Although the Guardian reports that a solicitor for two of the men demands that they should be treated as "torture victims" rather than terror suspects, security forces take a sterner view
 The angle British newspapers take on the imminent return of four terror suspects from Guantanamo Bay tells you a lot about each paper's philosophy. The Independent, for example, screams "1000 Days of Hell" - a reference to the time one of the prisoners has spent in Camp X-Ray since his arrest in Afghanistan. The Guardian,typically, calls in the social workers, warning that the men may need "extensive counselling at least" for many years after their release.
| Good idea. Make sure they have their heads examined... |
However, The Times, not to mention the British authorities, expect that the returned prisoners may need something rather more than psychiatric care when they are released: 24-hour police surveillance. Although the Guardian reports that a solicitor for two of the men demands that they should be treated as "torture victims" rather than terror suspects, security forces take a sterner view. The Times reports that the men are unlikely to face trial in the UK, despite US accusations that they attended terrorist camps, volunteered on suicide missions and pledged allegiance to Osama bin Laden. The report adds that British intelligence service MI5 has compiled substantial dossiers on the men following interrogation in Camp X-Ray. However, this evidence is not admissible in British courts as the men had no legal representation and had not been cautioned when the interviews took place.
| That does nothing to lessen the truth of the reports. Intel information is seldom suitable for introduction as evidence in court. Think how much of the evidence gathered against the Magnificent 19 in the wake of the 9-11 attacks would be admissible... |
The government's only alternative, it seems, is to keep the men under round-the-clock surveillance. Indeed, Britain's foreign secretary Jack Straw has admitted that one of the conditions of the mens release was that their activities would be monitored "very closely." A similar situation arose last year, when the first batch of British terror suspects were released by the US. We reported then that surveillance could cost the taxpayer around £1 million per man annually. The Times' leader asks some tough questions. It will be fascinating, the paper says, to hear their explanations of what took them to Afghanistan, "which was not a popular tourist destination at the time," it adds, dryly. |