Guantanemo Bay Boys
 

Heard "suspects" have neen flown home from Cuba by the RAF.

Who authorised that, how much did it cost, and why ?

Auth by some pollie who wants re-election.

Costs an arm and a leg.... as you already guessed. Better yet..... as a tax-payer you pay for it butyou won't see any return when they sell their stories to the tabloids.

Why? Because we are the good guys. If we were like them it'd be a bullet and an unmarked grave. This is why we're gonna lose in the long run.

To the tune of Copacabana:

...At the Campa... Camp they called X-Ray...
There was screaming in the air, nobody knew that they were there..

Except for Ozzie...Ozzie Bin-Laden...
Now Ozzies gone and fled, with a price upon his head...

Yes torture and bashin' were always in fashion at the Campa...
...They lost their hair.

(Apologies to Barry)

Feel free to add to the tune, and we can line up on the A40 and sing to them as they land. Then throw flowers at their feet. Then give them lots of our money.

Great stuff.

Why is it that all BBC news buletins start with

"The 4 British detainees in Gauanemo Bay"

Instead of

"The muslim terrorists held in Cuba, with British connections, are being returned to the UK to screw for compensation and sponge off the State for ever ?"

PC, Jack Straw, Tony Bliar or what?

Enoch Powell - Love ya man !

The last time terror suspects were flown back to the UK from Cuba they came back on an RAF C-17A.

Forgive me but why do these 'gentlemen' who just happened to be in the combat area of Afghanistan at the time of a major offensive have any claim on the UK? We didn't incarcerate them and were kind enough to fly them home.

If they do make a claim perhaps the cost of their air transport should be deducted from any award.

Hope the sods were made to wait at South Cerney for a few days for no apparent reason!

Erm, because detaining people without trial is illegal.

“Oh by the way we’re gonna arrest you and hold you for 3 years in Cuba”
“On what charges?”
“Sorry old boy, top secret”
“Well, can my lawyer know?”
“What’s a lawyer? Goodbye. Oh, while we’re at it we’re gonna dress you up like Slipknot (Metal band who wear boiler suits and masks- for the oldies amongst you) and mentally torture you. Have fun”

All for (possibly) being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Sure glad it wasn’t me, especially considering Abu Gharib

I would like to think those poor, misunderstood "Britons", who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, are returning to their homeland in a C130. More likely it will be in a C17, which is only marginally less extravagant than the Blairforce One 777.

Pile Up

Sorry I was confused, I had forgotten that we are the 51st state of the US and 'Gitmo' is our naval base and our detainee camp.

My error, I had thought we were a separate soveriegn state who, whilst holding our own terrorist suspects without trial, are not responsible for the Gitmo camp. Silly me.

The fact that they were locked up without trial is a problem, but the fact that they went to Afganistan to fight the infidels/smite the christians/got involved with a band of terrorists surely must count for something. The Yanks should fly 'em home Conair-style, then they should be incarcerated here and tried under our justice system. No smoke without fire and Puppy next to pile of pooh spring to mind. After all they went out there to kill our soldiers...or??????

Still don't understand why they are coming back to the UK. Surely we should deposit them back in the countries they were removed from.....

Jung Lee: I wasn’t specifically replying to your post but the original question, apologies for your misunderstanding. ;)

Regardless of where they are from or what their intentions were, my original point still stands:

Detention without trial is illegal

And treason is legal?

Detention without trial is of course illegal. I wonder if that thought crossed Ken Bigley's, Margaret Hassan's, Nick Berg's...................................... etc etc minds as their throats were being cut.

Let's hear a public condemnation of Al Qaeda and the murders committed in the name of Islam from them and their "British" families before they are released. Remember the Black Watch, RMP and many others who paid the ultimate price of the freedom these :mad: will now profit from.

Im not sure why this is being discussed on this thread but nonetheless I think I agree with most participants in so much as Detention without trial is not the way we do things.

I cannot imagine the shock and horror of being locked up for 3 years without any charges, trial or indeed without anyone explaining what was happening. These guys are British and as such they should be afforded all the compassion they deserve until they have been found guilty of anything. I understand one of the guys was a teacher who was setting up a school for Deaf Children when without warning he is snatched from the comfort and love of his family, transported to the middle of nowhere and left for 3 years. Im sorry guys but thats not the way to behave. If these people have links with terrorism, if they have commited a crime then lets charge them and if found guilty lets throw away the key. BUT, until that time, then they are completely innocent. Thats the way we do it in Britain, thats why our forefathers were prepared to put their lives on the line, thats why our country went to war in 1939.

That's also why their sons and Grandsons are fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq too

Bollox to all that!

Charge them. If they're found guilty, hang them.

Sorted.

NEXT!

That’s what I meant to say BEags !!;)

I agree Hyd3. Our predessessors fought to the death against concentration camps and now we are allied with a state that promotes their use. If the 4 are suspected of alligence to terrorist organisations and evidence is available against them, try them and condemn them if found guilty. This must be done in a reasonable timescale. Incarceration without trial goes beyond medieval. We cannot treat people like animals just because the terror groups do.

Fatbaldandonhissoapbox :8

Guantanamo Bay Boys
 

Kilroy-Silk:yuk: BEagle for PM!

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.

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

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....."

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.

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

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 :D

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.

Please don't tell me that we have sent a C-17. Is it full of QFI's on a beano. Did they remember their Golf Clubs and their DJ's?

Wouldn't want anyone to miss out on a possible freebie!

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.

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 ...

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.

My feelings exactly ZH875, complete with ration boxes filled with Ham Sandwiches, Pork Pies and sausages. Lovely Jubbly.

Better still, stick 'em on an Albert open the rear door after about 4 hours and see how they fly :ok:

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.

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!!! :mad:

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.

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.

They will be charged with failing to pay their council tax for 3 years

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!

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.