UK 'ready to hand over Afghan detainees'

#1
This made me chuckle rather a lot.

Up to 90 Afghans held at Camp Bastion are set to be returned to the Afghan authorities, the Ministry of Defence has said, after their lawyers argued that their detention could be unlawful.

Oh dear, not the outcome i think they wanted. Well done to their Lawyers and the BBC for highlighting this. This time i feel you have done the right thing. Let the Afghan Authorities deal with them in their own special and politically correct way.

I know who i would rather have guarding me and its not the Afghan Authorities
 
#2
once they've been handed over how long before the same lawyers are claiming against the MoD for failing to make sure they were treated correctly by the Afghans? Obviously on behalf of the families of the suddenly deceased. If we can't hand over 'hate preachers' to their own country in case they suffer torture or are prosecuted with evidence gained through torture we can't send these chaps back to their fellow afghans. we should bring them to UK for their own safety.
 
B

Biscuits_AB

Guest
#4
This made me chuckle rather a lot.

Up to 90 Afghans held at Camp Bastion are set to be returned to the Afghan authorities, the Ministry of Defence has said, after their lawyers argued that their detention could be unlawful.

Oh dear, not the outcome i think they wanted. Well done to their Lawyers and the BBC for highlighting this. This time i feel you have done the right thing. Let the Afghan Authorities deal with them in their own special and politically correct way.

I know who i would rather have guarding me and its not the Afghan Authorities
Fanny.
 
#5
Up to 90 Afghans held at Camp Bastion are set to be returned to the Afghan authorities, the Ministry of Defence has said, after their lawyers argued that their detention could be unlawful.
By 'up to 90' I presume they mean 'absolutely no where near 90'.
 
#7
You can always be relied on to make a cunt of yourself. Bet the time fly's by in your piss stained and rat infested council house you jobless scrounger. I assume with 22,927 posts you dont have a job do you. To much time on your hands i think,
I'm no expert, but I think that, right there, is a bite.
 
#8
Your right, dicks like him piss me off, he is prob a fat civi cunt who gets out of breath just opening his eyes in the morning. I would suggest sending him to Afghan for the Afghan Authorities to take care of but he would love having his ring probed on an hourly basis
 
#9
I'm no expert, but I think that, right there, is a bite.
I concur. Posting a brief riposte, then waiting a while stewing in anger before editing the post to inject aimless bile, is definitely a bite.

Nom nom nom
 
#13
Your right, dicks like him piss me off, he is prob a fat civi cunt who gets out of breath just opening his eyes in the morning. I would suggest sending him to Afghan for the Afghan Authorities to take care of but he would love having his ring probed on an hourly basis
You bit because you're weak, petty, insecure and probably not very bright. Now you're trying to dig yourself out of a hole with a list of stock responses that wouldn't be funny if you had thought them up on the spot. You think being a 'civi' is bad because the only thing you've achieved in life is to not be one. For a bit. Assuming you're actually serving. Which you probably aren't.
 
#14
Sense of deja vue here! Does anyone know what the solution was when a similar problem was met in Iraq?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/apr/08/unlawfulcombat

The Guardian's Seumas Milne reports on a secret framework agreement between the Iraqi and US governments that would authorise the US (and thus, by implication, other coalition forces - including the UK) to "conduct military operations in Iraq and to detain individuals when necessary for imperative reasons of security" without time limit. This agreement would replace the existing UN mandate from various security council resolutions, starting with resolution 1546 from 8 June 2004.
The question arises as to whether any of this is lawful within international law.


The answer could not be clearer. It is not lawful, for two main reasons. First, there is the question of attributability. In the House of Lords in December 2007 in the al-Jedda case the UK lost an argument that in Iraq, because there was a UN mandate provided by resolution 1546, all the actions of UK forces were attributable to the UN and not the UK. The Lords distinguished the mandate in Iraq from that in Kosovo (the government relied on the Behrami case where the grand chamber of the European court of human rights had held that the actions of troop contributing nations in Kosovo were, for different reasons, attributable to the UN). However, under this framework agreement there would be no UN mandate, and so there could be no doubt that the actions of the US and UK would be attributable to the individual states.
Second, there is the question of jurisdiction. In the al-Skeini case (which included the case of Baha Mousa, who was brutally killed in a UK detention facility) of June 2007, the Lords also held that the Human Rights Act 1998 and the European convention on human rights (ECHR) did apply to UK detention facilities. Thus, there is jurisdiction for the purposes of article 1 of the ECHR. By implication there would also be jurisdiction for the purposes of article 2 of the international covenant on civil and political rights (ICCPR). Article 5 of the ECHR provides for no detention without due process. Article 9 of the ICCPR is in similar terms. The former applies to the UK and European coalition partners. The latter applies to the US too (leaving aside its successful efforts to render its ICCPR obligations unenforceable). Thus, internment "for imperative reasons of security" by the US and others is in fundamental breach of these rights, that is, in breach of international human rights law.
Thus, if the US and UK have jurisdiction, as they certainly do in a detention facility, they cannot intern under this framework agreement. Even if there were to be a security council UN mandate, it is extremely doubtful whether a UK court, or the European court of human rights, would allow such a fundamental right as that protected by article 5 of the ECHR to be displaced in this way. Without a mandate, it is completely out of bounds.


The Iraqi government should refuse to sign any such agreement as it is in flagrant breach of international law - and of Iraqi law, which provides for no detention without due process by article 37 of the new Iraqi constitution.
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top