You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Britain
British Official Rips U.S. Guantanamo Plan
2004-06-25
LONDON (AP) - U.S. plans to use a military tribunal to prosecute terror suspects at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, is unacceptable because it would not provide a fair trial by international standards, Britain's attorney general said. "There are certain principles on which there can be no compromise," Lord Goldsmith said in copy of a speech he planned to make to the International Criminal Law Association on Friday. "Fair trial is one of those, which is the reason we in the UK have been unable to accept that the U.S. military tribunals proposed for those detained at Guantanamo Bay offer sufficient guarantees of a fair trial in accordance with international standards."
"International standards": is that the same sort of oxymoron as "United Nations Human Rights Commission"?
Two of the four British nationals still held at Camp Delta - Feroz Abbasi of London, and Moazzam Begg of Birmingham - were among Bush's initial list of six people to be tried by the tribunal. In the past, Goldsmith and Foreign Secretary Jack Straw have said the United States should either try the British detainees at Guantanamo in accordance with international standards or return them to their homeland. Straw has said "the military commissions as presently constituted would not provide the process which we would afford British nationals."
So advise your nationals not to be taken prisoner while fighting the US in far-off lands.
The United States says the prisoners are "enemy combatants" not prisoners of war, and can be tried by military tribunals. But human rights groups wholly in thrall to the LLL have called the detentions is unlawful.
Posted by:Steve White

#12  Howard: Condolences on yesterday. That had to hurt.
Posted by: Matt   2004-06-25 1:37:03 PM  

#11  It seems to me that Britain's AG needs to worry about his own back yard, with many people of the caliber of Hookboy running amuck. The two in gitmo will not cause the UK government any problems, and they have meals and a cot that are paid for by others. Maybe he should quit kneejerking to the LLL and take care of business in his own country, which is being infiltrated as we speak by a 5th column the size of a semi.
Posted by: Alaska Paul   2004-06-25 12:27:44 PM  

#10  International Criminal Law Association.

So when the "association" meets, they sit around and discuss the fiction that is "international criminal law"?

I guess if you repeat something often enough it comes true. Or at least in LLL land it does.
Posted by: Chris W.   2004-06-25 11:01:33 AM  

#9  Pom = Aussie name for Brits - 'Strewth! bloody whingeing poms!'

PM: Quite.
Posted by: Howard UK   2004-06-25 9:00:21 AM  

#8  A people who have invented plenty of sports, but are unable to win in any of them.
Posted by: Paul Moloney   2004-06-25 8:52:12 AM  

#7  Forgive my ignorance, what's a 'Pom'? Thank you.
Posted by: AllahHateMe   2004-06-25 8:22:19 AM  

#6  Moazzam Begg lost any protection afforded by the UK the moment he thought he was a hard boy and joined the Taleban. The sensible voice on the UK street is fairly pro-Gitmo.
Posted by: Howard UK   2004-06-25 4:13:51 AM  

#5  Bite me, Chauncey.
Posted by: mojo   2004-06-25 2:49:41 AM  

#4  Lol! The egalitarian Lord Goldsmith, huh? Fascinating.
Posted by: .com   2004-06-25 2:09:11 AM  

#3  Earlier tis year 4 or 5 were sent back to the UK. They were completely unrepentant but Brits let them go. Want to bet the UK government now spends 1-2 million pounds a year watching these jihadis?
Posted by: ed   2004-06-25 2:00:43 AM  

#2  How many of the detainees are Poms? I say send the Poms to the UK and let their government deal with them. The rest get the tribunal.
Posted by: Bomb-a-rama   2004-06-25 1:06:26 AM  

#1  Sometimes the Brits are woefully, well, European. We should hold our ground on this, as it is precedent setting.
Posted by: Capt America   2004-06-25 12:43:29 AM  

00:00