Aamer is not a UK citizen, is he?

2 – Nope, he’s a Saudi. Lived in Britain for 5 years until 2001 when he moved to Afghanistan.

In fact, I think he lived for longer in the US than in the UK. Hard to see why he’s especially our problem.

Detention of anyone without a trial is unacceptable.

I thought the President you campaigned for was supposed to be shutting Gitmo?

He’s not a British resident either. What with him not being resident in Britain. He’s “someone who used to live in Britain”.

Cleared for release but the US doesn’t want to return him to UK.

Question: why the expletive does the US get a say?

Maybe he should just return to Afghanistan.
If he’s a Saudi fundamentalist he’d be better off there than in Britain.
Fighting back with hunger striking is never something I would endorse. It can cover up the crimes of murder with poems and supossed heroism (like with the IRA).
This is what Shaker Aamer says himself:

These are dark hours in a dark, dark pit. Yet I can see the light: well over 100 prisoners are striking in solidarity. We’re not going to take it any more. But let me be clear: we are not begging to be treated better. We are demanding that our basic human rights be respected.

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/shaker-aamer-i-may-have-to-die-i-hope-not-i-want-to-see-my-family-again-8581966.html

Some of those 100 prisoners will be dedicated holy warriors and sworn enemies of modernity.

If he’s suspected of committing a crime put him on trial and let justice take its course. Locking people up without trial is using Kafka as a guidebook and in many ways gives in to the people who want to harm us – what are we supposed to be defending if not liberal democracy and all that those two words imply ?

@8 – maybe he hasn’t commited any crime.
Is being a Taliban supporter a crime?
It probably isn’t.
But we still might not want him back in the UK.

@damon

Since when was thoughtcrime something to actively pursue rather than reject?

The thing is ludicrous pseudonym, he isn’t a British citizen. He was only a resident.
Therefore I think it’s OK to be discriminating against him. There’s a big question mark over his character, He comes from a whack-job country where they don’t even allow non-muslims to visit as tourists. Why should ”we” have him back? His own country Saudia Arabia has a very well funded programme for welcoming back former jihadists.

Deprogramming Jihadists

@11

Hmmm, but no. Being a bit shifty and coming from a dodgy country aren’t crimes (yet). There are such crimes as supporting terrorism, inciting violence, hell even reading banned literature can get you a suspended sentence these days http://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk/news/9905985.Burnley_man_accused_of_auctioning_Anarchist_s_Cookbook_on_internet_refused_permission_for_charity_walk/

But locking someone – anyone – up without trial and without charges is a “red line”, to steal a phrase, and should be opposed everywhere by anyone who gives a shit about human rights. I repeat – if someone has committed a crime, or is suspected of doing so, put them on trial. Once upon a time this wasn’t a controversial standpoint to take.

@12. I think he’s one of the people due for release.
The problem stems from where to send them. He’s a Saudi citizen so I suppose he should go back there.
No problem, it looks like they are well catered for there. If he wants to return to Britain …. why should we accept him? There are enough jihadist supporting nutters who are British citizens that we are stuck with (see today’s headlines for more examples), so having obligations to foreign ones is asking too much I think. He left the UK and went to Taliban run Afghanistan. Maybe if he wants to come back to the UK, he better do some explaining first.
Or else were going to get stuck with ”the tyrany of human rights.” It’s undemocratic.