Some folks in the US right are trying to make a big deal of this , Is it. Now to this ignorant American
Bermuda is a protected territory and NOT A BRITISH COLONY. Does the Bermudan govt have the authority to accept these Guantanamo detainees without asking permission of the crown.

BBC NEWS
US 'kept Guantanamo deal from UK'

A senior US official has told the BBC Washington decided not to tell London ahead of time about a deal to resettle four Guantanamo detainees in Bermuda.

A diplomatic row blew up over Bermuda's decision to accept the four Chinese Muslim Uighurs on a US request.

Bermuda is a British overseas territory but the US official said Washington had acted secretly to ensure success.

Meanwhile the US said on Friday three Saudis at Guantanamo Bay had been transferred back to Saudi Arabia.

The transfers are part of US President Barack Obama's strategy to close down the Guantanamo detention centre before next January.

Hostility

The unnamed senior official also told the BBC that Washington was attempting to shield the UK from Chinese anger.

Beijing has demanded the return to China of all 17 Uighurs held by US forces but Washington says they could face persecution in China.

Most of the Guantanamo detainees have not been convicted of any crime and yet the US fears they may face persecution or torture if they are repatriated. Meanwhile many Americans regard them with hostility.

It was revealed earlier in the week that the tiny Pacific island of Palau had agreed to take some of the 17 Chinese Uighurs at the camp.

But the four remaining, it later emerged, had been accepted by the Bermuda government. They arrived in Bermuda on Thursday.

Pressed on whether the US had told the British government, an unnamed state department official was quoted as saying: "We did talk to them before the Uighurs got on the plane."

“ We have underlined to the Bermuda government that it should have consulted the UK on whether this falls within their competence ”
British Foreign Office

I'm not terribly well informed on this but whilst my first instinct would be to take umbrage at Washington for going behind Westminster's back on behalf of the released detainees, a moments thought leaves me with the feeling that Washington did just the right thing because without doubt had Gordon and his New Labour buddies had anything to do with it the poor bastards would have been winging their way to certain death in the Peoples Republic of China. We must never ever do anything to upset China.

Of course it's just as likely that London and Washington got the whole thing up together so that the Uighurs could fetch up in Bermuda, safe and sound, but with Gordy being able to say to the Chinese "Hey! It were nowt to do with us. The yanks kept us in the dark. Sorry".

The real question is What is the relationship between Bermuda and the UK? Is the US bound to ask permission form UK officals before undergoing this arrangement.

" We have underlined to the Bermuda government that it should have consulted the UK on whether this falls within their competence "
British Foreign Office

I suspect that this is the answer to your question.

The Foreign Office people are probably getting all kinds of flack from ministers and would have been much happier had they known all about it. They'd have probably told Bermuda, using all kinds of Sir Humphrey Bollocks language that they shouldn't accept the detainees and the Bermudans would have been hard pressed at that point to go along with the Americans plan.







Looks like the Foreign Office should have been consulted officially. Bermuda has been a bit naughty.

I expect Westminster will find a way of dealing with their recalcitrant child.

Thank You. The Con-servatives (as in Con man) are tying to make this an issue that is was Obama's fault that is what his responsibility[i] to get permission from UK officials

If nothing else it seems a little surprising that the officials carrying out this task decided not to include the British Government on such a sensitive issue.


There was me thinking the US and the UK were like blood brothers in the War on Terrrrrr.

It has been suggested that one of the few major disagreements between Reagan and Thatcher was over the invasion of Grenada (though the relationship to the UK is different).

I always thought that Regan and Thatcher were locking horns over the IRA. The IRA (a terrorist organization at the time) was openly recruiting money and weapons in the US to be used by the IRA. I can remember meeting a man (at a pub called the Eagle Tavern - no longer in business) who called himself a "gun runner" and was openly collecting money for such a purpose. Despite the protests from the British Govt. Regan turned a deaf ear, not wanting to loose the Irish Catholic Vote so nothing was done to stop it. Yes, we Americans were supporting terrorism

That was another source of disagreement; the other was the Falklands.
Lord Carrington (then Foreign Secretary) described Alexander Haig as a 'duplicitous bastard'.
Then, when it got out, he claimed that it was meant as a compliment...

When the US invaded, Thatcher rang Reagan to protest, although it's widely accepted that the "protest" wasn't much more than a weak bit of tut-tutting.


I'm pretty sure that, when it came to a UN motion regarding the Falklands, Haig and the US voted against us. My memory isn't what it is though, so I could be wrong.

Well the IRA story always got me. I didn't tell you the other half. I, in my ignorance went of on a tantrum, telling this "gun runner" that while I considered the British presence in Ireland as "Imperialistic", I could not support bombing bus depots and police stations where innocent people could be killed.
I was told to leave while I could still walk.

Reunited prisoners and guard.