Dawit is Sweden's oldest, and from what I'm aware of, only political prisoner. (He's not being held as a political prisoner in Sweden, in case you thought that.)
He was arrested by Eritrea's military police 7 years ago for being one of the owners, and news reporters, of one of the leading papers in the country, and put in jail. He's been there ever since. With him in prison is also about 10 of his colleagues, of whom 4 have died during unlawful detention so far.
No trial, no jury. If you criticize the regime you get "detained indefinitely", it seems.
He came to Sweden around 17 years ago, as a war refugee, and was granted citizenship there. He lived here for 10 years with his family, and returned to his home country once the conflict had come to a rest. If he wanted to stay there or not I don't know, but as long as he is in jail without a fair and correctly performed trial, we can't afford to ignore it, just as little as we can ignore the Guantanamo "Prison", which is just another illegal detention facility.
It is indeed illegal since the people being held there are suspected, not guilty, of terrorism. I know, if they are terrorists they should be put in jail.
But what if they're not?
How the hell do we even know that they are terrorists? If there was evidence of it, then surely there could have been a trial, right?
Or maybe the problem is that since that trial would need to take place in a international court there is the possibility that the defendant would be declared not guilty? If he/she was then detained even after the ruling, that would be a clear violation. But as it is now, it is, somehow, a smaller one. One we can seemingly ignore it seems.
For now, I'd be happy to know that Isaaks is released and able to return to his family. But when that's done, the only legal battle I'll have an interest in here in Sweden would be the FRA-law. And after we get rid of that... Who knows? Maybe I'll try and end up in Gitmo just for the hell of it? I'm quite sure it's possible, and if I did, and could have my innocense proven in my absense, that would at least put a dent in it's already doubtful credibility, right?
He was arrested by Eritrea's military police 7 years ago for being one of the owners, and news reporters, of one of the leading papers in the country, and put in jail. He's been there ever since. With him in prison is also about 10 of his colleagues, of whom 4 have died during unlawful detention so far.
No trial, no jury. If you criticize the regime you get "detained indefinitely", it seems.
He came to Sweden around 17 years ago, as a war refugee, and was granted citizenship there. He lived here for 10 years with his family, and returned to his home country once the conflict had come to a rest. If he wanted to stay there or not I don't know, but as long as he is in jail without a fair and correctly performed trial, we can't afford to ignore it, just as little as we can ignore the Guantanamo "Prison", which is just another illegal detention facility.
It is indeed illegal since the people being held there are suspected, not guilty, of terrorism. I know, if they are terrorists they should be put in jail.
But what if they're not?
How the hell do we even know that they are terrorists? If there was evidence of it, then surely there could have been a trial, right?
Or maybe the problem is that since that trial would need to take place in a international court there is the possibility that the defendant would be declared not guilty? If he/she was then detained even after the ruling, that would be a clear violation. But as it is now, it is, somehow, a smaller one. One we can seemingly ignore it seems.
For now, I'd be happy to know that Isaaks is released and able to return to his family. But when that's done, the only legal battle I'll have an interest in here in Sweden would be the FRA-law. And after we get rid of that... Who knows? Maybe I'll try and end up in Gitmo just for the hell of it? I'm quite sure it's possible, and if I did, and could have my innocense proven in my absense, that would at least put a dent in it's already doubtful credibility, right?