Downing Street Says » Guantanamo Bay

Asked the Government’s view on the issue of awarding compensation to the five detainees who had now returned to the UK and had been freed, the PMOS said that it was important for people to see this issue in the context of needing to strike the right balance between respecting people’s rights on the one hand, and maintaining security across the world on the other. We understood the difficulties involved in getting that balance right. We welcomed, for instance, the responsible way in which representatives of the three individuals from Tipton had dealt with the issue so far. We hoped that would continue. Asked if the Government would apologise for the delay in taking up the cases of the former detainees while they had been held in Guantanamo Bay, the PMOS pointed out that there had been seven visits by officials to check on the detainees’ welfare there. The first had been in January 2002. This had been followed by visits in February 2002, May 2002, November 2002, April 2003, September 2003 and March 2004. We had been the first country to see our nationals in Guantanamo Bay – and, as far as we were able to ascertain, our officials had visited more often than the representatives of any other Government. Asked about the physical condition of the five individuals who had been freed, the PMOS said he did not think it would appropriate for him to comment on that matter.

Asked if the Government would agree with the five individuals’ claim that their release was proof of their innocence, the PMOS said that the police had detained them for questioning and had subsequently released them. That had been the right way to handle the matter. The correct procedures had been followed from the moment they had landed in the UK to the time of their release.

25 Comments »

Some beautiful question-dodging from the PMOS as regards compensation and their innocence.
It is obvious that they do not constitute a threat and probably never did otherwise they wouldn’t have been released.
Consequently their detention was unlawful. More than 2 years of these men’s lives have been stolen from them.
Surely some effort must be made to compensate them, I doubt this will ever happen though.
Comment by David Matthews — 11 Mar 2004 on 2:54 pm | Link
So……it takes two years to question people!! How absurd is that? Life has been stolen and i suspect this could be a case for a warcrimes tribunal, as we are apparently at war right now.
Comment by Max Richards — 11 Mar 2004 on 3:42 pm | Link
Surely any question of compensation is for the US authorities and not the UK.
Comment by David Boothroyd — 11 Mar 2004 on 3:58 pm | Link
The extremal position is, presumably, that British citizens have been kidnapped and held unlawfully against their will, isolated and far from home. Under this interpretation, I would hope that any British government would use its influence to bring those responsible to justice, and assist the victims in obtaining compensation.

Now, I am not a lawyer and I don’t know whether this accurately describes the situation of those imprisoned at Guantanamo Bay. But if it did, I’d like to see government assistance for the victims. As with the "war on terrorism", extraordinary crimes may need to be dealt with by extraordinary measures.
Comment by Chris Lightfoot — 11 Mar 2004 on 4:40 pm | Link
I think we need to clarify the situation a little. To claim the prisoners detention was ‘illegal’ is not technically correct. As they were apprehended in the combat zone of Afghanistan and were not uniformed members of a military force they are not afforded the protection of any POW conventions. Camp X-Ray is not on US soil and therefore anygoings on there are not within the scope of US law.

Whilst I do not advocate this circumvention of human rights laws this is the legal situation.
Comment by Chris Atkinson — 11 Mar 2004 on 7:14 pm | Link
<a href="http://www.crimesofwar.org/print/expert/pow-intro-print.html">http://www.crimesofwar.org/print/expert/pow-intro-print.html</a>
argues (persuasively, in my view) that the "illegal combatants" thing is so much nonsense and that the detainees are afforded the protection of the Geneva conventions, at least until a competent tribunal has determined them not to be so subject. As far as I am aware, no such tribunal has been convened.

Has the US Supreme Court reached a decision as to the legal status of Guantanamo Bay yet?
Comment by Chris Lightfoot — 11 Mar 2004 on 7:24 pm | Link
My view on the legality of camp X-Ray is based upon a discussion with a Professor of criminal law at my university and my knowledge of the law as a law student.
Comment by Chris Atkinson — 11 Mar 2004 on 7:29 pm | Link
Then these prisoners must be covered by Cuban law, as they are on Cuban soil, but I haven’t seen Fidel Castro’s agreement to George Bush’s actions?

Assuming you are legally correct (I am not qualified to argue that you aren’t) then as the ‘war on terror’ is global, we are all in a combat zone. I’m not wearing any uniform of a military force so does that mean I have no rights?
Comment by Uncarved Block — 11 Mar 2004 on 7:30 pm | Link
An interesting point. But then again the ‘war on terror’ is merely a hackneyed soundbite for the media. I am not an expert on international law and could not tell you the definition of a combat zone, but Afghanistan fell within that.

The US’s actions to avoid human rights law appalls my views as a lawyer, the rule of law should deal with these people and not the rule of Dubya.

These people can no longer face a fair trial because of the prejudice they would be up against due to the US’s actions. The US has not only flaunted the accepted standards of human rights in the Western world, but has also defeated any attempt to seek justice.
Comment by Chris Atkinson — 11 Mar 2004 on 7:41 pm | Link
I think, to use an electronic analogy, human rights should be in the "always on" position, untill proven justification removes it (would this ever be justified?) rather than "always off" unless you happen to be what the US military decides is a uniform.

"Uniformed members" – isn’t this mightily vague? If I correctly judge the respect for dress afforded the uniform by the military, you could end up being shot as a spy because your epaulets werent ironed.

At the end of the day, people have spent two years in very harsh conditions, and they are innocent. Quite clearly an attack on democracy and freedom. No doubt then, whoever did it is evil.
Comment by Lodjer — 11 Mar 2004 on 8:30 pm | Link
Personally, I think the most frightening thing about the Guantanamo Bay situation is – like Iraq – the precedent it creates. It’s possible that many, if not most, of the prisoners there are potentially dangerous to innocent civilians. Yet there have been no open tribunals to demonstrate this – we merely have the word of the government that brought us the disenfranchisement in Florida and and the non-existant WMDs.

Even if the US government has only detained terrorists without trial, it could detain innocent civilians and would not need to justify itself any more than it has thus far. The most compelling reason to deal with the Guantanamo Bay situation is that is not the damage it’s already done, but that it could leave us open to.
Comment by Jonn Elledge — 12 Mar 2004 on 12:14 am | Link
Chris, the ‘War on Terror’ is more than a hackneyed soundbite for the media. The media is the megaphone by which such a phrase becomes stuck in the minds of those good citizens who are just trying to be decent slaves and ‘succeed’ within the rat race. After the cold war, which was always gonna be fixed term, a war was necessary to bolster the massive pilfering and pillaging taking place by the money men. Plenty of omens and plenty of money.

The message of Guantanamo is "get used to it", or something that resembles it. An extreme example is always a good way to introduce something less extreme, but no less unreasonable. Text book Mind Control for Dummies. Of course, it works both ways. This was Ghandi’s understanding. Ghandis are not allowed these days. They break too many rules. Strictly taboo.
Comment by HH — 12 Mar 2004 on 12:51 am | Link
How do so many of the "experts" commenting on this know whether these people are innocent or not? How do any of us "know" why they were where they were and what they were doing there – when, according to their families, they should not have been in the places where they were picked up?
Comment by hipster — 12 Mar 2004 on 9:15 am | Link
HH, whilst I disagree with the US’s imprisonment of suspects without trial lets not put too much of marxist outlook upon this. There are plenty of ‘money men’ who are equally outraged at this outright ignorance of fundamental human rights.
Comment by Chris Atkinson — 12 Mar 2004 on 1:42 pm | Link
hipster– the people who have just been freed from Guantanamo Bay have not even been charged with anything, let alone tried and convicted. Therefore they are innocent.
Comment by Chris Lightfoot — 12 Mar 2004 on 2:16 pm | Link
The use of a legal loophole does not turn a legal right into a moral right; nor does it uphold the spirit of the documents signed and adhered to by the governments and peoples bound by that law.

Talk of whether it’s "legal" in the letter of the law is ignoring the important point, here: it’s clearly against the spirit and the purpose of the document in question, and any use of loopholes in it can’t be called anything less than a breach of the spirit – and a breach of the human rights of those people.

Regardless of how you feel about them: there is a right way and a wrong way to go about this, and we’ve been on the wrong fork in that road for well over two years now. This belated U-turn ignores the fact that we’re now a long way down that road from where we were.
Comment by Gregory Lightyear — 12 Mar 2004 on 2:37 pm | Link
Just to add further confusion to this debate, in response to the claim by one of the released people that he had been tortured:

"A spokesman for US Southern Command in Miami, told BBC News Online: ‘We do treat the detainees in a fair humane way, according to the Geneva Convention.’" (on BBC site)
Comment by Uncarved Block — 12 Mar 2004 on 3:00 pm | Link
I think if anything, the biggest problem with guantanamo bay isn’t the injustice of the situation, but the lack of control shown by the bush administration. It is quite painfully clear to the world that Mr Bush is clearly too short sighted for international politics. Guantanamo is a political and legal mess, tarnishing the very thing which the Americans vaule the most, the rule of law. The Bush adminisration’s lack of planning for the after effects of the afgan/Iraq wars have placed their own government in a tight spot. The British government may moan, but prehaps if they had been more forceful in the post-iraq planning stages,this mess, along with it’s own legal mess at home, might have been avoided.
Comment by Daz — 12 Mar 2004 on 3:18 pm | Link
Chris,
Easily done, as I’m not always as clear-cut as I’d like, however, I was not aware of having a Marxist outlook. I wouldn’t really know what that was if it bit me on the ass. Political history is just another layer, a version of events, so I can only take it into account along with all the other layers. I would not confine myself to linear left/right outlooks, since if that was all there was to it, we would already be immersed in some utopia. This world is not set up for that, and never will be.

When I talk of money men, I do not mean those who live for it, sweat for it, lust after it, or merely accept it as a ‘fact of life’. I mean those who create it, out of nothing, and deal with it, persuading us all to sustain it as the kingpin of all religions, as if that’s all we came here to do. I refer to those who consider a billion dollars as loose change. They know how to maintain an abundance for all those in the same club, as well as offer it to the rest as a scarce and precious thing to be strived for. Behind this movement is a freezing cold attitude and disdain for all the inferiors, the ants, that would uncover the FACTS about the economic machine, if it were not for there skill and vast experience at mass mind control. Want some proof? Dig a little deeper. An archaeologist would hardly uncover that prize specimen if he always stopped after two feet of excavation.

Consider the blatant and fraudulent emotional invocation of our ‘leaders’ in the face of recent events. Their minds are disjoined, distorted, disconnected and deeply concerned with their place in history, as if that mattered one bit. Humility is only good as an excuse for more killing and torture, and to sustain the guilt that keeps this world in chains. Politics, above all else, is a career. That’s all. You can apply if you wish, subject to status. History, if anything, is your proof of that. How on Earth can I respect and co-operate with my fellow human beings? Mmmm, let me think. No, I can’t see a way to do it. I would have no idea where to start. I give up. But if you give me enough money, I’ll shoot someone for you. Sounds familiar?

The official sense of injustice at certain events and not others is a clue to how insane the world is, those who would lead and those who would be led. Getting and taking is the mantra of those in dread of losing everything, as Death stalks constantly. But one thing needs to be looked at square in the face. Death is inevitable. Big deal. Is that what all this fuss is about?

So Guantanamo inmates will do penance on our behalves, just in case. In America, there are vast sections of desert reserved for a Federal Emergency in which the A, B and C list ‘subversives’ (a mix of peace-loving free thinkers, gung-ho Rambos and general misfits) will be contained ‘just in case’. The train carriages have been manufactured with shackles fit only for humans. This is NOT a TV drama. If you do not comply you will be taken out of circulation. Absurd? Exponential momentum. Sooner or later, we will be in no doubt about it. Vaccines, GM, biometrics, false medicine, the requirement to be identifiable, the permission to question ONLY within certain parameters, the endless war, the endless research into imaginative ways of killing and control, the endless supply of labour to equip the future with hopelessness. But it’s OK; ‘cos we’re gonna stand shoulder to shoulder with our allies against an invisible enemy who we are certain is more crazy than ourselves, as if that makes any sense. How will we know when we have won the war? When the terrorist lays down his arms and says, "OK, you win, your violence makes more sense than ours." At this point the WWII lesson usually gets read out. But again, the funding of it, the planning of it, the execution of it and the benefits of it were all the domain of those very same money men. There were, and ARE, no sides, in actuality. There are only those who take, those who ‘sacrifice’, and a few who refuse to subscribe to this view of the world, because they have seen something else which relegates it all to its proper place – sheer illusion.
Comment by HH — 13 Mar 2004 on 1:38 am | Link
I’m sorry HH but, while I think I agree with your sentiments, you’re sounding more and more like George Bush and Tony Blair.

"Please be scared of these bogy men. We have no evidence that they exist or of anything they do but we can blame the world’s problems on them. As long as you believe they exist and are scared of them, that’s all that matters."

They talk about agents of evil, you talk about the illuminati (or some other similar group). The end result is the same. People spend all their time trying to find circumstancial evidence of, or protecting themselves from, an imaginary threat instead of puting their energies into tackling the quite obvious and real problems in the world, such as selfishness, short-termism and inequality, amongst others.

Even if you are right and there is a huge conspiracy of powerful people, then it is quite clear that ‘we’ could do nothing about it anyway. It’s like dying of thirst because you think the water might be poisoned. It doesn’t matter how real the threat is, the fact that you believe it means that you have become a victim of the belief.
Comment by Uncarved Block — 13 Mar 2004 on 6:08 pm | Link
I would like to perhaps add another angle to this thread Uncarved and HH: that being the potential realisation that if people are poisoning the water, and the ‘ants’ are thirsty, would not the survival instinct kick and drive the ‘ants’ to attack the poisoners out of sheer thirst and desperation? On a numbers basis alone, the poisoners would not survive, UNLESS you have engineered the social mechanisms or ‘chains’ to prevent access by the ‘ants’: perhaps by generating a feeling of worthlesness and by facillitating a diminished self-belief?
Comment by Max Richards — 13 Mar 2004 on 7:53 pm | Link
[If anyone looking at this thinks it’s too long, then erm, don’t read it, and sweet dreams…]

Uncarved Block: First of all, don’t be sorry (! – I know it was a figure of speech but nonetheless…) – none of us needs to apologise for trying to think our way around these issues. At least some of us ARE trying to think, and not just REACT like a Pavlov’s Dog to the ‘News’ that is really just a presentation of a narrow band of current affairs. And we do it because we sense that no matter how inevitable all this war and violence seems to be, it is SOMEHOW unnecessary. However, I am somewhat amused and slightly concerned at the thought processes that have led you to put me in the same bracket as Bush & Blair! This is an excellent new site, but it is not a discussion forum as such, so it’s bound to be tricky to qualify certain statements, and related lateral tangents. And it is the lateral part of this that stumps most people when it comes to dealing with ‘conspiracy theories’. It is not I who want people to be scared of the ‘bogy men’. I am certainly not scared of them (and that would get their goat, for sure, fraternity-ritual references aside!). If anything, my main thrust of the arguments I present, if you were reading between the lines of any of my comments, is that fear is NOT an appropriate basis on which to attempt some fact-finding and open, honest inquiry. Your comments do not address the points I made; they only reveal the fear already buried within you.

IF there really is a dark agenda, or ten, to fundamentally change the basis of modern life on a global scale, then it is essential that fear is employed amongst the many. But you will have seen recently that that fear has nowhere specific to direct itself. Confusion, fear, and some means of daily ‘non-controversial’ escape are the key ingredients to exploitation by the few. You don’t have to be a rocket scientist to appreciate that. Our problem is that we are not READY to confront the IMPLICATIONS of what the ‘conspiracy’ represents. It is a common, convenient and almost automatic phenomenon that the term ‘conspiracy theorist’ necessarily conjures an image of a casual reactionary whose main task is scare-mongering for the sake of it. This image is essential to the prevention of the majority of folk BECOMING conspiracy theorists! It has been used blatantly and adeptly by Blair and Bush in the last several years. It is a classic strategy of simple psychological manipulation. And IT WORKS! The reason it works is because we think we are happier being simple minded. And we are too full of self-importance and self-consciousness resulting in a dread of what others might think of us. Oh, what a shame. While simple-mindedness is a spiritual elevator when engaged with wisdom, it is a self-constructed prison for those who do not appreciate the benefits of becoming wiser, or at least of aiming in that general direction. The trouble for the governments of this world is that INFORMATION IS DANGEROUS, and so much of it has to be secreted, distorted or dismissed as \x91silly\x92 or \x91irrelevant\x92.

My approach, over 20-plus years of research, is one of evidence gathering, and the suspension of judgement, until and unless certain connections FORCE one into seeing a hitherto unseen PART of the bigger picture. There is, inevitably, a psychological and emotional reaction to this aspect of research when certain conclusions are drawn. But that is not the end of it. The true researcher will expect such a reaction and let it pass. The various conclusions are then formulated into a theory, which MUST be tested and corroborated. My scientific background will not allow me to do anything less. The problem lies in the nature of the evidence and the difficulty in establishing links that present a clear cohesion. The point about a conspiracy is that you are NOT SUPPOSED TO KNOW ABOUT IT. Despite the long history of political unreliability, flaky integrity, and predictable and repeated corruption and self-interest the world over, we are happily seduced into believing that nothing can be done except to carry on voting, trusting, and becoming frustrated, scared and disappointed, time and again, over and over. And if I could swear like a maniac here, then this is the point at which I’d start! (It’s a release technique, I’m sure you’ll appreciate!)

As for the evidence itself, I concede that much of it is circumstantial (and would be no less acceptable in a normal court proceeding), but plenty of it is hard empirical facts. Ever tried to get the simple hard facts out of a Government recently?!!! The ‘Devil’ is literally in the details, to mix a Masonic metaphor. When a politician says on TV, "I am not going to comment on…" – that’s exactly when they should be pressed for clear information. As long as folk are willing to absorb the basic messages of today’s events, and just say, "Oh, that’s terrible," we can expect to carry on, business as usual.

Your last comment makes no sense. My belief, or anyone else’s, is not the important thing; information is. My beliefs come and go, changing daily, but I do not cling to them because then I would be shutting doors and giving up. Belief is a transient thing and is not to be relied upon for any permanent effects. It is merely a temporary by-product that has been shot down time and again, and which simply doesn’t matter. It is also the proof by which ANY religion can be seen to provide nothing more than a GENERAL SENSE of understanding at best, and an unquestioning, lifeless routine at worst. Any conspiracy researcher with enough patience (and ‘self-awareness’) to get past the first week of research begins to understand that it will either be dismissed here and now, or that there is a long hard slog involved in dealing with the material thankfully available on the Internet and elsewhere. There is no need to pigeon-hole every piece of information into some convenient category in order to avoid further, closer, deeper examination. You could just ‘bear it in mind’, and continue down some other avenue. Sooner or later, the connections come together like those 3D holographic images which spring from a 2D mess of patterns. One thing is for sure; such activity hones the mind into the finest of BS-detectors, and the politicians just end up looking dim, stupid, deceptive and downright dishonest. So let’s dismiss the conspiracy theorists, since all they have are theories. NO. It is the public which are being fed the theories, and they are all consumed without question. We may not be able to ‘do anything about it’ (and that in itself is a notion worth promoting from a control point of view), but it is precisely because I am NOT scared that I will not flinch from expressing my instincts to look deeper, and respect my right to learn. I would happily go head-to-head with Blair, live on TV, and he would be out of office by the end of the day. But THAT WOULDN’T CHANGE A THING, unless, as a result, I found myself no longer ‘whistling in the wind’.

Max: You answered your own question, but again the feeling of worthlessness and a diminished self-belief is an effect not a cause. It is both the nature of the information made available to the public via mass media, and the LACK of vital information which is NOT presented or examined, which causes this effect. The survival instinct is probably THE biggest barrier to being tenacious with those in authority about the facts. At this point, the argument should rightly detour into a consideration of spiritual content, and philosophical and metaphysical areas. But again, the tendency is to pigeon-hole these aspects, and see them as unconnected and irrelevant. The pains and the pleasures of a split mind.

As a tiny illustration, I will provide just five links (out of thousands) worth spending some time with (i.e. following the further trail of links from these, as well as the actual content):

<a href="http://www.themedianews.com/DAGGER/Stefan/September.Terrorists.htm">http://www.themedianews.com/DAGGER/Stefan/September.Terrorists.htm</a>
<a href="http://www.wardrobe.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/murder_inc/terrordome.html">http://www.wardrobe.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/murder_inc/terrordome.html</a>
<a href="http://www.nomorefakenews.com/archives/">http://www.nomorefakenews.com/archives/</a>
<a href="http://www.tetrahedron.org/articles/new_world_order/bush_nazis.html">http://www.tetrahedron.org/articles/new_world_order/bush_nazis.html</a>
<a href="http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5829.htm">http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5829.htm</a>

Valid questions to ask are these: If this stuff is made up, why? If this is not made up, then how come I don’t already know about it? Why didn’t it make the News? You have to make your own mind up about this stuff, but don\x92t do yourself an injustice by premature rejection of the tale it tells when put all together.

Good luck, Adventurers. Just check your emotions as you go. Try not to just react without careful self-observation.
Comment by HH — 14 Mar 2004 on 2:33 pm | Link
HH,

conspiracy theories are the new religeons. They are constructed by people to give answers to things they don’t understand. They mix theories and facts until they become interchangeable and state some ‘facts’ which defy logic. Everyone believes that their conspiracy theory is true even though many of the theories contradict each other. And, like religeons, conspiracy theories either lead to monkish withdrawal (‘I already know the answers and I will spend all my time finding evidence to support them’) or crusader/jehad attacks on the perceived bad guys (even if these attacks only take verbal form or discrimination against certain groups).

Like all religeons conspiracy theories are not scientific proofs, they require belief. I am a conspiracy agnostic, I don’t think believing in them helps but I don’t mind people believing them if they want to – as long as it doesn’t lead them to increase the level of hate in the world and/or reduce the level of positive activity.
Comment by Uncarved Block — 15 Mar 2004 on 1:44 pm | Link
UB,

This is why I have tried to make the distinction between the theorist and the researcher. Theories are an essential part of the scientific method. Believing in a theory because you like the sound of it, for whatever lame or noble reason, is NOT research. Hence, my BS-detector comment. There is a lot of crap out there, in terms of ideas, exaggerations, misleadings, AND disproven theories. And this is why I made particular emphasis about ‘belief’, and its general non-permanent uselessness. On what evidence have you based your conclusions, above, and have those conclusions been thoroughly tested? Who is the theorist here?

It is not about ‘knowing’ or being ‘right’. It is about uncovering something which is closer to the truth. The researcher understands that that truth will never be fully grasped. There is no point in having a pre-conceived notion of what the truth is before trying to find it. And as it happens, some ‘truths’ are superceded by others at various points of the progression. I have been led by curiosity, in the past, down certain avenues of investigation which have turned out to be red herrings or non-workable ideas. So have many famous and non-famous inventors and scientists; so have thousands of police detectives; so have countless numbers of spiritual seekers; that is simply the nature of investigation. What am I to do? Take a big ego hit? Cry like a baby ‘cos my own personal investment in a mere belief has left me with nothing much to cling to? As I said, I’m not a clinger (or a Klingon). I am merely very curious.

But I can see where you might be coming from. Unusual discoveries have a tendency to capture the imagination, and invoke that sense of belief that is so similar to a religious feeling of sorts. That capacity remains one of the great unsolved mysteries. (But ‘somewhere’, it IS solved.) Cults and kooks spring up everywhere, obsessed with proving themselves as being in-the-know, compelled to ensure that they are seen to be right, regardless of facts that prove otherwise. That is not my game. (All this stuff shows is that the psychological state of the human mind is missing information, call it ‘The Big Picture’.) That is just falling for one’s own publicity. The media and the politicians are happy to dish out the labels, and they are confident that you will infer your own interpretation based on what they have already presented to you in relation to those labels. (Sale Now On!)

Tell me if you think I’m wrong about this, but do you ever get the impression we’re being screwed big time? Now, can you imagine a guy on the news, all suit and tie and serious, starting off with the show: "Tonight’s Headlines at 6 o’clock: It’s official – we’re all being screwed big time." How would that story run the corresponding details? Do such details exist that would support such a headline? Almost inconceivable – difficult but fun to imagine, not to mention pretty inspiring. Or should fear be the appropriate response? You decide. Would you scrutinise such a declaration, or just take it on the chin like the old-fashioned type of news story?

Are we ready to look at everything without flinching? Not yet, I guess. Does the hypnotist bring you out of hypnosis, or can you do it yourself? Is there a Help button?

A further illustration: http://www.nomorefakenews.com – Short piece entitled: THE LEFT, THE RIGHT, AND 9/11 (if it’s moved on check the archives).

I trust you don’t think I’m comin’ on heavy here, I’m only attempting an explanation. But if you do, that’s your business, not mine. However, I respect the exchange, and wish you well. If you have a last word, go for it, Brother.

"God is a comedian
playing to an audience
too afraid to laugh."
~ Voltaire (1694-1778)
Comment by HH — 15 Mar 2004 on 9:43 pm | Link
…<^> (-_-) <^>
Comment by CLOOT — 1 Apr 2005 on 1:36 am | Link

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Post a public comment

Name (required)
E-mail (required)
(You must give an email address, but it will not be displayed to the public.)
Website
(You may give your website, and it will be displayed to the public.)

Comments:

This is not a way of contacting the Prime Minister. If you would like to contact the Prime Minister, go to the 10 Downing Street official site.

Privacy note: Shortly after posting, your name and comment will be displayed on the site. This means that people searching for your name on the Internet will be able to find and read your comment.

Original PMOS briefings are © Crown Copyright. Crown Copyright material is reproduced with the permission of the Controller of HMSO and the Queen's Printer for Scotland. Click-use licence number C02W0004089. Material is reproduced from the original 10 Downing Street source, but may not be the most up-to-date version of the briefings, which might be revised at the original source. Users should check with the original source in case of revisions. Comments are © Copyright contributors. Everything else is © Copyright Downing Street Says.

» Thursday, March 11, 2004

Guantanamo Bay

25 Comments »

Post a public comment

Search

Supported by

Recent Briefings

Archives

Links

Syndicate (RSS/XML)

Credits

Enquiries