The Guantanamo hell-hole

by Paul Donovan

The father of a British man being held illegally by the
United States government recounted recently how his
son went to Afghanistan to build a school, before
being snatched and sent to Guantanamo Bay.

Azmat Begg recalled receiving a letter from the camp in 
Guantanamo Bay, where his son Moazzam is being held.
His son wrote: "I am like an animal in a cage. My life is
hell and I'm in a state of depression".

Moazzam took his wife and three young children with him to 
Afghanistan. When the US bombardment of the country began, he 
fled to Pakistan, but was snatched by police there before being 
handed over to the CIA.

After a period of detention at Bagram airbase in Afghanistan, he 
was transferred to Guantanamo Bay, where he has remained for the 
past 18 months.

In July, together with Croydon-based Feroz Abbasi, Begg was one 
of six detainees listed for the first military tribunal hearings 
in the Guantanamo Bay-based Camp Delta.

International prisoners

There are nine British citizens, seven French, two Australians, 
one Dane and one Swede among the 700 people being held by the US 
government in the camp.

Lawyer Stephen Jakobi from Fair Trials Abroad says that the 
Swedes are putting up quite a struggle, but no other country is 
making much fuss.

Jakobi expressed real concern about the British government's 
attitude. Rather than using the clout it should have from going 
"shoulder to shoulder" with US in Iraq, it prefers, instead, to 
stay silent.

Indeed, Europe as a whole is presently in a strong negotiating 
position with the US government, which is desperate to get an 
international force into Iraq.

What is required is a fair trial for the detainees, but so far, 
the only option offered by the US government is a military 
tribunal, with the option of a 20-year sentence if an individual 
pleads guilty and possible execution if they do not.

"A fair trial is not rocket science, it's pretty simple stuff. 
There needs to be the power for a lawyer to test the evidence, an 
independent and impartial tribunal and a presumption of 
innocence", says Jakobi.

Lawyer Gareth Peirce views what is happening in Guantanamo Bay as 
part of a more sinister global agenda.

She sees the detentions as part of an experiment by the US.

"What we are witnessing here is in the nature of an experiment. 
The question is whether there will be a reaction, will there be a 
protest within or without? Chillingly, largely the answer so far 
has been no", says Peirce.

The lawyer, who successfully pursued the appeals of the 
Birmingham Six and Guilford Four, believes that the actions of 
British government are as reprehensible as those of the US.

Torture

"Can it really be that a number of British nationals have been in 
custody at the hands of the US in conditions that amount to 
torture?" she asked. "Can this really have gone on with no 
access?"

Peirce also claims that the British are taking evidence from the 
US that has been obtained via torture and in contravention of 
international treaties that prohibit such inhumane treatment.

Not only are the British government seemingly prepared to collude 
in this experiment, which amounts to tearing up most 
international human rights treaties, but it runs its own smaller 
version at Belmarsh Prison in London.

There, 13 individuals have been interned without trial. They have 
effectively been sealed off and forced to live an existence that 
seems at times more like something out of a Kafka novel.

Peirce believes that the situation of those being held in 
Belmarsh could be worse than that endured during the Irish war by 
the likes of the Birmingham Six and Guilford Four.

"I'm not sure, but I think this situation maybe is worse. With 
the Guilford Four, it was a case of disproving the evidence. In 
these cases, you don't know what the evidence is, so how can you 
disprove it?" says Peirce.

Recalling her own conversations with detainees in Belmarsh 
prison, she says that the two most common statements are "why 
doesn't anybody talk to us?" and "are they mad, we are not 
terrorists".

Making comparisons between the present detainees and the Irish 
situation is the wrong debate to have. The present situation 
needs to be viewed as a logical extension of the anti-terror 
approach first introduced during the war in Ireland.

It was former Devon and Cornwall Chief Constable John Alderson 
who said that the call of every dictator is "give me your 
liberties and I will provide security".

Such has been the approach from the outbreak of the conflict in 
Northern Ireland in the 1960s. There have been the constant calls 
to give up more and more basic human rights in order to combat 
terrorism and thereby provide security.

First, there was interment without trial. Then came trials 
without juries. At times, the police, army and intelligence 
services became a law unto themselves, crossing the line from 
combating terrorism to, in many cases, colluding and directing 
it.

Similar developments are no doubt afoot in the present "war on 
terrorism".

In 1974, the Birmingham and Guilford pub bombings led to the 
Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA). This Act effectively extended 
the reach of anti-terror law beyond Northern Ireland to the whole 
of Britain.

It gave the power to routinely stop and hold people for up to 
seven days without resort to a court. The right to silence was 
removed with the introduction of a charge of withholding 
information.

Erosion of human rights

The erosion of human rights went on steadily throughout the 30 
years of war in Northern Ireland, with every new atrocity 
signalling another inroad at the behest of public safety.

From removing litter bins from railway stations to the so-called 
ring of steel around the City of London, all were intended to 
bring forward the feeling of a country under attack.

Yet the truth of the anti-terrorism legislation, of course, was 
that it did little to stop terrorism. The proof of the 
ineffectiveness of anti-terror legislation in catching terrorists 
is clear for all to see in the record of the PTA.

Paul Hill of the Guilford Four was the first man held under its 
provisions. He served 15 years for a crime that he did not 
commit. By taking away the most basic safeguards, anti-terror 
legislation hits only the weaker and most vulnerable members of 
our community.

Temporary becomes permanent

Defined as temporary when first placed on the statute book, the 
PTA was routinely renewed every year with little debate.

At the same time, there was a circular process going on that saw 
many of the measures incorporated into ordinary criminal law.

This, for example, saw the removal under the Criminal Justice Act 
1994 of the right to silence. The latest target is the ongoing 
attempt to remove trial by jury.

This process needs to be seen in its widest context, not just the 
blunt removal of this right from the courts but also the wider 
creation of quasi-tribunals to deal with the likes of the 
detainees in Belmarsh.

In reality, the PTA was used to attack those who might seek to 
become involved in the politics of Northern Ireland.

The present anti-terrorist legislation is likely to be used to 
stop people getting involved in the politics of the war by 
effectively criminalising them.

Arms protest

The most recent example of this process in action was seen in the 
use of anti-terror laws by the police against those recently 
protesting the arms fair in the Docklands.

The argument that the present anti-terror law is a continuum of 
what went before and not a new departure is most graphically 
illustrated by the fact that one of the most draconian pieces of 
anti-terror legislation was introduced in the period between the 
IRA cease-fire and September 11 2001.

The 2000 Terror Act built on the anti-terrorism law introduced 
for the Irish conflict at a time when there was no conflict. 
Then, along came September 11, offering a bigger and better 
threat than anything that had gone before.

Anti-terrorism law is essentially the instrument of the dictator.

It says that there cannot be an open and free society — a 
permanent state of emergency exists that justifies the sacrifice 
of human rights.

The detention of the 13 individuals in Belmarsh Prison and the 
700 held in Guantanamo Bay are all part of the same scenario.

The Bush administration is certainly committed to ripping up 
every piece of international human rights law.

The US constitution, it would seem, is no longer a working 
document, but an article for the museum archives. As Orwell 
predicted in 1984, emergencies are being created to justify huge 
clampdowns on native populations.

If dictators win, there will be perpetual wars going on across 
the world to rally domestic populations against common perceived 
enemies.

It is now time for those in the anti-war movement and beyond to 
stand up for the liberties of the individuals in Guantanamo and 
Belmarsh.

The people detained may be terrorists, they may be guilty of 
terrible things, but they also deserve the right for a fair trial 
before a jury in their own countries.

* * *

Morning Star, September 23, 2003