| Submit your comments on this article | |
| Britain | |
| Concession on Guantanamo Britons | |
| 2003-11-20 | |
| The US has hinted it may release the Britons being held at Guantanamo Bay, so they can be tried in the UK instead. The offer was hinted at by US Secretary of State Colin Powell, visiting the UK along with US President George W Bush. Mr Powell told BBC One's News at Ten: "The president is very sensitive to the views of the prime minister and the British people about the detainees." Flanked by his UK counterpart Jack Straw, he said: "We expect to be resolving this in the near future." Liberal Democrat leader Charles Kennedy, who met Mr Bush for 30 minutes on Wednesday, said Mr Bush had told him he hoped the Guantanamo controversy could be resolved "in the next week or two". Mr Kennedy said Mr Bush indicated that he was prepared to address the issue after the US Supreme Court had considered the matter. "He [Bush] has been clear to us that the Supreme Court is looking at the way in which this matter will be handled legally," he said. "But if the British authorities remain unhappy with that, then at the end of the day the Americans will have to accept that they have to come back to our country for trial under our processes."
| |
| Posted by:Fred Pruitt |
| #16 Igs: I find it rather laughable ppl describing others as anti-american or whatever else, it only reflects the shallowness of their own conviction and beliefs What's shallow is Igs's view that calling himself not anti-American makes him not anti-American. Anti-Americanism has nothing to do with declarations of intent - it has to do with the consequences of what people believe, not what they say they believe. Calling for measures that can have devastating consequences for the physical safety of large numbers of Americans makes people like Igs objectively anti-American, whatever his professed convictions. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2003-11-20 11:43:25 PM |
| #15 Spit it out IGS. |
| Posted by: Lucky 2003-11-20 10:42:20 PM |
| #14 Brian, we have Abbot and Costello on the Liberal front bench in Australia :p so Zhang Fei, I'm anti-american, kewl, never realised it, to think of it I must be anti all countries just about, except Andorra, not sure what I can fault them for yet I find it rather laughable ppl describing others as anti-american or whatever else, it only reflects the shallowness of their own conviction and beliefs Ben with regards to the supected bit, after two years perhaps it's time to charge them with something. Somehow I don't think that holding them for intelligence reasons after such a long time is of any value. |
| Posted by: Igs 2003-11-20 7:52:26 PM |
| #13 The US has hinted it may release the Britons being held at Guantanamo Bay, so they can be tried in the UK instead. You mean send them to the place that convicted a crime victim (Tony Martin) for shooting a burglar? Yeah, that oughta be a smart move... |
| Posted by: Bomb-a-rama 2003-11-20 2:01:34 PM |
| #12 IGS, you reserve the right to dislike many things about America. Spit'm out. The problem regarding the "suspected terroist" is whinning. Those in Briton who so desperatly object about those creeps are just grasping at straws to lash out at the US. IGS your a whinner. I've got problems with the US, like traffic jams, confiscation laws and people who think this war is some sort of a legal issue. |
| Posted by: Lucky 2003-11-20 12:10:27 PM |
| #11 Ben's brings up a valid point - Serving a foreign military, without uniforms or recognizable rank identification, is a violation of the Geneva convention and as such, renders him an unlawful combantant, to be held until the war is over. This needs to be discussed in the media (but the truth being debated - wow now that would be a concept for our liberal media. And for the BBC probably impossible). Ben is also correct in the fact that most Americans do not feel we are at war. It is shame since it allows feelings of compasion for these suspected (scumbags) terrorists. If these a-holes were captured by the majority of militaries in the world this would not be an issue since they would be dead. |
| Posted by: Dan 2003-11-20 11:17:43 AM |
| #10 Come now, IGS. Are we speaking of Lou Costello, or Elvis? |
| Posted by: Brian 2003-11-20 10:54:05 AM |
| #9 Igs: geez not this anti american thing again, some ppl are just paranoid, get over it, there are many things which I do admire about the US but I do the reserve the right to also dislike many things, this doesn't make me anti american, left leaning, commie favouring or whatever else you might come up with Igs may say he's not anti-American, but the objective truth is that he cares more about the fate of suspected terrorists than the lives of their potential victims. In my book, that makes him anti-American. Admiring things about America ranks up there with admiring the captain of the football team or admiring gold medal Olympic athletes - we're the best at many of the things we do - this admiration makes him just another envious hanger-on rather than a friend. Even bin Laden admires much about America, especially our ability to turn out much of the high tech equipment he relies on for command and control. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2003-11-20 10:20:01 AM |
| #8 In the grand scheme of things there would be less damage by turning Australian and British ex-Talibani to their respective governments (and potential freedom) than Israel freeing hundreds of militants for a handful of Israeli's. |
| Posted by: ruprecht 2003-11-20 8:59:28 AM |
| #7 Serving a foreign military, without uniforms or recognizable rank identification, is a violation of the Geneva convention and as such, renders him an unlawful combantant, to be held until the war is over. Or shot out of hand; the GC doesn't protect unlawful combatants. |
| Posted by: Robert Crawford 2003-11-20 8:14:26 AM |
| #6 "I also don't think that US laws extend to Afghanistan/Pakistan either (then again I don't think the yanks really give a toss)." -US laws have nothing to do w/it. A person wielding a weapon at U.S. troops but not in a military uniform themselves is a combatant. No, it is not illegal to fight against the U.S., if say for example your in the PRC Army or Nkor army and wearing a uniform. Pretty obvious stuff. We could've shot Hicks on the spot if we wanted to. And yes, he is a moron. And no, we don't give a toss. He's in Gitmo, getting 3 square a day, enjoying the freedom to practice his religion and no longer a danger to anyone, (like women, non-muslims, etc.) I won't go into the anti-American thing as I feel many honest people w/differing opinions get that label. |
| Posted by: Jarhead 2003-11-20 7:33:54 AM |
| #5 The problem is that "suspected terrorists" is not the same as a suspected arsonist, or suspected rapist. The amount of damage they can do far exceeds that of an ordinary criminal. That is why this is a war, and why we have to treat such folks as unlawful combantants, instead of regular criminals. Accepting the rights of a suspect has costs, including the cost that the suspect is guilty and will do the crime again. In ordinary circumstances, we have decided we will allow the increased risk of murder, rape or theft by observing the rights of the suspect. But for ordinary crimes, the cost is fairly low. For terrorists who goal is to commit as much destruction and murder as possible, the cost is simply too high. Which goes back to something I have been saying for some time. There are a large part of the population, both here in the US and abroad, who don't believe we are at war. That the bad guys want to kill us, kill all of us. Hicks, if he fought for the Taliban, may be a moron. But the laws, nor the Geneva convention deal with stupidity. Serving a foreign military, without uniforms or recognizable rank identification, is a violation of the Geneva convention and as such, renders him an unlawful combantant, to be held until the war is over. |
| Posted by: Ben 2003-11-20 5:21:02 AM |
| #4 geez not this anti american thing again, some ppl are just paranoid, get over it, there are many things which I do admire about the US but I do the reserve the right to also dislike many things, this doesn't make me anti american, left leaning, commie favouring or whatever else you might come up with now, read your post again 'suspected terrorists' it says, which actually means that they have not been proven guilty (apart from the fact that they haven't actually been charged with anything). Haven't the americans come up with that wonderful slogan of innocent until proven guilty? Now as to the terrorists bit, neither of them have engaged in terrorist actions. Hicks might have fought on the taleban side (which makes him a moron) but that doesn't say he is a terrorist, just because he might have fought against the US, so what, didn't realise it is illegal to fight against the US, certainly not in Australia. Howard doesn't have a backbone, he's a lying, opportunistic, racists, bigoted moron who can't get over living in the 50s and the white australia policy which existed then. The sooner he goes, the better this country will be (and no I'm not necessarily advocating a Labour government for those who thought they might catch me here, or greens or democrats), even Costello would make hell of alot better PM. |
| Posted by: Igs 2003-11-20 3:47:15 AM |
| #3 At least the Brits had some backbone and made some fuss about it however useless it was. There's an expression for this, only it's not backbone - it's common sense to want to avoid having suspected terrorists return for a second chance at wreaking havoc. Howard does have the right kind of backbone - the fortitude to stand up to the kind of left-wing anti-American crazies personified by Igs. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2003-11-20 2:50:41 AM |
| #2 yep, send them back to Australia, the funny thing is...they haven't broken ANY Australian laws. Irrelevant from the fact whether they are guilty or not, Johnny Howard doesn't have the backbone to stand up to Dubya, it is a concern that the Australian government is not prepared to provide help to its own nationals captured in a foreign country (and held by a third country) who have not broken any Australian laws. I also don't think that US laws extend to Afghanistan/Pakistan either (then again I don't think the yanks really give a toss). At least the Brits had some backbone and made some fuss about it however useless it was. |
| Posted by: Igs 2003-11-20 1:22:39 AM |
| #1 Maybe it's time to send those Saudi Arabian Prison Fire Prevention experts down there... |
| Posted by: tu3031 2003-11-20 12:11:16 AM |