Welcome Home, come on in.

[anotheoldgit]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news /guantanamo-inmate-free-next-week-1628237.html

Yes so nice to have him back under the protection of the Mother country, but I wonder who he will sue for wrongful imprisonment?

No prize for the correct answer.

[tamborine]

Poor fellow.....he'll freeze after all that sunshine.

Bags I get the orange suit ;)

[fredpuli47]

The American government. Do I get my 'no prize' now? Did you have any other body in mind?

[New Judge]

Yes, fred, I do have another body in mind.

This gentleman is an Ethiopian refugee who lived in the UK from age 15. He was arrested in Pakistan in 2002. Quite what he was doing there, having claimed asylum in the UK because of persecution in his homeland, is not clear.

He will have virtually no chance of any redress from the US authorities. They take the view that detainees such as him are being held prisoner as part of their �war on terror� and as such are prisoners of war.

Where he may have greater success is taking action against the UK government. Because he was once resident here the 1998 Human Rights Act (based on the European Convention on Human Righhts) will almost certainly be cited as affording him protection. It will be argued that the UK has a duty of care to him under the Act and he will say that the UK has been negligent by failing to afford him protection under Article 3 (Torture), Article 5 (Liberty and Security) and Article 6 (Fair Trial).

He (or more accurately his legal team, highly paid from public funds) will argue that his rights under all these Articles were breached and that the UK government was responsible for those breaches by failing to be robust enough to secure his release.

He will not be called upon to explain quite how the UK could be responsible for his safety when he willingly took himself to another somewhat less secure country. Nor will he be called upon to explain why he went there in the first place when he was seeking shelter from a similar situation by coming here.

But there you go.

[fredpuli47]

Don't follow New Judge.Where in the HRA does it say that the duty to afford protection extends beyond the borders and jurisdiction of the UK ? If it does, I'll remember that if I get arrested and detained for speeding in Texas or I find myself arguing, contrary to American views, that I've been wrongfully nabbed or if I have been hurt or held by a criminal there LOL

Did the USA regard detainees as prisoners of war? Or are they now obliged to do so ? If so, presumably, they can detain anyone until the 'war' or 'hostilities' come to an end! Isn't that the problem they've got, that they treated these people on the basis they weren't POWs, but they wouldn't treat them as criminals who'd conspired to murder,. nor would they bring them on to US sovereign territory ; Guantanamo, it being argued was Cuban; lest they tried to get redress and a statement of their rights in US courts in the US?

[rov1200]

We should have gone along the same road as the US in preventing these misfits from ever allowing the country to be taken before the court of human rights. The law should be repealed so that the normal inhabitants are not put over a barrel.This is one growth industry we can do without.

[New Judge]

You are quite right fred. The HRA certainly does not say that its protection extends beyond the UK. But nor does it say that it does not.

And there�s the rub. The Act is so vague and broad that it can be interpreted to mean just about anything the presiding judge wants it to, as has been adequately and amply demonstrated on numerous occasions.

We�ve no need to get hung up on this. It won�t be too long before Mr Mohamed is back on these shores within the bosom of his family. It will be but a short time after that that his �legal team� swarm round him to determine where his best course of action lies.

And not long after that we will see whether I am right.