29 2 mins 13 yrs

Britain starts 2009 preparing to receive foreign terror suspects from Guantánamo Bay so that Barack Obama can shut it down.

Government sources say that Britain now supports moves to rehouse the detainees, despite previous refusals to help President Bush. (How times change when its a liberal in The White House, eh?) 

A Downing Street official said that a process to deal with the detainees was being put in place and that decisions “would be for the Home Secretary to decide on a case-by-case basis”. The issue is the subject of intense negotiations within Whitehall. The Foreign Office appears much keener on the idea than other departments, which will have to deal with the suspects’ immigration status and whether they will need special housing and cash benefits. Having foreign terror suspects with no links to the UK housed here inevitably will provoke controversy”

Here’s the deal. The British Foreign Office is a nest of vipers and always has been so.Those of us who have experience of it here in Northern Ireland are acutely aware of the anti-British immoral and spineless mindset that prevails amongst the wise old coves that run it. The FO is attracted to the idea of importing terror suspects since these wise old coves know better than us mere mortals. Personally I would have thought our security services had enough work to do preventing local Islamics from slaughtering us but now we can look forward to a New Year with a new set of terror suspects. Labour loves terrorists and Club Gitmo residents can now lok forward to Welfare Britain. The Foreign Office can FO.

Click to rate this post!
[Total: 0 Average: 0]

29 thoughts on “BRINGING THE BOYS HOME…

  1. First thing they will do when they get back is turn around and head back over to the US on a fully loaded plane if you get my meaning. Or get their buddies onto the task. Detonating somewhere over New York City. Then Obama and the Foreign Office can reap the full reward of being liberal. With luck it will be a plane load of human rights lawyers and a city full of Obama butt kissing liberals that takes the full force of the detainees gratitude. I truly wish it on the lot of them.

  2. I supose the operative word here is "suspects". As in they are suspected of something, but not convicted of it. Are there even formal charges (requiring a minimal standard of proof)?

    Apparently, according to the article at least, those considered to present an actual danger (ie those who there must be sat least some evidence of having committed some terrorist act) will remain under US incarceration and be tried.

  3. < sarcasm mode = on >

    The British Foreign Office is a nest of vipers and always has been so

    No, we’ve never noticed that in Gib. Surely some mistake?

    < sarcasm mode = off >

    Frankly there aren’t enough lampposts and there isn’t enough rope for all of the Foreign Office staff. We may need to improvise come the revolution.

  4. If they are guilty of anything, then try and convict them. If they can’t be proven guilty, and are thereby, by definition, innocent, then they are as welcome to walk the streets as you and I.

  5. Or in Dublin. No complaints here. I’d take some of these boys living on my street before Troll any day.

  6. "It also quotes a Whitehall source as saying: "Of course the Foreign Office wants to do it, they want to get off to a good start with Obama"

    it says on the BBC. So this is about kissing US butt in the end. Hope it bites his arse in the end with more US citizens blown to hell. Then we’ll see just how innocent they are! They won’t be blowing up the country that lays out the welcome mat for them that’s for sure!

  7. "Your neighbors may not agree with you."

    My neighbors may not agree with me on all sorts.

  8. I do wish the FO would let Obama be sworn in before the arse kissing starts.

    And it also revealed that Bush has wanted to close Gitmo, but noone would help. Europe kept Gitmo open as an anvil just to hammer Bush against, and now that Obama’s in, the EU is creaming itself to help! Pathetic.

  9. –Hope it bites his arse in the end with more US citizens blown to hell–

    I’ll not join in that particular hope, but I guarantee you that one of these bastards will kill somebody after being released and I can further guarantee that the "Gitmo is the devil" brigade will find a way to say with a straight face that they’re not complicit in the deaths caused.

  10. Phantom – which one? Without pointing to the particular crime of any of them you are forced to sweeping generalizations about all of them.

  11. Who says they are all innocent? Not I amigo.

    But as for the planes they boarded – I do’t want to be on them because the most recent ones were CIA or military planes that took them to a place where they have been held without trial and if nipped with them I’d face the same problem of being lumped in under the generalized claim of my guilt and no way to prove otherwise.

  12. "They are all angels, all innocent."

    David, have they been proven guily of a crime, in a real court? If they have, then they are legally guilty. If they haven’t, then they are all innocent.

  13. Seamus – Legally being found not guilty doesn’t make someone innocent. But you are right in the idea that without fair trials then these generalizations about them as all wicked are without merit or support.

  14. "Legally being found not guilty doesn’t make someone innocent"

    Not big on the presumption of innocent, Mahons?

  15. Seamus – I am very big on it, but not confused by the presumption of innocence which is an important standard for a trial, not a way to view the world.

  16. If someone is innocent, as in not being proven guilty, then it is morally wrong to hold them. They are innocent, until they have been proven guilty of a crime. That is the way to view the world.

  17. Of course a person isn’t "innocent" until trial, but they deserve that presumption at the trial. That is basic criminal law 101.

  18. No, Mahons. A person is innocent until proven guilty. That means that until the very moment that they are proven guilty of a crime they are innocent. That includes before the trial.

  19. the EU is creaming itself to help! Pathetic.

    That doesn’t make sense Charles from Texas. UK Germany and Portugal are all taking back bunches. Having taken back their own already. We are not talking about Europeans. These are Chinese and Arabs etc. So saying, member states are still taking them back.

    What’s pathetic is your President closing the facility and releasing them because he thinks that’s right and that the men inside were all saints. That’s pathetic. What’s pathetic is having this facility create so many legal issues and Bush not dealing with cases sooner. That’s pathetic. And what’s truly pathetic is having not simply shot the fuckers on sight in Iraq. Doubly and pointlessly pathetic!

  20. If the Obamamaniac wishes to close the Cuban camp fine….but let him keep the terrorists he releases within his own country…we don’t need them within the UK….we have enough home-grown terrorists of our own….including five in the Government of Northern Ireland

  21. Seamus – you don’t understand the presumption of innocence. It does not mean that an arrested person is innocent, after all, people aren’t arrested based on random selection. The presumption of innocence is a legal conceit (and a correct one) used to insure a fair trial.

  22. James -even more pathetic is your misunderstanding of who is detained – they aren’t all from Iraq. And a group of them are scheduled to be tried. But don’t let the facts bother you.

Comments are closed.