The Forum at Handcuffs.Org

Hiatts Protest

31 visible archived posts · 31 preserved total · topic ID 891

Sanija 09 Sep 2005

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4225000.stm

Mike 09 Sep 2005

More pictures at

http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2005/09/322788.html and
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2005/09/322784.html

Looks like a small and orderly demonstration. The protesters are opposed to the export of handcuffs and other shackles, especially to the US as Hiatts products seem to be the favoured restraints at Guantanamo Bay. I suspect the management of Hiatts secretly enjoys the attention and any additional sales which result.

The UK does not restrict the manufacture, posession, import and export of handcuffs, but does restrict the export of leg irons, oversized cuffs which can be used as leg irons and single cuffs, not part of a pair. There is an ongoing enquiry by HM Customs and Excise into the export by Hiatts of these items.

Has anyone here ever visited the factory? I imagine they'd be a bit reluctant to receive curious visitors right now.

The Amazing Michael 09 Sep 2005

Do the idiots in the "pride march" out in front of the Hiatt factory realize that we do not need to import Hiatt cuffs into the states? Has anyone ever heard of Smith & Wesson? Peerless? Yuil? Kyoung? ASP? Tri-Lock? Clejuso? Saf-lok? Alcyon?....need I go on??? That was just off the top of my head.....without even trying! I think that we would do fine without a single pair of Hiatt cuffs entering the states. In fact, it could all go back to my argument about handcuffs vs. duct tape or a short piece of cord. If someone's hands are in need of restraint, then someone will find a way to restrain them....with or without handcuffs. Someone needs to silence the "call of the flower children".....the 1960's and 70's are over, deal with it! Just my thoughts. Mike

Mark Lyons 09 Sep 2005

What is the matter with these people? Are they that concerned that these detainees might be a little uncomfortable while restraints are applied to their wrists or ankles? Don't they realize that these people would love nothing more than to sit out in front of their house or business and car bomb their entire neighborhood if given the chance? These people are cold blooded killers and need to be locked up as tight as a drum to prevent that exact scenario from happening. They are not that worried about your being comfortable while you are in the emergency room if you even make it that far.

If these well fed and Red Cross inspected murderers are in jail cells already, how often are they locked up in restraints anyway?

How would they know if Hiatt is supplying these cuffs in the first place? It seems odd that the U.S. military would be purchasing Hiatts products but I suppose its possible. If it would shut the protesters up, then I suggest that these killers are locked up in a different brand cuff. Perhaps the high security Clejuso might be better suited.
m

josef5 09 Sep 2005

Yes, I absolutely agree with Mark.
Restrictions for export of handcuffs are the worst thing, in fact it is possible to buy a bomb or material for it´s manufacturing anywhere in the world and there are no restrictions for this and in case of cuffs used for blocking these dangerouns people restrictions exist. It seems that people are not alive to how these people are dangerous, because I don´t know why they hold brief for these terrorists.
I think each person has a right for security and peaceful life and if somebody is not alive to this, then must be isolated - it is a choice of everybody...

Josef

Mike 09 Sep 2005

In response to Mark, I think the protesters are concerned that not everyone currently or previously detained in Guantanamo Bay is guilty - there have been no convictions, and feel the military tribunal does not provide the same protection for the defendants rights as a 'proper' trial in the United States would. A number of detainees, including four claiming to be British Citizens have been released without charge, suggesting that there is insufficient evidence to convict them of anything. They are also concerned about conditions for all detainees, innocent and guilty.

It is thought that Hiatts restraints are involved because former detainees have reported seeing the words "HIATTS MADE IN ENGLAND" stamped into them.

It is odd that the US Military chooses to use imported handcuffs, given the number of US manufacturers. Maybe Hiatts handcuffs are considered to be of higher quality than those of US manufacture. Certainly security is likely to be an issue in the choice of restraints, given the nature of some of the detainees.

There are a small number of countries where the posession of handcuffs by the public is forbidden. Including, I think at least one Australian state. There really is little point in governments imposing restrictions on import/export/posession of handcuffs - the metalworking skills required to construct them are available to anyone.

Dorson 09 Sep 2005

Sighs, Clueless wonders running loose again... Sounds like the bull shit in this country(USA) about holding gun manufacturers liable if someone kills someone. Is that what is going to happen next here, they sue Hiatts because they think they there handcuffs are being used inappropiately? What proof is there? The reason they are picking on Hiatts is they are just a small company. Do they dare do there protest outside the American Embassy? Do you think the British Government would give them a permit to do such a thing? Guns don't kill people, people kill people and a gun is merely a tool like a knives, ice picks, 2x4's, baseball bats, tires irons, swords, etc. What are they going to pick on next? The companies that make plastic nylon wire ties for restraints and many other useful purposes like in electrical, electronic, automotive, etc. They need to F**king grow up!!!!!! Why doesn't Hiatts turn around and sue them for damages to there image, lost production time, etc.????

-Dorson

Mike 09 Sep 2005

Khalid Mahmood, Labour Member of Parliament for Birmingham Perry Bar, where the Hiatts factory is located has just been interviewed on BBC Radio 4's 'PM' news program. He compared Hiatts' manufacture of restraints to Afghan farmers growing the opium poppy, and claims he will be meeting the company on Monday to discuss how they can diversify out of what he described as an immoral trade.

I wonder if he knows where the handcuffs used by nearly all UK police officers, including those who guard the Houses of Parliament, come from. I expect the management will be quite keen to enliten him.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/news/pm 'listen to the latest program' if anyone's interested.

Mark Lyons 09 Sep 2005

So if Khalid Mahmood, Labour Member of Parliament for Birmingham Perry Bar, where to come home and see the joint ransacked, his safe pried open and his mattress slit, would he go down to the police station and ask the cops that took the crooks into custody if they were given Hiatt Handcuffs to wear? If the answer was yes, do you think he would ask if they were placed upon their wrists tightly or was there room enough to slide in an index finger? If they were tight, he better get down to the immoral trade Hiatt factory, bring a megaphone with him and call the press. Wish these people would get a life. Don't they have a job to go to?
m

Dorson 09 Sep 2005

#10

Mark et al,
He dabbles in politics and he gets media exposure that way, look what I tried to do to help my fellow Muslims.... I would like to be a fly on the wall when he goes to Hiatts offices and tries to talk to them... And yes all, if you haven't figured it out yet, Khalid Mahmood is a member of the Clueless Wonder Club and is an opportunist to boot... And that ranks right up there with Amnesty International's people who think that legirons are cruel devices. Yup, if you were reading carefully, some of them are members of the Clueless Wonder Club and opportunists among those ranks too...
Now how many manufacturers of restraints are there in the UK besides Hiatts left? Is Chubb still making them, TKS? What if there are no manufacturers left, where are they going to get there supplies? And they are going to have to rely on imports which is just plain dumb to me. That means the loss of more jobs and adds to the burden of unemployment...
Hey, I just got an idea, how about tatoo'ing on there forehead "Clueless" so it will make others job easier and know not to listen to them. I know I know, that is not politically correct and wrong... I better stop before I say something I will regret....

-Dorson

Klaus 16 Sep 2005

#11

Hi there all,

A cumulative reply from my side.

Yes, restraints technology is not rocket science, and there exist several
legal sources inside and outside the US. Please exclude Clejuso and Alcyon,
they are within the EU and thus must not export legirons to non-EU countries.

The assumption of innocence until one is proven to be guilty by a proper court,
this I consider a very significant cultural achievement. Non-negotiable.
As is the right to peaceful protest. Do not let your temper carry you away.

Yes, handcuffs are mere tools as are other potentially harmful items.
So far so bad.
But this misses the point. There are suspicions that at some point Hiatts
did breach the law that prohibits the sale of legirons to non-EU countries.
Investigations are still ongoing and thus Hiatts is still in the firing line.
If these british-made legirons encountered in Guantanamo or elsewhere in the US
turn out to have the wrong serial numbers, Hiatt will be in deep shit.

As a side remark, the UK media are not the tame lap-dogs you may be accustomed to
in the US, quite a few newspapers do have a well-earned rottweiler reputation.
It is not a good thing to have the wrong kind of publicity over here so Hiatts
is well advised to keep a low profile. If you are in a hole, stop digging.

Standards having slipped in the last few years in Washington regarding prisoners,
human rights having been breached with administration condoning such practice,
having these sad facts on record is the main issue. Leaving the potential law
infringement of Hiatts aside, what these demonstrators ask of Hiatts
is the analogy of "not to sell arms to a known criminal".

And regarding British nationals in Guantanamo detention returning to the UK,
I would not be surprised at all if news were to come out in future reporting
instances of non-professional use of restraints.

Best regards

Klaus

Edward 17 Sep 2005

#12

Hey Klaus!

"Sell arms to a known criminal?" I do hope you're not making references to the United States of America. If you are you're one sad individual! BTW, Hiatts leg irons are made here in the USA & I don't see anything wrong with that.

BTW Hiatts is one of the best restraint companies on the market.

Edward.

Klaus 24 Sep 2005

#13

Hi Edward,

Yes, this "not to sell arms to a known criminal" in attempting
to explain the motivation of these protesters, it does indeed
make reference to institutions of the United States of America.

And how did you guess that I am sad? I have just finished my
online newspaper reading, and the headline on NZZ Online (CH)
"Neue Foltervorwürfe gegen US-Soldaten" (Reuters uses the words
"New Accounts of Torture by U.S. Troops" regarding the U.S. Army's
82nd Airborne Division) does not make happy reading, and NZZ is
indeed a quality newspaper. Some structural things are wrong there.

These days it is Hiatt-Thompson (US) that do manufacture legirons.
No problem here. Before this ban was introduced, it was Hiatts (UK).
This UK investigation examines whether Hiatts exported legirons or
legiron parts after this export ban had been introduced.

But handcuffs and some other police material can still be legally
exported from the UK to the US. Now these protesters state that
standards of US security forces have slipped and ask Hiatts not
to trade with the US at this time. Hiatts may ignore them.

You probably have noticed that this is much more than a legal issue.
Politics and public opinion are heavily involved, the UK media
do cover this, what legally right can be morally wrong, and maybe
Hiatts may loose some customers guided by moral considerations.

And before you brush this aside, let me tell you about first hand
observations that by their directness shocked me, for instance
- military officers identifying the 2nd Irak war as an aggression;
- private opinion close to high-level administration talking about
the unlawfulness of the abovementioned war (with UK involvement);
- an international community of researchers dismissing outright
the idea of holding a conference in the US because of severe visa
problems affecting a significant number of colleagues.
Maybe already this small list of observations in several European
countries lets you understand why the reputation of the
US administration is pretty tarnished.

Back on topic. Hiatts is one of the better manufacturers around,
but their handcuffs tend to have somewhat sharp edges. While this
is ok when used in arrest situations, it is inappropriate for
escorting arrestees and prisoners and even more so when each
and every police car passenger is handcuffed behind the back.

Short of using Chubb Escort or other dedicated cuffs,
for escorting purposes with standard handcuffs I'd look
at Smith&Wesson or Yuil or the discontinued AHC cuffs.

Best regards

Klaus

Bruce Thomson 25 Sep 2005

#14

Okay, now the issue has been brought up about Hiatts having sharp edges as if this may be a reason for not wanting their use on those already in the care of corrections officials rather than street policing.
Well, if you are under arrest you were supposed to have done something wrong. Yes in most places on earth you would have rights, but to be honest they start to shrink in volume the moment you step outside the law.
Why should the law protect to the same level those who commit acts against law abiding citizens?
I am not in favour of deliberate cruelty to the convicted (or even those awaiting trial), but the concept of punishment is unfairly disregarded by modern lawmakers.
But lets be honest about something here - the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay are not criminals, they are under suspicion of being terrorists. Terrorists are not deserving of basic human rights as they surrendered any claim to being human.
The clowns who demanded the restrictions placed on the exporting of Hiatt leg irons are working towards having every tool used to protect our way of life removed and in so doing give free reign to those who are antagonistic towards the Western World.
Whenever I have had to babysit a suspect in our holding room I have no choice about how I treat them. They have to exhibit agressive behaviour before I can restrain them to the holding room wall. If they were agressive when arrested then we go striaght to the bar, but otherwise they get to loaf around the room hands free. I have to provide them with a washroom if needed. I have to correctly read them their rights (many of them start reciting them along with me as they have been arrested often enough) and provide them with access to legal representation.
My paper work has to be spot on, all my statements properly dated, noted, and checked. I cannot ask them questions due to our current privacy act, so if they have no identification on them I can't even read the charge and caution to them - which is why a lot of the criminal element have stopped carrying I.D. - which causes a lengthy delay in processing the paperwork and could even jeapordize the arrest.
I use either Peerless or Smith & Wesson at work (depending on which pair are at hand), I have even used American Munitons cuffs. I have NEVER had anyone sit still to have cuffs put on their wrists. In the struggle to restrict their movement the cuffs are put on without regard to what position the keyhole is in, or if the hands are both facing outward - just get the damn things on! Once the action phase has died down, the cuffs are adjusted to ensure the suspect is not being injured by them. Throughout the time the suspect is in our custody the cuffs and wrists are checked frequently to ensure all is in order. As I said, I am not interested in cruelty.
Even so, I have on occasion longed to be allowed to use the leg irons I have in my locker, as some suspects are just not interested in keeping their legs still, kicking walls, the desk, my coworkers, even me. But I am not allowed to as their use is considered too brutal to madam justice, who decides what equipment I can and cannot use.
Do not let these protests deter any of you who are in the fight against terrorism.

Klaus 25 Sep 2005

#15

Hi Bruce,

First thank you very much for your insight in daily police work.
Never been in that position myself I can only refer to my short
experience as a paramedic, but certainly one does experience some
remarkable situations there as well.

Back to this minor issue of Hiatts handcuffs being sharper.
If you look at the speedcuffs, yes if he police officer graps
the handle in order to control an unruly person, it should hurt.
This is a feature, not a bug.

If you have done something wrong, yes, there are consequences.
But you certainly have also arrested innocent persons, hopefully
not that often, but I bet it happened. I assume you can look
straight into their faces after the suspicion has cleared away.

> Terrorists are not deserving of basic human rights
> as they surrendered any claim to being human.

Sorry, one cannot forfeit his basic humans right.
And Guantanamo inmates are still under suspicion.
Talking proper trials in front of proper courts regarding 9/11,
I think the current status is two trials with one conviction
in Hamburg, Germany. I do not know what the current appeal status is.

Guantanamo the model of the Western World? After some details leaked,
I have to say " no thank you". And terrorists not being criminals?
I remember Thomas Jefferson being branded a terrorist in colonial
times, along with his companions in sprit. Get that bastard as well?

Cheers

Klaus

Mike 26 Sep 2005

#16

Dostoevsky wrote that if you want to understand a society you should look inside its prisons. Even if you believe that convicted prisoners should have no rights at all, should the purpose of prison be to reform or merely to punish. Which approach minimises the risk of reoffending. And what if you were arrested on suspicion of an offence you had not committed, or even one which you had. How do you think you should be treated?

The treatment of prisoners in some US institutions says much about American society.

Bruce Thomson 26 Sep 2005

#17

Hi Klaus. I must state that I am not a police officer, just in case some nit pickers grouse about that. I work in security, so my authority is minimized by that. Got to keep the record straight.
I simply feel that terrorists forfeit the basic rights to fair treatment as they themselves have utterly no regard for those they attack.
When someone claims mistreatment at Guantanamo Bay I am ambivilant at best, as the lessons of Abhu graib (spelling not correct?) are probably taken into account there by now.
Abuse takes place in prisons around the world, also hospitals, care homes, homes, workplaces, neighborhoods and tourist attractions. Anywhere anyone cares to name.
In many places, people are in prison for what they believe, not what they did. People are in jail because of racial discrimination or oppression of class.

I believe that, in spite of the number of blameless people that may be in prisons, the vast majority of inmates are in because they should be.

Hiatt, and many other companies that manufacture restraints, probably spend a great deal of time dealing with issues of potential misuse when designing their handcuffs and leg irons.

Tim 02 Oct 2005

#18

I agree with quite a few people on this board and think we are the silent majority. I consider myself to be a patriotic American and proud gun-owner so I've been down this argument many times before.

My main issue is this... We have some bleeding heart types in this country who down seem to get the slightest bit upset when one of our innocent people gets their head cut off in gruesome fashion. Take the person into custody that wielded the sword and all of a sudden they're ready to protest on thier behalf. You can't be politically correct when trying to deal with these type of people; although we seem to be doing it everyday for fear of "profiling". Sometimes you just feel like common sense conviction-led conscience is obsolete in today's society. Today we always have to try and see the other side.

Of course you must realize that England is a much different country then the U.S. Unless the press here is wrong, you shoot an intruder in your house with a handgun in England and you're probably going to do more jail time than the intruder.

Remember that "horrible" photo of the man cuffed to the bed with underwear over his head? Let me take a little poll here. Give these two options which one would you take?

A. Cuffed to the bed with undies over your head
B. Head whacked off with a nice sharp sword.

Pretty easy choice for myself. America will always be resented but let's be realistic, we're very humane compared to others. Personally, I'd been more offended if my tax dollars were going to make them too comfortable.

We can find other cuffs for the military if they want to cry and protest. Like others said, you can tie someone up with about anything and it wouldn't be near as comfortable.

Tim

brumdocdave 06 Oct 2005

#19

Talk about jumping into the lions den...here goes!
A lot of you are missing the point. I am the Birmingham doctor that organised this protest...none of us are saying to Hiatts stop making cuffs, they clearly make very good cuffs as they are very popular, just don't send them to regimes which ignore human rights!
Hiatts refuse to answer any questions regarding their role in Guantanamo, as has the Prime Minister and no less than 3 government ministers...basically because I think they are embarrassed.
This is about a company taking corporate responsibility and a government (ie the US and the UK) ensuring that a due legal process takes place- neither of these are occurring in Guantanamo. Hiatts have always flown 'close to the wind'-from the slave trade onwards(under investigation by HM Customs for alleged illegal exports of "oversize handcuffs" for >2 years now; http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/west ... 100308.stm), it seems entirely appropriate that they answer the legitimate questions we ask of their business practices, they choose not to (as do our elected representatives).

You may well ask, why do I care? I'm from Northern Ireland- internment was a disaster there (increased support for IRA, increased terrorism etc), we are repeating the same mistakes again...just on a global scale. I am no friend of terrorists or human rights abuses. (I can still recall with horror many years ago living in the US, the idiot American I met who was proud of the $50 a month they sent to support the IRA, the next day the IRA blew up Harrods). To top it all, we now have a hunger strike in Gitmo, at least the IRA hunger strikers had actually been convicted of an offence, no-one in Gitmo has been convicted of anything after over 3 years.

Agree/disagree with me? Go to http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/actionnetwork/G1275 follow the links and then vote. At least I have the courage to face my critics, the chairman of Hiatts does not sadly.
Human rights have been the first victim in the war terror, rights that our predecessors fought tooth and nail to have. When we give up the right to a fair trial and innocent until proven guilty, we have truly lost the plot as a democracy. If you still cannot follow this argument, stop watching Fox News, and read more widely!
Why do we target Hiatts, for the reasons listed above, and for the same reasons we targetted Barclays in apartheid South Africa.

Regards

Brum Doc Dave

(with Terry Waite in photo below- a man who knows what being held without charge for years on end is like)

Unresolved image reference ↗

Rowan Whitehead 06 Oct 2005

#20

I would just like to say that while you are all arguing very elequontly for why the protesters are wasting their time, in my opinion,
a)everyone is contradicting each other. At one point it is hopeless targetting this compnay becasue they are too small to matter, at another they are the best company around and as such should be left alone. make your minds up!
b)as brumdocdave says, the main point here is that the protestors are moral people who think it is wrong to send help to a place where lives are being abused. Maybe I'm naive, but frankly I don't care, and I beleive that hurting other people is never going to help, no matter what they have done. I'm not attacking America, because every country in the world is guilty of it, but Guantanamo bay is a prime example. And a few people are being brave enough to show that they believe pointless cruelty is wrong. I will always support that.

Steve Santini 06 Oct 2005

#21

Put simply...

Handcuffs and related restraints will always be needed and used.

Simple like that.

Steve Santini

www.thedarkmaster.com

cuffman 06 Oct 2005

#22

I probably will be the first lion to 'attack' you in this 'den' but as Engish is not my native language, you should excuse me in advance for all language-errors before and after.

I live in Belgium and I can agree with your point of view concerning the rights of the people who are kept in the Guantanamo facility without any form of trial. Over here, this just would not be possible without any major form of protest from our side, the people. In my opinion, people who are in the Guatanamo prison, have been captured in some way which seemed appropriate to the US governement to consider them as being a threath to our way of life (being that true or not, I won't argue).

As I am only a collector of restraints, I do not want to get any further into this political matter but I do believe that the questioning about which brand of restraints used over there is a bit of, well, I don't know how to say it in proper English; euhm, quite idiotic or at least superfluous. If the US governement decides to keep people imprisonned, they will (and should) be able to use all means available to them. If they are not allowed to use a prime-British brand, they'll use whatever means available, which would mean a lesser care concerning the 'prisoners' wel-behaving (is this corect English?).

Just as a last note, you should consider this not being the place to spaw any political opinions (just disregard the attacks you've read here before) but just consider this as a place where we (restraint-collectors!) change opinions.

I just mean, I can read everyone's opinion here but I don't have to agree in any way. In the last couple of years (being a collector), I only met one fellow US-collector in person (I can't help the fact that he's the Guinness world record holder; sorry Stan) and it was a very nice experience to me. Next year I am organising a 'gathering' of European collectors over here in Belgium and I hope it will be a nice experience fot everyone. I just want to say that I don't need an explanation of any kind to bring a set of the 'evil' Hiatt's leg-irons to our meeting.

Anyway, hope to see all of you European collectors over here in Antwerp (I did reserve and pay the meeting-room) next year.

Best regards,

Peter
http://users.pandora.be/cuffman/index.htm

ps, I'm sorry for the shape of my site at this point but I lost all my data in a double computercrash so I guess, I'll just have to start from scratch.

By the end of the year, I should have everything online.

Cheers,

Peter
http://users.pandora.be/cuffman/index.htm

Bruce Thomson 06 Oct 2005

#23

I see a little more clearly the concern that the protesters have. I still feel that they are going about it back asswards. I have paid only minor attention to protest movements throught my life from the late 60s to now, and I feel that so many sincere causes have been diluted by those who protest over trivial issues. I cannot see the British government or Hiatt being responsible over the so called abuse of Guantanamo detainees. What proof is there that the damn leg irons corrupted base guards to torture prisoners? An email sent by a friend had a great point which I repeat here;
If guns kill people then;
Pencils cause spelling erorrs
forks made Rosy fat

Now we can add;
Leg Irons make U.S. guards torture detainees

brumdocdave 07 Oct 2005

#24

As I said it is about corporate responsibility, ALL of us have a responsibility to act in an ethical way in our professions. I, as a doctor, have to act in ethical manner with my patients. Likewise, politicians should not tell untruths, soldiers shouldnt torture people, and shackle makers shouldnt provide those who utilise torture with restraints. As I said before, we need companies like Hiatts to make cuffs, just like we need gunmakers to make guns and politicians to lead us- but they must act responsibly.

If Hiatts take the profits (and they have done VERY well financially from the war on terror)and know what is happening in Gitmo, they also take some of the responsibility. We have given the opportunity to Hiatts to show to the World that they are a responsible manufacturer of handcuffs and restraints. They have declined our offer. If I could ask one question to the chairman of Hiatts, it would be this, who would you NOT sell your restraints to? Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe, the Burmese government?? Where would they draw the line, or is it case of we dont give a monkey, as long as we make money thats OK.

Finally, many people in the UK think of Guantanamo as just being an American problem when it is now clear that the UK is clearly involved in both the detention, interrogation (via MI5) and restraint (via Hiatts) of the individuals being held in Guantanamo. The UK government is failing its residents by not intervening. British residents such as Omar Deghayes are now being held in Hiatts restraints and are at imminent risk of death due to hunger strike. All they ask is that the Geneva convention be applied and that they have a fair trial.

Omar Deghayes is Libyan born but he and his family were granted permanent asylum to remain in the UK in 1986 after his father was assassinated by Col Gaddafis secret service. After 9/11, he was kidnapped and ransomed to the US authorities for a reported $5000. He was transferred to Guantanamo in September 2002. No charges have ever been brought, and following an assault by a US soldier, he has been left blind in his right eye. The basis for Omars detention finally began to emerge in a BBC Newsnight investigation (February 2005). An episode of the US tabloid television programme Americas Most Wanted, identified Omar as a Chechen rebel. Not only was the male in the videotape not Omar, the BBC later confirmed they had made a positive identification of one Abu Walid, a Chechen rebel who was killed in April 2004.

I am not aware of any country that imprisons someone for resembling a dead person, but that appears to Mr Deghayes sole crime. Instead of releasing or charging him, the US authorities have kept him and even flown the Libyan secret service (remember these guys blew up the PanAm jumbo over Lockerbie!) to Guantanamo who have interviewed him twice and threatened to kill him if he is returned to Libya to share the same fate as his father. The UK government have refused to intervene as he is a British resident rather than citizen - a view which many find morally reprehensible,

Clearly Hiatts has nothing directly to do with the ongoing detention of Mr Deghayes. Nonetheless, they supply the very restraints that hold Mr Deghayes and over 500 other individuals in a regime which has been criticised by many including its own military, ex President Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, Sen John McCain, the UN, International Red Cross and International Bar Association as being illegal and involving torture.
Guantanamo is a quagmire of the US/UK governments making- but Hiatts also have their role to play. If you agree with me write to your MP or Congressman about Guantanamo. If you dont agree having read all of this, then I wish you a good life, and am glad I got you thinking about the issues, if even for a moment!
I have no further comment you will be glad to hear but follow the links for more info http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/actionnetwork/G1275

Brum Doc Dave.

monica 07 Oct 2005

#25

First off, you're in the wrong place.

You are nothing but a terrorist advocate and sympathizer w/ a vitriolic anti-American and anti-British disposition. Hiatts is merely the vehicle you've chosen for propagating a bogus and sinister cause. Terrorists should be tortured within an inch of death every moment of their lives. Those who offer them solace and harbor deserve the same.

If you want to do what's ethical, then take up a worthy cause; be an advocate for the families of those innocents killed by terrorists. Now, that would be Ethical!

There is no logic in your argument that would compel me to read any nonsensical response you might bluster up. So, be assured I won't bother. You just need to know that there are people who think you're FOS. Now, GTFO here!

Mike 07 Oct 2005

#26

Monica, of course is a troll, and a foul mouthed one at that. But there are significant differences between European and American attitudes to human rights, and those differences are reflected here. The European attitude is that some rights are too important to ever be lost or waived, such as the right to due process and a fair and prompt trial, the treatment of prisoners, the right to life and the right to be protected from torture. As a result, reported conditions in Guantanamo Bay cause far more concern in Europe than in the US.

It may be argued that the need to protect the public from terror is so important that some rights have to be suspended or waved, and that some individuals, through their actions should forfit their rights. The experience of countries which have suffered from terrorism for far longer than the US is that sinking to the terrorists level does not help. When acting in the name of a civilised country, or a respected army or police force, one must always maintain the highest standards of respect for the people you deal with, and ensure that you earn and maintain the support and respect of the public. As mentioned earlier, the policy of internment in Northern Ireland was a disaster.

Here we have to agree to disagree.

Jack Tanis 07 Oct 2005

#27

Dear Mike,

You have been a good voice of reason throughout this thread, which I judiciously have avoided.

For those who might appreciate a simple, no-brainer perspective, I offer this. Scroll through the messages, then pick with whom you might enjoy a friendly game of chess or other diversion, as well as whom you sense it might be prudent to avoid.

History reminds us even the Nazi war criminals leaders within the Third Reich who made command decisions and set national policy were accorded full due process. They were arrested on valid warrants, formally indicted and arraigned, provided competent counsel and given fair, impartial trials. At the time, the war-weary, beleaguered world took their guilt for granted, yet some were acquitted fully. Of those convicted, not all were convicted of all charges alleged. Whilst this failed to secure permanent peace, justice and freedom in the world, it did validate the concept of fairness and the value of an honest commitment basing judgement upon demonstrable fact. It proved the best results may be obtained without resorting to an end justifies the means approach.

However, and as usual, I digress. You have written well and wisely on this page. That deserves to be acknowledged.

Cheers,

Jack

Anonymous 07 Oct 2005

#28

Thanks for injecting some red-blooded sanity, Monica. You are right on the money - perfectly said.

As for the snivelling little girly-men playing house with Kofi....Yasser would be so proud.

Atame 07 Oct 2005

#29

Monica has forgotten to write that of course everybody is a terrorist, unless he has proven his innocence!

The European attitudes to human right, that Mike has mentioned, is what separates to good from the terrorists.

Atame 07 Oct 2005

#30

The European attitude to human rights, that Mike has mentioned, is what separates tthe good from the terrorists.

Steve Santini 07 Oct 2005

#31

Hi,

I have seen some T.V. footage of these prisoners and I have seen some Smith and Wesson leg irons in use.

Simply put, this is not just about Hiatts restraints.

Rather, it is about an obvious need for security and if one particular company does not supply the restraints to do the job rest assured there are plenty others who make devices that can also fit the bill.

If such things are needed for heightened security, then so be it and let them be used.

I find it very interesting that I don't see any of the bleeding hearts who whine about this issue start protests to ban the use of leg irons and restraint chains at U.S. and Canadian prisons where such devices are always used for prisoner transport.

Why complain about one single location where such things are in use all over the world?

If you really care, why not campaign everywhere?

Perhaps the reason this does not happen is that it will get nowhere near the media attention that the current demonstrations have.

As usual, the squeeky wheel gets the grease.

Steve Santini