Ex-Guantanamo Detainees Get Government Compo

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by parker123, Nov 16, 2010.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. From the BBC:

    "Government to compensate ex-Guantanamo Bay detainees:

    Former detainees held at the Guantanamo Bay prison camp are in line for UK government compensation totalling in the millions of pounds.

    They are among about a dozen former prisoners who will be granted the out-of-court settlement.

    At least six of them alleged British security forces were complicit in their torture before they arrived at Guantanamo.

    The Cabinet Office said a ministerial statement would be made on Tuesday.

    It is believed the government wanted to avoid a lengthy and costly court case which would also have put the British secret intelligence services under the spotlight.
    Avoiding costs

    Bisher al-Rawi, Jamil el Banna, Richard Belmar, Omar Deghayes, Binyam Mohamed and Martin Mubanga were among those - all either British citizens or residents - who had begun High Court cases against the government.

    In July, the High Court ordered the release of some of the 500,000 documents relating to the case.

    BBC political correspondent Ross Hawkins said that around 100 intelligence officers had been working around the clock preparing legal cases.

    He said the government wanted to avoid the cost of the court case, and that the terms of the settlement would remain confidential - something wanted by both the men and ministers.
    Guantanamo Bay prisoners File pic: 2002 The controversial Guantanamo Bay camp was run by US forces

    He added that the Intelligence and Security Committee and the National Audit Office would be briefed about the payments.

    He said the government would now be able to move forward with plans for an inquiry, led by Sir Peter Gibson, into claims that UK security services were complicit in the torture of terror suspects.

    The Cabinet Office said: "The prime minister set out clearly in his statement to the House (of Commons) on July 6 that we need to deal with the totally unsatisfactory situation where for 'the past few years, the reputation of our security services has been overshadowed by allegations about their involvement in the treatment of detainees held by other countries'."

    Tuesday's statement is expected to be made by Justice Secretary Ken Clarke.

    The UK security services have always denied any claims that they have used or condoned the use of torture.

    Last month, the head of MI6, Sir John Sawers described torture as "illegal and abhorrent" and defended the service's need for secrecy.

    Mr Mohamed, from west London, 32, was held in Pakistan in 2002 before US agencies moved him to Morocco, where he was severely tortured, before he was sent on to Guantanamo Bay.

    It later emerged that a British intelligence officer visited him in detention in Pakistan and that the CIA had told London what mistreatment he had suffered.

    He was released in 2009, when allegations of British involvement in torture returned to prominence."

    BBC News - Government to compensate ex-Guantanamo Bay detainees
  2. So, Ben Griffin was right after all. He was threatened with imprisonment by the cowards in MI6 who are too afraid to go on stand and admit their involvement in torture.

    Come back in from the cold Ben, they can't threaten you anymore.
  3. So let me get this right. Binyam Mohammmed comes to the UK 'fleeing persecution' in a country thats chokka with fanatical Jihaddies and claims asylum. He then goes on a jolly in the foothills of Al Qaedastan, (also full of fanatical Jihaddies), where he gets lifted by our rough men with guns. He can't give a viable reason why an asylum seeker to the UK should have promptly gone off to 'find himself' with the help of strange fanatical men with unibrows and AK's in Al Qaedastan and he's going to get a £1 million quid compo?
  4. BuggerAll

    BuggerAll LE Reviewer Book Reviewer

    My view on this: It strikes me that if the allegation is that the US Government, or its agents tortured these men then they should sue the US Government. I do not accept that the UK tax payer should compensate them for something they allege was done by another government. I do not accept that coming up with the questions makes 'us' complicit.

    The government is saying that this out of court settlement is a practical measure to avoid a costly and protracted court case which would be used by bloated lawyers as a fishing expedition to trawl through thousands of secret files. Compensating them is cheaper than being dragged through the courts and should not be seen as an admission of guilt. Unfortunately it has already been seen as both an admission of guilt and of weakness. Good old Shami was on the BBC this morning crowing that this compensation is an admission by the government both that these men were tortured and that our government was complicit in it.

    BTB It strikes me that 'Mr' Mohamed and his 'colleagues' who are asylum seekers have behaved in a way that is not compatible with that status and should be detained until they are removed from the country. Any of his 'colleagues' who are naturalised subjects should be investigated to ascertain if they have behaved in a way that is compatable with that status. If not they should be stripped of their citizenship and detained until they can be removed.
  5. They have been bought off because if MI6 admit their involvement in torture, they are admitting a criminal act and their officers will be charged.

    They (MI6) are perfectly happy to threaten Ben Griffin with arrest, (for speaking the truth), but they (MI6) are too afraid to admit their own involvement.
  6. I think it would have all been a lot better to have given the lot of them a 9mm or 5.56mm. They are as guilty as hell and I for one would not miss a wink of sleep if they had been lost in the hills.
  7. There may be a considerable number that might not disagree with the broad concept.

    However, we live in a country with Government and organs of state that claimed at the time, and claim even louder now, to true believers in and followers of the rule of law.

    So being dragged through the courts with painful disclosures and press coverage on a daily basis of alleged direct or indirect complicity in torture and extraordinary rendition is not going to play well for anyone, especially if the most likely outcome is miserable defeat, huge legal costs, vast damages and then watch the story sold the world over and turned into books, TV series and films.

    The "better outcome" is to follow the time honoured route of getting out the (taxpayer funded) chequebook, draft up some Confidentiality Agreements and announce a "review". In the immortal words of Sir Humphrey Appleby:

    "It is only totalitarian governments that suppress facts. In this country we simply take a democratic decision not to publish them."
  8. I also suspect that those in the field might not have liked those orders very much. Its all very well for politico's like George Wubblya to decide thats it the gloves are off but if you're 'Johnny on the Spot' you'll know damn well come the next government you might end up in front of a War Crimes tribunal if too much of that sort of thing goes on. Somewhat different for Special Forces (as in the American unit not generally) embedded with local millitias and so on of course.

    Can you imagine the sh*tstorm that would have followed US or Uk forces executing people ...well after capture and interogation...if it was on wikileaks?
  9. icecold

    icecold Clanker Reviewer

    Does this not equate to the Government funding terrorism?!!! Indirectly of course.
  10. I think I have a cunning plan. Next time offer the money before interrogation and suggest that it will save on lawyers fees. That should ensure co-operation.

  11. And I'd suggest this is exactly the attitude the jihadists would like you to take as it reduces you to their level. Sadly the new government has connived at the old one's criminality thus further demonstrating the contempt that MPs have for the laws they make whether it affects their dodgy expenses claims or acts of torture. Jokingly we then claim to be the 'good guys'
  12. This is a point anyone on this board actually asked to carry out these sorts of acts might bear in mind. If at a later date heads have to roll it will be the men on the ground not the generals and politico's who will cop the flak.
  13. BuggerAll

    BuggerAll LE Reviewer Book Reviewer

    Quite apart from considerations of later retribution I would have major ethical problems with being asked to do a spot of torturing quite aprt from a certain sqeamishness.
  14. The money should be paid as a pension over a period of many years,this will then enable them to pay their own way and not be able to syphon off the money to terrorist groups,as soon as the money´s gone they´ll be down to the social services for rent and food money!

    Me?I´d have left the scum to rot in Guantanamo if only to save millions of quid being squandered on terrorists when OAP´s go cold in winter,that somebody that´s been granted asylum can claim money is fcuking absurd IMHO!
  15. There's definitely something a bit galling about having to pay compensation to guys who are clearly so thoroughly on the dark side, simply because we were more interested in currying favour with the Yanks than in behaving decently and wisely.

    That money could have been far better spent compensating a couple of our guys or their families. OK, I know it wouldn't have been, but still ...

    On a slightly different tack, perhaps Bliar should be made to reimburse HMG -- after all, he caused the problem, and 3 million or so would be little more than petty cash to him.