UK police release Guantanamo four

[Shiola]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4210815.stm - so they're held for 3 years at Guantanamo, and then after arriving back in the UK, are released after 24 hours.

Kind of looks like they shouldn't have been in Guantanamo in the first place.

So what about everyone else in Guantanamo?

What will/should Tony Blair do now knowing that he is supporting this even though 4 of his own citizens were held for 3 years and are clearly innocent?

It'll also be interesting how the US media report this...if at all.....well, actually, I just found it on CNN - http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/01/26/uk.gitmo.release/index.html ...can't on FOX though.

[Jut]

well they can't really hold them longer than 24 hours....not since the house of lords ruled that the anti-terrorism powers to detain indefinatly without charges are a breach of human rights laws set by geneva
.......annd do you honestly expect FOX news to hint that maybe they were innocent after all?

[Jut]

oooh lets not forget that there are still 5 brits still out there who the homeoffice can do nothing for because "they were not travelling under british passports"

[staticxess]

No thanks to the "Patriot Act"and the Terrorism Act 2000
the FBI, Pentagon and Scotland Yard can ransack anyones life now
even if you've really done nothing wrong
it's a violation of human rights
I mean we're looking for terrorists,
we shouldn't be terrorizing people.
WTF was the evidence these men were linked to Al-Qaeda?
I think the public here and in the UK has the right to know
what if it was a family member of yours? You'd wanna know why!
I'm sure they were innocent since the US haven't rebutted any reasons for detaining those men.

[Jut]

i know, ironic isn't it......denying freedom in the name of freedom....it's a lot worse for you guys in the states though....at least the house of lords is taking measures against the terrorism act 2000.....unfortunatly it looks like blair might start a game of cat and mouse with the lords....playing with words and all that.

[staticxess]

Yeah it is worse in some cases here
in Texas for example the National Guard or other military operatives are allowed to
stop cars on major highways esp at the Mexico border
and have conducted searches on anyone they find "suspicious"
even if you are obviously a white american. As if that matters really.
We already have instances of Police in various cities and states that have
been accused of racial profiling for a while now.

[Jut]

you mean anyone between 1 and 80 who has funny coloured skin? :p

Oh i know its a LOT worse over there......I remember reading a while ago that a senator was accidently placed on the "no fly" list because of something to do with his name (or something).

[Drunkpup]

I wrote a position paper on this subject, does anyone want to read it?

[Jut]

go for it:)

[Drunkpup]

Here it is, I did this a while ago and it is only the first draft. The final draft was published so I cannot post that. By the way, the position paper was about the U.S. Patriot act.

[Jut]

nice read :) i wasn't totally aware of the extent that agencys such as the FBI were abusing the act to prosicute normal people. i.e. the guy drawing cash just under 10k.
i presume you've read 1984 before? sound familiar?

[Drunkpup]

Spot on, it's one of the reasons I was motivated. I must admit, the UK home office is going even farther on the invasion of privacy. Specifically with the x-ray machines and whatnot.

[Wildcard]

So what exactly were 4 British Muslims doing in Afghanistan? If they were there to fight alongside the Taliban against the coalition, then I think they should automatically be treated as enemy combatants and possibly lose their British citizenship.

Please note that I do not know for sure that is the reason they were there, which is why I said “if”.

[Shiola]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4769604.stm - this story here talks about how a lawyer smuggled in some questions for a Guantanamo Detainee to get some answers.

:evil3:

http://www.shiola.co.uk/unseen/2006_02_18-GuantanamoBay.mp3 (about 20 mins) - here's a Podcast I get from the Today program from BBC Radio 4. A reporter from the Today program was the one who got a lawyer to smuggle in those questions. Also, there's an interview with a US lawyer about Guatanamo.

An interesting listen because I don't think the true outrage of Guatanamo is being reported in the US mainstream, also check out John Humphrys, the interviewer. Americans - this is how YOUR press should be working for their salary and not being lightweight pussies in the breeze.

:protest:

(Here's some US reaction to the above interview - http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/today/listenagain/ram/today3_guantanamo_20060304.ram (8 mins) )

[staticxess]

I agree with you Ben. The BBC seems to be more liberal in it's reporting.
This is a sad fact about americans also;
Americans know more about The Simpsons TV show than the US Constitution's First Amendment, an opinion poll says.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4761294.stm

But there are plenty of americans who have educated themselves about Guantanomo & what is going on in Washington. I've found that alternative media sources are available on the net and in print if one takes the time to find them.
Mainstream media in the states is essentially bought and paid for by a government owned regulatory commission, the FCC
(short for Fxxxing C@ck Chokers). So you could understand why they are in a position of compromise.