Cuts Cuts for UK but Millions spent to Silence Guantanomo Prisoners

[countless]

Is this right?www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11762636
Our welfare state is being dismantled and vital services cut and millions of £'s being thrown at denying people justice. The day after we hear of cuts to legal aid too.
What on earth is going on?

[countless]

who want to be a millionaire??!!

[Chil1234]

Justice perhaps? The sound of chickens coming home to roost? Blair's government set a train of events in motion that have led to revelations of torture & wrongful imprisonment. They also set the scene for the pathetic state our finances are in. The new government is picking up the pieces and making difficult decisions to turn around the financial situation. If citizens and residents of this country have to be compensated for the terrible wrongs done to them at the same time, it's not something we can duck.

[countless]

it would be compensation if awarded by court but this is an out of court settlement preventing them having their cases heard in court. it's a massive cover up paid for by we taxpayers

[Chil1234]

You started out asking why we're doing this when we need to save money as a nation but you'd now prefer a long court case, costing many more millions, much of which would be behind closed doors because of the involvement of the security services? Once the case is settled, there's nothing to stop anyone selling their stories... in fact, some of them are doing that already.

[Strix]

I'm not sure I have any sympathy for these guys. Would depend on what they were doing to get captured in the first place. If they had guns pointed at coalition forces, then I'm appalled at giving them a penny of British tax money.

I'd much rather see those funds directed towards our service men and women and their families. (who quitely frankly are terribly underpaid and under-thanked for their sacrifices)

A nice worthy cause, like this one: Help for Heroes

[BadgersPaws]

"Would depend on what they were doing to get captured in the first place. If they had guns pointed at coalition forces, then I'm appalled at giving them a penny of British tax money."

So if someone points guns at you you're allowed to throw law out the window, detain without trial and torture?

Isn't that basically the kind of justification that terrorists use? Aren't we meant to be "not" terrorists?

Weren't we told that "bad" people following that type of justification was one of the reasons why we went into Afghanistan?

[foxytoxin]

It will be cheaper to pay them off than to pay the barristers' fees for years to come? And saving the gov't a lot of embarrassment to boot.

So it sounds like a good deal to me.

[countless]

the embarressment of admitting they were complicit to torture and illegal imprisonment

[Chil1234]

Paying them off is tantamount to admission anyway... And let's not forget it was the previous administration presiding over the debacle. Best to get it over and done with quickly.

[Callisto]

This government have not been complicit - it was the Labour government that was complicit in torture, in particular Blair.

I don't see your problem with this Countless - it is cheaper than the alternative and it won't compromise our intelligence services.

[2shoes]

hides thread as it makes me too bloody angry

[Litchick]

Legally, the governemnt are on a very sticky wicket.
I think paying them off is the only thing we can do.
A trial would be long and cost a fortune...and the chances of success are pretty slim.

[foxytoxin]

Chil, let's recall that the opposition at the time vigourously supported the then government's decision to enter Afghanistan and Iraq. If I recall correctly, the previous government could not have gone into Iraq without the support of MPs from the opposition.

none of their hands were clean in the debacle.

[BadgersPaws]

I can't believe I'm defending the Tory party but...

Support for entering the war is not the same as sanctioning some of the things that happened in the war, such as torture, extraordinary rendition and detention without trial.

How far knowledge and support of those things went beyond the PM and the Cabinet is a very good question...

[popelle]

We have no option but to pay out on this. We were complicit in torture and now we're going to have to pay the price.

[BetsyBoop]

Now I can understand we as a nation are responsible for what happens to any person (British citizen or otherwise) whilst on our soil.

I can sort of understand why we have some responsibility for British citizens when they are on non-British soil

Can someone explain why we have any responsibility at all for what happens to a non-British citizen when they are not on British soil? "Nowt to do wiv me guv" springs to mind...


totally barking...

[BadgersPaws]

"Can someone explain why we have any responsibility at all for what happens to a non-British citizen when they are not on British soil? 'Nowt to do wiv me guv' springs to mind..."

Because we appear to have been involved, to some extent, in what happened to them.

The men have alleged that the UK Government was involved in transporting them to Guantanemo and their subsequent torture.

The Government wanted to defend itself with secret evidence but has been told that whatever your defence is it's got to be public.

The Government then thought that paying them off was better than explaining what had gone on. So we'll never know what was really done in our name.

[foxytoxin]

the non-British citizens were residents of the UK at the time the torture took place?

and it was our security services who colluded in their torture?

[Chil1234]

That's about the size of it... yup.

[BetsyBoop]

but the weren't extradited to Guantanemo from direct ftom the UK were they?

Surely if they claim the extradition was illegal, then they have to prove that in the legal system in country from which the extradition happened?

[BenignNeglect]

As i understand it they may have been transported via the UK (stop-offs to refuel planes etc), and even if not, the allegation was that our security services were feeding information to the US despite knowing that the men would be tortured. As to what information and how it all fitted together - I'm not clear.

[Maryqueenoftots]

It's not denying justice to the claimants. No lawyer wants to have the outcome of his or her case decided in court by an actual judge. Result can depend on what said judge had for breakfast and trials cost a blardy fortune. By settling now both sides retain control. 99 per cent of reparation cases settle before trial. Nothing out of the ordinary there

[huddspur]

This is about a cover-up. Our security forces were complicit in the torture that these men suffered and in order to stop the details reaching the public domain we are paying them off.