• New Patreon Tier and Early Access Content available. If you would like to support AVForums, we now have a new Patreon Tier which gives you access to selected news, reviews and articles before they are available to the public. Read more.

Shaker Aamer: believable story?

Cliff

Distinguished Member
I have just watched a few interviews with him as he seems to be doing the media circuit now. Lots of journalists are looking sympathetic and shame faced about Gitmo, torture and holding people without trial.

That's all very well but up until 2007, the Americans must have had good reason for keeping him locked up. Maybe they were getting information or felt he was a danger- who knows.

After 2007 he was given the choice of returning to his homeland - Saudi Arabia. (he is a Saudi National) But refused. They had withdrawn his passport, - why?- probably the Saudis knew him as a security risk.

There are so many things that this man has said and done, including moving his family with a newly born baby to Afghanistan (no NHS there) . Why, because life in Britain was intolerable for his wife- who was subject to abuse for wearing the full face covering. But he started to apply for British residency..


There was no trial, so that doesn't make him innocent or guilty. Just safe to be released.

I just hate the way our media is fawning over him. Just let him carry on his own life and lets not make out he is some kind of hero.

A Saudi national and British resident, detained at Guantanamo for almost 14 years without charge: Who is Shaker Aamer?
 

weaponx031277

Well-known Member
The thing is in Afghanistan the CIA were hiring Bounty Hunters and offering rewards to locals for any Al Qaeda members that were given to the Americans. This led to massive ammounts of people being wrongly imprsioned and in the bounty hunters cases abducting alot of forgein people who where in Afghanistan. The day Shaker Aamer was released the BBC ran an interview with an ex CIA operative who was in Afghanistan. He stated that 80% of the people arrested and taken to Guantanmo Bay were innocent

As for the Saudi Arabia well lets be honest they haven't exactly got the best human rights record have they. He probably had no guarantee that if he went there he wouldn't be re arrested and tortured again. Also if there were links with him and terrorist groups then its more than likely the Saudis would know and have information as they have very good intelligence agencies.

The more likely reason he was kept looked up for so long was probably due to what hes seen happen to people and the torture he suffered when in captivity. Im sure i read he was tortured at the same time as the guy who gave false information under torture that the Iraqis were in cahoots with Al Qaeda.
 

Cliff

Distinguished Member
As for the Saudi Arabia well lets be honest they haven't exactly got the best human rights record have they. He probably had no guarantee that if he went there he wouldn't be re arrested and tortured again. Also if there were links with him and terrorist groups then its more than likely the Saudis would know and have information as they have very good intelligence agencies.
The bottom line is that he was a Saudi National, and the Saudis and pretty good
when it come to intelligence- especially about their own people.

As for the Bounty hunters,they are going to need local help which has to be paid for. It is up to the Americans to sift through and find out who is really a danger and who is not.

As for torture- well I don't think much more is going to be revealed about Gitmo that we don't already know or presumed to know. Condoleezza Rice , already warned Blair's people that they shouldn't dig too deep into rendition so lets take it we were involved.

Still the above is all to do with the wrongs and rights of Guantanmo Bay

How about Shaker? Why do we (most media) firmly believe he was in no way connected to terrorism and Al Qaeda, but just wanted to move his family to Afghanistan for a better life under the Taliban?
 

Rasczak

Distinguished Member
The bottom line is that he was a Saudi National, and the Saudis and pretty good
when it come to intelligence- especially about their own people.

As for the Bounty hunters,they are going to need local help which has to be paid for. It is up to the Americans to sift through and find out who is really a danger and who is not.

As for torture- well I don't think much more is going to be revealed about Gitmo that we don't already know or presumed to know. Condoleezza Rice , already warned Blair's people that they shouldn't dig too deep into rendition so lets take it we were involved.

Still the above is all to do with the wrongs and rights of Guantanmo Bay

How about Shaker? Why do we (most media) firmly believe he was in no way connected to terrorism and Al Qaeda, but just wanted to move his family to Afghanistan for a better life under the Taliban?
I suppose it is because imprisonment without trial and any form of torture, are not concepts we as a society tolerate. If he's guilty, bring forth the evidence
 

stanga

Well-known Member
How about Shaker? Why do we (most media) firmly believe he was in no way connected to terrorism and Al Qaeda, but just wanted to move his family to Afghanistan for a better life under the Taliban?

Maybe he just thought he could escape X-factor/Pop Idol etc by living under Taliban rule?

I think I'd have probably joined him on that score.

Although as a father, the rampant paedophilia prevalent in Afghanistan would have outweighed the chance to escape chart music.
 

johntheexpat

Distinguished Member
...., but just wanted to move his family to Afghanistan for a better life under the Taliban?
And how many of us here have ever been on the receiving end of relentless, vicious, soul destroying racism and/or religious hatred? I imagine that the physical abuse dished out by the CIA was painful and brutal, but never ending fear and a sense of hopeless desperation that things will never get better for your wife and kids is worse.
As for moving your family to live under the Taliban, if they provide the society and rules under which you want to live, ie strict adherence to that particular version of a religion, then why not?
Remember there are huge numbers of people who have chosen to live where they are for what they believe is a better quality of life, as opposed to a higher "standard of living" that may be available in the UK.
 

krish

Distinguished Member
As with Moazzam Begg and the Tipton Three, there are some unsatisfactory answers, but the fact is there was no (public) case ever made against them, with the US ultimately admitting they have absolutely no evidence against any of them, so tortured and detained them without trial for seemingly nothing - WHY?

Interesting/concerning stuff from Douglas Murray and his think tank HJS (Henry Jackson Society, often lazily or disingenuously described as a right-wing think tank when it's nothing of the sort)
 

Cliff

Distinguished Member
As for moving your family to live under the Taliban, if they provide the society and rules under which you want to live, ie strict adherence to that particular version of a religion, then why not?
It would make much more sense to move his family to Saudi Arabia. He'd be home, live life under the strict rules he wants to live by and its not a 3rd world country.

To go to Afghanistan is not a safe environment for the family. War torn, underdeveloped, dangerous and tribal.

A Saudi, going to live a normal family life in a foreign 3rd world country ruled by Afghans ???? Not at all like the Saudis I know!.
 

Cliff

Distinguished Member
Interesting/concerning stuff from Douglas Murray and his think tank HJS (Henry Jackson Society, often lazily or disingenuously described as a right-wing think tank when it's nothing of the sort)
Interesting stuff....

He didn't even have a British passport, so why are the British so involved in securing and celebrating his release?
The more I look into this I get the feeling we are being hoodwinked in a big way.
 

bishbashboshdj

Well-known Member
At the end of the day he was yet another case of guilty until proven innocent.

That undermines the entire principle of the free that the west supposedly fights its wars in the middle east.

Because he is Saudi, does not automatically make him a terrorist.
 

Cliff

Distinguished Member
At the end of the day he was yet another case of guilty until proven innocent.

That undermines the entire principle of the free that the west supposedly fights its wars in the middle east.

Firstly, he was interned. i.e. no trial. Either they wanted him out of Afghanistan or they wanted information, or perhaps as Krish supposes . Anyway, they had their reasons and we may never know.

By the way you have made the supposition that we have deemed him guilty . But the bottom line is that he was released without charge and the media are assuming the opposite- i.e. he is innocent of terrorist connections. There was no trial so we don't know, and that suited the Americans just fine.
He could still be guilty, but pose no danger.


Because he is Saudi, does not automatically make him a terrorist.
Not sure where that came from but I certainly don't assume that!

But if you took that from what I said about a Saudi deciding to take his family to live in Afghanistan.. then yes, that would not be 1st choice for a family used to first world conveniences.
 

Enki

Banned
UK law does not have jurisdiction in Afghanistan and the Americans would see his detainment as humanely neutralising then active combatant. The bloke is dodgy as they come and he is lucky man, that the West need their pin up boy.
 
D

Deleted member 13294

Guest
This guy is innocent. It is as simple as that. No evidence, no charges and certainly no conviction.

The US should be ashamed for using detention without trial. This guy was held for 14 years without charge. Any country purporting to run by the rule of law should hang its head over this.

Of course we don't know whether the specific charges of torture made by this guy are true. But there seems to be enough anecdotal evidence from a number of sources that torture has been used. This is utterly disgraceful.

What happened to the west leading the way in championing human rights?
 

Cliff

Distinguished Member
It is as simple as that. No evidence, no charges and certainly no conviction.

The US should be ashamed for using detention without trial.

It's far from simple..... Yes, the US may feel ashamed of holding someone without trial- but in war many countries have done the same. Not saying its right.

We do not know what evidence there was. It could have been damming, but the US decided not to go to trial. Maybe it was just not worth. But it does not mean he is innocent- we don't know.

But a bigger question is why were the British so involved in his release? As I understand it, he was on a Saudi passport with an indefinite stay visa. That is usual if you have a spouse in this country.

There are conditions with this visa . i.e. you must live as a resident of Britain, keep criminal offenses to a minimum ;) stay more than 6 months in any one year in the UK.

If you meet the conditions, then after 3- 5 years a British passport maybe issued. Now that is discretionary and, if for instance that includes being captured in Afghanistan with possible links to the Taliban and Al Qaeda and your own country has cancelled your own passport, it is very likely you would be refused a British passport. :laugh:

Even if you have a British passport, and get held by a foreign country, all the embassies do is provide support, they don't fight your case (Certainly Cameron would never have talks with Obama if I was arrested!)

The whole story is odd and especially the way our media, from the Guardian to the DM is on board.
 

bishbashboshdj

Well-known Member
Firstly, he was interned. i.e. no trial. Either they wanted him out of Afghanistan or they wanted information, or perhaps as Krish supposes . Anyway, they had their reasons and we may never know.

By the way you have made the supposition that we have deemed him guilty . But the bottom line is that he was released without charge and the media are assuming the opposite- i.e. he is innocent of terrorist connections. There was no trial so we don't know, and that suited the Americans just fine.
He could still be guilty, but pose no danger.


Not sure where that came from but I certainly don't assume that!

But if you took that from what I said about a Saudi deciding to take his family to live in Afghanistan.. then yes, that would not be 1st choice for a family used to first world conveniences.

The fact that he was held for so long without trial is the "guilty until proven innocent"

Please do assume I'm second guessing you, I've got better things to do with my spare time ;)
 
D

Deleted member 13294

Guest
It's far from simple..... Yes, the US may feel ashamed of holding someone without trial- but in war many countries have done the same. Not saying its right.

We do not know what evidence there was. It could have been damming, but the US decided not to go to trial. Maybe it was just not worth. But it does not mean he is innocent- we don't know.

But we do know. He is innocent until proven guilty. No evidence has ever been disclosed. And whatever evidence there is has never been tested in court. (Or ever disclosed to anyone apparently).

You can't get much more simple than that. He is presumed innocent until proven otherwise.

Aren't you even a little concerned that someone can be held for FOURTEEN years without any due process, no apparent evidence and a high likelihood that torture has been used?

And then you still blame the victim and think he must be guilty after all?

The treatment he has apparently received would not be acceptable for a guilty man, let alone one who is legally innocent.
 

Enki

Banned
Personally, Mr Aamer needs to be little more risk averse, when it comes to where he lives and the company he keeps, if I uprooted the family and moved into a theartre of war, I would expect trouble; lucky to be alive, other western charity workers found by others, have had their heads lobbed off. Matters not his activities in Afghanistan, we (UK) could nothing about it.
 

bishbashboshdj

Well-known Member
Personally, Mr Aamer needs to be little more risk averse, when it comes to where he lives and the company he keeps, if I uprooted the family and moved into a theartre of war, I would expect trouble; lucky to be alive, other western charity workers found by others, have had their heads lobbed off. Matters not his activities in Afghanistan, we (UK) could nothing about it.

So its his own fault he was kept imprisoned for 18 years, and tortured, without charge?
 

Cliff

Distinguished Member
But we do know. He is innocent until proven guilty. No evidence has ever been disclosed. And whatever evidence there is has never been tested in court. (Or ever disclosed to anyone apparently).

You can't get much more simple than that. He is presumed innocent until proven otherwise.

It never went to court so we don't know either way.

Yes we can presume the man is innocent- and in a civilian setting that would be good enough. However the Americans just wanted him out of Afghanistan, and so interned him. Were they interested in trials and the rest- it doesn't look like it.

In this situation we should not presume innocent or guilty. That is why I have a problem with your assumption that the man is innocent.

Remember the Saudis were very familiar with Jihadist leaving their own country to Afghanistan . Many returning fighters came back and were troublesome in Saudi Arabia (a familiar story played out today in the Europe, except the situation is now Syria.) That is probably the reason his passport was recalled.
 
D

Deleted member 13294

Guest
I firmly believe someone is innocent until proven guilty. I'm not sure why you have a problem with that. As far as I can see there is zero evidence against him. All we have is the assertion from the Americans that he is guilty, but they have presented absolutely no evidence of this. And quite honestly, I don't trust the Americans on this given their conduct with the illegal detention and probably torture of scores if not hundreds of people.

It is understandable that the US authorities want to continue to portray him as a bad man. But they haven't given a single piece of evidence that he is. This article is a very good summary of why they will continue to say he is a bad guy.

When Shaker Aamer is free from Guantánamo the slurs will start | Clive Stafford Smith

I need to be really clear on this. It isn't that the evidence hasn't been tested in court. It is that there is zero evidence whatsoever. Not one thing. To detain someone for 14 years, you must have certainty beyond a reasonable doubt. But there isn't any evidence - it isn't just a reasonable doubt, there is not one shred of evidence at all.

His detention and torture was unjustifiable. The continued demonisation of an innocent man is equally unjustifiable.
 

Sve

Banned
I firmly believe someone is innocent until proven guilty. I'm not sure why you have a problem with that. As far as I can see there is zero evidence against him. All we have is the assertion from the Americans that he is guilty, but they have presented absolutely no evidence of this. And quite honestly, I don't trust the Americans on this given their conduct with the illegal detention and probably torture of scores if not hundreds of people.

It is understandable that the US authorities want to continue to portray him as a bad man. But they haven't given a single piece of evidence that he is. This article is a very good summary of why they will continue to say he is a bad guy.

When Shaker Aamer is free from Guantánamo the slurs will start | Clive Stafford Smith

I need to be really clear on this. It isn't that the evidence hasn't been tested in court. It is that there is zero evidence whatsoever. Not one thing. To detain someone for 14 years, you must have certainty beyond a reasonable doubt. But there isn't any evidence - it isn't just a reasonable doubt, there is not one shred of evidence at all.

His detention and torture was unjustifiable. The continued demonisation of an innocent man is equally unjustifiable.

If you read certain articles on him it is quite plain he has links to groups & individual's who are connected to al-Qaeda in a serious way.

The simple fact is, he is neither a British citizen nor a British Passport holder so it makes no difference whether he is innocent or guilty he should not be in the UK, neither should the UK government have intervened in his release, not when we have British citizens rotting away in foreign countries who are a lot more innocent the this man will ever be.
 
seems so ironic when people hark on about British values of fair play and justice but are still prepared to support someone being locked up for 14 years.

"The USA must have known something or why else did they detain him" just doesnt stack up.
Try applying that logic to anyone who is arrested or taken into police custody , the police wouldnt have done it unless they had good reason.
 

Trollslayer

Distinguished Member
The first post is simply trying to find ways to say he is guilty without any evidence.
Hey, he's guilty because errr.... nope, despite spending millions (and more) trying to prove him guilty there was nothing.
Still, keep torturing him.
 

The latest video from AVForums

Fidelity in Motion's David Mackenzie talks about his work on disc encoding & the future of Blu-ray
Subscribe to our YouTube channel

Full fat HDMI teeshirts

Support AVForums with Patreon

Top Bottom