Now close Britain's Guantanamo

Tribune 16 February 2009

ONE of Barack Obama's first actions as President of the United States was to suspend military tribunals in "the interests of justice". An executive order was signed declaring that the infamous detention centre at Guantánamo Bay in Cuba would close within a year

A problem for the new administration in closing down Guantánamo was to get the countries from which the prisoners originated to take them back. Alternatively, other countries had to be sought to accept some of the detainees. There were resistant noises from some British MPs about the need for checks before any such individuals could be accepted.

This approach underlined the worldwide problem that has been created over the past eight years of the war on terror. The reaction of some at Westminster suggests the rule of law may have been replaced by a rule that says there can be no smoke without fire.

The problem with the detention of prisoners at Guantanamo was its indeterminate nature and the absence of charges being brought to a trial. Detainees held indefinitely on the basis of "intelligence". This dubious way of operating has spawned a whole network of illegal prisons. As the recent case of Binyam Mohamed illustrates graphically, suspects have been picked up all over the world and “rendered” to these prisons for interrogation and often torture in the name of gathering intelligence.

Obama's early decisions and the comments he made in his inaugural address intimated that this way of doing things is to end, with a full restoration of the rule of law – at least as far as the United States is concerned. Less clear is whether Britain, America's partner in the “special relationship”, will follow suit and dismantle its own equivalent of Guantanamo.

Gareth Peirce, the solicitor who specialises in human rights issues, does not think this will happen. She fears that many of the inroads made into our most basic civil liberties over the past eight years have become entrenched in the social fabric. The early indications are that she may be right. A significant number of people in this country remain in control order-style detention. They have never been charged and brought before a court.

Take the recent case of a man known only as U. He was detained in 2001 pending extradition to the US until the request was dropped in 2005. He was then served with a deportation order and held until he was released on bail in July last year. He is currently under 24-hour detention in southern England.

Recently, the Special Immigration Appeals Commission met to discuss whether it might be possible for U – who is not subject to criminal proceedings in this country – to have a daily walk in a park. Lawyers for Home Secretary Jacqui Smith refused, claiming he is too dangerous. U’s lawyers contested this, pointing out that he has complied with every restriction so far. In any case, he would be accompanied.

Strangely, the Home Secretary would have accepted a 22-hour a day curfew if U were being held in a northern town. In that event, on his walks, which would be twice weekly, he would be able to speak to his escort – except for that he would have to remain silent. He might be allowed to stop for coffee, chocolate and perhaps even cake, but on no account would he be permitted to ask for these things. This is justice Guantánamo-style in the United Kingdom.

There are a number of individuals like U being held seemingly indefinitely. A couple of years ago, I interviewed G. He was effectively under house arrest, only allowed out for a set period each day. He lives with his wife and two children and they are subject to virtually the same conditions. He tried to commit suicide the last time he was sent to prison.

G has been detained since 2001. His is another case where he has not been interviewed or told what he is supposed to have done. There have never been any charges brought against him.

Mustapha Taleb is another detainee. He fled to Britain from Algeria in fear of his life back in the 1990s and was granted full refugee status. He was picked up in 2003 in connection with what became known as the ricin trial, although no ricin was ever found. He was cleared of all charges in April 2005, but detained again following the London bombings. Since that time, he has been in prison and under control order-style detention. He has been served with a deportation order back to Algeria, but to return would mean almost certain death. His life remains in limbo.

Cynics looking at this process might conclude that the authorities are making life so unpleasant for these people in order to make them return "voluntarily" to their countries of origin.

Two men who did return to Algeria “voluntarily” are Benaissa Taleb and Rida Dendani. Despite assurances they were given beforehand, they were arrested on arrival and interrogated for 12 days before confessions were obtained. They were subsequently tried on the basis of these confessions and are now serving eight- and three-year jail sentences.

This is the security structure that Britain has established to create its own version of Guantanamo. The whole process has been conducted far more quietly than in the US, where Guantánamo has become a symbol of injustice against which there has been worldwide protest.

Britain's version is made up of a complex system of immigration courts, prisons and detention in houses and flats in remote places around the country. The number affected is not insubstantial, especially when it is remembered that the families of detainees are also being punished for something no court of law has found their loved ones guilty of doing. Their isolation is compounded because friends tend not to contact detainees for fear of suffering a similar fate if they associate with them

Few in Britain are aware of this situation. Britain’s Guantanamo has been created in the shadows. It can only be hoped that the example shown by President Obama in the US will prompt a similar reconsideration of measures adopted in this country. But don’t hold your breath. The dangerous strategy substituting security for civil rights was initially adopted in the early 1970s in Northern Ireland. It continues to this day. It has become the bedrock of the powerful security state and it will take a mighty effort to roll it back.