Bush screws up British terrorism bust?

MSNBC and NBC News has been all over this story (Keith Olberman in particular has been having a field day), but coverage elsewhere seems to be slight.

Because of last week's (alleged) pressure by the Bush administration to have the Brits arrest the terrorists NOW, some British government officials are saying that some of these guys may not even face prosecution, because they were arrested before really doing anything, and there's no hard evidence.

Here's a link to the story about the premature arrests:
www.msnbc.msn.com...

I'm assuming the story is accurate, but is the premise being overstated? It doesn't seem to be getting a lot of play elsewhere (not that I'd expect so from Fox News ); can some of our British cousins comment?

If it weren't all so damn serious, I'd call it just another Bush & Co. comedy-of-errors; just another screwup, on a long list of them, in the administration's ham-handed "War on Terror."

Baack

You title is petty. you should of read the article.

Another U.S. official, however, acknowledges there was disagreement over timing. Analysts say that in recent years, American security officials have become edgier than the British in such cases because of missed opportunities leading up to 9/11.

Aside from the timing issue, there was excellent cooperation between the British and the Americans, officials told NBC News.

Monitoring of Rauf, in particular, apparently played a critical role, revealing that the plotters had tested the explosive liquid mixture they planned to use at a location outside Britain. NBC News has previously reported that the explosive mixture was tested in Pakistan. The source said the suspects in Britain had obtained at least some of the materials for the explosive but had not yet actually prepared or mixed it.

[edit on 16-8-2006 by ferretman2]

Typical US Gov't...just arrest them and hold them without due process.

seems the Uk was trying to do the right thing and actually catch them doing something wrong. well guess what, if they now have to let these guys go, everyone loses.

It's the British who are holding them without due process. In england people can be held up to 30 days without charges.

So quit yer bitchin' about the US detaining people......

So quit yer bitchin' about the US detaining people......

is there any reason for that type of language?

Originally posted by ferretman2
It's the British who are holding them without due process. In england people can be held up to 30 days without charges.

So quit yer bitchin' about the US detaining people......

thats beats being held for over 3 years without charge in a US navel base converted into a prison so quit your bitchin

didn't they say that a test was going to be run on two flights within days?

should they have waited until after two planes were blown up and then arrested the group, including those that had not yet committed any crimes?

There's a difference between individuals planning a terrorist attack and individuals who are activly invloved in shooting at our troops in a war zone. If these individuals were in uniform and belonged to an actual state they wouldn't be held in Gitmo for 3 years getting better treatment than theymost likely received in the own country.

You honestly don't believe that any of the individuals in Gitmo are a threat?

Originally posted by ferretman2
It's the British who are holding them without due process. In england people can be held up to 30 days without charges.

So quit yer bitchin' about the US detaining people......

Err that is 'due process'!

It may surpise you but we are a separate sovreign nation.

We have different laws over here you know and everyone follows them, even the government! - the 30 day period is subject to periodic judicial review.

It's lawful. Full stop!

Originally posted by ferretman2
There's a difference between individuals planning a terrorist attack and individuals who are activly invloved in shooting at our troops in a war zone. If these individuals were in uniform and belonged to an actual state they wouldn't be held in Gitmo for 3 years getting better treatment than theymost likely received in the own country.

You honestly don't believe that any of the individuals in Gitmo are a threat?

So they are POWs then?

Or does the US have some outdated copy of the Geneva convention saying they can categorise any individual to suit their requirements.

And no, I do not believe that all held in Guantanamo are guilty, they are Muslims though which is more than enough for the present US administration.

As for UK "due process" that has to be reviewed and justified every 7 days until the 30 days are up, thats called accountability.

What process do the Guantanamo detainees (POWs) fall under?

POW status is designated for individuals from a standing army.

i.e. any iraqi soldier captured or who surrendered during the war...that individual was in uniform...that is the individual covered under the Geneva Convention.

The problem being is the new 'threat'. These individuals do not belong to any one nation or army. They are not dressed in uniform. There is no documented way on how to handle these individuals.

Back in WWII individuals who where captured and not in uniform were considered spies and shot.

At least the US is not doing that.

It's the British who are holding them without due process. In england people can be held up to 30 days without charges.

So quit yer b******' about the US detaining people......

Double standards eh, when your own Gov has held over 400 detainees without charge at Gontamino Bay. And do not give me this crap they were P.O.W's Some of them detained were journalists and innocent people abducted from their own country, so dont go about criticizing our legal system without looking at your own first of all.....

With regards to bush screwing up the terroism bust, it was screwed up as soon as the Home office gave the green light for the suspects to be arrested in the first place..

The British Gov has been P****d off at the US Admin a few times in the past for leaking info, so I would not be surprised if this time it is true..

The US has the tendancy of over reacting since 9/11 which I do not blame them, where as The British keep it quiet until something is about to go down. Then they act when no one is expectng it.

But to say only Bush has screwed up the terror plot investigation, the same could be also said for John Reid..... hope that helps

Originally posted by ferretman2
At least the US is not doing that.

Well we hope not.

I concede that there is no governence within the Geneva convention which covers non-uniformed combatants, which is a very handy technicality for the US to use.

Does it make it right?

As they are not covered by the Geneva convention, what exactly are they doing down there, tickling the truth out of them?

And I ask that your answer take into consideration the innocent civilians in there that have been caught up in this.

[edit on 17-8-2006 by Koka]