knew, well, tough shit. Go and ask the Yanks for some compo.

  3. Reading the stories, it appears it was hush money paid by New Labour because they were embarrassed by the war. If the UK actually did stuff to help imprison this chap illegally, then it was compo, otherwise just a way for the government of the day to cover up its own foolishness.

    Not even actually covered by the illegal combatants argument if he was picked up in Pakistan. A wrong un, but nothing we could do about it legally.

  4. “Ronald Fiddler” is not an imported name.

    If he was a native Briton rather than a loyalty free import it makes me mad that such scum treachery was resolved with a quick death.

    We still should not have arrested or held the creep without trial or evidence etc. His existence has already harmed us enough without allowing said existence to undermine our values as well.

  5. The principle of “shouldn’t lock people up without convicting them of something…” is fine, but the inmates of Guantanamo unfortunately fell between the cracks of the world’s legal system. They were picked up in zones where intense fighting was taking place – many of them (allegedly) carrying weapons.

    Some (at least) of them are very dangerous individuals (as we now see) who need to be kept out of society. They’ve committed no crimes for which they could be tried by the US or UK judiciary. They can’t be handed over to the local authorities for punishment, because either (a) if there even was a local authority at the time they would either have been treated far worse than Guantanamo or set free; and/or (b) authorities with jurisdiction are not deemed ‘appropriate’ by the likes of Shammy Chuckabutty.

    It’s better that 10 guilty men go free than one innocent man go to jail – we’ve all heard that and support it. But what if a single guilty man can cause the deaths of hundreds or thousands?

  6. If the Guantanamo crew are so dangerous they should have been killed at the time not dropped into some bullshit legal limbo. And nor can any single one of them “kill thousands” .It would– like 9-11–need to be a large co-operating group to do that–probably with Saudi support.

  7. Still shouldn’t lock people up without convicting them of something…..

    Who can forget all those trials before British POWs were sent to their Stalags and Oflags? Enemy combatants can be detained without trial until the end of hostilities.

  8. “They’re enemy prisoners, and the war isn’t over yet.”

    Shouldn’t they be classed as ‘Unlawful Combatants’ and just shot on sight under the Laws of War?

  9. I don’t find it unreasonable that these people are kept behind bars, assuming that there is due process. The issue with Guantanamo is that they are held there rather than on US soil in order to avoid due process. If the legal framework to handle prisoners of war doesn’t exist then surely the answer is to create it? (Assuming the legal establishment would let this happen and the whole process wasn’t hijacked by Amnesty etc.)

  10. I thought the US position on Guatanamo was the detainees were being held “under investigation”. And, as far as I’m concerned, the US performing profound & lengthy investigations of these people doesn’t trouble my conscience in the slightest.

  11. Mr Ecks,

    Have a look at the guy’s photo: he’s Afro-Caribbean, so a European name is culturally misappropriated from some slave-owner (probably). So he’s reverted to the religion that enslaved his ancestors in the first place and set himself against the society that freed them. Hmmmm …

  12. If the legal framework to handle prisoners of war doesn’t exist then surely the answer is to create it?

    I don’t know about legal framework but a long-held precedent exists for dealing with people out of uniform who are shooting at you in a war zone. Guantanamo was created because western populations are nowadays too squeamish to apply it.

  13. @Tim Newman

    Yup. We should have shot “irregular combatants”. But that doesnt really apply to this particular cretin though.

  14. In a war, you can damn well lock up anyone you want without any evidence what so ever. The ludicrous use of police and courts to fight the war did much to undermine it. It should have been strict policy that if you found a guy, engaged in combat, out of uniform, he was shot. Those are the rules of war, after all.

  15. ‘resulting in a payment of up to £1 million in return for which he agreed not to talk about his ordeal’

    Taliban had it right, he was a spy, the abandonment by his handlers and two years in Gitmo opened his eyes as to who the bad guys really were. They paid his legal bills and cut him loose so he thought ‘fuck it then’ and changed sides.

    We should not have gone there in the first place and we should get out as soon as possible.
    We should hang the people responsible for getting us into this mess as treasonous scum.

  16. They were picked up in zones where intense fighting was taking place – many of them (allegedly) carrying weapons.

    Carrying weapons in Afghanistan? Good Lord, who’d have thought it?

    I remember reading an article about twenty years ago by a writer who went to visit a friend in Afghanistan, and ended up taking a trip to the border so his friend could buy a mortar to fire at the thieves who were stealing his crops. I’m now reading a military history book about the Yanks in Afghanistan a few years ago, who seemed to want to shoot at anyone carrying a gun. No wonder it’s such a cock-up.

  17. The Yanks were at one point supposedly paying $25000 a head for grassed up “terrorists “. To Afghan scum. Not a surprise that they got lots of takers pointing out everybody and his brother as big cheese “leaders”.

    Well I suppose it gave the Pentagon the impression something was being done.

  18. Yup. We should have shot “irregular combatants”. But that doesnt really apply to this particular cretin though.

    If we were applying precedent he’d have been given a minute to explain his presence in Afghanistan to the satisfaction of the nearest Captain and either shot or simply left to take his chances wherever he was found. I bet we flew the idiot home.

  19. Dearime,

    ‘Hang Blair. After arrest, charge, trial, and conviction, naturally.’

    or just abduct him in the middle of the night and ship him via Mihail Kogălniceanu International Airport to various spa resorts for some enhanced interrogation (it’s not torture so he will be fine), lock him up for a couple of years with proper documented torture until he is pliable and I’m sure he will confess to anything.
    Only after that due process can you, conscience clear, hang draw and quarter the bastard.
    Anything else would be a travesty of justice.

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.