England to US: "Please keep our terrorists - we don't want 'em!"

Status
Not open for further replies.

Preacherman

Member
Joined
Dec 20, 2002
Messages
13,306
Location
Louisiana, USA
From the Telegraph, London (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/mai...03.xml&sSheet=/news/2003/08/03/ixnewstop.html):

Blair tells Bush: We don't want Guantanamo Britons

By David Bamber and Rajeev Syal
(Filed: 03/08/2003)

The Government has told America that it does not want the Britons held at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba to be returned for trial in Britain.

Whitehall officials say that the message that Britain does not want its nine detainees returned was conveyed privately to President George W. Bush during the recent visit to Washington by Tony Blair.

The decision comes after advice from government lawyers that it would be very hard to mount a successful prosecution in Britain because of the difficulty in obtaining evidence that is admissible in court. There are also fears that any public trial in Britain would force the disclosure of intelligence operations against al-Qa'eda in Afghanistan and elsewhere.

The Government is also concerned that the collapse of a prosecution in Britain would anger the public and be politically damaging.

A Whitehall aide said: "The Prime Minister made clear to the president that it was unlikely the men would face trial in Britain and that it could be embarrassing if they were released on their return after the US had branded them as major players in a terrorist network."

Two Britons, Feroz Abbasi, 23, and Moazzam Begg, 35, are among six suspects due to appear in front of American military tribunals that will be conducted partly in secret and without a jury.

Seven other Britons are awaiting a decision on their fate. All were captured in Afghanistan in early 2002, after allegedly fighting for the Taliban.

Donald Rumsfeld, the US defence secretary, publicly offered to repatriate the men in February 2002, if Britain put them on trial, after concerns about their fate were raised by Jack Straw, then the Foreign Secretary.

In an interview with The Telegraph then, Mr Rumsfeld said that he was willing to "let as many countries as possible have any of their nationals they would like".

He added: "They can handle the prosecution. I have no desire to fill up our jails and spend time and money holding people."

Mr Straw did not take him up on the offer, leading to accusations of Government backsliding from the families of the detainees.

One senior Government official added: "The legal advice is that they could not be tried in Britain. Even to begin proceedings we would need statements and eyewitness accounts which we know we haven't got."

Habib Rasul, whose younger brother Shafiq has been held in Guantanamo Bay for more than 19 months, last night accused the Government of being "cowardly" and of failing to have faith in British justice.
 
Well, now, St Johns, you don't think they oughta be found "Not guilty", on account of their deprived childhoods? :D

I always figured that when you got caught fighting for the losing side, the winners pretty much have the say-so about what happens after that. These guys ain't at Gitmo 'cause they wuz doin' righteous things...

:D, Art
 
it is a sad day for justice when people cannot be returned to their home country because they might not get found guilty at trial.
I would say that it is an even worse day for justice when a country's legal system is capable of doing double back-handsprings, through flaming hoops of hideous illogic, to persecute its subjects for protecting their own lives, while simultaneously remaining impotent to prosecute people who traveled all the way to Trashcanistan in order to learn how to slaughter their own countrymen en mass.
 
Not necessarily, just would be nice for them to get a fair and open trial which is apparently too ''liberal''.

''Sure we do. All it takes is for a member of the Executive branch to declare you an "enemy combatant". Bingo! No right to a lawyer, no trial by a jury of your peers, no limits on length of detainment without charges. Just ask Jose Padilla.''

From Marko Kloos on the ''Patriot Act'' thread.
 
Not necessarily, just would be nice for them to get a fair and open trial which is apparently too ''liberal''

How can you call criminal trials "open" in the UK when in most cases it isn't even permitted to publish the names of the defendents.

As for the terrorists, any "open trial" would be problematic considering the inherient risk of disclosure of sources and methods of intelligence gathering, actual disclosure of sensitive information, potential communication from the defendent to other terrorists, etc.

As far as the US Constitution is concerned, these types of military tribunals were challenged during WWII and were found to be Constitutional for enemy combatants during a time of war.
 
I do take the point about not compromising future intelligence gathering at these trials.

Also, not publishing the names of the defendant is more likely to get a fair trial, and we do most of the time anyway. Just children that are guaranteed anonymity.

Is it necessary for the ''trials'' to be carried out with US military appointed judges, defence and prosecution? Could be done more fairly regardless of whether someone managed to defend it under the constitution fifty years ago. And ''enemy combatants'' is just a clever way of circumventing the niceties of the Geneva Convention, you know like humane treatment etc.
 
St. Johns:

Is it necessary for the ''trials'' to be carried out with US military appointed judges, defence and prosecution? Could be done more fairly regardless of whether someone managed to defend it under the constitution fifty years ago. And ''enemy combatants'' is just a clever way of circumventing the niceties of the Geneva Convention, you know like humane treatment etc.

In my opinion the requirement for any Defense attorney to be vetted by the US Government is crucial. We have an unending supply of very hard-left activist lawyers in the US who salivate at the prospect of turning the trial of these defendents into a big anti-US show and the prospect of doing real and actual harm to US national security.

The defendents at Gitmo are being treated well with better housing and diets than they had back in the Taliban training camps, and vastly better than they way these "foreign Arabs" treated the native Afghanis. I recall seeing video of executions of Afghani women at a Kabul football stadium where the "crimes" these women were being killed for comprised leaving thier homes without a male escort, too much of a colorfull head scarf peeking out from under their burkah, etc. Pretty sick stuff, Khmer-Rouge "year-zero" style sickness, i.e, Cambodians killed for wearing eyeglasses, knowing a few words of English, etc.
 
"Is it necessary for the ''trials'' to be carried out with US military appointed judges, defence and prosecution? Could be done more fairly regardless of whether someone managed to defend it under the constitution fifty years ago."

'Scuse me, St Johns, but the constitutional issue was not about fairness, and what does the 50-year period have to do with anything relevant to the issue?

Why do you assume that military judges and attorneys are not fair? Is there some character flaw inherent in all military people?

I've witnessed a couple of courts-martial, and been involved in several civilian trials at our state level and at our federal level. About the only real difference is that the military trials focus more on the facts, and extraneous BS is not so readily brought in by our circus clowns--er, trial lawyers.

I'll rephrase that: Fewer histrionics in the military trials.

Specificity of evidence is certainly no less rigorous in a court martial.

Art
 
rrader,

congratulations, i didnt think it was possible for one person to be factually mistaken in each and every post they make, but you have managed to pull it off.

do you have a link that states:

How can you call criminal trials "open" in the UK when in most cases it isn't even permitted to publish the names of the defendents.

since its clear to me at least that this is yet another fabricated factoid of yours.....
 
all,

oh, and not revealing intelligence information is not as much of a problem over here because we have whats called Public Interest Immunity Certificates, which are issued by a judge who decides whether or not the information is admissible, and if it is whether or not to accept it as fact without consulting the defence. No doubt this will annoy some of you, but its designed for just this kind of thing.
 
Agricola:

congratulations, i didnt think it was possible for one person to be factually mistaken in each and every post they make, but you have managed to pull it off.

Actually I think it's even more suprising how often you have been wrong regarding the nature of the system of justice in the UK (or lack thereof).

You have been consistantly wrong regarding the appaling lack of any practical means of self-defense for the people of the UK, wrong about particulars of the Martin case, wrong when you attempt to paint a picture of a falling rate of crime in the UK when in fact violent crime is skyrocketing, etc.

On the other hand I have been mostly correct in my posts regarding the UK, as most here including some from the UK seem to agree, particularly with regard to the character of your views regarding personal responsibility and freedom to defend oneself against violent crime.

If I have mistakenly projected characteristics of the Canadian system onto the UK's then: I stand corrected. Words you seem to be too childish to ever utter.
 
At least they are getting some sort of trial. A hundred or so years ago, they'd have been shot or hanged more or less on the spot.

I think we have made a mistake not "repatriating" these guys back to Afghanistan, where they could have disappeared into a cargo container in the hot sun.

I do not know about the "classified intelligence angle." This country has a statute against citizens conducting their own foreign policy, and it has actually been used against would-be mercenaries, and freedom fighters. Once in a great while, one hears about plots to invade/attack Cuba being broken up by the feds for example. Getting caught at arms on the wrong side of official policy would be enough to convict without any more need for evidence.

Certainly the Crown has some prohibition on its erstwhile "citizens" taking up arms and fighting in foreign lands where the government has declared an interest and perhaps committed troops? If not, it needs to get one.

The greater fear in Britain is probably that these "adventure tourists" would be found guilty of something and then the Lord Chief Justice would declare that since they are first time offenders, that they should write letters of apology to Afghanistan and the US for causing them the inconvenience of having to capture them at arms and be done with it. Then of course, these clowns might be given a stipend with which to sue those same governments because they can't enjoy the Carribean anymore.:rolleyes:
 
Folks, please remember to keep arguments on The High Road - attack arguments, politely if possible, but never other members.

Rrader, with respect, you are wrong about one point of UK trials - defendants are indeed named, and only in cases of the highest national security and/or those needing additional protection (e.g. children) is it permissible to keep evidence and the identity of witnesses a secret. Agricola is right on this one.

However, I would respectfully disagree with Agricola's point that:
it is a sad day for justice when people cannot be returned to their home country because they might not get found guilty at trial.
As I understand the problem, it's not that they might not be found guilty (that is also possible under the US tribunal system): it's that security might be compromised in introducing evidence from identifiable sources into a legal system that will not respect that confidentiality, as it is not bound to ensure it. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
 
Preacherman - I'd agree with all of that post.

However, the US went to war on a ticket of fighting terrorism, defending democracy etc. There is not one rule for US citizens and soldiers and another for Islamic Fundamentalists (much as none of us have much time for their militant actions) The US needs to be seen to treat everybody evenly and fairly, as it would be expect it's own citizens to be treated. Guantanamo Bay and military appointed secret trials don't give out the right image.
 
St Johns, why is it not possible that there be different treatment, different procedures, for crimes committed within the country, and crimes committed during combat in another country?

I've no interest in the legal wrangles about POW and "other captured combatants" or whatever status the Gitmo boys have. But, they were indeed captured in a wartime situation, having shot at our troops. So long as they aren't brutalized during the incarceration, I just don't understand the whooping and hollering.

Re-patriation for trial? Hey, get caught in Mexico with an empty shell casing, and see what sort of re-patriation you get. Get caught with a live round and it goes down hill just real quick. God save your happy tail if you get caught with a firearm.

Seems to me we got too many folks picking too much fly-poop out of too little pepper.

Art
 
rrader,

go on, find these errors so that we can all see where i have gone wrong.

edit: some pointers -

i) you might like to find where and when i was factually wrong about access to self defence weapons in the UK;

ii) or when i attempt to paint an image of falling crime in the UK - most of my points have been to challenge the sometimes prevailing view here that crime is skyrocketing, which is it itself wrong.
 
preacherman,

i would have no problem with detention of these people as POW for the duration of the "War on Terrorism" - which is probably with us for a good long while.

what i do have a problem with is the nature of their detention at the moment, which seems to have no legal basis at all - especially for the nine British citizens held there. honestly, if we cannot put those men before a jury and have a reasonable chance of them being found guilty then they should not be in detention.
 
The US needs to be seen to treat everybody evenly and fairly, as it would be expect it's own citizens to be treated. Guantanamo Bay and military appointed secret trials don't give out the right image

St. John's,

Can you name any nation that has ever tried prisoners taken in war in civil courts? Please just name one... I'm waiting...

Al Qaeda (and a number of other groups) have publicly declared war on the United States AND attacked us AND inflicted casualties on civilians. You are in fact arguing that since these since people don't wear uniforms (since they violate the rules of war...?) they should get special treatment - a civil trial where the soldiers who captured them would have to prove they were arrested in legal fashion; given Miranda warnings, immediate access to an attorney, etc, etc, etc.
It's impossible of course. The very fact that they were taken on the field of battle by military forces would be a violation of the Posse Comitatus Act and immediate grounds to dismiss the case in any civil court in the United States.

And similar rules would apply in any western nation.

We are at war! These are military prisoners. They will be kept in cages until the end of the war. If linked to attacks against civilian targets, they will be tried as war criminals in a military tribunal - EXACTLY as it has been done in every conflict in this nations history and exactly as it has been done in every western nations history.

Wake up!

Keith
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top