> If you took away all the US information, British spooks - and so the British government - wouldn't ever get to see much secret intelligence.

As long as we have Bond, and I quote a leading member of an American Team -

Spottswoode: That was bad, I.N.T.E.L.L.I.G.E.N.C.E. Very bad intelligence..

The Iraqui's can launch WMDs in 45 minutes.

Do we really need that kind of information? On balance it would be better to remain ignorant. At least then we know we don't know :-)

A man is arrested, looking pretty guilty, by a foreign government. He is then held without charge for two years, in a temporary prison camp.

He then 'disappears' for two years, during which he says (not unreasonably) that he was tortured in multiple ways, in other third-party countries.

After signing a confession which could carry a death penalty, he magically reappears in the temporary prison camp, still without any formal charges.

He then faces a military tribunal (not a real court), which refuses to tell his lawyers ANYTHING about what happened in those two 'missing' years, and hold the threat of execution over his head.

If this man was American, and the country holding him was, say Iran, would this not be seen by most Americans as a good reason to invade? And all our country can do is hand over a highly censored, barely useful file of what some of our people might know?

Guantanamo is an absolute disgrace to the entire world. It should be shut down if it was run by Russia, Kazakhstan, Pakistan or Iran, but at least it would be more or less expected in some of those countries. But running a joint like this strips the US of each and every claim to moral superiority to any other country in the world. Being complicit in its running puts the UK only slightly behind the US in the race to become the most morally bankrupt and hypocritical state in the West.

If the US had nothing to hide, it would have nothing to fear....?

American intelligence be damned, if we've had a hand in this, or even knowledge of it at high levels, the gov't ought to come clean.

This sort of thing is a stain on our country and its history.

Hey, what's this Es-pan-yol shee-it boy? Talk white! What we's talkin' 'bout is a territory of the good ol' US of Dixieland here!

Yeah, we were much more honourable when we flooded China with opium.

Or stood by and watched 25 million Indians starve as we exported the bumper harvests.

Or ran the "press gang > slave ships > slaves to sugar plantations > rum & sugar to Blighty" operation.

Or exported Ethopian food in the 1980s during their worst famine.

Excuse me while I shower in glory.

Is it only me that feels nauseous at sharing a country with some of our leaders?

... the British government wouldn't ever get to see 'confessions' signed to avoid further torture.

Living within 500 miles of Baghdad there was much amusement when Blair said we could be attacked by Iraqi missiles, and within 45 minutes.

Sadly we didn't realise the prat was a) believing false 'intelligence', and/or b) lying.

Is it time to apologise to the UN weapons inspectors that were withdrawn yet?

Me, I say let the little tosser go. All these "human rights" lawyers have seized on this "our poor ickle client was tortured" ruse even when they have zero proof, their aim is not to prove their clients' innocence as that is largley impossible for the majority of cases, their aim is to discredit the intelligence services and many of the measures put in place to protect the public (which includes said same "human rights" lawyers). If they ever do find Bin Laden then the first thing he'll he'll squeal is that the big, bad Yanks have tortured him, because he knows half a million western idiots will immediately start wailing about his human rights rather than remembering all the people he is directly responsible for killing, the Afghan and Iraqi schools and hospitals that have been burnt down and the teachers and doctors that have been slaugtered because they followed kaffir practices (helping people) rather than followed his extreme Islamism.

So, I say let Binyam Mohamed go, I'd rather maintain the US-UK intelligence sharing. Binyam Mohamed will either do what a lot of Gitmo releasees do - go back to jihad in Iraq and Afghanistan, and usually end up dead after killing more innocents - or he'll return home to a life of close surveillance. After all, so many Ethiopians seek help with their "drug problems" in Pakistan, and then decied to travel to the UK on a forged passport. Clive Stafford Smith should go and spend some time with the relatives of the July 7th bombings before he goes and defends any more "poor ickle misunderstood detainees".

Give the info to the Yanks, then leave the files on a laptop or memory stick on a train. Which is SOP in the UK, so no embarrassment caused to anyone. Just another leak.

After all if the Yanks wanted it kept secret, they wouldn't have told us in the first place.

"their aim is not to prove their clients' innocence as that is largley[sic] impossible for the majority of cases"

No, the reason is that justice traditionally works the other way around.

But hey, you're right, we shouldn't let the trifling issue of torture get in the way of convicting people on the basis of their own confessions. With all this wailing about human rights it's amazing these unelected agencies have time to fill their dragnets with people based on their ticket stubs to keep us all safe.

You are any angry little man. All your wailings are accusations and allegations. If we work with the idea of "Innocent unless proven guilty" then even bin Laden is innocent as is Binyam; unless proven beyond reasonable doubt in a court of law. Not some rigged military (political) court.

Seriously Matt?

I agree with you a little, but if you don't follow your own laws and procedures then what are you defending?

We can't complain about the ID card culture and all the other expensive police-state crap our leaders are imposing on us and then stand idly by when others' rights are abused. T'would be hypocrisy.

As Dave Lawless pointed out, a lot of the problems are of our own making, stoking up the fires of injustice and hatred. Then being surprised when it literally blows up in our faces.

I'm not a woolly liberal and believe in punishment for crimes, harsh punishment. But I also believe in justice and fairness. We can't go on about Tibet or Georgia while stuff like this goes on, China and Russia are quite justified in laughing at our leaders and calling them out for double standards. (for Georgia remember the European powers falling over themselves to recognise Kosova - how is that different from what Russia has done with the break away republics?)

Matt, so if you look suspicious, I guess it would be OK if the police torture you 2 YEARS until you sign a confession, so we can grab more people to torture and execute you, right?

So we are now torturing, kidnaping, and making secret trials, in the name of "freedom". It really sounds as KGB in hungary, or stasi, SS.. you name it.. we should be ashamed, and the ppl responsible for this should be hanged for crimes against humanity.

RE: Geoff Mackenzie - "....No, the reason is that justice traditionally works the other way around. But hey, you're right, we shouldn't let the trifling issue of torture get in the way of convicting people on the basis of their own confessions...." One of the reasons Binyam Mohamed gave for his asylum application was his Islamic views were unpopular with the Ethiopian Government, because he was linked to the same people that became the AQ-wannabees the Islamic Courts whom Ethipia was fighting a war against at the time. Previously, the UK Government had given asylum to many Islamists under international guidelines, which is why the Saudis were so annoyed with us for many years. I could go on, but Binyam Mohamed has already got a big enough strike against him there to fall foul of the current Ant-Terror legislation, which was why his application was denied so many years ago (Mr Lewis seems to have forgotten to mention this when he labelled him "the one-time UK resident"). There is also no physical proof of any torture in this case, something that has not stopped Clive Stafford Smith slandering both the US and Morrocan and Pakistani intelligence services as he knows he can say what he likes to the press with no recourse for the authourities. In fact, in all the cases Smith has raised, there has not been one single incidence where torture has been proven by medical examination. Now, I have a scar from a minor bike accident twenty-five years ago, are you telling me the Pakistanis, Algerians and Morrocans are so adept they can leave absolutely no marks even after the prolonged and violent beatings Mr Smith and his fans claim, that all the physical evidence would just heal right up in two years? Unlikley. Then we can get onto Binyam Mohamed's ludicrous excuse for being in Afghanistan in 2001 - for rehabilitation from his drug habit! His attendance at an AQ camp has been established from US intel (not "tortured" confessions), it is this that Smith is trying to discredit. Not surprisingly, the US are not too keen on explaining exactly what methods they used to gather info on camp attendees as it will endanger current and future US operations, and Smith knows that he can try and use this to force the US to drop the case. At this point, I don't think Binyam Mohamed is worth endangering that information for.

RE: Patrick Ernst

"You are any angry little man...." Yes, I'm angry, but not so little, and quite confidant in my own physical capabilities. Or is it your debating style just to immediately accuse anyone that doesn't agree with you of being "little-minded"? In which case, I am equally capable of just referring to yourself as a frustrated, kneejerk liberal with zero real-world experience. Or just a tosser. ".... All your wailings are accusations and allegations. If we work with the idea of "Innocent unless proven guilty" then even bin Laden is innocent as is Binyam; unless proven beyond reasonable doubt in a court of law. Not some rigged military (political) court...." There are comprehensive guidelines based in US law which cover the military tribunals, they are not "rigged". This is shown by the Salim Hamdan trial where he escaped the conspiracy charge due to lack of evidence - if it had been rigged he would already be in the queue for the gas chamber (which is where I actually think he deserves to be, but then that's just my opinion). Compare this to his boss's or Taleban methods of trial and I think he won't be complaining, but I'm sure all you frustrated, kneejerk liberals will be.

RE: Francis Fish - "...We can't complain about the ID card culture and all the other expensive police-state crap our leaders are imposing on us and then stand idly by when others' rights are abused. T'would be hypocrisy...." Ah, but then you make the usual liberal mistake of assuming everyone must agree with you, becasue you think you are right and therefore everyone with half a clue must agree with you. Sorry, but I do support the ID card idea, I just don't like the rediculously expensive and flawed method of implementation. I also don't have any issues with the majority of current Government ant-terror legislation. I know, you'll be calling me a fascist in a moment - standard libtard response when they haven't got anything else to say.

RE: Aitor - "Matt, so if you look suspicious, I guess it would be OK if the police torture you 2 YEARS until you sign a confession...." Yes, I'm sure all the intelligence services around the world have time and people to spare to torture at random. When I was a stoodie living in London, I used to often be walking home at two or three in the morning through London, and was quite often stopped and searched by Police as I was usually carrying a bag. Given the high levels of crime in the area, both muggings and break-ins, and that the majority were committed by "white youths aged between sixteen and twenty-five", it was not surprising that I came in for suspicion. I don't begrudge them their actions, in fact I was thankful they were so committed to doing their job. However, a black friend whom had never been stopped said he would have complained. It was his mindset that all Police were racist, as it is so obviously your mindset that all intelligence services are Big Brother types looking to get "the little man". Might I suggest you open your eyes and do a little thinking for yourself before saying you are ashamed of the men and women working hard to ensure your security.

And in asnwer to all, I also do not look traditionally English, in fact most people assume I am French or Mediterranean on first meeting. I also have the misfortune to have previously spent some time with the daughter of a Lebanese gun-runner. I didn't know what her father did at the time. This has caused me to be stopped many times at international customs both here and abroad, and has once led to my detainmant by the Israeli border police for a period of three hours. In each case, I realised they were simply doing their job, not being malicious. Oh, and the Israelis didn't immediately bundle me into a room and start torturing me either! They were actually very polite. Maybe I should give Clive Stafford Smith a call, though, that chair the Israelis gave me was a bit hard....

It's funny you should mention Salim Hamadan; why exactly do you think he should receive a death sentence? The only truly proved charges are that the guy worked as a driver for OBL.

He's been tried, found guilty of what they managed to pin on him and is now serving the last part of his received five and a half year sentence.

However, when that is over the Pentagon has indicated that they intend to revert him to 'Enemy Combatant' status and hold him, again without charge, indefinitely.

So even when you do have your day in 'court' and are sentenced and serve that sentence, they will still hold you. Where's the justice in that?

Seems to be difficult to run a lawful country if the government doesn't like to respect the law.Over time, all the little legal shortcuts add up to a major legal headache.

Throw them to prison!

(Only the responsible officials, of course)

This is the problem of fighting an enemy that is not an opposing country but a bunch of fanatics that refuse to follow the Geneva Convention. If we compare it to the Second World War, if we had captured Hitler's driver he likely would be a German and member of the Wehrmacht and therefore a uniformed soldier, and there would be no question of holding him as a PoW until the end of hostilities. As it is, Salim Hamadan got off - he has never expressed any remorse for any of AQ's actions, has never publicly stated he does not agree with OBL or his strategies, and has never promised he will not return to jihad. Personally, I wouldn't trust him if even he did say any of those things, as Islamists believe that lying to kaffirs is acceptable. I don't see any problem at all with keeping him locked up until either AQ folds or he rots (the latter is more likely as there seems to be no end to the number of jihadis all eager to get their seventy-two virginal maids and twenty-eight hairless boys). To be honest, the little toe-rag should have thought before he took the job, it's not like everybody in the world knew whom OBL was and what that meant. For him to try making out "I only did it for the money, guv" is a bit like a Nazi concentration camp guard saying "well, the pay was better than roadsweeping".

Come on fellas, he's an irrelevant troll who obviously does not understand the word justice , don't encourage him to spout more cr*p by replying to his points, blinkered facist morons like him dont listen to logical reasonable arguments. I dont believe one word he posted.

He obviously knows he's a facist, as he tries to preempt it in his postings.

People with his kind of attitude are to responsible for the existance of terrorism.

Matt, put your analyst on danger money baby!

indeed there is such a group. It's the US. It also fails to follow it's own constiitution, it's own everyday laws, the personal convictions professed by the people making the decisions, world international practice, and the demands it places on others in terms of their actions.

The act of instigating, or advocating political or social change in a country through the insinuation of fear, or spreading disquiet amongst the populace has a name. It's called Terrorism. Terrorism doesn't have to kill anyone, it just has to suggest that people can be killed, and gives a clear indication of changes that can be made to reduce this possibility.

Lets see, change in society and the nature of politics, and the thraet that something might happen if this change hasn't happened. is exactly what the governments of the US and UK have been practicing for several years now.

Terrorism isn't an act against a government. It's an act against a populace. It can be performed against citizens by their government, it can come from within a country, not just without. Washington was a terrorist, for instance. If you want to go after a bunch of terrorists, then go for the ones that have caused the Terror amongst the populace. It's not the ones that have been stuck in Cuba for the last few years, its the ones in DC and Westminister.

Re: Dave - usual lack of argument from the libtard - "fascist, fascist, fascist, neh-neh-nuh-nehnehhhh!" Here's the question, Dave - if, during all his years whilst closely protecting OBL and no-doubt overhearing many of his plans, do you think Salim Hamadan ever stopped once to think "hey, maybe I should be telling someone about this before loads of innocent people get killed?" Yeah, right! He was a willing and obviously committed member of AQ - OBL doesn't strike me as the kind of guy to enrtust the role of personal bodyguard to just any Achmed, Abdul or Iqbal. But I suppose you were too busy being spoonfed by the likes of Indymedia to be able to spend the time thinking about questions like that.

RE: Andrew Norton - the problem is the West in general has found itself in a situation where their own laws cannot be applied and still guarantee the level of public safety required. If terrorists get caught, there is the pressure to provide some form of judicial review - if they don't get caught and manage to commit a terrorist act then people die and the governments get screamed at for not doing enough. The core problem is that the government can't use martial laws because we're not in an old country-vs-country war, yet we have a significant threat to both our own and friendly nations' publics which our normal peacetime laws don't cover. Hence the confusion between what the POTUS can and can't do. If Pelosi and Co really thought they had a chance of impeaching Bush they would have long ago. In the UK, we had to get legal advice before invading Iraq even with UN mandates as our own law is so convuluted. And before you start moaning at the US or UK goverments "acting against a populance", kindly remember that the majority of AQ's victims have been Muslims in Afghanistan and Iraq, and that it is those countries' innocent people that will likely suffer many more innocent deaths if more Islamists are simply given a slap on the wrist and set free.