Guantanamo five back home

The five men released by the US from Guantanamo Bay arrived back in Britain last week.

Four of the five, were questioned by police at the high-security Paddington police station, under the Terrorism Act. The fifth man, Jamal Udeen, was free to leave, and not questioned.

Four of the men, the so-called 'Tipton Three', and Jamal Udeen, have provided accounts of their treatment at the prison. Jamal Udeen's story was releaed first in the Mirror newspaper, and he has provided some bizarre incidents.

The other three have given a detailed interview to The Observer.

What can we say about these stories? I have heard a few mutterings by some people who view these stories with some suspicion. That they were paid money will be invoked as a reason to reject the claims of torture, abuse and general maltreatmant at the hands of both the US and their allies the Northern Alliance. The first one does seem 'colourful', to say the least. The latter seems more plausible. But what good reason do I have to deny these allegations? Did the amount of money being paid for exclusives influence the stories? If we take that route we should say that power and politics will influence the denial that will probably be forthcoming from the US (and so the UK); and the lure of these are more important to the respective governments than any cheque for £60,000 could be to these men. We can then rightfully suggest that prejudice and alterior motives underline the real cause of criticism these men face from within and without the governments. With this all out in the open, it will be down to the sheer fiat of either "side" as to who is correct; so much for 'reason'. In anycase, where is the proof that these stories are fabrications or exaggerations? For this we must await the response of the US and UK.

It is not entering the realms of fantasy to suggest that these men were tortured, or that these men were abused quite severely by the US. In fact, we can question the "objecivity" and "reasoning" of people who suggest that the US would be incapable of such methods of "extracting" what it wants to hear. The real problem for the US will be when more men are released, and a pattern of such stories emerges. What then?

The actions of the British Government have been, on the whole, one of a lacklustre nature, and Tony Blair, Jack Straw et al. have shown to be supine characters in the face of the US, who lack both will and courage to face up to their responsibilities. Though, it seems, this lack of will and courage does not occur when faced with less than adaquete intelligence needed to justify a war; then they seem to have it in abundance, assuming the role of a fool's courage.

Even the fact that four of these men were held upon their return is highly questionable: if the US had found nothing on them after holding them for two years, what were the authorities going to find now? Especially given that MI5 has been questioning these men whie they were still in Guantanamo. Was this a politically-motivated charade for the press and public? Rhetorical questions require no answer. I do hope these men pursue this Government, and the various agencies involved, for their incompetence, if not wilful neglect of their duties to British citizens. Does it not concern people that British citizens were essentially kidnapped and then incarcerated in a foreign prison, nay dungeon, for no reason at all? What say you, Mr. Rumsfeld? Are these still the most 'dangerous' criminals in the world?

Traitors, I hear you cry? If they are traitors, then let us try them in an open court of law, uphold their innocence until the court declares their guilt, and if found to be innocent men, let their names be cleared of any wrong doing. Or is this core aspect of law in the Anglosphere only provided for men of a certain racial and cultural background?

Terrorism, I hear you cry? The tragic events of Spain are in the minds of many. But is the forsaking of principles, the very ones that are claimed to be under attack, the right thing to do in face of terrorism? Do I deny justice to those whose only crime seems to be that they are guilty of belonging to the swarthy races? I do not often invoke or use the 'race' card; but the latent racism, if not disproportionate discrimination which seems to be behind some of these actions, is all to plain to see. Maybe it's my position as a visible ethno-religious minorty which does not allow me to see above the parapet I seem to have found myself behind? But even still, are my views in a democracy deemed that worthless?

Suddenly, the blurb on my purple document about "Her Britannic Majesty's Secretary of State requests..." seems like it isn't worth the proverbial paper.

[Update:] Well it seems someone enjoyed his 'visit' to Cuba. I've also seen the front page of a tabloid this morning, reporting that the US does indeed believe the four men -- the 'Tiption Three' and a a fourth man from East London -- were part of al-Qa'ida and the Taliban. But I am not sure I can bring myself to link to The Sun. Those interested can consult a copy of today's (18 March 2003) paper, or search their website.

Comments

[FM]

YEAH MASHALLAH FIVE R BAK HOME AND ALSO RELEASED I FEEL SORRY FOR EM THEY WERENT EVEN MUJAHIDS AND WERE TOTURED FOR NO RESON HAVE U READ THE STORIES OF THE TORTURE YA ALLAH MY HEART GOES OUT TO MY DEAR BROTHERS IN ISLAM WHO ARE STILL HELD AT GUANTANAMO HOW MUCH THEY ARE GOIN THROUGH MAY ALLAH GIVE THEM PATIENCE AND FREE THEM FROM THE KUFFARS JAIL AAMEEN