Former Gitmo Detainees Sue U.K. Gov't

(AP)  Eight former Guantanamo detainees have filed lawsuits against the British government and security services, accusing them of complicity in their illegal detention and seeking millions of pounds in damages, a newspaper reported Saturday.

The two lawsuits - filed at Britain's High Court - accuse the attorney general, the MI5 security service and MI6 secret intelligence service of being complicit in the abduction, treatment and interrogation of the eight men, according to The Daily Mail newspaper.

All eight were detained in Afghanistan, Pakistan or Gambia at various times and were transferred for detention at the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay Naval Base, on the southeast tip of Cuba.

They claim in the lawsuits that British authorities knew they would be taken to Guantanamo, but nevertheless cooperated with the Americans, the newspaper said.

"It is culpability by the British authorities in being involved in most of the process, their presence on every step of the journey before we got to Guantanamo," one of the former detainees involved in the suit, Moazzam Begg, was quoted as saying.

Begg told The Associated Press on Saturday he had been advised by lawyers not to comment further on the case.

Birnberg Pierce, the law firm named as acting for the men, refused to confirm the report when contacted by the AP. The High Court was closed, and Britain's Home Office said it could not comment on the case, as no writs had yet been served on the government.

The group has filed two separate writs against the government, MI5 and MI6 - one on behalf of five Britons, and the other on behalf of three foreign citizens with British residency, the newspaper said.

One names five Britons as claimants: Moazzam Begg, released in 2005; Richard Belmar, and three youths known as the "Tipton Three" after the town in England where they are from - Ruhal Ahmed, Shafiq Rasul and Asif Iqbal.

The three youths' story was told in "The Road to Guantanamo," a film by British director Michael Winterbottom. They tried unsuccessfully to sue the U.S. government for $10 million (6.3 million euros) each in damages.

The other writ was filed on behalf of Libyan Omar Deghayes and Jordanian Jamil el-Banna - both released in December - and Iraqi Bisher al-Rawi, released last year.

Lawyers for el-Banna and al-Rawi have previously claimed that U.K. officials instigated arrests that led to the two being detained and transferred to Guantanamo.

Al-Rawi and el-Banna were arrested in Gambia in 2002 while trying to return to Britain with electronic equipment. Their lawyers say British officials mistook a battery charger they carried for part of an improvised bomb when they first left the U.K. and passed those concerns on to overseas intelligence agents.

[usbrit-2009]

Posted by IDNNSG - Off subject, but well said sir or madam.

[usbrit-2009]

demslie, libsrweak; what part of "released" confounds your harried minds. These guys were held for years in a prison camp under false pretences. They were released, i.e. even the Bush regime could find nothing to charge them with. I.e. they are innocent. When someone is released from jail in the US who has been proven innocent - he usually sues the state and WINS!! These guys deserve the right to sue, and when they win, I hope the British bill Bush pesonally for the damages.

[libsrweak]

I can only assume, that the FORMER detainees, released BY THE US GOVERNMENT, are innocent of all charges. Our GOVERNMENT wouldn''''t let known terrorists go right?

So, if they are innocent, why would you want to take away their right to sue for being wrongly accused?

Posted by FloydZepp at 01:04 PM : Apr 20, 2008
+ report abuse

*********************

PROBLEM WITH YOUR argument is you ''ASSUME ALL TERRORISTS ARE INNOCENT''..''THE US GOVT IS A FACIST ENTITY''...AND EVERYTHING AMERICAN IS BAD

[libsrweak]

Posted by FloydZepp at 02:40 PM : Apr 20, 2008
+ report abuse

*****************

knowing your mindset..al franken is more ''republican'' than you are...

[rhs648]

Inherent human rights, like the right to confront your accuser (habeas corpus) can only be upheld if they are defended equally for everyone. Otherwise, who is given the godlike power (GW Bush?) to decide who is entitled to human rights and who is not?

The value of this is to provide Guantanamo prisoners with their day in court - which they all should have - to determine which are terrorists and which were only in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Posted by djeanrich

Correct me if I''m wrong (gently). Doesn''t the Constitution only extend habeas corpus to those living in the United States. I realize that rights for Guantanamo prisoners are being tested in Federal Courts and the Supreme Court. I do not remember if the Supreme Court has declared that these prisioners have all of the rights of those living in America. I use the phrase "those living in America" because states and the Federal government have extended certain rights to illegal immigrants.

[rhs648]

Do you now ALSO exclude legal means of opposition as undesirable? Would you take away someone''''s rights merely because they oppose your political preferences?

And people like you call others traitors.

Posted by FloydZepp

Opposing political views are fine. Protests are fine. However, when terrorists step ove the line maiming and killing people, it is a nerve to expect all of the benefits of a free society such as our own. These are rights and benefits that these people do not extend to their enemies or anyone whose religious and political views are different from their own. Let us make distinctions.

[djeanrich]

Inherent human rights, like the right to confront your accuser (habeas corpus) can only be upheld if they are defended equally for everyone. Otherwise, who is given the godlike power (GW Bush?) to decide who is entitled to human rights and who is not?

The value of this is to provide Guantanamo prisoners with their day in court - which they all should have - to determine which are terrorists and which were only in the wrong place at the wrong time.

[idnnsg]

demslie says, "John McCain is now polling ahead of Obama and Hillary."

That is not true. Averaging the Gallop, Rasumussen, Newsweek, ABC/Washington Post, Reuters/Zogby, and AP/Ipsos polls taken between 4/17 and 4/19, you''ll find that John Sidney McShame is ahead of Hillary by six tenths of one percent and John Sidney loses to Obama by one half of one percent.

Thus, at this moment while the democratic candidates are sniping at each other and the press is giving John Sidney a free ride, it''s a virtual tie. As soon as the democrats pick one candidate (it will be Obama) and attention gets focused on the fact that John Sidney is old and dying of cancer, supports torture even though he claims it didn''t work on him, was a member of the evil crooks known as the Keating Five, promises to continue the wars in Afganistan and Iraq forever, plus start WW3 by bombing Iran with nukes, and he has an extremely bad temper which has caused him to clench his fists and yell and curse at friends and family alike (thereby creating a bunch of enemies within the repug party), plus a bunch of stuff I won''t get into yet, THEN we''ll see that John Sidney McShame has NO CHANCE of being elected president.

[idnnsg]

FloydZepp, That was really funny the way you corrected the spelling and grammar of the mental midget who accused you of not finishing high school. Unfortunately, I think the subtlety of such an approach will prevent the child from grasping your meaning.

I also think it is truly sad that demslie can''t seem to grasp that when he accuses people of failing to graduate high school, or when he calls CBS the "Communist Broadcast Company", or when he accuses all Democrats of being "partners" with al Qaeda, that HE is guilty of "scream[ing] Hate and Anger and Anti-American slogans".

Such people see the evils in everyone else that they, themselves, possess in abundance. What this tells me about these sad, pathetic people is that they truly hate themselves. Maybe that''s why they keep voting republican, the party that promises to destroy the Constitution, destroy our freedom, destroy the middle class, impoverish our nation, enslave us all, and imprison or kill anyone and everyone who won''t accede to their wishes.

[rhs648]

One can only wonder who supplies the money for lawsuits like this? Why is it that so many groups can use any means possible, wheter legal, illegal, or violent yet expect rights and justice, something they would deprive the rest of us from havinmg?