Should Guantanamo's ex-detainees receive compensation?
| 09:32 UK time, Tuesday, 16 November 2010
With at least six of the men alleging that UK forces were complicit in their torture before they arrived at the detention camp in Cuba, it appears the British government paid out rather than risk MI5 and MI6 being .
But the decision is highly controversial - and has implications not just for the UK, but globally. And interestingly, this is a decision that has been attacked from both the left and the right.
There are many critical of that the men are to receive money when there were, it is suggested, extremely good reasons for detaining them.
For example, here's 's rather sarcastic response on :
"Perhaps they should be required to pay back any benefits they had received prior to their unfortunate incarceration in a war zone. Prior to deportation the "compensation" should also be taxed as unearned income."
George W Bush argued last week that information obtained from actions such as waterboarding has helped protect innocent people from being killed.
If these men were involved in activity that threatened lives, and the actions of the secret services in dealing with them saved those lives, is it arguable that it is the secret service who deserve the thanks and the detainees deserve nothing?
Ralph Epelle on our Facebook page argues:
There is no justification for paying millions to these people. Do extremist groups pay millions to security forces after torturing them?On the other hand, Shami Chakrabarti, director of Liberty, has described the payments as the "price to be paid for lawlessness and torture in freedom's name."
"The government now accepts that torture is never justified and we were all let down - let's learn all the lessons and move on."
describes it as a "government whitewash":
Think about it for a minute: what does it say about the British government that they're willing to pay millions of pounds to avoid public scrutiny of their actions? What does it say about their case that they're willing to shell out to avoid a trial?
And here's on Twitter:
Gov to settle Gitmo cases. Sadly open justice denied again by private settlement. Now have to rely on Gibson Inquiry for some accntbilty
On the other hand, Benedict Brogan of the Daily Telegraph defends the decision on the basis that "sometimes it is necessary to take a lesser hit to avoid a greater one."
More than 100 senior agents of MI5, and many more from MI6, have been taken off what should be their sole pre-occupation - keeping us safe - to wade through papers and prepare for the civil cases brought by the detainees and those leading them on the path of judicial jihad. This was a disgrace and the PM is right to have brought that to a close.
What do you think? Should the government have stuck with the case? What about the allegations of torture? Are you concerned about the secretive nature of the deal? Should compensation have been paid?
