Guantánamo in Britain's Backyard

Britain's highest court delivered a scathing judgement on the indefinite detention of foreign terror suspects under what Amnesty International called "cruel" conditions. The law lords called this practice unlawful. Tareq Al-Arab reports from London

Vital parts of the UK's Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 (ATCSA) must be revised. Eight out of nine law lords decided that to detain non-British citizens on suspicion without a trial for an indefinite period of time is incompatible with democratic rights and the UK's international commitments. The law had been introduced by former Home Secretary David Blunkett who resigned just days ago.

"Indefinite imprisonment in consequence of a denunciation on grounds that are not disclosed and made by a person whose identity cannot be disclosed is the stuff of nightmares, associated with France before and during the Revolution, with Soviet Russia in the Stalinist era and now associated, as a result of section 23 of the 2001 Act, with the United Kingdom," said Lord Scott of Foscote in his judgement. Another conclusion reads: "The courts must check that human rights are not disregarded – as they have been here."

In breach of the principle of the rule of law

According to Section 4 of the ATCSA 2001, the home secretary requires only a so-called "reasonable belief" that someone is involved in terrorist activities to detain him. Whoever is suspected of this can be detained indefinitely and potentially indeterminately without charge, without trial and without being sentenced. However, this law only applies to foreign nationals. British citizens are not affected by it.

Amnesty International called this practice "a Guantánamo in our own backyard" the conditions at Belmarsh, the high security prisons where most of the suspects are detained, "cruel, inhuman and degrading".

Human rights campaigners repeatedly put pressure on the government to release all detainees who had been jailed on the grounds of the anti terror law or alternatively provide them with a fair trial according to international standards. Several parliamentary committees urged the Blair government to fight terrorism within the framework of existing law and refrain from emergency laws.

No escape route for the government

Even the United Nations took a clear stand. Just a few days ago the UN committee on torture "urgently" demanded from London to revise the 2001 anti terror law. But it is the decision of the law lords that is for the first time mandatory for the Blair government. "The government can not appeal. It has no escape route this time," explains solicitor Gareth Peirce, who represents eight of the detainees.

There are still 11 suspected international terrorists held in British prisons. All of them are from Arabic-speaking countries.

The British newspaper The Guardian reports that the detainees occupy small cells, 3m by 1,8m, for 2 hours a day and rarely see the daylight. According to Peirce, the desperation of her clients is "gigantic".

According to a recently published medical report, many prisoners tried to commit suicide or harm themselves and some suffered from severe psychoses. "The detainees had lost all hope and thought they would remain in prison forever," says Peirce. "The indefinite detention has driven four of the prisoners mad. Three of them had to be transferred to the high security hospital Broadmoor."

"Why don't they just charge me?"

The home office originally imposed a speaking ban, prohibiting the detainees to speak to the public about their detention. The Guardian had to fight a month-long court battle before it was granted the first interview with one of the inmates, Mahmoud Abu Rideh. In the interview the Palestinian complains: "I am not a terrorist. I would stop any bomb. I don't believe in terrorism. Why don't they just charge me?"

The suspects are imprisoned on the grounds of secret evidence about terrorist activity, whereas the evidence is so secret that neither the concerned nor their solicitors have access to it which makes it impossible to refute it in court.

Peirce calls the accusations that have been made on the basis of this secret evidence "absolute rubbish" that would never stand up in broad daylight. "Thus an individual would be said to have been certificated as being an international terrorist or person who was a supporter of international terrorism on the basis that he associated with other persons who had links with other persons who were extremists and were associated with groups which in turn had links with al Qaeda."

Amnesty International too expressed concern about the fact that secret information is classified as reliable evidence.

Detention without interrogation

Strangely enough, the suspected international terrorists have been detained but unlike the prisoners at Camp X-Ray at Guantánamo at no point interrogated. In an open letter, signed The Forgotten Prisoners, the detainees at Belmarsh ask: "Why did no one ever speak to us? Why were we never asked a single question before being locked up as terrorists?"

Although they allegedly pose a threat to national security, the government declares that all detainees are free to return to their home country. Most detainees refrain from doing so for the simple reason that they are asylum seekers and escaped from their countries to the UK in the first place.

"The government can't deport the detainees for exactly the same reason for which the detainees won't leave the country voluntarily", explains Natalia Garcia from the law firm Tyndallwoods that represents some of the detainees.

Critics fear that some of the incriminating evidence has been provided by the same regimes the prisoners tried to escape from.

Critical US remarks get a new twist

Just recently a British senior minister criticised the US policies at Guantánamo. Lord Charles Falconer, secretary of state for constitutional affairs, said that Washington's policy on the legal status of detainees at the Guantánamo Bay prison camp in Cuba was unacceptable. The close ally of Prime Minister Tony Blair, usually a strong supporter of the USA's anti terror measures, said: "At the heart of our culture is a commitment to the rule of law and human rights. We could never countenance individuals being put beyond the law, as has happened at Guantánamo Bay."

The law lords' verdict put a new twist on Lord Falconer's remark. According to the high court, it is the UK government that puts individuals beyond the law. The government is thus under pressure to revise the anti terror law.

Despite all hope for a policy change, Livio Zilli, spokesman for Amnesty International UK, remains retained at the prospect of the law lords verdict: "The lords gave a strong indication of not drawing similar kinds of laws in the future. But for the same purpose of this anti-terror-law the government will probably use other laws that are already there."

In fact, the law lords cannot end the indefinite detention without trial. The British Parliament is to decide what is going to happen to the section of the law that has been so sharply criticised by the law lords. Until then, the detainees stay in prison. In the meantime, the designated Home Secretary Charles Clarke emphasised that for the time being the measures would "remain in force". He has no intention to release the prisoners, he would attempt to "renew" the existing law.

Tareq Al-Arab