Cuba Britons 'may be free soon'

Nine Britons are being held by the US military in Cuba

The first of the nine British terrorist suspects held by the US at Guantanamo Bay on Cuba could soon be released.

Relatives' hopes have been raised after a senior American official hinted that seven "medium risk" detainees could be repatriated if the UK "managed" them.

Is is thought this means the US is ready to accept the men being monitored or put under surveillance by police.

A BBC correspondent says a US-UK deal could cover all nine men, but the Americans want two of them prosecuted.

The nine are among 600 suspects from 40 countries held at Guantanamo suspected of al-Qaeda or Taleban links.

All have been held at the US base for nearly two years, without trial or lawyers.

Thursday's apparent softening of US policy emerged in a briefing given by Pierre-Richard Prosper, the country's "ambassador at large" for war crimes, in London.

Neither the UK Foreign Office nor the US State Department has so far clarified Mr Prosper's remarks.

Mr Blair must surely realise that Guantanamo is nothing short of a disgrace Kate Allen Amnesty International UK Blair faces Guantanamo help call

The solicitor for detainee Feroz Abbasi - whom the Americans have indicated is considered a "high-risk" detainee - claims the apparent US climbdown means Home Secretary David Blunkett is the only bar to their freedom.

Louise Christian said: "The obstacle in the way of the British citizens being brought back to this country is not the US Government - I'm afraid the fear is that it's our own home secretary who is the obstacle.

"I think it is an exhibition of weakness that he is not prepared to accept this responsibility to bring them back to Britain."

The suggestion of possible repatriation came as Amnesty International UK wrote to Tony Blair calling for him to end the "travesty of justice" for prisoners at Guantanamo Bay.

'Dangerous people'

During his briefing Mr Prosper indicated the US would expect any returnees to be held long enough for an investigation to take place.

UK newspaper reports quoted him saying they were "dangerous people engaged in dangerous activity".

UK DETAINEES IN CAMP DELTA Shafiq Rasul, 24, of Tipton, West Midlands Asif Iqbal, 20, of Tipton Ruhal Ahmed, 23, of Tipton Martin Mubanga, 29, from north London Jamal Udeen, 35, from Manchester Richard Belmar, 23, from London Tarek Dergoul, 24, from east London Moazzam Begg, 36, from Birmingham Feroz Abbasi, 23, from south London At-a-glance: Britons held

He reportedly said: "There can't be a situation where a dangerous person is released and [flies] an aeroplane into the next tall building around the world. That concern remains."

Mr Prosper said Washington was not looking for guaranteed convictions, but "we are asking that they be detained and investigated and/ or prosecuted".

However, he added that it was not a "blanket request", and it is understood the US may be ready to accept police surveillance or monitoring - such as by electronic tagging - as an alternative.

The Guantanamo suspects have been divided into three groups - those posing a high risk who must be prosecuted and/ or detained, those posing a medium risk who can be repatriated, and those posing little or no threat.

George Bush last year named two of the Britons - Mr Abbasi, of Croydon, and Moazzem Begg - as candidates for trial by a military tribunal.

It is absurd to say these people would pose a terrorist risk Louise Christian Lawyer for three UK detainees

But Mr Prosper reportedly hinted that any repatriation deal would ideally cover all nine Britons, and said: "We are prepared to prosecute these two in a military commission, but at the same time the President has an open mind and has been talking to the prime minister about the cases overall, as to what the best outcome, the best solution can be."

Legal expert Joshua Rozenburg, who attended Mr Prosper's briefing, told BBC News the problem faced by the US was that, once the detainees were handed over to Britain, it would not be possible to hold them without trial.

There was also likely to be insufficient admissible evidence against them, and there was no guarantee the Crown Prosecution Service - which is independent of government - would agree to prosecute.