Git Outta Gitmo

Britain wants the "Gitmo Five"—who are not even British citizens, but former U.K. residents—shipped back across the Atlantic. And PM Gordon Brown has an ulterior motive:

The Foreign Office said the new approach was aimed at speeding up the closure of the centre, and was in line with recent steps by the US to reduce the numbers of detainees.

The Foreign Office said: "The foreign secretary and home secretary have reviewed the government's approach to this group of individuals in light of these ongoing developments, our long-held policy aim of securing the closure of Guantánamo Bay, and the need to maintain national security.

"They have decided to request the release and return of the five detainees who have links to the UK as former residents, having been granted refugee status, indefinite leave or exceptional leave to remain prior to their detention.

I fell for it, like a schmuck, when Gitmo-closing rumors floated in June.

Comments

[R C Dean]

I say we give 'em back, provided the Brits agree to indemnify us for any and all damage these 5 may cause in the future.

[crimethink]

I never realized that the purpose of the prison at Gitmo was to reduce our national tort liability!

RC, would you support withdrawal from Iraq if the Iraqis indemnify us for damages caused by such action?

[Shelby]

would you support withdrawal from Iraq if the Iraqis indemnify us for damages caused by such action?

Given the alternatives, if Iraq actually had a functioning economy and a legal system to enforce the agreement, I'd be favorably inclined.

[Marcvs]

would you support withdrawal from Iraq if the Iraqis indemnify us for damages caused by such action?

If by "indemnify" you mean, "come back and carpet bomb their country", then yes.

[Kyle G.]

If you don't like it, you can git out.

[wayne]

If the Gitmo Five are not enemy combatants we should return them to their country of citizenship, and like-wise for all other Gitmo guests. If they are enemy combatants, we should retain them in the sunny Carribean.