WDIE Masthead

Year 2003 No. 99, October 14, 2003 ARCHIVE HOME JBBOOKS SUBSCRIBE

End Injustice at Guantanamo Bay

Workers' Daily Internet Edition: Article Index :

End Injustice at Guantanamo Bay

Guantanamo Bay Public Hearing

The Perils of Legitimising Torture

Daily On Line Newspaper of the
Revolutionary Communist Party of Britain (Marxist-Leninist)

170, Wandsworth Road, London, SW8 2LA.
Phone: (Local Rate from outside London 0845 644 1979) 020 7627 0599
Web Site: http://www.rcpbml.org.uk
e-mail: office@rcpbml.org.uk
Subscription Rates (Cheques made payable to RCPB(ML)):
Workers' Weekly Printed Edition:
70p per issue, £2.70 for 4 issues, £17 for 26 issues, £32 for 52 issues (including postage)

Workers' Daily Internet Edition sent by e-mail daily (Text e-mail):
1 issue free, 6 months £5, Yearly £10


End Injustice at Guantanamo Bay

Report of public meeting in Parliament on September 16

Public anger at the treatment of detainees on Guantanamo Bay was given vivid expression at a meeting in the House of Commons on Tuesday, September 16, hosted and chaired by Kevin McNamara MP.

A packed committee room (over 100 people) heard a range of views from a distinguished panel, all united in a common plea for justice for all the detainees, irrespective of nationality.

The meeting attracted several Labour MPs, among them Jeremy Corbyn, Ann Cryer, Tony Lloyd, Rudi Vis, Betty Williams, Helen Jackson, Gordon Prentice, Mohammed Sarwar and John McDonnell.

Not only were they to be denied a fair trial, they had been suffering various human rights abuses in almost two year's detention at the hands of the US. Rob Freer, from Amnesty International and the author of a recent report on the subject, documented the numerous violations so far committed by the US in its pursuit of the war on terrorism.

The detainees faced constant interrogation, sleep deprivation, lack of privacy in treatment amounting to torture and were languishing in a legal black hole. There had been at least 30 suicide attempts so far. The treatment was cruel to the families as well as the detainees themselves, Mr Freer said. This was all a consequence of the US failure to put human rights at the centre of its response to 11 September.

The shocking lack of urgency shown by the British government was criticised by Stephen Jacobi, from Fair Trials Abroad. The UK should be giving a lead on issue in Europe since there were more detainees from this country than any other in the EU. The tally was 9 UK, 7 French, one each from Denmark, Sweden and Spain.

The detainees should be returned home to stand before a fair trial in their countries of origin speaker after speakers declared. This matter was the subject of a recent Early Day Motion signed by 259 MPs that had been organised by Geraint Davies, who had one detainee, Feroz Abbasi, as a constituent. The MP stated that he feared for his constituent's mental state. Britain’s Attorney General Lord Goldsmith had persuaded the US to suspend the trials, Mr Davies said. However, he felt that the legal rights should not simply be conceded by the US under pressure, but should be seen as fundamental rights.

Despite Lord Goldsmith's assurances, the MP was still waiting to hear what would happen to the detainees. The threat of a military tribunal was not yet entirely lifted and he condemned comments from US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's dismissing the need for a fair trial.   

The most powerful address came from the fathers of two British detainees, Azmat Begg and Riasat Ahmed, whose sons are Moazzam Begg and Ranhul Ahmed respectively. Both fathers called for action from the Blair administration and said they would be fully prepared to see their sons punished if they were to be found guilty before a fair trial.

Mr Begg gave details of his son Moazzam¹s involvement in Afghanistan before the US bombing and invasion. He had been a Muslim charity worker engaged on education projects and working to bring water to remote villages. He was shocked when he heard how US soldiers had arrested his son as a terrorist suspect. Letters sent home had been heavily censored, but they still managed to convey a flavour of the appalling conditions of detention. After this Mr Begg's son was removed from Kandahar to Cuba. He said that his son was being detained like an animal and appealed to the British government to act.

Sarah Ludford MEP Liberal Democrat Justice spokeswoman urged a more coordinated response from the EU. She wanted the Commission to voice its concerns more strongly. She said the EU should tell the US that its policy was simply counterproductive; it was making the world less secure by setting dangerous standards.

A meeting was to be held in the European Parliament on 30 September to bring the commission to account, she said. The EU will be asked to see the detentions as part of its evolving human rights policy.

"Muslims were the new Irish" Dr Siddiqui from the Muslim Parliament community forum said, drawing parallels between the US and British policies. He said Bush and Blair were like partners in crime and saw connections between Guantanamo Bay and Belmarsh.

Helen John, from CND, expressed sympathy for the families of the detainees. She spoke as someone who had been jailed for her peace activism and who faced a life ban on visiting the US. The context for the antiterrorism legislation was the war on terrorism with the US and UK expressing readiness to use nuclear weapons on non-nuclear states like Iraq. She thought the US had created the threat to fulfil a need for an enemy as it sought to dominate the planet. The war on terrorism would not end until US bases were removed from British soil.

British and US links were elaborated by Stephanie Harrison from CAMPACC who set the war on terrorism within a wider context of progressive denial of the basic tenets of international human rights standards.

The treatment of anti-terror suspects came within a climate of increasing intolerance to opposition, racism and the removal of basic subsistence to asylum seekers.

Ms Harrison urged people who were concerned about the threat to civil rights to get involved with CAMPACC and said that only public pressure would be able to reverse the trend to authoritarian power.

A example of successful public campaigning was illustrated by the presence of Tian Chua, Vice-President of the Natural Justice Party of Malaysia. He had been incarcerated by the government there as an alleged Islamist terrorist under internal security measures which resembled those introduced in the US and Britain. He had been freed only after a campaign in Britain and internationally, which showed that organised protest could still achieve results.

He said the war on terrorism enabled dictatorships across the world to crack down on legitimate opposition and urged everyone to join forces against the war on terror and authoritarian regimes. Removing the social injustices that were its root causes would only defeat terrorism.  

Human rights lawyer Gareth Peirce saw Britain as fully complicit in what the US was doing. The government here was using the British detainees as further justification for its state of emergency and the introduction of new measures removing civil liberties.

The situation today was more dangerous than the 1980s when Irish were targeted because now the state's methods were not subject to legal safeguards; evidence was secret and could not be challenged in open court. Therefore she felt that change would come only when there was sufficient public anger at what governments were doing.

Guantanamo Bay was a sinister experiment to see what the US could get away with without arousing too much public discontent, Ms Peirce said.

Article Index



Guantanamo Bay Public Hearing

A Public Hearing of Guatanamo Bay detainees' families and lawyers was held in the European Parliament on September 30 under the slogan: "Guantanamo: The Right to a Fair Trial".

Detainees from across the EU were represented and family members included Azmet Begg, father of Moazzam Begg, one of two British citizens designated for a military trial.

The meeting focused on ways to increase EU pressure on the US to end the intolerable detention without trial and proposals for unacceptable military courts.

The hearing was opened by Jorge Hernandez Mollar, MEP, Chair of the EP Committee on Citizens' Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs

In an overview of the situation, the following speakers participated:

William Bourdon, French Lawyer representing French detainees, Aymen Sassi, brother of the French detainee Nizar Sassi, Javier Nart, Spanish lawyer representing the Spanish detainee, Nayat A. Ahmed sister of the Spanish detainee Hamed Abderrahaman Ahmed, Medhi Ghezali, father of the Swedish detainee Medhi Gheali, Peter Althin, International lawyer and Member of the Swedish Parliament, Gareth Peirce, British Lawyer representing British detainees, Amzet Begg, father of the British detainee Moazzem Begg.

The hearing was concluded by Peter Carter QC, Chair - Bar Human Rights Committee.

Article Index



The Perils of Legitimising Torture

By Terry Waite *

Long before the terrible events of 11 September 2001, I held the belief that the methods adopted by the United States and Britain in attempting to deal with international terrorism were both wrong and dangerous, and would lead to increased acts of terror.

I based my views on the rather old-fashioned idea that, ultimately, violence will not be defeated by violence. I am not a pacifist as I believe that in certain exceptional circumstances the limited use of force may be required. However, the reaction to 9/11 seemed to me to border on the hysterical and I became increasingly alarmed as the UK drew closer and closer to the US in adopting a ‘military solution’ to these complex issues of our time.

Guantánamo Bay appalled me for many reasons, not least because due process was sidestepped by legal sleight of hand. Also, to keep prisoners in the manner in which they are being kept is clearly degrading to both captive and captor and ought to be no part of civilised society.

I became even more alarmed when rumours circulated that certain terrorist suspects had been transported to countries where information might be extracted from them by torture. I had no evidence for this but the rumours persisted.

My concern was heightened when one afternoon I received a phone call from the BBC Newsnight team inviting me to appear on the programme that evening. It was alleged that 13 prisoners being held in the UK without trial might have been arrested on the basis of evidence or information extracted under torture.

It was further alleged that the suspects were appearing before an immigration tribunal where most of the proceedings were being held in camera under conditions of extreme secrecy. Newsnight had invited a government spokesman to appear on the programme to comment, but were told no one was available.

As I left the set I was taken aback to meet a prominent legal spokesman for the government about to be interviewed on other political issues. Clearly, not all government spokesmen were on holiday that night.

The item shown on Newsnight was worrying but it was difficult to ascertain the truth of the allegations being made, given the strict secrecy surrounding the tribunal. If the central allegation that evidence obtained by the use of force was admitted, then this is clearly wrong and such evidence ought, in my opinion, to be immediately discarded. It is wrong for several reasons.

First, Article 15 of the UN Convention against Torture, to which the British government is a signatory, clearly states:

Each State Party shall ensure that any statement which is established to have been made as a result of torture shall not be invoked as evidence in any proceedings, except against a person accused of torture as evidence that the statement was made.

That is clear and unequivocal.

It is also wrong on moral grounds, not least because the use of torture by the state signifies failure and brings the state down to the level of the terrorist. The argument is sometimes used that torture might be justified if an individual has hidden a bomb which is about to explode and possibly kill hundreds of people.

In such a case, it is argued, torture might well save many lives. Unfortunately, presenting a case in this way creates a false equation. Should this method be adopted then eventually many individuals will be tortured, the majority of whom will have no information to give or power to do what their tormentor wishes them to do.

Torture is wrong because once it becomes an instrument of the state then the state begins to descend down the road to lawlessness. Due process goes out of the window; presumption of innocence falls over; the opportunity to present opposing views and present a proper defence is denied.

In short, torture eventually makes the state the enemy of the people and threatens all our lives and liberty. Since the Newsnight programme I have neither read nor heard anything about the so-called tribunal.

Was this a case where the UK was adopting the methods of Guantánamo? Was it a trial dressed up as a tribunal? Was evidence admitted that had been obtained under duress? Who appeared before the tribunal? Who gave evidence? What was the outcome?

These, I suggest, are perfectly reasonable questions for any citizen of the UK to ask. They are more than reasonable. They are essential.

* Terry Waite was at one time special envoy for the Archbishop of Canterbury. He successfully negotiated the 1981 release of hostages taken by Islamic fundamentalists in Iran, and in Libya in 1987. While negotiating the release of US hostages in Beirut, Waite himself was kidnapped, spending four years in solitary confinement. Released in September 1991, Waite devotes himself to humanitarian causes as a lecturer and author.
 This article also appears in issue 4/03 of Index on Censorship: Law on Trial.

Article Index



RCPB(ML) Home Page

Workers' Daily Internet Edition Index Page