Guantanemo Bay Boys
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 449
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm surprised this thread hasn't been used as an excuse for "yank-bashing" something that's quite enjoyed around here it seems.
If you read the books regarding the initial struggles in Afghanistan, how these people ended up in Cuba etc you'll realise that it's quite possible, although not proven, that some people were only there because of bad judgement in the heat of battle.
If you read the books regarding the initial struggles in Afghanistan, how these people ended up in Cuba etc you'll realise that it's quite possible, although not proven, that some people were only there because of bad judgement in the heat of battle.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 107
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thank you Hyd3 – that was pretty much the point I was trying to make.
I know treason etc, are not legal and I have the deepest sympathy for the family/friends of anyone (on any ‘side’) who has been killed but that does not change the fact that these guys were taken and held for 3 years on the assumption that they were guilty.
Also, excuse my ignorance (this isn’t meant sarcastically) but what is the difference between a POW and an Enemy Combatant and why does this mean that they’re no longer covered by the Geneva Convention and so can be tortured, mentally if not physically?
If these people are subsequently found to be innocent then they should be recompensed up the ying yang, if not then they should be suitably punished.
Sorry if I’ve hijacked this thread somewhat but I feel quite strongly about the blatant disregard for the law and people's basic human rights which is going on in Cuba (I can’t spell Gaun….) and elsewhere.
PO
I know treason etc, are not legal and I have the deepest sympathy for the family/friends of anyone (on any ‘side’) who has been killed but that does not change the fact that these guys were taken and held for 3 years on the assumption that they were guilty.
Also, excuse my ignorance (this isn’t meant sarcastically) but what is the difference between a POW and an Enemy Combatant and why does this mean that they’re no longer covered by the Geneva Convention and so can be tortured, mentally if not physically?
If these people are subsequently found to be innocent then they should be recompensed up the ying yang, if not then they should be suitably punished.
Sorry if I’ve hijacked this thread somewhat but I feel quite strongly about the blatant disregard for the law and people's basic human rights which is going on in Cuba (I can’t spell Gaun….) and elsewhere.
PO
Moazzam Begg was 'captured' in Islamabad, the capital of Pakistan, nowhere near the battlefield. He was taken from his house in front of his daughter and his wife. He's a British citizen. He's had 600 days in solitary......
He did not "just happen to be in the combat area of Afghanistan at the time of a major offensive" and he should not be libelled as a "muslim terrorist held in Cuba, with British connections."
With his Islamic beard he's clearly more fundamentalist than his Dad, whose a typical Asian Brit - more Brit than anything else, apart from his skin colour. But that doesn't make him a terrorist.
"Moazzam Beg, 35, from Sparkbrook, Birmingham, was arrested in Pakistan last February on suspicion of links with the Taleban regime or the al-Qaeda terrorist network.
Moazzam, like his mother, was born in England; his father in India, under the British Raj. As a child, Moazzam, was by many accounts popular with school mates. Moazzam grew up in the 1970s attending a local Jewish school, chosen by his father because of its academic reputation.
After leaving school, he studied law. He helped out his father with a restaurant and opened an Islamic bookshop in the city. His father describes him as "a family man, a gentle man, an educated man".
At 12, Moazzam went to stay with relatives in Pakistan where, his father says, his interests in humanitarian work began. He performed charity work in the Asian community and told his parents that he wanted to help alleviate the suffering of fellow Muslims. In June 2001, a year before his arrest, Moazzam Begg left his home in Birmingham and moved his wife and four young children to a new life in Afghanistan. There they established a school in a remote area and worked on a project to install water pumps.
In December 2001, following the United States-led operation to remove the Taliban regime, Begg told his relatives that he was moving his family back to Pakistan. He described the situation in Afghanistan as "unbearable". The family moved to an apartment in Islamabad to wait out the strikes. They planned to return when the dust had settled. But Moazzam was arrested and the family's funds - about £8,000 - were seized, leaving Sally and the children to fend for themselves in a country where they did not speak the language.
Begg's family believe he was kidnapped in Pakistan by US authorities. He was taken to Bagram, where he was held for a year, on suspicion of passing funds to al-Qaeda and later transferred to Camp Delta. He has not seen a lawyer since he was seized."
Martin Mubanga was arrested in Zambia. Richard Belmar was captured in Pakistan. Only Feroz Abbasi was captured in Afghanistan.
In any case, what happened to:
Innocent until proven guilty.
No imprisonment without trial.
No trial without legal representation.
If there's evidence that they were traitors, or that they participated in military ops against UK forces, then let's have it and let's throw the full weight of the law at them. Otherwise, then let them go and apologise for the illegal incarceration and torture, and support any claim they make against the US for compensation.
They are British citizens or long term UK residents who have been detained without charge or trial, and who may have been tortured. It's only the fact that they've received this treatment in US hands that makes them different to other unfortunates who we wouldn't think twice about repatriating using Forces assets.
And let's be clear about what has been happening to some of those at Gitmo.
"Meanwhile, the Australian government says one of its citizens held at Guantanamo will also be released. Mamdouh Habib has been held at Guantanamo Bay for three years. He filed a lawsuit charging that in 2001 the U.S. transferred him to Egypt for 6 months, where he was electrocuted, beaten and nearly drowned. Habib alleges that while under Egyptian detention, he was hung by his arms from hooks, repeatedly shocked, nearly drowned and brutally beaten. Habib's case is only the second to describe a secret practice called "rendition," under which the CIA has sent suspected terrorists to be interrogated in countries where torture has been well documented. It is unclear which U.S. agency transferred him to Egypt. His was the first case to challenge the legality of the practice and could have implications for U.S. plans to send large numbers of Guantanamo Bay detainees to Egypt, Yemen, Saudi Arabia and other countries with poor human rights records."
"Enoch Powell - Love ya man!" Says it all. It's as ignorant and as offensive as saying: "What's all this fuss about the holocaust, I was in Colindale last week and I saw loads of Jew-boys. Never 'appened....."
He did not "just happen to be in the combat area of Afghanistan at the time of a major offensive" and he should not be libelled as a "muslim terrorist held in Cuba, with British connections."
With his Islamic beard he's clearly more fundamentalist than his Dad, whose a typical Asian Brit - more Brit than anything else, apart from his skin colour. But that doesn't make him a terrorist.
"Moazzam Beg, 35, from Sparkbrook, Birmingham, was arrested in Pakistan last February on suspicion of links with the Taleban regime or the al-Qaeda terrorist network.
Moazzam, like his mother, was born in England; his father in India, under the British Raj. As a child, Moazzam, was by many accounts popular with school mates. Moazzam grew up in the 1970s attending a local Jewish school, chosen by his father because of its academic reputation.
After leaving school, he studied law. He helped out his father with a restaurant and opened an Islamic bookshop in the city. His father describes him as "a family man, a gentle man, an educated man".
At 12, Moazzam went to stay with relatives in Pakistan where, his father says, his interests in humanitarian work began. He performed charity work in the Asian community and told his parents that he wanted to help alleviate the suffering of fellow Muslims. In June 2001, a year before his arrest, Moazzam Begg left his home in Birmingham and moved his wife and four young children to a new life in Afghanistan. There they established a school in a remote area and worked on a project to install water pumps.
In December 2001, following the United States-led operation to remove the Taliban regime, Begg told his relatives that he was moving his family back to Pakistan. He described the situation in Afghanistan as "unbearable". The family moved to an apartment in Islamabad to wait out the strikes. They planned to return when the dust had settled. But Moazzam was arrested and the family's funds - about £8,000 - were seized, leaving Sally and the children to fend for themselves in a country where they did not speak the language.
Begg's family believe he was kidnapped in Pakistan by US authorities. He was taken to Bagram, where he was held for a year, on suspicion of passing funds to al-Qaeda and later transferred to Camp Delta. He has not seen a lawyer since he was seized."
Martin Mubanga was arrested in Zambia. Richard Belmar was captured in Pakistan. Only Feroz Abbasi was captured in Afghanistan.
In any case, what happened to:
Innocent until proven guilty.
No imprisonment without trial.
No trial without legal representation.
If there's evidence that they were traitors, or that they participated in military ops against UK forces, then let's have it and let's throw the full weight of the law at them. Otherwise, then let them go and apologise for the illegal incarceration and torture, and support any claim they make against the US for compensation.
They are British citizens or long term UK residents who have been detained without charge or trial, and who may have been tortured. It's only the fact that they've received this treatment in US hands that makes them different to other unfortunates who we wouldn't think twice about repatriating using Forces assets.
And let's be clear about what has been happening to some of those at Gitmo.
"Meanwhile, the Australian government says one of its citizens held at Guantanamo will also be released. Mamdouh Habib has been held at Guantanamo Bay for three years. He filed a lawsuit charging that in 2001 the U.S. transferred him to Egypt for 6 months, where he was electrocuted, beaten and nearly drowned. Habib alleges that while under Egyptian detention, he was hung by his arms from hooks, repeatedly shocked, nearly drowned and brutally beaten. Habib's case is only the second to describe a secret practice called "rendition," under which the CIA has sent suspected terrorists to be interrogated in countries where torture has been well documented. It is unclear which U.S. agency transferred him to Egypt. His was the first case to challenge the legality of the practice and could have implications for U.S. plans to send large numbers of Guantanamo Bay detainees to Egypt, Yemen, Saudi Arabia and other countries with poor human rights records."
"Enoch Powell - Love ya man!" Says it all. It's as ignorant and as offensive as saying: "What's all this fuss about the holocaust, I was in Colindale last week and I saw loads of Jew-boys. Never 'appened....."
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: earth
Posts: 1,397
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Surely the main reason why it was so difficult for the Americans to give these chaps anything like a legal dose of justice was that in war there is little opportunity to gather evidence that can be used to convict. Had they been military then there was ample provision to detain them until at least cessation of hostilities.
They got rough justice in lieu - not the best solution but at least the Americans are doing better against the terrorists than we did against the IRA.
They got rough justice in lieu - not the best solution but at least the Americans are doing better against the terrorists than we did against the IRA.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Biggin Hill
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How Much?
Returning to the original question:
Under arrangements in support of the Freedom of Information Act, anyone can contact any member of the Armed Forces and ask them the question, and expect a reply within 20 working days.
The question must not be vexacious (I don't think this one is), and must be in writing (an email will do). Better still, see here:
Request For Information (MOD)
I can't see how such a request could reasonably be refused under the existing list of exemptions, so long as the flight took place in an RAF ac. If the flight was sub-contracted to an airline or similar, I suppose the issue of commercial confidentiality could be a player, but otherwise they should tell you.
Go on Beagle, I dare you!
BA
Who authorised that, how much did it cost, and why ?
The question must not be vexacious (I don't think this one is), and must be in writing (an email will do). Better still, see here:
Request For Information (MOD)
I can't see how such a request could reasonably be refused under the existing list of exemptions, so long as the flight took place in an RAF ac. If the flight was sub-contracted to an airline or similar, I suppose the issue of commercial confidentiality could be a player, but otherwise they should tell you.
Go on Beagle, I dare you!
BA
Rebel PPRuNer
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Toronto, Canada (formerly EICK)
Age: 51
Posts: 2,834
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Seems a bit excessive to send a C-17 to pick those lads up, regardless of circumstance.
Perhaps RAF could use something like an A319CJ (offered to Irish Air Corps as a reconfigurable cargo/bizjet aircraft) rather than using up C-17 time perhaps? Not to mention the advantages of easy movement to BA, bmi etc. who operate the civ version
Perhaps RAF could use something like an A319CJ (offered to Irish Air Corps as a reconfigurable cargo/bizjet aircraft) rather than using up C-17 time perhaps? Not to mention the advantages of easy movement to BA, bmi etc. who operate the civ version
Why?
Get them back here where they can be 'interviewed' at length in a lawful manner by our own people.
How else would you expect them to be flown back to the UK? In a ba or Virgin a/c full of eager journos?
No - if there are charges to be brought, then IF they're guilty, throw the book at them. If not, then let them go free.
Get them back here where they can be 'interviewed' at length in a lawful manner by our own people.
How else would you expect them to be flown back to the UK? In a ba or Virgin a/c full of eager journos?
No - if there are charges to be brought, then IF they're guilty, throw the book at them. If not, then let them go free.
Why can't they use Hercules aircraft to deliver this load of 'freight', if albert is good enough for our brave boys the terrorists are trying to kill, then it should be good enough for alleged terrorists, and terrorists alike.
Red On, Green On
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Between the woods and the water
Age: 24
Posts: 6,487
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
For once I'm with Hyd3 on this. We don't help our stand against terrorism or un-democratic government by supporting an ally who allows long-term detention in conditions that are at best border-line, with no trial by jury in an open court.
None of us have seen the evidence, so we can't judge the individuals. We must expect that there has been plenty of spin and not much fact, so far ...
None of us have seen the evidence, so we can't judge the individuals. We must expect that there has been plenty of spin and not much fact, so far ...
Isn't there still a DCI stating that civilian passengers may not be flown in a C-130 unless there is no feasible alternative?
Besides, Guantanamo Bay to the UK confined within the bowels of an Albert would probably be considered 'cruel and unreasonable punishment' by any lawyer with half a brain cell.
Besides, Guantanamo Bay to the UK confined within the bowels of an Albert would probably be considered 'cruel and unreasonable punishment' by any lawyer with half a brain cell.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: South of the Fens again!
Posts: 286
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A C130 wouldn't have had the legs to complete the task as required. Also, anyone that thinks that there would only be 4 pax on board (or even think of it being purely a pax lift) needs to think about the logistics of something like this more closely. Have you seen the media library footage of the last detainee recovery convoy - that was a load that wouldn't have fitted in a single C130.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: UK, sometimes!
Age: 74
Posts: 436
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why should the UK fly them here at all? The USA detained them and then flew them half way around the world to a location of their choosing, so surely on release the USA should be responsible for returning them to the country from whence they were taken or to their home country!
MadMark!!!
MadMark!!!
Navaleye,
With a remark like that you have just proven what a complete and total **** you really are.
Brakedwell,
Nice one son, any more religious bigotry and zenophobic trash in your banter box?
I have to be very careful what I say here for reasons that MAY be obvious to those who know who I am and I am sure others can make an educated guess as to why
Read what Jackonicko has written and then think long and hard about what we did with the last batch of UK detainees that were released from Guantanamo.
These people are British citizens with all the rights and privileges that accords to holders of the passport. They have been detained without trial and are innocent until proven guilty.
I can at least comment on the original question, I happen to agree with Mad_Mark, these people are where they are because of the US, it should be at the expense of the US that they are returned home.
With a remark like that you have just proven what a complete and total **** you really are.
Brakedwell,
Nice one son, any more religious bigotry and zenophobic trash in your banter box?
I have to be very careful what I say here for reasons that MAY be obvious to those who know who I am and I am sure others can make an educated guess as to why
Read what Jackonicko has written and then think long and hard about what we did with the last batch of UK detainees that were released from Guantanamo.
These people are British citizens with all the rights and privileges that accords to holders of the passport. They have been detained without trial and are innocent until proven guilty.
I can at least comment on the original question, I happen to agree with Mad_Mark, these people are where they are because of the US, it should be at the expense of the US that they are returned home.
In the scheme of things...three years at Gitmo may have not been a picnic. I also know for a fact (as best as it can be relayed from one who was there in Gitmo) there were and are detainees that had no business being held there. That comes from someone who had direct contact with the people and thus should know. That individual also said the process of sorting out just who you really had, what the truth was of their situation was, takes a lot of time to sort out.
It is not so much a matter of how these people got there....or which country they belonged to....or even how they were treated....the question is simply...are they members of or support infrastructure of terrorist organizations that intend harm to the Western democracies. The wheels of justice grind slowly....but in time justice will win out. If they have a case that can proved in court it will happen. If not....they lose.
The feel good arguments about how badly they were miss treated ignores the reality of our situation. This is not a case of legal semantics...this is a fight for survival of our way of life. All you have to do is watch a complete video of the horrific murders of the hostages to understand what we are up against....each and everyone of us. This is not a war of uniforms...it is not a war of religion....this is a war of survival. If these terrorists can obtain weapons of mass destruction they will without doubt use them to inflict the greatest harm possible.
To ignore that reality is paramount to suicide. The certainity of the Terrorists willingness to use mass murder is already demonstrated and well documented.
If we gather up an innocent person by mistake, rough up some of the known terrorists even resort to brutal torture, I can look the other way. As any trained interrogator or intelliegence officer worth his salt will testify....the hard way is not the way. The soft way is the right way....time is on our side now that we took the overt approach in Afghanistan and other places.
As the cooperation of nations improves we will be more successful...we have to be or else we are faced with a future that will be filled with horror. My vote is for hunting down the terrorists without mercy, no quarter, one result. If they are dead , they no longer present a danger to us. This is a war to the finish....we can have no half measures or we will lose. They are dedicated and have no mercy in them. We can be no different. This is a war...not a legal proceeding. In war people get mistreated and people get killed. These people are terrorists not soldiers, they wear no unifoms, they follow no code of conduct, they have no morals...they are simply butchers of other human beings.
If an innocent man got involved....then he should be able to convince the authorities of his innocense by cooperating. If he cooperates.....his case progresses.
Did these poor souls assist in the resolution of their situations or not. When you know the answer to that queston then talk to me about their plight.
FatBaldChief....sorry to burst yer bubble....the war was on for years before the concentration camps became an issue of any discussion. The troops never did fight to the death because of that....except for very limited individual cases.
Navaleye....I agree in principle....but in reality we really cannot do that....now if we had Osama....equipped with a very small stabilizing drogue chute...and lots of O2....a C-17 at about 40,000 feet.....a clear brief on which direction to swim to Diego Garcia and the time it would take for him to hit the sea....and tell him how much I miss Sandra Bradshaw who was on one of the airliners that day in September.....and happily chunk his carcass off the ramp for that long...long freefall. Hopefully he would have presence of mind to think about it on the way down.
It is not so much a matter of how these people got there....or which country they belonged to....or even how they were treated....the question is simply...are they members of or support infrastructure of terrorist organizations that intend harm to the Western democracies. The wheels of justice grind slowly....but in time justice will win out. If they have a case that can proved in court it will happen. If not....they lose.
The feel good arguments about how badly they were miss treated ignores the reality of our situation. This is not a case of legal semantics...this is a fight for survival of our way of life. All you have to do is watch a complete video of the horrific murders of the hostages to understand what we are up against....each and everyone of us. This is not a war of uniforms...it is not a war of religion....this is a war of survival. If these terrorists can obtain weapons of mass destruction they will without doubt use them to inflict the greatest harm possible.
To ignore that reality is paramount to suicide. The certainity of the Terrorists willingness to use mass murder is already demonstrated and well documented.
If we gather up an innocent person by mistake, rough up some of the known terrorists even resort to brutal torture, I can look the other way. As any trained interrogator or intelliegence officer worth his salt will testify....the hard way is not the way. The soft way is the right way....time is on our side now that we took the overt approach in Afghanistan and other places.
As the cooperation of nations improves we will be more successful...we have to be or else we are faced with a future that will be filled with horror. My vote is for hunting down the terrorists without mercy, no quarter, one result. If they are dead , they no longer present a danger to us. This is a war to the finish....we can have no half measures or we will lose. They are dedicated and have no mercy in them. We can be no different. This is a war...not a legal proceeding. In war people get mistreated and people get killed. These people are terrorists not soldiers, they wear no unifoms, they follow no code of conduct, they have no morals...they are simply butchers of other human beings.
If an innocent man got involved....then he should be able to convince the authorities of his innocense by cooperating. If he cooperates.....his case progresses.
Did these poor souls assist in the resolution of their situations or not. When you know the answer to that queston then talk to me about their plight.
FatBaldChief....sorry to burst yer bubble....the war was on for years before the concentration camps became an issue of any discussion. The troops never did fight to the death because of that....except for very limited individual cases.
Navaleye....I agree in principle....but in reality we really cannot do that....now if we had Osama....equipped with a very small stabilizing drogue chute...and lots of O2....a C-17 at about 40,000 feet.....a clear brief on which direction to swim to Diego Garcia and the time it would take for him to hit the sea....and tell him how much I miss Sandra Bradshaw who was on one of the airliners that day in September.....and happily chunk his carcass off the ramp for that long...long freefall. Hopefully he would have presence of mind to think about it on the way down.
SASless,
What kind of comic book world do you live in?
We are NOT fighting a war for survival, we are not even fighting a war for goodness sake.
How can you have a “war” against terrorism? Terrorism is a tactic, a concept, you cannot fight a war against a tactic or a concept, who on earth is your enemy?
All this has arisen since September 11th 2001, there was an attack by a loosely knit group called al-Qaeda whose main beef was the US military presence in Saudi Arabia and a good deal of sympathy for the Palestinian cause. In response to this the US went after what it believed to be the spiritual home of al-Qaeda in Afghanistan where it had been given shelter and comfort by the Taliban regime. The world saw what the US was trying to do in Afghanistan and broadly gave it support. The US and it’s allies did a damm good job of taking down the Taliban and disrupting Osama, an individual that the US had armed, funded and supported to take on the Soviets in Afghanistan, and his training regime. The country is still in a pitiful state where women dare not openly attend school and war lords still hold sway.
Then we had the invasion of Iraq, the rest is history, War to the finish? Oh please, come on!
What kind of comic book world do you live in?
We are NOT fighting a war for survival, we are not even fighting a war for goodness sake.
How can you have a “war” against terrorism? Terrorism is a tactic, a concept, you cannot fight a war against a tactic or a concept, who on earth is your enemy?
All this has arisen since September 11th 2001, there was an attack by a loosely knit group called al-Qaeda whose main beef was the US military presence in Saudi Arabia and a good deal of sympathy for the Palestinian cause. In response to this the US went after what it believed to be the spiritual home of al-Qaeda in Afghanistan where it had been given shelter and comfort by the Taliban regime. The world saw what the US was trying to do in Afghanistan and broadly gave it support. The US and it’s allies did a damm good job of taking down the Taliban and disrupting Osama, an individual that the US had armed, funded and supported to take on the Soviets in Afghanistan, and his training regime. The country is still in a pitiful state where women dare not openly attend school and war lords still hold sway.
Then we had the invasion of Iraq, the rest is history, War to the finish? Oh please, come on!
Prince of Pastry
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Somewhere in the oggin
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think the real problem with all of these 'scandals' over the treatment of prisoners (Gitmo, Abu Ghraib, etc.) is the loss of the perceived moral high ground. How can we possibly hope to retain any shred of legitimacy, trying to impose our own brand of civilization on the rest of the world, while we continually prove to be unable to adhere to our own basic rules on human rights? (I say 'we' because, like it or not, we are fighting the same corner as our colonial associates, and to all intents and purposes, their foibles are our foibles until we openly and outrightly condemn them).
Holding people in a legal limbo without charge for three years, seemingly for doing nothing more than being in the wrong place at the wrong time, is surely unreasonable in anybody's book. This alone seriously dents our credibility, whilst the alledged mistreatment simply compounds the issue.
My burning question to the American authorities is this: If these detainees are so dangerous as to warrant holding them for three years, then how do you know this? If they're so dangerous, then why don't you use whatever it is that tells you that they are dangerous as... wait for it... evidence, with which to charge them? One can only suggest that if there is no charge, then there must be no evidence. In which case, why not let them go? (That's how I see it, and I'm not even a Yank-Basher, unlike most of the rest of the world.)
I've heard enough rhetoric about how we have to be uncompromising in our approach to terror. There's compromise and then there's compromise. Fair enough; there should be no compromise in dealing with genuine suspects thoroughly using our own civilised legal system. However, if we compromise the pillars of our legal system itself on account of the perceived new threat, then surely the terrorists have won already.
Holding people in a legal limbo without charge for three years, seemingly for doing nothing more than being in the wrong place at the wrong time, is surely unreasonable in anybody's book. This alone seriously dents our credibility, whilst the alledged mistreatment simply compounds the issue.
My burning question to the American authorities is this: If these detainees are so dangerous as to warrant holding them for three years, then how do you know this? If they're so dangerous, then why don't you use whatever it is that tells you that they are dangerous as... wait for it... evidence, with which to charge them? One can only suggest that if there is no charge, then there must be no evidence. In which case, why not let them go? (That's how I see it, and I'm not even a Yank-Basher, unlike most of the rest of the world.)
I've heard enough rhetoric about how we have to be uncompromising in our approach to terror. There's compromise and then there's compromise. Fair enough; there should be no compromise in dealing with genuine suspects thoroughly using our own civilised legal system. However, if we compromise the pillars of our legal system itself on account of the perceived new threat, then surely the terrorists have won already.