Pete G wrote:
Just so I've got this straight.........
A Saudi national, a self confessed Jihadist, living in Pakistan, gets caught by Americans in Afghanistan commiting a crime [for which he isn't charged] and then illegally detained by those same Americans in Cuba on suspicion of committing another, more serious crime, for which they don't have the required standard of proof . During his detention British intelligence operatives observe sections of his interrogation as they pertain to his activities whilst living in the UK, and any activities of his wife [a British National, who had chosen to become an Afghani and then Pakistani resident].
On his release, he is returned not to his chosen country of residence [Pakistan] but rather to Britain, where he sues for his illegal detention, not the country that detained him [America] the country where he was detained [technically Cuba] the country where he was originally held illegally [Afghanistan], his country of residence for not protecting his rights as a resident [Pakistan], or the country that failed to protect his rights as a citizen as they should have done [Saudi Arabia], but instead one of the countries that may have observed his interrogation but were however neither responsible for his detention, nor had any standing or responsibility to prevent it.
In order to prevent a trial and to protect the identities of their intelligence operatives, the UK government are most likely to offer a 1m+ out of court settlement.
Yep, makes perfect sense to me.
And there are thousands of Afghanis, Iraqis, and Somalis etc., trying to get from France to the UK illegally because they believe the UK is a soft touch.
Can't think where they could possibly have got that idea from
Now what have the anti Bassman bleaters got to say?