THE Pentagon has claimed that five terror suspects whom Britain wants back from Guantanamo Bay have close ties to some of Al-QaedaÂ’s most high-ranking leaders.
Only days after Gordon Brown took the surprise decision to call for their release, a senior American official this weekend disclosed previously classified evidence to show that the men are “extremely dangerous individuals”. Sandra Hodgkinson, who is in charge of US detention policy, warned that the suspects may seek to rejoin the war on terror and could pose a risk to the UK if not kept under close scrutiny.
In a fresh series of allegations against the men, Hodgkinson claimed that:
— One of them had been an interpreter for Osama Bin Laden and was funded by the Al-Qaeda chief while living in Afghanistan.
— Another detainee had “a long-term association” with Abu Musab al-Zar-qawi, the ex-leader of Al-Qaeda in Iraq.
— A third suspect is a “jihadi veteran” with links to a Moroccan terrorist jailed for 18 years over the 2003 Casablanca bombings. Britain originally refused to take back the men, none of whom are British, but who have residency rights. The U-turn has prompted criticism and the new claims will increase pressure on ministers to enforce a tough security regime when the men return.
| Blair = 'no way do we want them tarbabies'. Brown = 'how dare you traumatize those poor men who have graced our shores in the past' |
The suspects’ lawyers have dismissed many of the allegations as “fantasy” and claim the Pentagon is smearing their clients to justify their incarceration at Guantanamo.
Hodgkinson, deputy assistant secretary of defence for detainee affairs, said: “Among these men are some extremely dangerous individuals . . . if they are sent back to the United Kingdom they could pose a risk.
“Because of some of the extensive ties these individuals have with well-known Al-Qaeda [leaders], we have concerns that they will try to reconnect with some of their old counterparts and return to the fight in the sense that they will try to carry out attacks, whether it’s in England or elsewhere.”
Although ministers may place the men on control orders - a form of house arrest - an initial US request to watch them round-the-clock is believed to have been rejected as too costly.
| Well, we all know how effective control orders have been. Sleep well, Britain. |
| Yup, costs too much to watch 'em, may as well just let 'em go. Somehow they'll fund the special appropriation to rebuild London after the next bombing. |
| lots of details at the link |
|