British government will compensate Gitmo detainees, "millions of pounds"

Some_God

Newbie
Joined
Aug 29, 2003
Messages
1,862
Reaction score
0
UK will compensate Gitmo detainees, government says
By the CNN Wire Staff

November 16, 2010 2:47 p.m. EST

London, England (CNN) -- The British government will compensate a number of British residents who were interned at Guantanamo Bay, Justice Secretary Kenneth Clarke announced Tuesday, saying he could not reveal the amount of compensation.

"The settlement is not to be taken as any admission of liability," he said, portraying it as a way of resolving lawsuits against the British government so that an independent inquiry into torture allegations could get started.

"It was not in the interest of any party to get stuck in litigation," Clarke told the House of Commons.

"It could have taken years, it could have cost tens of millions of pounds," he said. "It was a difficult and unusual situation, but it was the right thing to do. I think we've saved public money."

The settlement will cover all British citizens and residents who were held at the U.S. military detention camp at Guantanamo Bay, as far as the British government is aware, Clarke said.

At least six men had filed suit against the British government, seeking damages over human rights violations they say they suffered during their rendition to and detention at various locations, including Guantanamo Bay.

The British government inquiry into the issue -- announced by Prime Minister David Cameron in July -- could not begin until the suits were settled, Clarke said.

Police investigations will also have to be finished before the so-called Gibson inquiry can begin, he said.

Amnesty International said that the British government isn't going far enough.

"Financial compensation can be an important part of the right to remedy and reparation for victims of grave human rights violations. However, it remains only one part," said Amnesty official Nicola Duckworth.

The human rights group said lawyers acting for the British government have repeatedly sought to prevent disclosure of relevant material, and had argued for closed procedures allowing courts to consider secret material presented by U.K. authorities in closed sessions.

And in the United States, the American Civil Liberties Union welcomed the British action while condeming Washington for not following suit.

"Here in the United States, the Obama administration continues to shield the architects of the torture program from civil liability," said Jameel Jaffer, deputy legal director of the ACLU.

"If other democracies can compensate survivors and hold officials accountable for their endorsement of torture, surely we can do the same," he said.
 
Eh, no opinion? Just another cut-paste job?


It's a good result, but not the best. Innocent people should never have been interned in the first place. People should never be detained without due process. Torture should not be used by the state.
They should have had their day in court, the spooks, generals and politicians responsible should be held to account.
 
I'm truly amazed at your responses. Now I actually do hope these poor, innocent people put their money to good use.
 

Why is this phrased in such a hostile way? Are you trying to make me think that they should have been detained and tortured?

edit:
lol, I especially love how every paragraph is chock full of the "allegations" with no actual proof. Great job.
 
I'm truly amazed at your responses. Now I actually do hope these poor, innocent people put their money to good use.
If I didn't know better I'd think you were implying that you hoped these TERR'RISTS would ASPLODE THEM LIB'RALS
 
20101118014240capture.jpg


I'm sure we would all prefer sources that know how to use spell-check.

This is politics, after all.
 
These brown people who want to come to our country who we think might have planned on launching terrorist attacks! And then they have the nerve to claim they were "tortured"?!
 
If I didn't know better I'd think you were implying that you hoped these TERR'RISTS would ASPLODE THEM LIB'RALS

Alls I said is I hope that these innocent men use their money how they see fit. ;)
 
So why haven't all these men been found guilty?
 
Alls I said is I hope that these innocent men use their money how they see fit. ;)
Could you please outline your position or refrain from posting in politics. How can we have debate when you're being like this.
 
God forbid they get compensation from the country that imprisoned them.
 
Couldn't you post a more credible source than the Daily Mail?
 
So...... those guys were not guilty? Huh.
 
What makes you think they were guilty? Because someone said they were?
 
So the principle of "innocent until proven guilty" only applies if you skin tone is light?

waisisza7.gif



:LOL: You guys are a real riot. Obviously they are all innocent, especially those that were captured in Afghanistan. Damn those evil British intelligence officers! Obviously the reason they signed up for their job is to put innocent people in detention camps.
 
waisisza7.gif



:LOL: You guys are a real riot. Obviously they are all innocent, especially those that were captured in Afghanistan. Damn those evil British intelligence officers! Obviously the reason they signed up for their job is to put innocent people in detention camps.

Then why were they not put on trial in a civilian court and found guilty then?
 
Alls I said is I hope that these innocent men use their money how they see fit. ;)

lol you also think we're stupid. you posted that pic because the kids look all pimped out; you were implying that's what the compensation money went to ..which to be fair is their right to do. do you also complain about how the wrongfully convicted people in your neck of the woods spend their money? or are you only concerned with former gitmo inmates because it supports your agenda? no that couldnt be it
 
You guys are a real riot. Obviously they are all innocent, especially those that were captured in Afghanistan. Damn those evil British intelligence officers! Obviously the reason they signed up for their job is to put innocent people in detention camps.
It really is very simple. Intelligence offers should have the intelligence to be able to back up cases with evidence. That evidence should be enough to lead to a charge. That charge can then be brought to court and tested. That's all we ask here in the land of the free. Why is it so hard? And when it doesn't happen, how can you pretend that the officers in question have gotten anywhere even vaguely near the standard of proof necessary to lock someone up for two years? Whatever you imply and refuse to admit you imply by reprinting information given out by the agencies that captures these people, your argument - without even a charge to lean on - is eventually reduced to "they're being detained, and therefore must be guilty."
 
You're absolutely right. The men and women working at MI5 & 6 can learn a thing or two from you.
 
You are astounding. What, if this was the 70s would you be sarcastically intoning that Nixon could learn a thing or two from us?

But certainly I'm ready to admit that the US handlers of the war on terror (who operated gitmo) could have done with my wise and sensible advice. I'm very clever and could have quickly informed them that disbanding the Iraqi army (for example) was a terrible idea. A child could have told them that.
 
You're absolutely right. The men and women working at MI5 & 6 can learn a thing or two from you.

Yes, like ethics, morality, respect for the rule of law, respect for human life, respect for human dignity.
 
You're absolutely right. The men and women working at MI5 & 6 can learn a thing or two from you.

Yes, because it's not like the vast majority of the 770 detainees that have passed through Guantanamo have been released without charges. 580 of them, to be specific. This is the equivalent of arresting someone because they are friends of people in an anti-government militia (or they may have even fired a gun or two with that militia) and then detaining them and torturing them until they admit to plotting to bomb somewhere.

It's one thing to arrest or detain them on conspiracy charges, that's pretty sane and fair. It's another thing to detain them illegally without enough evidence to support those charges, torture them and then use the admissions gained through torture against them. That's kind of stupid. Phenomenally stupid. Also, totally illegal according to the UN. Not to mention, torturing those detainees actually helps Al Qaeda recruit more extremists AND doesn't produce reliable information at all.

Here's a number of videos you should watch. All currently serving or formerly serving US colonels that refute the effectiveness of torture.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SfYov5o5_2s
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rpbag-KSoYI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lvsvO9kvSdo
 
You're absolutely right. The men and women working at MI5 & 6 can learn a thing or two from you.

Gotta love baseless sneering comments rather than real arguments. /b/ is that way. -->

They were detained.
They were not found guilty.
They were released, because they were not guilty.
There were compensated, because they should not have been detained while not guilty.

Any part of this you need help with, darling?
 
Back
Top