|Year 2005 No. 12, January 29, 2005||ARCHIVE||HOME||JBBOOKS||SUBSCRIBE|
House arrests for British and foreign nationals alike
Workers' Daily Internet Edition: Article Index :
House arrests for British and foreign nationals
Making a Mockery of the Rule of Law
Return of Britons Should Mark End to All Illegal Detentions
Four Britons released from Guantanamo:
Lawyer Charges "Savage Torture" at Hands of US
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
Subscription Rates (Cheques made payable to RCPB(ML)):
Workers' Weekly Printed Edition:
4 issues - £2.95, 6 months - £18.95 for 26 issues, Yearly - £33.95 (including postage)
Workers' Daily Internet Edition sent by e-mail daily (Text e-mail):
1 issue free, 6 months £5, Yearly £10
House arrests for British and foreign nationals alike
Tony Blair has defended proposals to allow "terrorist" suspects to be placed under house arrest by ministers without their cases going to court. The Prime Minister gave as the justification that the measures were needed to fight global terror. Home Secretary Charles Clarke himself said that the public had to trust him, Mr Blair and the security services to use the "grave" new powers wisely.
The plans were prompted by Law Lords ruling the imprisonment of 12 foreign suspects without trial breaches European human rights laws. The Law Lords labelled the current regime "discriminatory" because it only applied to foreign nationals and "disproportionate" because it was premised on a state of "emergency" which was questionable.
Home Secretary Charles Clarkes announcement was for "a range of Control Orders", including indefinite house arrest, covering both British and foreign nationals that the authorities decide "are preparing for terrorist activities".
Under the new powers, the government would be able to forbid "terrorist" suspects from meeting certain people, impose curfews or electronic tagging on them or confine them to house arrest. Unlike the previous measures, the new measures could be used against British nationals. The government would not have to prove that suspects had committed a crime, and violating the orders would itself be a criminal offence.
British and foreign nationals whom the government claims are "terrorist" suspects could also face restrictions on their movements or limits on their use of telephones and the internet, under Charles Clarke's plans. He has for the moment ruled out the use of phone tap evidence in court, simply because changing technology could render any legislation obsolete. But he told the BBC Radio 4s Today programme that he would "look at it again" in due course.
The Home Secretary conceded that it was "unhealthy" to have so much power concentrated in the hands of a few people. He said that he wanted to get as much information as possible about the terror threat into the public domain to allow a proper debate. But he claimed that some information would have to remain secret and the public would have to trust the authorities to make sensible judgements about its use to justify detentions.
"A lot of the discussion around this revolves around the extent to which I as home secretary or the prime minister or the head of the security services or the commissioner of the Metropolitan Police can be trusted with the assessments that we make... and that's a real issue."
In a statement to the House of Commons, Clarke said he accepted the Law Lords ruling that the internment of foreign nationals breaches the European Convention on Human Rights. But he claimed that "some British nationals are now playing a more significant role" in terror threats and "networks consisting of foreign nationals with international links remain". He insisted that "there remains a public emergency threatening the life of the nation".
The Home Secretary said that removing current powers to intern foreign nationals "will present us with real difficulties", so the government believes that the answer lies in a twin-track approach "deportation with assurances for foreign nationals" and Control Orders.
"Preventative" Control Orders will apply to "any suspected
terrorists, irrespective of nationality or, for most of the controls,
irrespective of the nature of the terrorist activity, whether international or
domestic, and enable us to impose conditions constraining" suspects. They
will apply equally to foreign suspects and British citizens suspected of
"international or domestic" terrorism, he told the House of Commons.
Individuals suspected of being or having been "concerned with terrorism" would be subject to "a range of controls". These will include "restricting movement and association or other communication with named individuals; the imposition of curfews and/or tagging; other restrictions on access to telecommunications, the internet and other technology. At the top end, control orders would include a requirement to remain at their premises. The controls to be imposed under the new scheme will not include detention in prison, although I intend that breach of a control order should be a criminal offence and punishable through imprisonment."
Home Secretary Charles Clarke said that the 12 men detained under anti-terrorism legislation in Belmarsh Prison will not be immediately released. Only when the new Bill is law will the Home Secretary consider what to do with them.
Those held under the legislation would be subject to the same regime of isolation as if they were in Belmarsh. They will be without access to a phone, mobile phone, or computer, and most probably subject to camera surveillance.
Speaking later in Davos, Tony Blair told the BBC that he was aware of concerns over the destruction of traditional rights and freedoms. "I pay great attention to the civil liberties of the country. But on the other hand, it is also right that there is a new form of global terrorism in our country, in every other European country and most countries around the world. They will cause death and destruction on an unlimited scale and they will and are trying to organise such terrorist activity in our own country. I just hope people get this in perspective."
Chairman of the Bar Council, Guy Mansfield QC, told BBC Radio 4's World at One: "There's a real danger ... that what we end up doing is radicalising minorities. We saw it in Northern Ireland you end up with sleepers in the population and we make this country, ironically, a more dangerous and not a safer place."
Human rights lawyer Clive Stafford-Smith said the plans are a "further abuse of human rights in Britain".
The proposals make a mockery of the rule of law, and the people must step up their campaign of opposition to this growing fascism.
The Law Society, which represents 90,000 solicitors in England and Wales, has criticised the government's "anti-terrorist" laws as nine men remain indefinitely in prison without charge. The nine have been in prison in Belmarsh and Whitemoor for three years without charge or trial. The proposals, which also allow curfews or tagging, have been widely condemned, being called an "abuse of power" by the Law Society. The Law Society said that it wanted ministers to "resolve the plight" of the men.
"Indefinite imprisonment without charge or trial is totally unacceptable," Law Society president Edward Nally said. "Some of these prisoners have now been detained for three years and the time has come for them to be tried or released."
Law Society chief executive Janet Paraskeva told the BBC, "The [Law Lords] have ruled that the government's actions are incompatible with the Human Rights Act and this is something that the Law Society has been pointing out for the last three years. We want the government to take action now and bring these men to trial."
She said that the society understood the reasons for the government imposing the terror laws following 9/11, but that "three years on we believe that men should be brought to trial".
"We must make sure that the rule of law is upheld everyone has a right to trial. It's not a question of guilt or innocence, it's a question of due process," she added.
The Islamic Human Rights Commission (IHRC) on January 26, 2005, condemned Home Secretary Charles Clarkes latest anti-terrorism proposals as a mockery of the Law Lords judgment that detention without trial was unlawful. The Home Secretary has now announced that the suspects may be freed but subject to house arrest with control orders such as restrictions on movement and association, and limitations on access to telephones, internet and other technology.
IHRC is further outraged to hear that British citizens will be subject to such draconian measures and that the new control orders will be imposed not by the courts but by the Home Secretary.
IHRC Chairman, Massoud Shadjareh stated: "What the government seems to be forgetting here is the basic principle of law: the presumption of innocence. If the detention of these men without charge is unlawful, they should be either tried in a court of law or released. Releasing them from Belmarsh only to intern them in their own homes makes a mockery of the Law Lords judgment."
IHRC views such measures as symbolic of the depth of inhumanity to which the British government has fallen when it regards such orders as justified in a civilised society.
IHRC Chairman, Massoud Shadjareh stated: "Such deference to the rule of law is something we are used to hearing about in countries such as Zimbabwe and Burma. It may be only a matter of time before Britain too is recognised as an outpost of tyranny."
Furthermore, IHRC declared that it viewed the Home Secretarys alternative proposal of deportation with assurances from the home countries that the men would not face torture or the death penalty if deported as naive at best and at worst, deeply sinister. Similar assurances made by such countries previously have never been taken seriously and torture and abuse have been frequent.
Commenting on Charles Clarkes statement Liberty Director Shami Chakrabarti said on January 26, 2005:
"The Home Secretary is right to show respect for the House of Lords damning ruling. However, temporary restrictions upon a suspects liberty are only legitimate as long as a criminal charge and trial are in prospect. We urge the removal of the legal bar on intercepted material being used in trials.
"Adherence to the rule of law should not be a game of cat and mouse. The Government should not swap one human rights opt out for another."
The detainees have been held since December 2001, shortly after the Anti-Terrorism Crime and Security Act 2001 (ATCSA) was rushed through Parliament in the wake of the September 11 attacks. Part 4 ATCSA allowed foreign nationals to be imprisoned without trial.
As such treatment is contrary to Article 5 of the Convention on Human Rights, the Government first had to derogate (opt out) of this particular fundamental right, barely a year after the Human Rights Act 1998 came in to force. In order to comply with the rules on opting out, the Government had to declare a state of emergency. According to a speech by the Home Secretary, David Blunkett in November 2001, he declared only a "technical" state of emergency.
The Government has asserted that the detainees are "free to leave the UK at any time" and that they have "a full right of appeal" to the Special Immigration and Appeals Commission (SIAC)
In fact the detainees cannot return to their home nations for fear of being tortured and the SIAC is not an open tribunal. It sits in secrecy, presided over by a judge alone, with no jury. The detainees and their lawyers are not told of the intelligence against them, some of which may have been extracted under torture from prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay or elsewhere. The intelligence is probed by a vetted special advocate (appointed by the Attorney General, who argued the case in the Lords for the Government). The SIAC has no authority to deal with matters of evidence or proof.
Its sole remit is to decide whether the Home Secretary acted reasonably in detaining them on the grounds of "reasonable suspicion". According to normal principles of British criminal justice (built upon the presumption of innocence), "reasonable suspicion" is the basis for initial arrest for a short number of days up to the charging of a suspect. It is not a foundation for a potential lifetime of incarceration.
The legality of Part 4 and the derogation was considered by the House of Lords who gave judgment on 16 December. They ruled by a majority of 8 to 1 that detention was unlawful. Following the decision the new Home Secretary Charles Clarke promised a Government review of detention.
Comment by Liberty, 24 Jan 2005
Liberty welcomes the return of the last four British citizens who were held in Guantanamo Bay and reminds the Government that detention without trial is as unacceptable in the United Kingdom as it is abroad.
Director of Liberty, Shami Chakrabarti, said
"The scandals of Guantanamo and Belmarsh show that you cannot advance human rights with unclean hands. The US and UK governments should act now to end policies relying on detention without trial and torture."
Liberty hopes that the returned men are willing and able to be interviewed on their treatment in detention and submit to medical and psychiatric examination.
We urge the Government to take this opportunity to end detention without trial in Britain and denounce its use, and the use of torture, anywhere in the world.
by Craig Hoy, ePolitix.com, 28 Jan 2005
Families of suspected terrorists could be treated as possible suspects themselves, the Home Secretary has said.
Despite criticism that he is building a "police state", Charles Clarke has announced that the friends and relatives of the four British citizens freed from Guantanamo Bay this week could face sanctions.
He revealed that they may also undergo sweeping monitoring by the police in order to stop them being used in a possible terror plot.
Interviewed in the Telegraph, the home secretary said that those sharing an address with any of the four could be denied access to the telephone or internet and have to undergo body searches.
The home secretary insisted the measures were essential given that the UK is "in a state of emergency".
He said that "protecting national security must come first" - even if that meant infringing the freedom of families of terror suspects.
Clarke said: "I accept that an individual is different to a family, but where there is an individual deemed to be a threat on security grounds we need the powers to stop that person engaging in terrorism.
"Just because somebody's wife wants to chat with her friends about going shopping that's not therefore a reason to let somebody cause a bomb explosion at Bluewater [shopping centre]."
The home secretary insisted he was "not seeking to attack the innocent". "I'm seeking to make [the control orders] work for the others," he added.
Meanwhile nine terrorist suspects being held without charge in British jails may also be freed shortly but will be under house-arrest conditions.
Lawyers representing the nine will be in court on Monday to seek their release.
Meanwhile, George Churchill-Coleman, who was in charge of Scotland Yard's anti-terrorist squad in the late 1980s and early 1990s, has warned that Clarke is turning Britain into a "police state".
Clarke, however, defended the government's tough line.
"There are serious people and serious organisations trying to destroy our society," he said.
We are reproducing below an account received from one of the foreign nationals detained in HMP Belmarsh high security prison.
I am an Algerian man, and my name is Mustapha. I am imprisoned in the British "Guantánamo prison", Belmarsh, a high security prison. My prison number is GF6440. My story is close to fiction and I believe that a large number of people, in particular Britons, who will learn about my case, would doubt its credibility because it is strange. Too many people think that this country is ruled by law, but I would not be surprised if they are suspicious as I would personally have doubted that this story has ever happed if I heard it before I experienced it myself as I was hearing that this is a law abiding and democratic country. I have met a number of inmates in the prison and they were extremely surprised when they heard what has happened to me. But the fact remains a fact and it is up to the people to believe my story or reject it but they have the right to know.
My case started when I was arrested on 13/1/2001, at six oclock in the morning when the door was smashed down and the British police stormed my home. My three-months pregnant wife and myself were there at the time, my wife is Slovakian. I was taken to Paddington police station and interrogated for one week. They had no evidence to accuse me with but they said following the investigation they found that I have links to a suspected terrorists group arrested in Germany and the evidence is my mobile number was found in one of the detainees notebook.
I was detained in Belmarsh for three months in connection to this allegation, then the case was dropped and I was told that I was being released. When I was about to approach the gate of Belmarsh prison, I was told that I was being rearrested for an extradition order to France. They said that you have no problems in this country. I was in Belmarsh prison for three years until all the prisoners in France have been released with whom I was allegedly connected with. Yes, they have been released in France and I remained in Belmarsh without trial now for a continuing four years.
The courts were going to give me bail in 2003 because it was clear that I had already served all the time I would have to serve in France if I was extradited there. But the day before I would have been granted bail, I was told that the Home Secretary was making me subject to the 2001 Anti-Terrorism Crime and Security Act, which detains foreign nationals without trial.
My problems were transformed, when all the alleged allegations were dropped and I still continued to be detained without trial in Belmarsh British Guantánamo during which the British government practiced an appalling and the most horrific methods to destroy me and my family and indeed they succeeded.
My wife, who is not from this country, was shocked mentally and psychologically which made her mad and she wanders in the streets without care or protection.
She was first shocked when I was arrested and they brutally entered our home which terrified her. The second shock, when all the prisoners in connection with the case were released after three months, I telephoned her and told her that I am on my way home, but I was arrested again at the gate of Belmarsh, as I stated above, so her pain got worse and she started to suffer from a severe hallucination.
During the period of pregnancy and while I was prison, they practiced on my powerless wife what a genuine human being cannot do.
She went to the hospital to have an ultrasound for her unborn baby but they refused and said your husband is a terrorist. Who told them that? The answer is the security service of this country. My wife insisted to have the ultrasound just to make sure but she was told that the ultrasound shows that your unborn baby is dead and that is it, then the powerless and poor woman burst into tears and screamed.
She told me what had happed when I contacted her and I asked her to use the rest of the money she has and go to another hospital to check again. She went to another hospital and she was told the unborn baby is alive and what she was told in the previous hospital was just bad games of the security service.
After our son was born, the security service continued their plan against my wife. She was threatened to be evicted from her home to the street and indeed she was evicted and was without food or money until six oclock in the evening and by Allahs will she was spotted by one of the Muslims as she was wearing a Muslim costume and he saw her condition, he took her to his home but the police did not stop and approached this good Muslim and threatened him with prosecution if he continued to support her so this man accepted that and asked my wife to leave his home. She contacted one of her friends and then went to her home where she stayed there for three months.
Because of my problems and this case which is not clear, I drove my wife to the state of complete madness and she neglected our son. She started behaving strangely and then the police intervened and took the child from her. I have been trying for a year and a half to find out what is the fate of my son as he is being moved from one family to another.
My wife became a human ghost as she is walking in streets without conscience and sense. Her mother came here two months ago to take her to Slovakia but she could not contact her.
Her mother, my sons grandmother, applied to have the custody of our son and may be then his mother would go with him. She won the case last summer and the court decided that she could take our son to Slovakia but my wife is still in the same situation in this country.
My mother, who is Algerian national, applied for a visa more than five times, to look after the child or take him back home, but every time her application was refused.
Any way, I thank Almighty Allah, as I suffered a number of psychological deteriorations, but I always get help from Allah not to terminate and take my life. Due to the stress and pressure I developed stomach ulcer and also anal bleed when I use the toilet and normally lose about one and half litres of blood every week.
I wonder, what this country wants from me? What is the wrong thing I did in this country or abroad to deserve this treatment?
Let me be honest with you, Prime Mister Tony Blair and the Home Secretary hate Muslims so much as there is no other explanation to their actions.
They violated all the laws and destroyed the human principles with their lies; such as, the Iraqi weapons of mass destruction lie.
Their game is clear and will destroy the people because of their ignorance and also the control of media concepts of provocation, which grew fear of Muslims in the hearts of their people. Every day they claim that they arrested new terror suspects but it turns up to be nothing.
There is currently no case connected to terrorism in courts despite the fact that more that one thousand Muslims have been arrested and detained. They lock up people and release others and if they do not like someone they would detain him under 2001 terrorism law without evidence, public trial or lawyers.
I thought that the people of this country understand the decisions of politicians and their practices but the fact that what I saw is different because the people are just concerned about their lives and they have nothing to do with general and political decisions.
What I could say now!
I did not dream of anything except that I wanted to live with a wife and children happily in a quite home away from any troubles.
Finally, I say as every Muslim would say when injustice imposed on him and cannot find a supporter from earth "We are created by God and we will return to Him".
Mustaphas lawyers are trying to raise money to reunite him with his son, whom they hope to return to Britain with his maternal Grandmother. Hhugs Helping Households Under Great Stress is assisting in fund raising for this cause. If you wish to make a donation, please send cheques (payable to Hhugs) to
PO BOX 415
Alternatively, you could pay donations directly into our account
Account Name: Hhugs
Account Number: 31438603
Sort Code: 40-34-24
We are also looking for volunteers who will be able to house Mustaphas son and mother in law, and provide transport to Belmarsh Prison. Please contact Hhugs on 07931 833980 or at firstname.lastname@example.org
Reacting to news that four British men will return to Britain on January 25, 2005, after detention at Guantánamo Bay, Amnesty International called for an end to all illegal detentions at Guantánamo Bay.
Amnesty International UK Director Kate Allen said: "The arrival of these men back in Britain after three years of detention should mark the end of all illegal detentions at Guantánamo Bay. In the past three years Guantánamo Bay has become an icon of lawlessness and with over 500 prisoners still languishing in legal limbo without charge or trial, this is far from the end of the story. The UK government should now take a principled stand to push for the end of Guantánamo Bays illegal and abusive regime."
Since the first transport of detainees to Guantánamo Bay more than three years ago in 2002, there have been numerous reports of ill-treatment and torture at the US naval camp, including from former detainees after their release.
Kate Allen added: "By all accounts these men have endured a great deal and it is very important that they are now treated humanely. Whether or not the UK authorities deem it necessary to hold any of these men on arrival in Britain, they should certainly release them as soon as practicable, not least in light of the fact that they have been detained for several years and intensively questioned during part of that time. If anyone previously held at Guantanamo has anything to answer for in the UK, then they should of course be properly charged and duly tried in court."
Amnesty International has continued to urge governments around the world to make urgent representations on behalf of all those held at Guantánamo Bay.
Amnesty International calls for all detainees to be afforded their full rights and either be released or charged with a recognisably criminal offence and tried in court proceedings that fully meet international fair trial standards.
Kate Allen added: "There will now be an opportunity for the UK authorities to speak to these UK citizens to ensure that all allegations of torture and ill-treatment at Guantánamo are fully investigated."
Four Britons released from Guantanamo:
By Niall Green, 21 January 2005, World Socialist Web Site www.wsws.org
After being held for almost three years in the US military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, four United Kingdom citizens are to be released. Foreign Secretary Jack Straw announced that Moazzam Begg, from Birmingham, and Martin Mubanga, Richard Belmar and Feroz Abbasi, all from London, would return to Britain "within weeks."
All the men were held without charge and only gained access to legal counsel in the last two months. Clive Stafford-Smith, the lawyer for Moazzam Begg and Richard Belmar, has claimed his clients witnessed and were subjected to brutal mistreatment, including physical, psychological and sexual abuse. In a letter to Prime Minister Tony Blair, he stated that while visiting Guantanamo he found "credible and consistent evidence that both men have been savagely tortured at the hands of the United States".
These allegations are supported by evidence of torture recently obtained by the American Civil Liberties Union, which obtained through a "freedom of information" filing thousands of pieces of official correspondence referring to prisoner abuse, including internal FBI and Department of Defence memos and e-mails. According to some of these documents, there was "systematic" abuse, including beatings, choking, sleep deprivation and religious humiliation.
"On a couple of occasions I entered interview rooms to find a detainee chained hand and foot in a foetal position to the floor, with no chair, food or water," wrote an un-named FBI agent. "Most times they had urinated or defecated on themselves, and had been left there for 18 to 24 hours or more."
Stafford-Smith has drawn up a 30-page report on the torture regime endured by his clients. This report has, however, been banned from publication by the Bush administration, which claims it contains details of "classified" interrogation techniques. Were Stafford-Smith to release this document, he could face prosecution and imprisonment should he ever visit the United States.
Colluding in Washingtons attempts to silence any honest reportage of conditions in the Guantanamo prison camp, the British government has made plain that it intends to detain the four released men immediately upon their return and subject them to "monitoring" by the police and secret service. Addressing the House of Commons, Straw said, "Once they are back in the UK, the police will consider whether to arrest them under the Terrorism Act 2000 for questioning in connection with possible terrorist activity.... I should like to assure the House that every practical step will be taken by the relevant UK authorities to maintain national security and to protect public safety."
A US Pentagon spokesman said, "The governments of the United Kingdom and Australia [whose citizen Mamdouh Habib was also released] have accepted responsibility for these individuals and will work to prevent them from engaging in or otherwise supporting terrorist activities in the future.
"The UK and Australian governments have made a number of security assurances to the US government in this regard that was important to the transfer decision.... These detainees are enemy combatants who had been detained by the United States in accordance with the laws of war and US law."
Given that three years of brutal US incarceration could not turn up any case against any of the men, Straws promise to further subject them to interrogations and police intrusions can only be understood as an attempt to discredit, intimidate and silence them. The Labour government is attempting to avoid the embarrassment caused to it and to its American ally following the release of five British Guantanamo detainees in March of last year. Three of these men, Shafiq Rasul, Asif Iqbal and Rhuhel Ahmed, made widely publicised allegations of torture at the hands of US guards and intelligence officers.
Their 115-page report Detention in Afghanistan and Guantanamo listed starvation, beatings, humiliation, forced injections of unknown drugs, and exposure to extremes of heat and cold, among other flagrant breaches of international and US domestic law.
The case of Moazzam Begg provides a stark example of the travesty of international law that exists at Guantanamo and in the US-led "war on terror". The father of three, who had moved to Afghanistan with his pregnant wife, was working in Kabul as a teacher and water supply worker when the 9/11 attacks took place. After moving to Pakistan on the outbreak of the US-led invasion, he was arrested by Pakistani security forces. While he was detained by US forces at Bagram Air Base outside Kabul, a false written confession was extracted from him after he had been tortured and witnessed the deaths of two prisoners, later officially classified as homicides. Based on this confession, he was sent to Guantanamo.
Neither he nor his counsel has been allowed to see this statement. Stafford-Smith posed the question: "What kind of civilised legal system does not allow the suspect to see his own statements? How can the prisoners statement be said to be classified information when, if it were true, the prisoner would already know it?"
The Blair government is concerned that the full extent of British collusion with US torture will be further exposed should the released men pursue the matter. In a letter to the Foreign Office, Stafford-Smith made the claim that Begg and Richard Belmar were both questioned by an officer of MI5, Britains secret security service, while they were being abused by Americans in both Afghanistan and Guantanamo. The security officer, who identified himself as Andrew, pressured the men to confess so they could return to their homes, and flatly refused their requests to see a British diplomatic representative.
Five former British residents remain held at Guantanamo, along with around 550 other prisoners from 20 other countries. The UK government has washed its hands of them, claiming that, as they do not have citizenship, it has no responsibilities towards them.
One of the five, Basher al-Rawi, an Iraqi-born man educated in England, currently faces deportation to Iraq, where he would likely be incarcerated in the US-run Abu Ghraib prison outside Baghdad. His Washington-based lawyer, Brent Mickum, stated that he had made efforts to secure British government backing to free his client, only to be met with silence.
Mickum has suggested that official Bush administration policy towards "problem" Guantanamo detaineesthose whose cases might be brought for review successfully before US courtswas to render them to their countries of origin. "I think people like Karl Rove [chief domestic policy adviser at the White House] have decided that this issue is hurting the administration and they want this to go away," said Mickum. "They may also be circling the wagons to prevent any adverse legal ruling that would affect the ability of the government to place people at these ghost locations," he added.
Picket called on Monday, 31 January, 2005, outside the Special Immigration Appeal Commission (SIAC) for the bail hearings of detainees B & P who are currently held without trial in Belmarsh prison under the Anti-Terrorism Crime and Security Act (ATCSA).
The internees will have their bail hearings at 10.00am at the SIAC building.
CAMPACC (Campaign against Criminalising Communities) is organising a picket outside SIAC from 9.00am. Please bring old banners and make new ones.
In normal procedure bail is granted on the day of the appeal but the hearings may go on all week.
SIAC, Field House, Bream¹s Buildings, London, EC4A, (Between Fetter Lane and Chancery Lane) , Nearest station: Chancery Lane Tube Station
RCPB(ML) Home Page
Workers' Daily Internet Edition Index Page