STATEWATCH: UK/Belmarsh: Committee of senior parliamentarians calls for Britain's "Guantanamo Bay" to be scrapped as "a matter of urgency"

---

A committee of senior parliamentarians - on the Privy Council Review Committee - have produced a 120-page report on the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 and called for end to the indefinite internment of 14 people in the Belmarsh high security prison in London - known as "Britain's Guantanamo Bay". Most have been held since the autumn of 2001 and because there is not sufficient evidence to bring them before a court they are being held in jail - they do have the option to leave the country which two have done. The committee says that these powers should be replaced "as a matter of urgency"
Full-text of the Privy Counsellor Review Committee: Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act Review: Report (pdf)

The committee's report says that other countries have not found it necessary to derogate from the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and "we have found no obvious reason why the UK should be an exception" and goes on to conclude:

"We were surprised to learn that the authorities appear to have given no thought to what change in circumstances might lead them to conclude that an individual should be released or dealt with differently... From the evidence we have received, we are concerned that there has not been a sufficiently pro-active, focused, case management approach to determining whether any particular suspected international terrorist should continue to be detained under Part Four [of the ATCS 2001].. nor did it appear that alternative ways of dealing with them were under active consideration"

The committee argues that these suspects should "be prosecuted under normal criminal law whenever possible", if necessary by making changes in the law to allow telecommunications interceptions (eg: phone-tap recording) to be used in court.

The committee also records that only foreign nationals can be detained indefinitely without trial in Belmarsh prison, whereas "the threat from UK citizens is real.. we have been told that, of the people of interest to the authorities because of their suspected involvement in international terrorism, nearly half are British citizens".

The Home Secretary, David Blunkett, responded immediately to reject the recommendation. He said that:

"I am not convinced that the current threat leaves us with any option but to continue to use these powers... These were not powers I assumed lightly. I have never pretended that they are ideal, but I firmly believe that they are currently the best and most workable way to address the particular problems we face...

I believe that I would be failing in my duty of public protection if the Part 4 powers were removed from the armoury of measures available to protect the United Kingdom from specific terrorist threats."

1. Full-text of the Privy Counsellor Review Committee: Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act Review: Report (pdf)
2. Guantanamo Bay: The legal black hole: Twenty-Seventh F.A. Mann Lecture: 25 November 2003 By Johan Steyn [Lord Steyn is a judicial member of the House of Lords - the UK's supreme court]: Lecture (html) Lecture (pdf version)

---

Statewatch News online

Paradise cleansed

The story of Diego Garcia is shocking, almost incredible. A British colony lying midway between Africa and Asia in the Indian Ocean, the island is one of 64 unique coral islands that form the Chagos Archipelago, a phenomenon of natural beauty, and once of peace. Newsreaders refer to it in passing: "American B-52 and Stealth bombers last night took off from the uninhabited British island of Diego Garcia to bomb Iraq (or Afghanistan)." It is the word "uninhabited" that turns the key on the horror of what was done there. In the 1970s, the Ministry of Defense in London produced this epic lie: "There is nothing in our files about a population and an evacuation." - Diego Garcia: Paradise Cleansed by John Pilger

In the late 1990s the Chagossians began a legal battle in the British courts to win the right to return. In November 2000 they won a stunning High Court victory which labelled their removal from the islands by the government 'an abject legal failure' - they thus won the right to return, though the government interpreted this as to the outlying islands in the Chagos group, not Diego Garcia itself. However, in June 2004, the government suddenly - literally out of the blue - announced it was enacting 'orders in council' to ban the Chagossians from ever returning. This is the British version of the 'fatwa', which allows any government to overturn independent legal decisions made against it (a nice illustration of the Blair government's commitment to legality, to go alongisde the Iraq case). The Chagossians are currently appealing against this ruling and seeking to uphold their right to return. A hearing was held in December and the High Court is expected to decide towards the end of February.

The government is fighting the Chagossians tooth and nail in court; its legal fees currently come to over £1.5 million spent on defeating this poor community, who have no money and rely on hand-outs to come to the UK, and the support of the Chagos Support Association, run on a shoestring budget. Whitehall is of course terrified of having the original inhabitants back on the islands anywhere near Diego Garcia, which of course would mightily upset Big Brother. The Americans made it absolutely clear at the time of the original discussions in the mid-1960s that they wanted the removal of the entire population and this remains their position.

The treatment of the Chagossians is appalling, but nothing other than normal, by British government standards. But the other interesting thing is how topical, in any news sense, the whole issue is: Diego Garcia is a US military base used to bomb Iraq and Afghanistan (and would possibly be used in an attack on Iran); there have been US media reports that DG is being secretly used to house 'terrorist suspects'; the High Court case is ongoing; there is a community of 200 Chagossians in the UK, who are British citizens; the US and UK have a declared aim of promoting democracy (a joke obviously, but their declared aim, meaning that journalists might be thought capable of finding what are called 'double standards') in the region; the 'right to return' is not an untopical issue in the context of the Middle East. Etc Etc. - Mark Curtis Medialens blog

UK shamed as exiles to return to lost islands

JOHN ASTON AND CATHY GORDON - scotsman.com

FAMILIES exiled from the Chagos Islands by the British government so that the United States could build a strategic military base on Diego Garcia celebrated "a historic moment" yesterday as they won a High Court victory for the right to return.

In a damning verdict, two judges condemned as "repugnant" the government's decision to "exile a whole population" from the Indian Ocean archipelago on the basis it was necessary for "peace, order and good government".

The judges ruled that the interests of the islanders from the British Indian Ocean Territory had been ignored.

Lord Justice Hooper and Mr Justice Cresswell, sitting in London, held that orders made under the Royal prerogative to prevent their return were irrational and unlawful.

Later, Olivier Bancoult, the leader of the Chagos Refugee Group, said the families, many of whom have spent their exile in poverty, now hoped to go home soon. He added: "This is a very big historic moment."

Richard Gifford, the solicitor for the islanders, said: "The British government has been defeated in its attempt to abolish the right of abode of the islanders after first deporting them in secret 30 years ago."

Because of the wide-ranging importance of the landmark decision, which includes a declaration that orders made under the Royal prerogative are not immune to judicial review, the judges gave Margaret Beckett, the Foreign Secretary, permission to appeal.

The ruling is the latest extraordinary twist in what critics have described as one of the most shameful episodes in modern British history - the enforced depopulation of the Chagos Archipelago 30 years ago to provide the US with a strategic navy and air base of unparalleled security.

Between 1965 and 1973, the local people, who mainly worked on coconut plantations, were forced to leave.

The islanders say that probably more than 1,000 people were forced to go to Mauritius and the Seychelles and received only inadequate compensation. More recently, many have moved to the UK in an attempt to start new lives.

The British authorities say the numbers removed were far fewer than claimed.

In November 2000, the High Court dealt a blow to the government when it overturned measures introduced in 1971 to keep the Chagossians in exile. The court held that the islanders had a right of return to the group of 65 islands in the Chagos Archipelago, although not to Diego Garcia itself.

Robin Cook, the then foreign secretary, said there would be no appeal.

The US military expressed fears that any attempt to resettle any of the islands would compromise the security of Diego Garcia - the island used to launch bombing missions in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The islanders described their sense of shock and fresh betrayal when, in June 2004, the British government decided that they could not go back after all.

The government made an order under the Royal prerogative, declaring that no person had a "right of abode" in the British Indian Ocean Territory. That ruling was overturned yesterday.

Now private Lear jets regularly fly in with new prisoners. Highly placed intelligence sources in Pakistan and Washington have revealed that over thirty al Qaeda suspects have been kidnapped by CIA snatch squads and flown to Diego Garcia in the chartered Lears.

Among them are Osama bin Laden's senior lieutenants, Khalid Sheik Mohammed Ramzi Binasshibh and Abu Zubaida, kidnapped from Pakistan. One intelligence source said: "These operations are sanctioned in Washington from the top. Rumsfeld knows. Sometimes the snatch flights are approved by the White House".

Alberto Gonzales, President Bush's in-house counsel, confirmed that "many key decisions about detainees and their status are made by the President". Last week, Amnesty International wrote to William S Farish, the US ambassador to Britain, to seek a meeting over claims that "stress and duress tactics" are being used on Diego Garcia prisoners. And he wanted to know the role of "various foreign intelligence services known to torture detainees who are also involved in the interrogations".

Both MI6 and Mossad agents are known to have visited Diego Garcia to question "high value" suspected terrorists. Both Amnesty and the International Red Cross have been refused permission to visit the island under a secret deal made between London and Washington. Secret legal opinions from US Justice Department and Pentagon lawyers have concluded that the CIA was "safe from scrutiny" if it conducted its interrogations on places like Diego Garcia.

It is not known if those opinions were known to the UK government when the use of Diego Garcia as an interrogation centre was decided upon. A key ruling states violations of American statutes that prohibit torture, degrading treatment or the Geneva Convention will not apply "if it can be argued that the detainees are formally in the custody of another country".

"As Diego Garcia is a British colony, it could mean that the prisoners there are entitled to British protection", said a counter-terrorism officer in Washington. He is one of those who has expressed concerns inside the CIA over what is happening.

"If the Administration has nothing to hide, it should immediately end incommunicado detention and grant access to independent human rights organisations", sad Irene Khan, Secretary General of Amnesty International.

Human rights organisations fear that there are similar physical abuses at Diego Garcia as were revealed in Baghdad's now notorious Abu Ghrain prison. Since February 1964 - following a still secret Anglo-American conference in London - Diego Garcia has increasingly become what Washington calls "a staging base for the security of the West".

Hundreds of islanders, all British passport holders - who a Foreign Office official noted in 1955 "are lavish with their Union Jacks" - were thrown off Diego Garcia at short notice. But the coral limestone island is still one of the British Indian Ocean Territories.

There are now 6,000 US military personnel living on the island - along with their "high value" al Qaeda and Taliban prisoners.

They are part of more than 9,000 other detainees who are held in US military controlled prisons specially set up for the purpose.

It has been established that 300 detainees are held in railroad box-cars at Bagram, north of Kabul. Hundreds more are detained in prisons in Afghanistan. But the majority are held in Iraq's thirteen jails. - Gordon Thomas

Island paradise or torture chamber?

Torture and Detention on Diego Garcia

U.K.: Highest Court to Rule on Torture Evidence

(London, October 14, 2005)-A ruling by Britain's highest court on the use of torture evidence is likely to have profound implications for the worldwide ban on torture, Human Rights Watch said today. Britain's highest court will convene on Monday, October 17 to consider whether torture evidence obtained from third countries is permitted in domestic British law. The House of Lords Judicial Committee (commonly known as "the law lords") will hear an appeal against an August 2004 majority decision by the Court of Appeal that the U.K. government was entitled to rely on torture evidence in special terrorism cases, provided that the U.K. "neither procured nor connived at" the torture. The use of evidence obtained through torture or other ill-treatment is prohibited by international law.

"When it comes to torture, the rules of the game must not change." said Holly Cartner, Europe and Central Asia director at Human Rights Watch, "You can't accept torture evidence without condoning torture."

Human Rights Watch is part of a coalition of fourteen human rights and anti-torture organizations intervening in the House of Lords case.

Under the Convention against Torture, to which 140 countries including the U.K. are party, evidence obtained under torture is inadmissible in "any proceedings" before a court. The rule is also part of customary international law binding on all states. But a two-to-one majority in the Court of Appeal held that because the convention is not part of British law, the courts did not have to exclude such evidence.

The U.N. Committee against Torture criticized the British government's refusal to disavow the use of torture evidence at its November 2004 review of the U.K.'s compliance with the torture convention.

The British government's assertion that it is entitled to rely on evidence which third countries have obtained through torture is part of its growing efforts to erode the torture prohibition. The government is seeking to bypass the prohibition against returning people to torture by obtaining promises of humane treatment to allow it to deport terrorism suspects. Despite clear evidence that such promises do not provide an effective safeguard against ill-treatment, it has already concluded a memorandum of understanding with Jordan, and is negotiating similar agreements with Algeria, Libya, Egypt, and other countries with poor records on torture. The government is also seeking to redefine the scope of the ban on returns to torture, through political pressure on the British courts, and an intervention in a Dutch case in the European Court of Human Rights, arguing that courts should balance the risk of torture against national security concerns.

"The U.K. government's attack on the torture ban is deeply troubling," said Cartner. "It threatens more than half of a century of efforts-including by Britain itself-to eradicate torture worldwide."

The case, A and others, is being brought by ten foreign nationals previously certified under the Anti-Terrorism Crime and Security Act 2001 as suspected international terrorists and subject to indefinite detention without trial. The majority of the men are Algerian. In December 2004, the Law Lords ruled that indefinite detention was unlawful. The present appeal arises from a July 2002 decision by the Special Immigration Appeals Commission that it was entitled to consider evidence that may have been obtained under torture in determining the men's appeals against certification.

Two of the men have left the U.K. and two had their certificates revoked prior to December 2004. Six of the men were subject to control orders under the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 following their release from indefinite detention in March 2005, but an unspecified number of the six were subsequently detained on immigration charges pending their deportation on national security grounds.

Members of the coalition intervening in the case are: The AIRE Centre, Amnesty International, the Association for the Prevention of Torture, British Irish Rights Watch, The Committee on the Administration of Justice, Doctors for Human Rights, Human Rights Watch, The International Federation of Human Rights, INTERIGHTS, The Law Society of England and Wales, Liberty, the Medical Foundation for the Care of Victims of Torture, REDRESS, and the World Organisation Against Torture. - alertnet.org

Independent human rights groups estimate that there are more than 600 politically motivated arrests a year in Uzbekistan, and 6,500 political prisoners, some tortured to death. According to a forensic report commissioned by the British embassy, in August two prisoners were even boiled to death. The US condemned this repression for many years. But since September 11 rewrote America's strategic interests in central Asia, the government of President Islam Karimov has become Washington's new best friend in the region. - see 'the memory hole'

Britain helped train Uzbek killers

BRITISH soldiers helped to train the army of Uzbekistan, which last month slaughtered hundreds of pro-democracy protesters.

The government of the central Asian republic has admitted that its troops killed 173 civilian demonstrators on 12 and 13 May in the city of Andizhan - and the true toll is believed to have been much higher. Human rights groups have condemned the massacre. Last year, about 150 British Army veterans of the Iraq war travelled to Uzbekistan to train with the army responsible for the killings. According to one independent witness, the British soldiers "shared tactics" with the Uzbeks.

The revelations will raise fresh questions about the UK government's support for the autocratic regime of Islam Karimov, the Uzbek president.

Craig Murray, the former British ambassador to Uzbekistan who has been critical of UK policy towards Mr Karimov, was outraged that British troops had worked so closely with Uzbek forces.

"One of the most chilling things about the massacre was that it was not a spur-of-the-moment thing," he said yesterday. "The morning after, the soldiers searched the square, methodically killing the wounded with bullets to the head.

"The idea that British Army soldiers were training alongside people who do that is simply appalling."

Last autumn, 150 officers and men of the Royal Regiment of Wales travelled to Uzbekistan to take part in a major army training operation that apparently included combat operations. The Uzbeks codenamed the operation Timur Express, a reference to the 14th-century warlord known in the West as Tamburlaine. The exercise took place at the Farish training camp, 200 miles south-west of the capital, Tashkent. Pictures of the operation obtained by The Scotsman appear to show British and Uzbek troops firing a machine-gun and engaging in combat simulations. The Welsh soldiers are members of the Territorial Army and most of them had served at least one tour in Iraq,

"The soldiers were able to use their experience gained in Iraq and other operations to train the Uzbeks using British tactics," said one person who observed the Farish training operation. Previously, the Foreign Office and the Ministry of Defence have admitted offering only support and training to selected Uzbek army officers, hoping to encourage democratic reform and Uzbekistan's participation in international peacekeeping missions. The government has been reluctant to admit providing operational support to the Uzbek army. The last time the MoD told parliament about military support, in February 2004, ministers said Britain had provided training and advice ... focused on assisting the Uzbekistan ministry of defence with its defence reform efforts".

The United States has also faced questions about its military support for Uzbekistan, seen as a key ally in the war on terrorism. Unconfirmed reports suggest that the Uzbek army units involved in the Andizhan killings had benefited from US military training.

In a statement last night, the MoD said: "Our limited activities in Uzbekistan are designed to sow the seeds of democratic management and accountability of the military.

"The Uzbek defence minister is very forward-leaning in his desire to modernise and increase professionalism in the armed forces."

The MoD described the Welsh troops' presence in Uzbekistan as an "annual peacekeeping exercise". A spokesman was unable to say whether there would be another such exercise this year. - Scotsman via IMCUK

& Craig Murrays weblog

MoD rules out Uzbek return

JAMES KIRKUP POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT

BRITISH soldiers will not be sent back to Uzbekistan to train with the central Asian republic's military forces, the Ministry of Defence said last night. The Scotsman yesterday revealed that 150 British soldiers had taken part last year in Exercise Timur Express, exchanging tactics with Uzbek forces.

Last month, Uzbek government troops killed hundreds of unarmed pro-democracy protesters in the city of Andizhan, in a massacre that was condemned by human rights groups and western countries, including Britain.

The MoD said in a written statement to The Scotsman on Sunday that Exercise Timur Express had been an "annual training exercise", meant to encourage military reform in Uzbekistan.

Yesterday, however, an MoD spokesman said: "There will be no such exercise this year - there are no current plans to return."

The statement on Sunday about an "annual exercise" had been "a mistake", the spokesman said. - scotsman

Britain signs deportation deal with Libya

18/10/2005 - A deal has been signed with Libya allowing the UK to deport foreign terror suspects without fear of them being mistreated.

The move follows a similar agreement with Jordan.

Under international convention, the British government can't send people back to a country where they might face inhuman or degrading treatment. IOL

MI5 'acts on facts gained under torture'

By Duncan Gardham(Filed: 21/10/2005)

The head of MI5 has submitted evidence to the House of Lords indicating that her agents are prepared to act on intelligence obtained under torture in the fight against terrorism.

In a seven-page statement to the law lords, Eliza Manningham-Buller said experience showed that material received from foreign authorities as a result of what she called "detainee reporting" had "proved to be very valuable in disrupting terrorist activity".

Ms Manningham-Buller said that MI5 and the secret intelligence service MI6 did not, as a rule, inquire closely into the origin of information received from foreign security agencies, especially when an urgent response was needed. "Where circumstances permit", the agencies would seek to acquire "as much context as possible" about how the information was obtained, she wrote. But she added: "Where the reporting is threat-related, the desire for context will usually be subservient to the need to take action to establish the facts, in order to protect life." The Law Lords are considering an earlier Appeal Court ruling that evidence obtained by abuse of detainees overseas may be admissible in a British court, so long as UK agents do not participate in or solicit it.

Ms Manningham-Buller's comments, seen by Channel 4 News, are contained in a statement to law lords hearing an appeal by 10 terror suspects who argue that evidence from torture overseas should not be used in the Home Office's attempt to deport them.

A Home Office spokesman said it would not comment on the case. - telegraph