Omar Deghayes......re-arrested.....oh really !!

[Dave the OAP]

And you've proven my point brilliantly.

So 2 then!

10 actually...and 7 more if you include the McGuire 7....but hey...they were Irish, therefore must have been IRA, and by consequence guilty.

But who is drawing parrallels....the police would never had made stuff up to make sure they all went to jail.....erm actually they did.

as opposed to this Libyan bloke who they have absolutely nothing on and in 5 years of incaseration(sp?0 without trial, the Americans have also come to that conclusion......although they do think he is "dangerous". maybe we will find out why one day.

 

[e77]

I don't know the ins and outs of the case but surely it doesn't take five years of 'enthusiastic' interrogation by the American secret services finest to find out?

 

[rool]

In 1972, a crack commando unit was sent to prison by a military court for a crime they didn't commit.

I love it when a plan comes together

 

[BensGrandad]

If there is reasonable suspicion that he was involved lock him up while it and his alibi is investigated, better to be safe than sorry.

 

[glasfryn]

I hope the Argus shuts the f*** up now, what was a Libyan refugee living in Brighton doing on the Afghan/Pakistan border ?

Good question ...........has anyone ever asked his solicitor this question ?

 

[e77]

I love it when a plan comes together

I pity the fool.

 

[e77]

If there is reasonable suspicion that he was involved lock him up while it and his alibi is investigated, better to be safe than sorry.

I agree, although not for five years without charge!

 

[Arthur]

10 actually...and 7 more if you include the McGuire 7....but hey...they were Irish, therefore must have been IRA, and by consequence guilty.

But who is drawing parrallels....the police would never had made stuff up to make sure they all went to jail.....erm actually they did.

as opposed to this Libyan bloke who they have absolutely nothing on and in 5 years of incaseration(sp?0 without trial, the Americans have also come to that conclusion......although they do think he is "dangerous". maybe we will find out why one day.

Well 2 instances. Not allot given the amount of people locked up on daily basis is it.

I'm not saying the bloke is guilty, but they must have had a good enough reason to detain him in the first place and if they feel it necessary to detain him for 5, 10 or 20 years then I'm fully supportive of them. They are doing it for our benefit.

 

[e77]

Well 2 instances. Not allot given the amount of people locked up on daily basis is it.

I'm not saying the bloke is guilty, but they must have had a good enough reason to detain him in the first place and if they feel it necessary to detain him for 5, 10 or 20 years then I'm fully supportive of them. They are doing it for our benefit.

If they had a good enough reason he should have been put in front of a judge or charged.

 

[BigGully]

10 actually...and 7 more if you include the McGuire 7....but hey...they were Irish, therefore must have been IRA, and by consequence guilty.

But who is drawing parrallels....the police would never had made stuff up to make sure they all went to jail.....erm actually they did.

as opposed to this Libyan bloke who they have absolutely nothing on and in 5 years of incaseration(sp?0 without trial, the Americans have also come to that conclusion......although they do think he is "dangerous". maybe we will find out why one day.

So your point being ....

what would you like to of happened to the convicted guilty IRA terrorists...... that let bombs off in our cities......

Actually they put them in Westminster, but you know what I mean.....

 

[Lord Bracknell]

I'm not saying the bloke is guilty, but they must have had a good enough reason to detain him in the first place and if they feel it necessary to detain him for 5, 10 or 20 years then I'm fully supportive of them. They are doing it for our benefit.

The "good enough reason to detain him in the first place" appears to be ONLY that they were told by the Spanish authorities that he appeared in a videotape of a Chechen training camp.

If this has been proved to be a case of mistaken identity, do you accept that there WASN'T "good enough reason to detain him"?

A simple question.



A member of my family was once arrested for a serious criminal offence, on the basis that the police genuinely believed him to be the individual caught on video battering hell out of a police inspector.

Accompanied by a lawyer, I sat through hours of police tapes until we established beyond any doubt whatsoever that the assailant was someone else, wearing similar clothes.

Having seen the tapes, I understand how the mistaken identity came about. But I am still certain of one thing. "No smoke without fire" is a piss-poor argument to deploy in any legal context, particularly when liberty is at stake.

 

[GNF on Tour]

Sorry , you are confusing me with someone who gives a shit what you think.

Another stunning contribution Dave - you really are the David Icke of this board.

 

[nobody's dupe]

Deliberately changing the subject, did you feel any tremors there this morning GNF?

 

[Arthur]

The "good enough reason to detain him in the first place" appears to be ONLY that they were told by the Spanish authorities that he appeared in a videotape of a Chechen training camp.

If this has been proved to be a case of mistaken identity, do you accept that there WASN'T "good enough reason to detain him"?

A simple question.



A member of my family was once arrested for a serious criminal offence, on the basis that the police genuinely believed him to be the individual caught on video battering hell out of a police inspector.

Accompanied by a lawyer, I sat through hours of police tapes until we established beyond any doubt whatsoever that the assailant was someone else, wearing similar clothes.

Having seen the tapes, I understand how the mistaken identity came about. But I am still certain of one thing. "No smoke without fire" is a piss-poor argument to deploy in any legal context, particularly when liberty is at stake.

So you are telling me this bloke was wanted by two separate governments due to a case of mistaken identity? Righto, why hasn't he been able to prove it in 5 years then?

With all that time on his hands and the fact that he was studying law you would have thought he would have been able to drum up a pretty watertight case. Ah well if you don't put time in you won't reap the rewards.

 

[nobody's dupe]

Any damage in Queen Street GNF?

 

[clapham_gull]

Righto, why hasn't he been able to prove it in 5 years then?

Again, I'll reiterate I really don't have opinion yet either way- but I've done a little bit of reading about him.

To answer the above point - his family organised having the video checked out eventually. I don't think they knew about it's existence initially.

A few on here seem to completely misunderstand how the prison he was in operates. It isn't a normal prison where you end after after your case has been tried before a judge and jury.

You can simply be suspected of something and imprisoned there indefinately.

It's outside of the borders of the United States and their normal laws don't apply. In fact it couldn't exist within the United States.

I undestand the Americans also claim it doesn't come under the Geneva convention either. Yep, the sort of place where there isn't an awful lot of lot of scope to be able to prove your innocence. Surely you understand that ?

The right thing to happen if he is suspected of something and there is evidence. is for the authories to prove his guilt the normal way.

That may happen now, now we've actually been given the CHANCE.

Are you suggesting this normal practice should be simply thrown out the window ? There's a direct question.

( As for him being able to prove his innocence to the Spanish Government, or for them to prove his guilt - Neither has had a chance, the Spanish have been trying to get him extradicted, but the Americans simply ignored them )

 

[Arthur]

Are you suggesting this normal practice should be simply thrown out the window ? There's a direct question.

Yes, that is exactly what I am saying. If this bloke or anyone else for that matter is suspected of being a terrorist I don't want him walking the same streets as me/my family until he's proven his innocence....which he clearly hasn't been able to do.

 

[clapham_gull]

Yes, that is exactly what I am saying. If this bloke or anyone else for that matter is suspected of being a terrorist I don't want him walking the same streets as me/my family until he's proven his innocence....which he clearly hasn't been able to do.

Ok, that's your opinion and I'm not going to argue.

Just to be clear you are suggested that in the case of terrorism, there should be a special exemption to "guilty until proven innocent" ?

That's quite interesting, from a legal and logistic point of view. I'm interested how you would suggest the courts, police etc.. would handle such a drastic change in the law and whether you would like it to be extended to any other forms of criminality.

One other point because I think I'm missing something. In what way has he been unable to prove his innocence. You seem have a bit more of an insight than I have into the Cuban facility.

 

[BigGully]

The "good enough reason to detain him in the first place" appears to be ONLY that they were told by the Spanish authorities that he appeared in a videotape of a Chechen training camp.

If this has been proved to be a case of mistaken identity, do you accept that there WASN'T "good enough reason to detain him"?

A simple question.



A member of my family was once arrested for a serious criminal offence, on the basis that the police genuinely believed him to be the individual caught on video battering hell out of a police inspector.

Accompanied by a lawyer, I sat through hours of police tapes until we established beyond any doubt whatsoever that the assailant was someone else, wearing similar clothes.

Having seen the tapes, I understand how the mistaken identity came about. But I am still certain of one thing. "No smoke without fire" is a piss-poor argument to deploy in any legal context, particularly when liberty is at stake.

Your defence seems to be inconsistence:

Firstly you told me this on 18/12/2007

He was arrested in Pakistan, following action by bounty hunters. No mention of Spain.

Yesterday you told me this:

It was the Spanish intelligence service who wrongly identified Omar Deghayes as the Chechen rebel, Abu Walid.

It seems any Country irrespective of evidence will be dismissed by you.

Thats fine as this is your defence but I guess there is more damning evidence to come.

Now if the only evidence that Spain, Britain, USA have is the videotape tape then you say:

'That tape was then able to be scrutinised by experts and it was demonstrated beyond doubt that the individual alleged to be Omar Deghayes was, in fact, not him, but someone else'

Now my point is that you keep saying that the ONLY evidence are these tapes that alledgedly contain Omar.

Ok

And these have already been scrutinised by experts and 'demonstrated beyond doubt' was not him.

Ok

So if this is the case then why do Spain wish to charge him and put him on trial.

I gotta feeling they dont agree with you.

 

[clapham_gull]

Your defence seems to be inconsistence:

Firstly you told me this on 18/12/2007

He was arrested in Pakistan, following action by bounty hunters. No mention of Spain.

Yesterday you told me this:

It was the Spanish intelligence service who wrongly identified Omar Deghayes as the Chechen rebel, Abu Walid.

It seems any Country irrespective of evidence will be dismissed by you.

Thats fine as this is your defence but I guess there is more damning evidence to come.

Now if the only evidence that Spain, Britain, USA have is the videotape tape then you say:

'That tape was then able to be scrutinised by experts and it was demonstrated beyond doubt that the individual alleged to be Omar Deghayes was, in fact, not him, but someone else'

Now my point is that you keep saying that the ONLY evidence are these tapes that alledgedly contain Omar.

Ok

And these have already been scrutinised by experts and 'demonstrated beyond doubt' was not him.

Ok

So if this is the case then why do Spain wish to charge him and put him on trial.

I gotta feeling they dont agree with you.

The tapes have been disproved sorry, by this country's expect on face recognition.

I understand the Spainish believe he is part of a terror cell, I don't know why but I don't it's anything to do with the tape.

I also don't think even the Spanish think he is anything to do with the Madrid Bombings.

At the end of day LB isn't the blokes solicitor, although it's quite amusing reading you trying to act like the barrister for the prosecution

- there's plenty of stuff on the BBC etc.. if you want to read about the case.

That's all I've read.

( There's nothing inconsistent about the Pakistan arrest, Spain connection etc.. )

You're right though, the Spanish obviously don't agree with LB, well spotted