Archive for May, 2010

Today, the UK adapts to new political realities — a Tory Prime Minister, for the first time since 1997, a unique coalition between the Tories and the Liberal Democrats, and a Labour party, leaderless and in opposition, having apparently blown its opportunity to forge a fragile coalition with the Lib Dems through ferocious opposition to electoral reform, as trumpeted by various party dinosaurs, including former home secretaries David Blunkett and John Reid, whose early and outspoken opposition to a deal led one former cabinet member to “coldly” tell the Guardian, “I hope I never have to meet those two again.”

To reach an agreement with the Liberal Democrats, David Cameron made Nick Clegg deputy prime minister, and appointed four other Lib Dem MPs to Cabinet posts — Vince Cable (business secretary), Chris Huhne (energy and climate change), David Laws (treasury chief secretary) and Danny Alexander (Scottish secretary) — although the top jobs, of course, went to fellow Tories. George Osborne replaces Alistair Darling as Chancellor of the Exchequer, William Hague replaces David Miliband as foreign secretary, Theresa May replaces Alan Johnson as home secretary (and adds a role as minister for women), and Liam Fox replaces Bob Ainsworth as defence secretary.

Moreover, the Lib Dems appear to have secured a number of concessions from David Cameron, beyond a mandate for Vince Cable to oversee what Channel 4 News described as “an independent commission to decide which party’s policy on dividing the banking sector should be implemented.” As was also noted, “Banks will also face a new levy and a cap on cash bonuses.”

These other concessions include a referendum on the Alternative Vote system (a far cry from proportional representation, but the only offer tabled by both Labour and the Tories), raising the tax-free threshold to £10,000 and “significant increases in the other tax thresholds” (which will have to paid for by other means, no doubt enraging the Tory faithful), and a Tory pledge to give up their plans to raise the inheritance tax threshold to £1m. In exchange, the Lib Dems have sacrificed their “mansion tax” on houses worth over £2m, and have signalled that they will sign a commitment not to join the euro, and will agree to referendums on any future transfer of powers to Brussels. They have also eased up on their opposition to the replacement of the Trident nuclear missile system and have given way on Tory plans to cap immigration from non-EU countries.

Civil liberties and human rights

Those of us who are concerned about the erosion of civil liberties under the Labour government, and the assault on human rights as part of the “War on Terror,” will be watching the government closely. On ID cards, both parties pledged to scrap Labour’s much-criticized scheme, and wasted no time in announcing today that the scheme would indeed be scrapped. To follow, apparently, are plans to scrap the next generation of biometric passports, to review the libel laws in England and Wales “to protect freedom of speech,” and to regulate the use of CCTV cameras, in particular as used by local authorities. As Channel 4 News’ Home correspondent Andy Davies explained today, “There will almost certainly be a reduction in the capacity for the DNA database to store samples taken from people arrested but not convicted. The national child database in England (‘Contactpoint’) is likely to be abandoned.”

As Andy Davies also explained, civil liberties is “one area where the coalition parties have a struck a similar tone in recent years … In their manifestos, the Lib Dems complain[ed] that the UK has become a ‘surveillance state,’ the Tories bemoan[ed] a ‘database state.’ Both have made significant pledges to roll back what they describe as intrusive, authoritarian executive powers introduced under Labour.”

How this seemingly happy cooperation will translate to questions of terrorism and human rights remains to be seen. Andy Davies noted that “the controversial control order regime could be one of the first Labour counter-terror initiatives to disappear under the new National Security Council.” He added that “the Tories call the orders ‘inherently objectionable’ and want a review” and “the Lib Dems have said they’ll cancel the whole project.”

With the exception of torture, the Tories have a poor track record of opposing human rights violations in combatting terrorism

For the Tories, however, translating their opposition to something that, on paper, is “inherently objectionable,” may well be difficult. On March 1, when Parliament agreed, by 206 votes to 85, to renew, for the sixth year, the control order regime (under which terror suspects — both British and foreign nationals — are held under a form of house arrest on the basis of secret evidence), Tories were conspicuously absent from the list of MPs opposing the renewal of the legislation (PDF). Just one Tory MP, David Davis, opposed the renewal, compared to 54 Liberal Democrat MPs (including Nick Clegg, Vince Cable, Chris Huhne and Danny Alexander), 24 Labour MPs, three SNP MPs and 3 Independents.

This refusal to engage with human rights issues in relation to terrorism was replicated in MPs’ support for two Early Day Motions in the last 12 months, concerning the use of secret evidence in UK courts (a mainstay of the control order regime) and a call for Shaker Aamer, the last British resident in Guantánamo, to be brought back to the UK. As I explained in an article just before the election, of the 149 MPs who supported one or both of these EDMs, just three were Tories, 89 were Labour, and 43 were Liberal Democrats (with the SNP and Independents making up the remaining 14). In addition, when it comes to questions of domestic terrorism, successive Labour home secretaries succumbed, one by one, to paranoia about the threat facing the UK, and the need to suspend normal rights and liberties to combat it, and it is highly unlikely that Theresa May will prove to be immune to this kind of blanket scaremongering.

On securing the return of Shaker Aamer from Guantánamo, the analysis is slightly more promising, as William Hague made at least one encouraging noise in opposition, submitting a written request in the House of Commons in February 2009, “To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, whether US officials have acceded to the request to return Mr Shaker Aamer to the UK; and if he will make a statement.”

Moreover, when it comes to the Labour government’s complicity in torture, both the Tories and the Liberal Democrats have a strong record of calling for transparency and acountability from the Labour government. This was exposed most recently in February, when the Court of Appeal ordered David Miliband to stop pretending, as he had for 18 months, that fatal damage would be done to the US-UK intelligence-sharing relationship, if he released a summary of information that was passed to British intelligence by the US, revealing details of the torture of British resident Binyam Mohamed in Pakistan in April 2002.

This summary had been prepared by two High Court judges, who had been pushing for its release in the name of “open justice” since August 2008, when they first delivered a withering appraisal of the government’s role in Mohamed’s “extraordinary rendition” and torture, and in the House of Commons William Hague made it clear that “we [the Conservative Party] have consistently argued for full investigation of all credible allegations of UK complicity in torture, and for the Government to find a way in this particular case to balance the needs of national security with the need for justice and accountability in our democratic society.”

As he also explained, “The alleged treatment of Binyam Mohamed described in the seven paragraphs now released by the Foreign Office is so utterly unacceptable, and the alleged treatment described in the US court judgment in December so dramatically unacceptable, that if true, they are not only morally wrong but will harm our efforts to combat terrorists, play into the hands of their propagandists and weaken, rather than strengthen, our national security.”

However, as with the supposed domestic threat, it would be foolish to imagine that opinions regarding rights and liberties will not harden with Hague now in the hot-seat, and it is to be hoped, therefore, that the Liberal Democrats, with their admirable record on opposing control orders and the use of secret evidence, as well as their support for the return from Guantánamo of Shaker Aamer, will push their coalition colleagues on these issues, and will not sacrifice them as part of the horse-trading required to share power.

There are, of course, other issues on which the cosy new coalition will find it difficult to agree — not least on immigration and on Britain’s role in Europe, two points on which it would be hard to imagine a more unbridgeable chasm existing than the one that is already there. And looming above everything else, of course, is the economy, and the proposed £6 billion cuts that, depending on which side of the economic fence you sit on, are either urgently needed, or will plunge the UK economy into what David Blanchflower, a former member of the Bank of England’s Monetary Policy Committee, said tonight would be a “death spiral” for the British economy. Speaking to Channel 4 News, Blanchflower praised Gordon Brown’s handling of the economic crisis, and warned, “Anybody who is going to start cutting in that position is basically going to push us in that death spiral. That’s what we’ve avoided until this date. We need to be stimulating growth, not withdrawing multiple billions out of the system.”

Watch this space for more on these issues as they develop — and, imminently, an updated list of all the MPs who have a proven record of supporting human rights while combatting terrorism, which is intended to provide a useful guide for campaigners.

Andy Worthington is the author of The Guantánamo Files: The Stories of the 774 Detainees in America’s Illegal Prison (published by Pluto Press, distributed by Macmillan in the US, and available from Amazon — click on the following for the US and the UK). To receive new articles in your inbox, please subscribe to my RSS feed (and I can also be found on Facebook and Twitter). Also see my definitive Guantánamo prisoner list, updated in January 2010, details about the new documentary film, “Outside the Law: Stories from Guantánamo” (co-directed by Polly Nash and Andy Worthington, and currently on tour in the UK), and, if you appreciate my work, feel free to make a donation.

Please support my work!

My thanks to everyone who supported my recent “Guantánamo Habeas Week” project, which, due to the scale of the project and some scheduling difficulties, actually ran for three weeks, with an introduction here, an interactive list of all 47 cases to date, and six detailed articles examining the unclassified opinions in seven recent habeas cases: “With Regrets, Judge Allows Indefinite Detention at Guantánamo of a Medic,” “Mohamedou Ould Salahi: How a Judge Demolished the US Government’s Al-Qaeda Claims,” “Judge Rules Yemeni’s Detention at Guantánamo Based Solely on Torture,” “Why Judges Can’t Free Torture Victims from Guantánamo” and “How Binyam Mohamed’s Torture Was Revealed in a US Court,” and “Guantánamo and Habeas Corpus: Consigning Soldiers to Oblivion.”

Despite the slow progress of the habeas petitions — largely through Justice Department obstruction, as I have explained before — time does not stand still, and new rulings continue to be made. On Monday, I published another article — “Judge Denies Habeas Petition of an Ill and Abused Libyan in Guantánamo” — about the 48th case to be decided, that of a Libyan prisoner, Omar Mohammed Khalifh, whose habeas petition was denied on April 20, but was not reported anywhere, except on the website of the Center for Constitutional Rights.

As a result, I have just added a new page, “Guantánamo Habeas Results: The Definitive List,” which I will use from now on to provide up-to-date information about all the rulings, with links to my ongoing articles.

I remain impressed that the judges involved have ruled in the prisoners’ favor in 34 of the 48 cases (that’s 70 percent of the total), because, as I explained in my original introduction to “Guantánamo Habeas Week,” they have “revealed the alarming flimsiness of most of the material presented by the government as evidence. Primarily, the judges have exposed that the government has been relying, to an extraordinary extent, on confessions extracted through the torture or coercion of the prisoners themselves, or through the torture, coercion or bribery of other prisoners, either in Guantánamo, the CIA’s secret prisons, or proxy prisons run on behalf of the CIA in other countries.”

However, as I analyzed the judges’ unclassified opinions in the eight cases above (four won by the prisoners, and four by the government), I had reason to sharpen my critique of those who lost their habeas petitions. In my introduction, I stated that I was “troubl[ed by] the justifications for continuing to hold the majority of the prisoners who lost their habeas petitions, as they reveal that the basis for doing so — the Authorization for Use of Military Force, passed by Congress in the wake of the 9/11 attacks and maintained as a justification by President Obama — was, and is a deeply flawed document, which fails to distinguish between a small group of genuine terrorists (al-Qaeda) and a considerably larger group of men (and boys) associated with the Taliban. The result is that men continue to be consigned to indefinite detention, on an apparently sound legal basis, even though they were only peripherally involved with the military conflict in Afghanistan to secure the fall of the Taliban, and should, all along, have been held (if at all) as prisoners of war, and protected by the Geneva Conventions.”

The painful repercussions of this fundamental misconception at the heart of the “War on Terror” (as maintained by President Obama) were particularly apparent in the case of Mukhtar al-Warafi (a medic excluded by Congress from the protections traditionally granted to medics in wartime) but in my article summing up the project, I concluded that the cases of Suleiman al-Nahdi and Fahmi al-Assani were actually the most emblematic, as both men were clearly soldiers, but, just as obviously, were not terrorists at all.

In the most recent ruling — that of Omar Mohammed Khalifh — it seems probable (although the unclassified opinion has not yet been issued) that this misconception was at work yet again, this time on a peripheral refugee who cleared mines for the Taliban. In addition, another recurrent theme — that of the torture or coercion of other prisoners or of the prisoners themselves to produce false confessions — also seems to have played a significant role, and as my coverage continues, I will continue to expose both of these crucial elements that undermine the validity of the habeas petitions denied by the judges.

The bitter truth, after 48 rulings, is that, although the 34 successful petitions accurately reflect the paucity of the government’s supposed evidence, and the frequency with which what little exists is undermined by revelations of its extraction through torture, coercion or bribery, the 14 petitions denied do not, for the most part, appear to justify the indefinite detention of the men in question. Eleven of those cases involved soldiers in wartime (or those supporting soldiers in wartime) and of the other three — Belkacem Bensayah, Hisham Sliti and Sufyian Barhoumi — only Barhoumi’s case seems to bear any resemblance to what might be legitimately defined as terrorism.

As the hunt for justice at Guantánamo continues, it is important to bear in mind that just 35 of the 181 prisoners still held, according to the Obama administration’s interagency Task Force, which reviewed their cases last year, will be put forward for a trial of any kind. Disgracefully, the Task Force also approved holding another 47 prisoners indefinitely without charge or trial, because they were judged to be a threat to the US, despite fundamental weaknesses in the supposed evidence against them.

The Task Force’s decisions were a direct snub to the authority of the District Court judges, as mandated by the Supreme Court, but as the habeas rulings continue, the position taken by the Task Force (and, by extension, by the President) is evidently being tested by the judges, who are not always convinced that the executive branch has reached the right decision.

A final showdown on these issues will not presumably happen until all the habeas cases have been dealt with, but in the meantime those who care about handing out something resembling justice to the Guantánamo prisoners already need to work out whose side they are on, choosing either a Supreme Court-approved process in which judges have demonstrated their ability to impartially assess the government’s supposed evidence, or an administrative review process, initiated by the executive branch, which justifies the prisoners’ ongoing detention behind closed doors.

For those anxious to bring to an end the Bush administration’s arrogant disregard for the law, and its love of unassailable executive power, the only valid conclusion is that the judges must be allowed to continue their work, and that the only area that needs fundamental questioning is the basis for detention as enshrined in the Authorization for Use of Military Force, which should be abandoned after the habeas cases conclude, and replaced by the rules that existed before 9/11 and that worked perfectly well: hold soldiers as prisoners of war, protected by the Geneva Conventions, and prosecute terror suspects in federal courts.

Andy Worthington is the author of The Guantánamo Files: The Stories of the 774 Detainees in America’s Illegal Prison (published by Pluto Press, distributed by Macmillan in the US, and available from Amazon — click on the following for the US and the UK). To receive new articles in your inbox, please subscribe to my RSS feed (and I can also be found on Facebook and Twitter). Also see my definitive Guantánamo prisoner list, updated in January 2010, details about the new documentary film, “Outside the Law: Stories from Guantánamo” (co-directed by Polly Nash and Andy Worthington, and currently on tour in the UK), and, if you appreciate my work, feel free to make a donation.

For a sequence of articles dealing with the Guantánamo habeas cases, see: Guantánamo and the Supreme Court: the most important habeas corpus case in modern history and Guantánamo and the Supreme Court: What Happened? (both December 2007), The Supreme Court’s Guantánamo ruling: what does it mean? (June 2008), Guantánamo as Alice in Wonderland (Uighurs’ first court victory, June 2008), What’s Happening with the Guantánamo cases? (July 2008), Government Says Six Years Is Not Long Enough To Prepare Evidence (September 2008), From Guantánamo to the United States: The Story of the Wrongly Imprisoned Uighurs (October 2008), Guantánamo Uyghurs’ resettlement prospects skewered by Justice Department lies (October 2008), Guilt By Torture: Binyam Mohamed’s Transatlantic Quest for Justice (November 2008), After 7 Years, Judge Orders Release of Guantánamo Kidnap Victims (November 2008), Is Robert Gates Guilty of Perjury in Guantánamo Torture Case? (December 2008), A New Year Message to Barack Obama: Free the Guantánamo Uighurs (January 2009), The Top Ten Judges of 2008 (January 2009), No End in Sight for the “Enemy Combatants” of Guantánamo (January 2009), Judge Orders Release of Guantánamo’s Forgotten Child (January 2009), How Cooking For The Taliban Gets You Life In Guantánamo (January 2009), Lies, Damned Lies and Statistics (February 2009), Bad News And Good News For The Guantánamo Uighurs (February 2009), The Nobodies Formerly Known As Enemy Combatants (March 2009), Farce at Guantánamo, as cleared prisoner’s habeas petition is denied (April 2009), Obama’s First 100 Days: A Start On Guantánamo, But Not Enough (May 2009), Judge Condemns “Mosaic” Of Guantánamo Intelligence, And Unreliable Witnesses (May 2009), Pain At Guantánamo And Paralysis In Government (May 2009), Guantánamo: A Prison Built On Lies (May 2009), Free The Guantánamo Uighurs! (May 2009), Guantánamo And The Courts (Part One): Exposing The Bush Administration’s Lies (July 2009), Obama’s Failure To Deliver Justice To The Last Tajik In Guantánamo (July 2009), Obama And The Deadline For Closing Guantánamo: It’s Worse Than You Think (July 2009), How Judge Huvelle Humiliated The Government In Guantánamo Case (Mohamed Jawad, July 2009), As Judge Orders Release Of Tortured Guantánamo Prisoner, Government Refuses To Concede Defeat (Mohamed Jawad, July 2009), Guantánamo As Hotel California: You Can Check Out Any Time You Like, But You Can Never Leave (August 2009), Judge Orders Release From Guantánamo Of Kuwaiti Charity Worker (August 2009), Guantánamo And The Courts (Part Two): Obama’s Shame (August 2009), Guantánamo And The Courts (Part Three): Obama’s Continuing Shame (August 2009), No Escape From Guantánamo: The Latest Habeas Rulings (September 2009), First Guantánamo Prisoner To Lose Habeas Hearing Appeals Ruling (September 2009), A Truly Shocking Guantánamo Story: Judge Confirms That An Innocent Man Was Tortured To Make False Confessions (September 2009), 75 Guantánamo Prisoners Cleared For Release; 31 Could Leave Today (September 2009), Resisting Injustice In Guantánamo: The Story Of Fayiz Al-Kandari (October 2009), Justice Department Pointlessly Gags Guantánamo Lawyer (November 2009), Judge Orders Release Of Algerian From Guantánamo (But He’s Not Going Anywhere) (November 2009), Innocent Guantánamo Torture Victim Fouad al-Rabiah Is Released In Kuwait (December 2009), What Does It Take To Get Out Of Obama’s Guantánamo? (December 2009), “Model Prisoner” at Guantánamo, Tortured in the “Dark Prison,” Loses Habeas Corpus Petition (December 2009), Judge Orders Release From Guantánamo Of Unwilling Yemeni Recruit (December 2009), Serious Problems With Obama’s Plan To Move Guantánamo To Illinois (December 2009), Appeals Court Extends President’s Wartime Powers, Limits Guantánamo Prisoners’ Rights (January 2010), Fear and Paranoia as Guantánamo Marks its Eighth Anniversary (January 2010), Rubbing Salt in Guantánamo’s Wounds: Task Force Announces Indefinite Detention (January 2010), The Black Hole of Guantánamo (March 2010), Guantánamo Uighurs Back in Legal Limbo (March 2010).

Also see: Justice extends to Bagram, Guantánamo’s Dark Mirror (April 2009), Judge Rules That Afghan “Rendered” To Bagram In 2002 Has No Rights (July 2009), Bagram Isn’t The New Guantánamo, It’s The Old Guantánamo (August 2009), Obama Brings Guantánamo And Rendition To Bagram (And Not The Geneva Conventions) and Is Bagram Obama’s New Secret Prison? (both September 2009), Dark Revelations in the Bagram Prisoner List (January 2010), Bagram: Graveyard of the Geneva Conventions (February 2010).

On April 20, unnoticed by any media outlet whatsoever, a Libyan prisoner at Guantánamo, Omar Mohammed Khalifh (also identified as Omar Abu Bakr) lost his habeas corpus petition.

I learned about the ruling through a “Guantánamo Habeas Scorecard” maintained by the Center for Constitutional Rights, but although Judge James Robertson’s unclassified opinion is not yet available, to ascertain why he decided that the government had met its burden of proof in establishing that Khalifh was part of, or supported al-Qaeda and/or the Taliban, at least part of his story — and of the government’s allegations — can be found through publicly available documents, and through representations made on his behalf by his lawyer, Edmund Burke. Other information has been provided to me by the former Guantánamo prisoner Omar Deghayes, who is aware of how Khalifh has been treated at Guantánamo over the last eight years.

As I explained in my book The Guantánamo Files, drawing on the publicly available information, Khalifh (or Abu Bakr) was seized during a series of house raids in Karachi, Pakistan in February 2002, which led to the capture of Abdu Ali Sharqawi, a Yemeni also identified as Sharqwi Abdu Ali al-Hajj, and more commonly known as Riyadh the Facilitator, and at least 15 other men. Sharqawi was subsequently rendered to Jordan, where he was tortured on behalf of the CIA, and the fruits of this torture were recently excluded as evidence in the habeas petition of another Guantánamo prisoner, Uthman Abdul Rahim Mohammed Uthman, as I explained in a recent article. Without access to the unclassified opinion, I have no idea whether the government alleged that Khalifh was seized with Sharqawi, although it is noticeable that Burke claimed that he was not, and it is also worth noting that the majority of the other men seized at this time have been released from Guantánamo.

In The Guantánamo Files, my analysis of Khalifh’s story was as follows:

It was claimed that he traveled to Afghanistan in 1998, that he was a member of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, who was “known to assist Osama bin Laden in purchasing weapons,” that he was a military trainer for the LIFG, that he established a training camp in summer 2001, that he “was a military leader of Arabs,” who fought against the Northern Alliance near Taloqan, that he “met with Taliban leaders to plan military operations,” and that he and his group were directed to Tora Bora [where a showdown took place between al-Qaeda and the US in November and December 2001] by Osama bin Laden.

One of his lawyers, Edmund Burke, refuted all the allegations, however. He acknowledged that his client had been a member of the LIFG, and had worked for the Taliban as a mine cleaner until 1998, when his right leg was severely damaged by a land mine, but said that he spent the ensuing years moving from hospital to hospital in Afghanistan to receive treatment for his leg, which was eventually amputated. He added that he moved to Pakistan in 2001, and was living in a school for boys when it was raided by Pakistani police. Pointing out that his client “can’t bear his weight on his good leg and only hobbles about with the help of a walker or crutches,” he explained, “It’s very hard to imagine him as a combatant of any kind.”

In the government’s most recent allegations, it was noted that Khalifh had “worked overseeing Sudanese drivers for one of Osama bin Laden’s construction companies in Sudan,” had been “identified” as a trainer and the leader of a Libyan training camp near Kabul, visited by bin Laden, where he was “identified as someone whom others would approach to receive explosives training if they wanted to commit a terrorist attack,” had allegedly attended two other training camps in 1996-97, and had also been “identified” as “a military leader in charge of many Arabs from Saudi Arabia, Yemen, and other Gulf States while on the front line” in 2001, who, as alleged before, “would meet with other Taliban leaders to plan military operations.”

These sound like typically overblown assertions, based on dubious evidence produced by Khalifh’s fellow prisoners under duress, or as a result of bribery, or as a result of false confessions made by Khalifh himself, given that the other narrative identified by Burke — that he worked as a mine cleaner for the Taliban until he lost his leg — is also included, and suggests a much more humble role than the leadership role ascribed to him by the government’s unidentified witnesses.

Moreover, this conclusion is one endorsed by Omar Deghayes, who explained to me that Khalifh’s status has been exaggerated by the authorities in Guantánamo. “They call him ‘The General,’” Deghayes told me, “not because of anything he has done, but because he decided that life would be easier for him in Guantánamo if he said yes to every allegation laid against him.” Even so, as Deghayes also explained, this cooperation has been futile, as Khalifh has been subjected to appalling ill-treatment, held in a notorious psychiatric block where the use of torture was routine, and denied access to adequate medical attention for the many problems that afflict him, beyond the loss of his leg. As Deghayes described it, “He has lost his sight in one eye, has heart problems and high blood pressure, and his remaining leg is mostly made of metal, from an old accident in Libya a long time ago when a wall fell on him. He describes himself as being nothing more than ‘the spare parts of a car.’”

Given that this information is unlikely to have been included in the documents compiled by the government for its response to Khalifh’s habeas corpus petition, it’s possible that Judge Robertson’s unclassified opinion will reveal only that Khalifh lost his habeas petition based solely on his work as a mine cleaner for the Taliban, which, under the detention standards decided by the courts, would be sufficient to justify his ongoing detention. If so, he will be yet another insignificant player in Afghanistan’s inter-Muslim civil war, which predated the 9/11 attacks, and had nothing to do with international terrorism, who is consigned to oblivion in Guantánamo on an apparently legal basis, even though there is no logical justification for equating the Taliban’s military activities (whether before or after the 9/11 attacks) with acts of international terrorism committed by al-Qaeda. In addition, he will also be another victim of Guantánamo, whose hidden story of abuse and exploitation never even surfaces publicly to reveal darker truths about how the prison has operated.

Andy Worthington is the author of The Guantánamo Files: The Stories of the 774 Detainees in America’s Illegal Prison (published by Pluto Press, distributed by Macmillan in the US, and available from Amazon — click on the following for the US and the UK). To receive new articles in your inbox, please subscribe to my RSS feed (and I can also be found on Facebook and Twitter). Also see my definitive Guantánamo prisoner list, updated in January 2010, details about the new documentary film, “Outside the Law: Stories from Guantánamo” (co-directed by Polly Nash and Andy Worthington, and currently on tour in the UK), and, if you appreciate my work, feel free to make a donation.

As published exclusively on the website of the Future of Freedom Foundation. Cross-posted on The Public Record, Uruknet, CounterCurrents and Eurasia Review.

For an overview of all the habeas rulings, including links to all my articles, and to the judges’ unclassified opinions, see: Guantánamo Habeas Results: The Definitive List. For a sequence of articles dealing with the Guantánamo habeas cases, see: Guantánamo and the Supreme Court: the most important habeas corpus case in modern history and Guantánamo and the Supreme Court: What Happened? (both December 2007), The Supreme Court’s Guantánamo ruling: what does it mean? (June 2008), Guantánamo as Alice in Wonderland (Uighurs’ first court victory, June 2008), What’s Happening with the Guantánamo cases? (July 2008), Government Says Six Years Is Not Long Enough To Prepare Evidence (September 2008), From Guantánamo to the United States: The Story of the Wrongly Imprisoned Uighurs (October 2008), Guantánamo Uyghurs’ resettlement prospects skewered by Justice Department lies (October 2008), Guilt By Torture: Binyam Mohamed’s Transatlantic Quest for Justice (November 2008), After 7 Years, Judge Orders Release of Guantánamo Kidnap Victims (November 2008), Is Robert Gates Guilty of Perjury in Guantánamo Torture Case? (December 2008), A New Year Message to Barack Obama: Free the Guantánamo Uighurs (January 2009), The Top Ten Judges of 2008 (January 2009), No End in Sight for the “Enemy Combatants” of Guantánamo (January 2009), Judge Orders Release of Guantánamo’s Forgotten Child (January 2009), How Cooking For The Taliban Gets You Life In Guantánamo (January 2009), Lies, Damned Lies and Statistics (February 2009), Bad News And Good News For The Guantánamo Uighurs (February 2009), The Nobodies Formerly Known As Enemy Combatants (March 2009), Farce at Guantánamo, as cleared prisoner’s habeas petition is denied (April 2009), Obama’s First 100 Days: A Start On Guantánamo, But Not Enough (May 2009), Judge Condemns “Mosaic” Of Guantánamo Intelligence, And Unreliable Witnesses (May 2009), Pain At Guantánamo And Paralysis In Government (May 2009), Guantánamo: A Prison Built On Lies (May 2009), Free The Guantánamo Uighurs! (May 2009), Guantánamo And The Courts (Part One): Exposing The Bush Administration’s Lies (July 2009), Obama’s Failure To Deliver Justice To The Last Tajik In Guantánamo (July 2009), Obama And The Deadline For Closing Guantánamo: It’s Worse Than You Think (July 2009), How Judge Huvelle Humiliated The Government In Guantánamo Case (Mohamed Jawad, July 2009), As Judge Orders Release Of Tortured Guantánamo Prisoner, Government Refuses To Concede Defeat (Mohamed Jawad, July 2009), Guantánamo As Hotel California: You Can Check Out Any Time You Like, But You Can Never Leave (August 2009), Judge Orders Release From Guantánamo Of Kuwaiti Charity Worker (August 2009), Guantánamo And The Courts (Part Two): Obama’s Shame (August 2009), Guantánamo And The Courts (Part Three): Obama’s Continuing Shame (August 2009), No Escape From Guantánamo: The Latest Habeas Rulings (September 2009), First Guantánamo Prisoner To Lose Habeas Hearing Appeals Ruling (September 2009), A Truly Shocking Guantánamo Story: Judge Confirms That An Innocent Man Was Tortured To Make False Confessions (September 2009), 75 Guantánamo Prisoners Cleared For Release; 31 Could Leave Today (September 2009), Resisting Injustice In Guantánamo: The Story Of Fayiz Al-Kandari (October 2009), Justice Department Pointlessly Gags Guantánamo Lawyer (November 2009), Judge Orders Release Of Algerian From Guantánamo (But He’s Not Going Anywhere) (November 2009), Innocent Guantánamo Torture Victim Fouad al-Rabiah Is Released In Kuwait (December 2009), What Does It Take To Get Out Of Obama’s Guantánamo? (December 2009), “Model Prisoner” at Guantánamo, Tortured in the “Dark Prison,” Loses Habeas Corpus Petition (December 2009), Judge Orders Release From Guantánamo Of Unwilling Yemeni Recruit (December 2009), Serious Problems With Obama’s Plan To Move Guantánamo To Illinois (December 2009), Appeals Court Extends President’s Wartime Powers, Limits Guantánamo Prisoners’ Rights (January 2010), Fear and Paranoia as Guantánamo Marks its Eighth Anniversary (January 2010), Rubbing Salt in Guantánamo’s Wounds: Task Force Announces Indefinite Detention (January 2010), The Black Hole of Guantánamo (March 2010), Guantánamo Uighurs Back in Legal Limbo (March 2010), Guantánamo and Habeas Corpus: The Torture Victim and the Taliban Recruit (April 2010), An Insignificant Yemeni at Guantánamo Loses His Habeas Petition (April 2010), With Regrets, Judge Allows Indefinite Detention at Guantánamo of a Medic (April 2010), Mohamedou Ould Salahi: How a Judge Demolished the US Government’s Al-Qaeda Claims (April 2010), Judge Rules Yemeni’s Detention at Guantánamo Based Solely on Torture (April 2010), Why Judges Can’t Free Torture Victims from Guantánamo (April 2010), How Binyam Mohamed’s Torture Was Revealed in a US Court (May 2010), Guantánamo and Habeas Corpus: Consigning Soldiers to Oblivion (May 2010).

Since Friday morning, when it became apparent that no party had won an overall majority in Britain’s General Election, the country has been in an unprecedented state of limbo. Personally, I was surprised at how relieved I was that, despite the overt or subliminal support of just about every media outlet in the country, David Cameron was unable to secure enough voters to endorse the mirage he and his tiny circle of close advisors had grafted onto the Conservative Party.

Over the weekend, the main topic of conversation was, of course, the wheeling and dealing that has been taking place behind the scenes. No one I have spoken to was remotely convinced that the Tories would offer the Lib Dems electoral reform — or, indeed, that striking a deal with the Tories would be anything other than political suicide for the Lib Dems, given the chasm that exists, for the most part, between the two parties’ policies.

Instead, conversations drifted towards the prospect of the Lib Dems giving up on the Tories, and seeking to form a coalition with the Labour Party, contingent on Gordon Brown’s resignation, and with electoral reform high on the agenda. Today, that resignation finally happened, via a statement that was, for the most part, dignified and appropriate — although I could not, for the life of me, figure out why Gordon Brown chose to mention both the “fight against terrorism” and the continuing deployment of British troops in Afghanistan, when the latter, at least, is deeply unpopular with the electorate as a whole, and the former, though fuelled by hysteria on the part of both Labour and the Tories, is not a vote winner as it is in the dark heart of America.

This, for the record, was what Gordon Brown said:

I believe that the British people now want us to focus on the economy, the continuing fight against terrorism, the terrorist threat to our country. They want us to continue to pursue the economic recovery, and I will do so with my usual vigour and determination, and I will do all in my power to support the British troops whose service and sacrifice create a debt of gratitude we can never fully repay.

This decision has, of course, triggered a new round of speculation regarding the party’s next leader (and, possibly, the country’s next Prime Minister), but in a sign that the Tories are glimpsing the prospect of power slipping away, George Osborne announced, shortly after Gordon Brown tendered his resignation, that the Tories are now prepared to offer a referendum on proportional representation to the Lib Dems if they will come back to the negotiating table.

I never thought I’d be typing the words “Tories” and “proportional representation” in such close proximity, but on this, as on so many other issues, political certainties are evaporating in light of the electorate’s refusal to crown a champion in the long-running “Winner Takes It All” farce that is Britain’s unlevel electoral playing field, as maintained by Labour and the Tories for far too long.

No one knows what’s going to happen next, but at the very least there is now some hope that the wholesale butchery of jobs to combat Britain’s deficit may be open for discussion. No one talked about it on the campaign trail, but voters did, amongst themselves, and what emerged from many of those conversations was, appropriately, a refusal to hand the axe to any one party.

In the binge-bubble of the boom and bust economy presided over by New Labour, many are to blame (including the people themselves, who fuelled unsustainable lifestyles on credit, and the politicians who allowed casino capitalists to thrive), but when it came down to it, voters didn’t trust the Tories not to have done the same, had they been in power, and many no doubt recalled the enthusiasm with which Margaret Thatcher decimated the workforce in the 1980s, and feared that the “new” Tories would do exactly the same.

Moreover, what no one has yet examined is the anger, bubbling away just below the surface, which may erupt if anyone thinks that savage austerity and job losses will be acceptable, unless those who decimated the world’s economy with their unfettered greed, and who amassed unacceptable riches in the process, are also made to pay. As the horse-trading continues, the great irony is that the winners’ only reward may not be any sort of victory whatsoever, but may, instead, be nothing more than a poisoned chalice.

Andy Worthington is the author of The Guantánamo Files: The Stories of the 774 Detainees in America’s Illegal Prison (published by Pluto Press, distributed by Macmillan in the US, and available from Amazon — click on the following for the US and the UK). To receive new articles in your inbox, please subscribe to my RSS feed (and I can also be found on Facebook and Twitter). Also see my definitive Guantánamo prisoner list, updated in January 2010, details about the new documentary film, “Outside the Law: Stories from Guantánamo” (co-directed by Polly Nash and Andy Worthington, and currently on tour in the UK), and, if you appreciate my work, feel free to make a donation.

Note: This article is the last of eight articles published as part of “Guantánamo Habeas Week” (introduced here, and also see the articles here, here, here, here and here), which I extended to become “Guantánamo Habeas Fortnight.” This project also includes an interactive list of all 47 rulings to date (with links to my articles, the judges’ unclassified opinions, and more).

In the habeas corpus petitions submitted by prisoners at Guantánamo, District Court judges have, to date, ruled in 34 out of 47 cases that the government has failed to demonstrate that the men in question had any meaningful connection to either al-Qaeda or the Taliban.

In contrast to the Bush administration’s claims that the prison held “the worst of the worst,” the truth is that only a few dozen of the 779 men held had any involvement with terrorism, and these figures are reflected in the appraisal of the Obama administration’s interagency Task Force, which reviewed the cases of all the men still held last year, and advised that only 35 should face a trial of any kind.

However, despite these impressive results, a little-noticed aspect of the rulings is that, in the majority of the habeas petitions denied by the courts, the men in question do not appear to be terrorists either. Over eight years after Guantánamo opened, something is deeply wrong when prisoners can continue to be held indefinitely at Guantánamo, not because they were terrorists, but because the judges who are making these rulings are obliged to endorse their imprisonment if the government manages to demonstrate that they were somehow connected to the Taliban — or to al-Qaeda forces supporting the Taliban — at the time of the US-led invasion of Afghanistan in October 2001.

With a few exceptions (see, for example, the cases of Belkacem Bensayah and Hisham Sliti, and the case of Sufyian Barhoumi), the prisoners who have lost their habeas petitions did so because the judges concluded that, before the 9/11 attacks took place, they attended a military training camp in Afghanistan (primarily al-Farouq, which is regularly described as an “al-Qaeda training camp”), and that they then fought with the Taliban or with Arab forces supporting the Taliban (in what could be described as al-Qaeda’s military wing) in the Taliban’s long-running conflict with the Northern Alliance.

In the rules established by the courts to justify detention, prisoners lose their habeas petitions even if they only played a supporting role as a cook or a medic, and even if their support took place before the 9/11 attacks, and only essentially morphed into opposition to the US because they failed to teleport themselves out of Afghanistan when the US-led invasion began.

Even in cases where the prisoners followed up their basic training by traveling with the camp’s leaders or trainers to Afghanistan’s Tora Bora mountains (the site of a showdown between al-Qaeda and Taliban forces and the US military and its Afghan allies that took place in November and December 2001), it makes no sense that they should continue to be held indefinitely in a prison defined by its supposed association with terrorism, when they were clearly nothing more than foot soldiers in a specific armed conflict, who should have been held as prisoners of war, and protected from the abuse they endured by the Geneva Conventions.

The misconception at the heart of the “War on Terror”

In their arrogance and haste to declare a new kind of war, President Bush’s advisors equated al-Qaeda with the Taliban, failing to distinguish between a government (however reviled) and a small, if influential terrorist group, and deliberately choosing to regard a criminal enterprise (the 9/11 attacks) as an act of war. The confusion and lawlessness engendered by this “new paradigm” has polluted the last eight and a half years of US history, and much of this can be traced to the administration’s dismissal of the Geneva Conventions.

Anyone seized in wartime is automatically protected by Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, which prohibits “cruel treatment and torture” and “outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment.” However, when senior officials and lawyers in the Bush administration decided that the Geneva Conventions did not apply to either al-Qaeda or the Taliban, they not only paved the way for the torture regime that followed, but also reinforced the confusion that prevails to this day, and that continues to infect the habeas cases.

Logically, those engaged in the military conflict in Afghanistan (the Taliban, and al-Qaeda forces supporting the Taliban) were soldiers, whereas those in al-Qaeda who were responsible for terrorist attacks were criminals. However, by equating al-Qaeda with the Taliban, the terrorists and the soldiers came to be regarded as one and the same. This confusion began with the Authorization for Use of Military Force, passed by Congress in the wake of the 9/11 attacks, which authorized the President “to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons,” and the detention policies that followed were approved by the Supreme Court in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld in June 2004, when the Court ruled that “Congress has clearly and unmistakably authorized detention” of individuals covered by the AUMF.

The Obama administration retains the AUMF as its basis for the detention of prisoners at Guantánamo, and as a result the Taliban government, which “harbored” al-Qaeda, remains on a par with al-Qaeda, maintaining the illusion that international terrorist plots and the war in Afghanistan were, or are fundamentally identical.

Redefining soldiers as soldiers

The solution to the problem posed by those who have lost their habeas petitions, but were never involved in any kind of terrorist activity, ought to be straightforward: redefine the soldiers who have lost their petitions as prisoners of war, rather than relying on the Authorization for Use of Military Force to justify their detention as “enemy combatants” (or, as they are now called, “alien unprivileged enemy belligerents”). If this happened, lawyers could then begin arguing if it is appropriate to continue holding, as prisoners of war, men whose conflict with the US related not to a terrorist ideology with no fixed end date, or to an ongoing insurgency, but to a specific armed conflict, which, at the latest, came to an end in November 2004, when Hamid Karzai was officially elected as the post-Taliban President of Afghanistan.

Unfortunately, such a move seems unlikely, given that the Obama administration has chosen confusion over clarity, and has decided that, instead of trying terrorists in federal court trials and holding soldiers as prisoners of war, it prefers a two-tier system of justice (both federal court trials and a revival of the widely reviled Military Commissions), and also asserts its right to continue holding men indefinitely whether they lose their habeas petitions or not.

The cases of Suleiman al-Nahdi and Fahmi al-Assani

A demonstration of these problems can be found in the cases of two Yemenis, Suleiman al-Nahdi and Fahmi al-Assani. Judge Gladys Kessler denied the habeas petitions of both men in February, but although her findings of fact are acceptable — she concluded that both men attended the al-Farouq training camp in Afghanistan and then traveled with others to Tora Bora, where they were, to some degree, involved in the conflict with the US and its Afghan allies — my concerns about the justification for their continued detention in Guantánamo mirror those already expressed in the cases of the other soldiers (or those providing support to soldiers) who have already lost their habeas petitions: Muaz al-Alawi, Ghaleb al-Bihani (a cook), Hedi Hammamy, Adham Ali Awad and Fawzi al-Odah, Musa’ab al-Madhwani, Mukhtar al-Warafi (a medic) and Yasin Ismail.

In the unclassified opinions (PDFs here and here), Judge Kessler established that both men had been influenced by a fatwa to visit Afghanistan for training, and that their travel had been facilitated by a man described by the government as “an al-Qaeda recruiter, travel facilitator, and commander in Osama bin Laden’s 55th Arab Brigade.” Judge Kessler accepted that al-Assani, who had been rejected for military training in Yemen, may well have undertaken his visit “to receive military training, and not to fight,” as something that was “important in coming of age,” but turned down a similar claim by al-Nahdi, noting that he had trained for a month in Yemen, and that he had made “somewhat contradictory statements” when explaining his motives.

Both men, however, were judged to have entered into the “command structure” of al-Qaeda during their subsequent journey to Afghanistan, which involved staying in a guesthouse in Karachi (reportedly run by Sharqwi Abdu Ali al-Hajj, also known as Riyadh the Facilitator, whose torture in US custody was referred to in a recent unclassified opinion), being escorted by bus to another house in Quetta, and crossing the Afghan border on motorbikes, as well as in Afghanistan — at another guesthouse, and, finally, at al-Farouq.

Judge Kessler was understandably wary of claims made by both men that they did not know that the camp was associated with al-Qaeda, but I find her assertion that al-Qaeda leaders permitted al-Nahdi “to be in the close presence of Osama bin Laden” and al-Assani to be “in close proximity to Osama bin Laden” while he visited the camp to deliver a speech to be rather overblown, as there does not appear to be any suggestion that new recruits had anything resembling contact with bin Laden during these visits.

Nevertheless, there is a clear logic to Judge Kessler’s ruling that what happened after al-Farouq demonstrated “membership and substantial support” of al-Qaeda — or, more accurately, of al-Qaeda’s military activities in support of the Taliban — on the part of al-Nahdi, who apparently “executed orders to guard a rear-echelon position at Tora Bora.” In a review board at Guantánamo, he explained that the leaders of al-Farouq “ordered us to move from one place to another. They told us to go to Tora Bora so that is where we went.” Judge Kessler also noted that al-Nahdi had stated that “[a]t the time, you could not ask them why and where you were going. You cannot refute them. You had to do what they told you to do.”

In al-Assani’s case, these elements of membership and support were demonstrated through his statements that “he and a group of fifty men, led by [redacted], the commander of al-Farouq,” left the camp together (after 9/11), and received additional training, including “long-distance walking,” in a location outside Kabul for ten to 15 days. He added that they then traveled to “a forested area around Jalalabad,” where they stayed for two days before moving into the Tora Bora mountains, where they “were split into groups of eight to ten people.”

On leaving Tora Bora, al-Nahdi traveled with a group, which, “after walking for five hours, was bombed by Coalition forces,” which led to him being “injured by shrapnel and shortly thereafter captured by Coalition forces.” Al-Assani also traveled as part of a group, and, as Judge Kessler explained, “was injured after his group was bombed … was escorted and turned over to Afghan forces, and eventually — after over a month of recuperation in a hospital — was turned over to US custody.” Judge Kessler concluded that both men had followed commands until their capture, and noted that neither man had made any serious attempt to flee, even while acknowledging that this “might have been dangerous and difficult.”

All of the above may well demonstrate, as Judge Kessler, concluded, that both men were sufficiently involved with al-Qaeda to justify their ongoing detention according to the rules established in previous cases, but there is something rather pathetic about al-Nahdi’s claim that many of the men at Tora Bora, “including himself, were scared, and only wanted to go home after the fighting began,” and the report of his attempt to leave (which, Judge Kessler noted, demonstrated only that he “acted in proper ‘command mode’”), when he “asked his commander … if he could leave, and after being rebuked did not attempt to do so.”

In most respects, however, these were straightforward opinions, lacking the false confessions that have crippled the government’s arguments in other cases. The only example of a false confession cropped up in al-Assani’s case, through an allegation made by one of his fellow prisoners, who, as Judge Kessler noted, ”identified [him] as one of fifty individuals who served as Osama bin Laden’s bodyguards.” She was withering in her dismissal of this allegation, noting that “there is some question as to [his] credibility,” taking exception to his claim that al-Assani and these other 49 men received ”specialized training” (as this “do[es] not appear to fit what is know about al-Assani”), and, in particular, pouring scorn on the notion that a “brand-new recruit” like al-Assani would have been chosen for the job:

It seems exceedingly unlikely that Osama bin Laden would, in the wake of the September 11, 2001 attacks, when he was probably the most hunted man in the world, call on an unknown, brand-new recruit with two weeks of rifle training to serve as his bodyguard.

Despite this, there is a great and unjustifiable gulf between Judge Kessler’s description of al-Assani as “an unknown, brand-new recruit with two weeks of rifle training” when it came to allegations that he was a bodyguard for bin Laden, and the complete irrelevance of this description when it came to ruling on whether he could legitimately be slung back into the black hole of Guantánamo, reserved for those who have lost their habeas petitions.

Nevertheless, as Judge Kessler explained, in identical passages in both unclassified opinions:

[I]t bears emphasis that the Government is not required to prove that Petitioner had reason to know specifically that Coalition forces would enter the conflict in Afghanistan, or that Petitioner had the specific intent to fight against the United States and its allies. Instead, the knowledge or intent that must be shown relates to Petitioner’s decision to become part of or to substantially support al-Qaeda and/or the Taliban. Thus, even a recently recruited, low-ranking Taliban and/or al-Qaeda member who had no reason to suspect the United States’ entrance into the conflict is detainable, so long as the decision to “function[] or participate [] within or under the command structure of the organization” was made with some knowledge or intent, and so long as the individual was functioning or participating within the command structure at the time of capture.

These passages leapt out at me as I read the opinions, to the extent that I almost wondered whether Judge Kessler was trying to make a subtle point about the real — as opposed to the legal — insignificance of “recently recruited, low-ranking Taliban and/or al-Qaeda member[s].” In the end, however, I can only accept her unclassified opinions at face value, and repeat what I proposed at the start of this article: that “unknown, brand-new recruit[s] with two weeks of rifle training” and “recently recruited, low-ranking Taliban and/or al-Qaeda member[s]” should not be used as part of the rationale for Guantánamo’s continued existence as a prison for terrorists. In equating al-Qaeda with the Taliban, the Bush administration endorsed a misguided policy (accepted by the Obama administration), which asserts, incorrectly, that the Taliban were working for al-Qaeda, when the reality is that outside of a small circle of men involved in international terrorism, the majority of the men associated with al-Qaeda in Afghanistan were working with the Taliban in the specific context of an armed conflict that mutated from a civil war to a war against the US when the US-led invasion began on October 7, 2001.

Instead of being detained indefinitely at Guantánamo as “unprivileged enemy belligerents,” al-Nahdi and al-Assani should be prisoners of war, entitled to the protections of the Geneva Conventions, and not held, for the most part, like convicted criminals in maximum-security isolation cells, with no family visits allowed, and few, if any, of the comforts and distractions that even the most vilified convicted criminals on the US mainland receive as a matter of course. They are not terrorists, and should not continue to be treated as though they are.

Andy Worthington is the author of The Guantánamo Files: The Stories of the 774 Detainees in America’s Illegal Prison (published by Pluto Press, distributed by Macmillan in the US, and available from Amazon — click on the following for the US and the UK). To receive new articles in your inbox, please subscribe to my RSS feed (and I can also be found on Facebook and Twitter). Also see my definitive Guantánamo prisoner list, updated in January 2010, details about the new documentary film, “Outside the Law: Stories from Guantánamo” (co-directed by Polly Nash and Andy Worthington, and currently on tour in the UK), and, if you appreciate my work, feel free to make a donation.

As published exclusively on Truthout. Cross-posted on Uruknet.

For a sequence of articles dealing with the Guantánamo habeas cases, see: Guantánamo and the Supreme Court: the most important habeas corpus case in modern history and Guantánamo and the Supreme Court: What Happened? (both December 2007), The Supreme Court’s Guantánamo ruling: what does it mean? (June 2008), Guantánamo as Alice in Wonderland (Uighurs’ first court victory, June 2008), What’s Happening with the Guantánamo cases? (July 2008), Government Says Six Years Is Not Long Enough To Prepare Evidence (September 2008), From Guantánamo to the United States: The Story of the Wrongly Imprisoned Uighurs (October 2008), Guantánamo Uyghurs’ resettlement prospects skewered by Justice Department lies (October 2008), Guilt By Torture: Binyam Mohamed’s Transatlantic Quest for Justice (November 2008), After 7 Years, Judge Orders Release of Guantánamo Kidnap Victims (November 2008), Is Robert Gates Guilty of Perjury in Guantánamo Torture Case? (December 2008), A New Year Message to Barack Obama: Free the Guantánamo Uighurs (January 2009), The Top Ten Judges of 2008 (January 2009), No End in Sight for the “Enemy Combatants” of Guantánamo (January 2009), Judge Orders Release of Guantánamo’s Forgotten Child (January 2009), How Cooking For The Taliban Gets You Life In Guantánamo (January 2009), Lies, Damned Lies and Statistics (February 2009), Bad News And Good News For The Guantánamo Uighurs (February 2009), The Nobodies Formerly Known As Enemy Combatants (March 2009), Farce at Guantánamo, as cleared prisoner’s habeas petition is denied (April 2009), Obama’s First 100 Days: A Start On Guantánamo, But Not Enough (May 2009), Judge Condemns “Mosaic” Of Guantánamo Intelligence, And Unreliable Witnesses (May 2009), Pain At Guantánamo And Paralysis In Government (May 2009), Guantánamo: A Prison Built On Lies (May 2009), Free The Guantánamo Uighurs! (May 2009), Guantánamo And The Courts (Part One): Exposing The Bush Administration’s Lies (July 2009), Obama’s Failure To Deliver Justice To The Last Tajik In Guantánamo (July 2009), Obama And The Deadline For Closing Guantánamo: It’s Worse Than You Think (July 2009), How Judge Huvelle Humiliated The Government In Guantánamo Case (Mohamed Jawad, July 2009), As Judge Orders Release Of Tortured Guantánamo Prisoner, Government Refuses To Concede Defeat (Mohamed Jawad, July 2009), Guantánamo As Hotel California: You Can Check Out Any Time You Like, But You Can Never Leave (August 2009), Judge Orders Release From Guantánamo Of Kuwaiti Charity Worker (August 2009), Guantánamo And The Courts (Part Two): Obama’s Shame (August 2009), Guantánamo And The Courts (Part Three): Obama’s Continuing Shame (August 2009), No Escape From Guantánamo: The Latest Habeas Rulings (September 2009), First Guantánamo Prisoner To Lose Habeas Hearing Appeals Ruling (September 2009), A Truly Shocking Guantánamo Story: Judge Confirms That An Innocent Man Was Tortured To Make False Confessions (September 2009), 75 Guantánamo Prisoners Cleared For Release; 31 Could Leave Today (September 2009), Resisting Injustice In Guantánamo: The Story Of Fayiz Al-Kandari (October 2009), Justice Department Pointlessly Gags Guantánamo Lawyer (November 2009), Judge Orders Release Of Algerian From Guantánamo (But He’s Not Going Anywhere) (November 2009), Innocent Guantánamo Torture Victim Fouad al-Rabiah Is Released In Kuwait (December 2009), What Does It Take To Get Out Of Obama’s Guantánamo? (December 2009), “Model Prisoner” at Guantánamo, Tortured in the “Dark Prison,” Loses Habeas Corpus Petition (December 2009), Judge Orders Release From Guantánamo Of Unwilling Yemeni Recruit (December 2009), Serious Problems With Obama’s Plan To Move Guantánamo To Illinois (December 2009), Appeals Court Extends President’s Wartime Powers, Limits Guantánamo Prisoners’ Rights (January 2010), Fear and Paranoia as Guantánamo Marks its Eighth Anniversary (January 2010), Rubbing Salt in Guantánamo’s Wounds: Task Force Announces Indefinite Detention (January 2010), The Black Hole of Guantánamo (March 2010), Guantánamo Uighurs Back in Legal Limbo (March 2010), Guantánamo and Habeas Corpus: The Torture Victim and the Taliban Recruit (April 2010), An Insignificant Yemeni at Guantánamo Loses His Habeas Petition (April 2010).

Also see: Justice extends to Bagram, Guantánamo’s Dark Mirror (April 2009), Judge Rules That Afghan “Rendered” To Bagram In 2002 Has No Rights (July 2009), Bagram Isn’t The New Guantánamo, It’s The Old Guantánamo (August 2009), Obama Brings Guantánamo And Rendition To Bagram (And Not The Geneva Conventions) and Is Bagram Obama’s New Secret Prison? (both September 2009), Dark Revelations in the Bagram Prisoner List (January 2010), Bagram: Graveyard of the Geneva Conventions (February 2010).

Regular readers will be aware that, on occasion, I take a break from my relentless reporting about Guantánamo and other crimes committed as part of the “War on Terror” to discuss the current state of journalism, and to mention how, as a freelance journalist working mainly in the new media, I am profoundly impressed by how the Internet not only rewards those who show dedication to a cause, but also rewards those who share information rather than guarding it jealously.

The key to this is the nature of the search engines — and their inscrutable algorithms — which gauge notability not by predetermined branding or status, but by impact, on what seems to be an essentially democratic basis. As a result, specializing in a topic, as I have with Guantánamo, has got me noticed by search engines (and therefore by readers), and those who link to my work or cross-post it (while preserving internal links), as well as those who read and comment on it, and retweet it and share it on Facebook, contribute to a process where search engines rate it still further.

With a recent increase in all of these factors, I’m delighted to report that I have now made it into Technorati’s Top 20 World Politics Blogs, in the company of the likes of Empty Wheel, The Washington Note and Eurasia Review (a site that regularly cross-posts my articles), and ahead of sites like Harry’s Place and The British National Party, which pleases me no end.

I hope that those starting out in journalism realize what a marvel the Internet is, as it — and specifically, the ease with which blogs can be started — enables anyone to set themselves up as an independent journalist. If you have an ability to write, have an area — or a few areas — in which you specialize, and are prepared to work hard, pitching articles to sites with good audiences (even if they don’t pay), and contacting like-minded people to share links and to introduce yourself, you can make your voice heard. And if you have something to say, say it well and promote your work, you may also find that it is, essentially, a self-starting apprenticeship, which will eventually lead to paid work.

In the week to come, I’ll be posting more new stories — about the Guantánamo prisoners’ habeas corpus petitions, about the prisoner released last week to Bulgaria, about the revelatory pre-trial hearings last week in the trial by Military Commission of Omar Khadr, and about new screenings in the UK of the documentary film, “Outside the Law: Stories from Guantánamo” — but for now I’d just like to thank all my readers and supporters, and to ask you to keep promoting my work, in whatever way you can.

Andy Worthington is the author of The Guantánamo Files: The Stories of the 774 Detainees in America’s Illegal Prison (published by Pluto Press, distributed by Macmillan in the US, and available from Amazon — click on the following for the US and the UK). To receive new articles in your inbox, please subscribe to my RSS feed (and I can also be found on Facebook, Twitter and Digg). Also see my definitive Guantánamo prisoner list, updated in January 2010, details about the new documentary film, “Outside the Law: Stories from Guantánamo” (co-directed by Polly Nash and Andy Worthington, and currently on tour in the UK), and, if you appreciate my work, feel free to make a donation.

As two former Guantánamo prisoners begin new lives in Europe (an unidentified Yemeni in Spain, and a Syrian in Bulgaria, whose story I’ll be reporting soon), there are concerns that the ill-defined obligations of countries accepting cleared prisoners from Guantánamo have left the first prisoner given a new life in Spain — the Palestinian Walid Hijazi, who was released in February — in a precarious position, effectively abandoned by the State, and largely reliant on the kindness of strangers for his financial and psychological support.

On Sunday, El Pais published a detailed article about Hijazi, explaining, as my journalist friend Carlos Sardiña Galache described it to me, that “he lives in a small hotel in an undisclosed medium-size Spanish city, waiting to move to a flat provided by a NGO. According to the story, he is devastated and traumatized. The journalist says he looks very weak and fragile, almost like a child, and he has constant headaches. This NGO has a volunteer who looks after him and there is a woman in the hotel who also takes care of him ‘like a mother.’”

This is a worrying situation, and even my faltering translation of the El Pais article makes it clear that Hijazi is in a horribly vulnerable position. “He prefers not to talk about the past, not to remember” the article says. “‘I’m fine, thanks to Allah,’ he says in Arabic. ‘But it is still early. These things take time. I need time.’ The window of his room, whether it is hot or cold, is always open.”

The full description of his carers is revealing. “The critical support,” the article says, “has not been found in the NGOs or in the Muslim community in the city. It has come instead from a woman who works at the hotel where he is living, and is spontaneously and selflessly looking after him … Hijazi does not speak Spanish, and she does not speak Arabic, so they communicate by signs. They eat together, he accompanies her on errands, and seems comfortable despite the fact that communication is limited. A young man from the NGO also visits in his spare time, and goes for walks with Hijazi.”

Crucially, as El Pais noted, senior officials in Hijazi’s new hometown convened a meeting with members of the Muslim community, at which Hijazi was present, “to ask for their support in the reception and reintegration of former prisoners.” However, as the article continued, “neither the government nor the NGOs nor the Muslim community realized how difficult it would be to recover psychologically” after eight years in Guantánamo.

Hijazi speaks once or twice a week to his family, but seems unsure of what to think about the future. “Would you like to return to Gaza? Bring your family here?” the reporter asks (somewhat rhetorically, as the Israeli government shows no willingness to provide any support to former Guantánamo prisoners). “I do not know,” Hijazi replies, adding, again, “I need more time.” The article ends with the reporter noting, “During the day, he goes out for walks. Sometimes, when he is not feeling well, he spends days at the hotel, and barely goes out at all. The last day that we see him he is well and goes out on an errand. The window, as always, is open.”

What emerges clearly from this report is how, despite the kindness of the woman who has befriended him, Hijazi obviously needs professional care, which has not been made available to him. Michael Korzinski, the co-director of the Helen Bamber Foundation in London (which cares for torture victims), told El Pais, “These patients need time to reconnect with ordinary life. They have to feel that they have rights, rights that have been denied to them for a long time.” He added that they need “specific psychological treatment.”

Whether this will be forthcoming in Walid Hijazi’s case, or in the case of the Yemeni who has just arrived in Spain, ought to be a pressing matter for the Spanish government. The fear, however, is that in doing a favor for President Obama, by taking cleared prisoners who cannot be repatriated, the Spanish government is ignoring the former prisoners’ own needs and is interested only in whatever political advantage will ensue from its  gesture of solidarity with the Obama administration.

Certainly, the focus of the government seems to be more on the novel status of these men than on their psychological and material well-being. As the article also explains, the government has stated that Hijazi is not allowed to leave the country, prompting lawyers to ask why, if he is a free man with no charges against him, this restriction should be imposed. The Ministry of the Interior has explained that it is authorized under Article 28.2 of the Aliens Act, which allows the Minister of the Interior to prevent people leaving the country on the basis of “national security.”

It is valid to ask why this law should be invoked in the case of men who pose no threat to Spain — or to anyone else for that matter — but as Walid Hijazi’s case makes clear, more pressing right now are concerns about his welfare, although questions about the former prisoners’ status — and the manner in which they are being treated — surely need examining in relation to the resettlement of men in other countries, and not just in Spain.

After eight years in Guantánamo, and their release because, in the end, the US government was unable to conjure up a valid reason to continue holding them, the prisoners given homes in new countries — to date, Albania, Belgium, Bermuda, Bulgaria, France, Georgia, Hungary, Ireland, Palau, Portugal, Slovakia and Switzerland, as well as Spain — need guarantees that they will not only be free men, but will also receive adequate support to help them rebuild their lives.

POSTSCRIPT May 19: Someone who knows about Walid’s case sent me the following message, to point out that the Spanish government is, in fact, being as supportive as possible: “The Spanish have gone out of their way to assist Walid and have been patient, gracious hosts. Walid has asylum in Spain and is being provided housing, money, and rehabilitation assistance. The Spanish have asked him to learn Spanish and do his best to integrate into society. Walid not only has access to the same health care that any citizen of Spain enjoys, but special rehabilitative and behavioral support has been made available to him.”

Andy Worthington is the author of The Guantánamo Files: The Stories of the 774 Detainees in America’s Illegal Prison (published by Pluto Press, distributed by Macmillan in the US, and available from Amazon — click on the following for the US and the UK). To receive new articles in your inbox, please subscribe to my RSS feed (and I can also be found on Facebook and Twitter). Also see my definitive Guantánamo prisoner list, updated in January 2010, details about the new documentary film, “Outside the Law: Stories from Guantánamo” (co-directed by Polly Nash and Andy Worthington, and launched in October 2009), and, if you appreciate my work, feel free to make a donation.

Cross-posted on The Public Record, Uruknet, Eurasia Review and New Left Project.

With 649 out of 650 results declared in the 2010 General Election, it is now confirmed that no party has an outright majority. The Tories won 306 seats (20 short of a majority), Labour won 258, the Liberal Democrats won 57 and other parties won 28.

For those who hoped that electoral reform would be significant in this election, in light of the promising response to Nick Clegg during the televised debates, the results have been disappointing, as the anticipated spike in support for the Liberal Democrats was not reflected on polling day.

However, in a hung parliament, electoral reform remains high on the agenda. Both David Cameron and Gordon Brown must try to woo Clegg to form a workable coalition, and it must surely be unthinkable that Clegg would enter into any relationship without the promise of genuine electoral reform. For those, like myself, who have become thoroughly disillusioned over the years with Britain’s unfair “First Past the Post” system, this is as it should be, and the results speak for themselves. The Tories took 36 percent of the vote to secure 307 seats, while Labour and the Liberal Democrats took 52 percent of the vote to secure 315 seats.

For the Lib Dems, the injustice of the system is even more apparent, as it has been throughout the party’s history. This time around, for example, each Tory seat represented just under 35,000 voters (10.7 million voters divided by 307), each Labour seat represented just over 33,000 voters (8.6 million divided by 258), while each Lib Dem seat represented nearly 120,000 voters (6.8 million divided by 57).

As the haggling for power begins, other results are noteworthy. In Brighton Pavillion, Caroline Lucas won the Green Party’s first ever seat in parliament (and there would, no doubt, be many more if PR were introduced), and there were a few notable scalps: in particular, two former Home Secretaries, Charles Clarke and Jacqui Smith. For those of us concerned about the erosion of civil liberties under the Labour government, and its paranoid and draconian approach to human rights — involving complicity in torture abroad and the imprisonment of terror suspects in the UK without charge or trial, on the basis of secret evidence — neither will be missed, but other casualties of the swing to the Conservatives (around 5 percent overall) are MPs who, as I pointed out in an article before the election, had confronted the government on these very issues by signing two particular Early Day Motions in the last 12 months.

The first is Diane Abbott’s EDM 1308 (signed by 93 MPs), opposing the use of secret evidence in UK courts, which has been used, in particular, in the cases of terror suspects (both British and foreign nationals), as a pretext to hold them under control orders (a form of house arrest) or in prison pending deportation, or on deportation bail (again, a form of house arrest), without them being formally charged or tried.

The second is Martin Linton’s EDM 547 (signed by 101 MPs), calling for the release of Shaker Aamer, the last British resident in Guantánamo, who was cleared for release by the US authorities in 2007, but has still not been reunited with his British wife and four British children, despite claims by the government that it has been doing all in its power to secure his release since August 2007.

In the election, I’m sorry to note, 21 MPs who had signed up to one — or both — of these EDMs lost their seats. None of them were Tories, primarily because, of the 149 MPs who signed up to the EDMs, just three were Tories (2 percent of the total number of Tory MPs), compared to 89 Labour MPs (26 percent of the total), 43 Liberal Democrat MPs (70 percent of the total), and 14 others. From these figures, I have no hesitation in stating that a Conservative government would, in all likelihood, be disastrous for those who care about human rights both at home and abroad.

Those who lost their seats are: ten Labour MPs, including Martin Linton, who had campaigned regularly for Shaker Aamer in recent months, and Andrew Dismore, the Chair of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which recently heard — and was clearly sympathetic to — compelling testimony from lawyers and special advocates regarding the injustice of the government’s control order regime; six Liberal Democrat MPs, including Susan Kramer, who had signed up to both EDMs; three Independents; John Mason of the SNP; and George Galloway of Respect. I’m also including a 22nd MP, Evan Harris of the Liberal Democrats, who did not sign up for either of the EDMs, but was a member of the Joint Committee on Human Rights.

The full list is below, and I encourage readers who care about these issues to write to the new MPs as soon as possible, to ask them to show the same interest in human rights as their predecessors, and, frankly, to harangue them if they refuse. This can be done via TheyWorkForYou. Please also note that “SA” and “SE” refer, respectively, to the Shaker Aamer EDM and the secret evidence EDM.

Labour losses

Battersea: Martin Linton (SA) lost to Jane Ellison (Con)
Bedford: Patrick Hall (SE) lost to Richard Fuller (Con)
Cardiff North: Julie Morgan (SE) lost to Jonathan Evans (Con)
Cleethorpes: Shona McIsaac (SA) lost to Martin Vickers (Con)
Dover: Gwyn Prosser (SA) lost to Charlie Elphicke (Con)
Great Yarmouth: Anthony D Wright (SA) lost to Brandon Lewis (Con)
Hendon: Andrew Dismore (SA, SE) lost to Matthew Offord (Con)
Hove: Celia Barlow (SA) lost to Mike Weatherley (Con)
Kingswood: Roger Berry (SA) lost to Chris Skidmore (Con)
Stroud: David Drew (SA, SE) lost to Neil Carmichael (Con)

Liberal Democrat losses

Camborne & Redruth: Julia Goldsworthy (SE) lost to George Eustice (Con)
Chesterfield: Paul Holmes (SA, SE) lost to Toby Perkins (Lab)
Dunfermline & West Fife: Willie Rennie (SA, SE) lost to Thomas Docherty (Lab)
Montgomeryshire: Lembit Opik (SA) lost to Glyn Davies (Con)
Oxford West & Abingdon: Evan Harris lost to Nicola Blackwood (Con)
Richmond Park: Susan Kramer (SA, SE) lost to Zac Goldsmith (Con)
Romsey & Southampton North: Sandra Gidley (SA) lost to Caroline Nokes (Con)

Independent losses

Blaenau Gwent: Dai Davies (SA, SE) lost to Nick Smith (Lab)
Croydon Central: Andrew Pelling (SA) lost to Gavin Barwell (Con)
Wyre Forest: Richard Taylor (SE) lost to Mark Garnier (Con)

Respect loss

Poplar & Limehouse: George Galloway  (SA, SE), previously MP for Bethnal Green & Bow, lost to Jim Fitzpatrick (Lab)

Scottish National Party loss

Glasgow East: John Mason (SE) lost to Margaret Curran (Lab)

Please feel free to contact me if you come across anyone I have missed, and please also note that, in the coming weeks, I will be preparing an updated list of all MPs interested in human rights — and specifically, in the defence of human rights while countering terrorism — to mobilize support for renewed campaigns against Britain’s anti-terror laws, and also to secure the release of Shaker Aamer (and the resettlement of other cleared Guantanamo prisoners in the UK, including Ahmed Belbacha).

Andy Worthington is the author of The Guantánamo Files: The Stories of the 774 Detainees in America’s Illegal Prison (published by Pluto Press, distributed by Macmillan in the US, and available from Amazon — click on the following for the US and the UK). To receive new articles in your inbox, please subscribe to my RSS feed (and I can also be found on Facebook and Twitter). Also see my definitive Guantánamo prisoner list, updated in January 2010, details about the new documentary film, “Outside the Law: Stories from Guantánamo” (co-directed by Polly Nash and Andy Worthington, and currently on tour in the UK), and, if you appreciate my work, feel free to make a donation.

I recently watched (for the first time, I concede), the film “In the Name of the Father,” about the Guildford Four, in which Emma Thompson plays the part of Gareth Peirce, who exposed the abhorrent miscarriage of justice in that dreadful case of torture and false confessions, which was only overturned after Gerry Conlon, Paul Hill, Patrick Armstrong and Carole Richardson had spent 15 years in prison for a crime they didn’t commit, and Conlon’s father, Giuseppe, had died in prison.

Watching the film was a vivid reminder of how long Gareth has fought for society’s scapegoats, as the “terror threat” has shifted from the Irish to the Muslim community, and it’s my pleasure, therefore, to reproduce a statement by her, which was read out on Wednesday evening during a rally, with many speakers, as part of a week-long vigil for Aafia Siddiqui outside the US embassy in London. I reported Dr. Siddiqui’s story — one of the murkiest in the whole of the “War on terror” — in a previous article, and provided updates last week, while promoting this event, which I was unable to attend, because I was in Birmingham, at a screening of “Outside the Law: Stories from Guantánamo,” with former Guantánamo prisoners Moazzam Begg and Omar Deghayes.

Gareth’s statement was originally published by the Justice for Aafia Coalition, which organized the vigil (which ends today) and maintains an excellent website.

A statement by Gareth Peirce in support of Aafia Siddiqui

One of the UK’s most high profile lawyers and a fearless campaigner for human rights, Gareth Peirce has represented the Guildford Four, the Birmingham Six, the families of the victims of the Marchioness riverboat disaster and the Lockerbie bombing. More recently she has acted on behalf of UK detainees held in Guantánamo, the family of Jean Charles de Menezes as well as numerous detainees held under anti-terror legislation in the UK. In a career spanning more than 30 years, she is said to have “transformed the criminal justice scene in this country almost single-handedly.” Gareth was regretfully unable to attend the JFAC “Seven Days for Seven Years” Vigil on Wednesday 5th May. She sent this statement of support to the Justice for Aafia Coalition, which was read out during the vigil.

Perhaps the most disturbing case of all, amongst the many thousands which have caused us horror over the past eight and a half years, is that of Aafia Siddiqui. Since the time of her reported arrest and the extraordinary decision that she should be transported across the world for trial and not where she was claimed to have been arrested, every aspect has smacked of implausibility, reminding us of the false police accounts here of the early 1970s, where nothing had the ring of truth, but nevertheless only too easily juries would convict the innocent. A different nationality, a different religion, a different appearance: once the allegation of “terrorist” is attached, it must seem safer to the patriotic juror to convict, however unconvincing the prosecution’s evidence.

By a coincidence of timing, a number of men in this country have, for the past five years or more, been contesting their extraditions to the USA, some of them destined for trial in the same Federal District Court in Manhattan as Aafia Siddiqui. That means they have come to investigate and realise the true horror of the circumstances in which a defendant who awaits trial under Special Administrative Measures is held in the USA: entirely isolated, in a cell just 7 feet by 12 feet with a moulded concrete bunk. Food is delivered through a slot in the door. No contact with another person. Never to see the light of day. Even the strongest and fittest would be unable to do justice to themselves, even in the fairest of proceedings. No wonder, faced with the further spectre of the same grim solitary confinement continuing forever (with sentences of 100 years or more), some 97 percent of defendants in the USA plead guilty in an attempt to avoid the worst of the most severe consequences if convicted.

This is a case that cries out for a return, and with the greatest speed, to her own country now for Aafia Siddiqui.

Some day, maybe many years from now, shocking truths may see the light of day. But it is our collective experience that they are not meant ever to do so and that many innocent men and women spend their lives, and some die, before that day ever comes.

I and my colleagues lend whatever support we can offer, to achieving Aafia Siddiqui’s return to her own country, to normality, to freedom, and to a return by those with responsibility, to sanity, to justice and compassion.

Gareth Peirce
2nd May 2010

Andy Worthington is the author of The Guantánamo Files: The Stories of the 774 Detainees in America’s Illegal Prison (published by Pluto Press, distributed by Macmillan in the US, and available from Amazon — click on the following for the US and the UK). To receive new articles in your inbox, please subscribe to my RSS feed (and I can also be found on Facebook and Twitter). Also see my definitive Guantánamo prisoner list, updated in January 2010, details about the new documentary film, “Outside the Law: Stories from Guantánamo” (co-directed by Polly Nash and Andy Worthington, and currently on tour in the UK), and, if you appreciate my work, feel free to make a donation.

On reflection, two days before the General Election was a weird time to be travelling anywhere to show “Outside the Law: Stories from Guantánamo,” the new documentary film, co-directed by Polly Nash and myself, which former prisoner Omar Deghayes and I have been touring since February.

This week it was as though the impetus to push against the injustices of the “War on Terror” had stalled. On Tuesday morning, six former prisoners — including Omar, and Binyam Mohamed, who is also featured in the film — defeated the government in the Court of Appeal, when three senior judges overturned a ruling made last November by another judge, who approved the use of secret evidence in a civil claim for damages. This was an unprecedented event in British history, and when the Court of Appeal overturned the ruling, those with a keen sense of history and the law rejoiced. “How audacious! The government tries to overturn principles of law dating back to [the] 13th century,” Afua Hirsch wrote in the Guardian.

In the fog of election week, however, the impact was dulled, as no one knew who would be in power to deal with the fallout from this ruling — whether it will be accepted, or appealed; and whether the new government will turn its back on secrecy and injustice, or, indeed, whether more darkness — the same, or worse — is to come.

In this uncertain world, Omar and I travelled to Birmingham for two screenings of the film — at Aston University and at Birmingham Library Theatre, in a screening organized by Birmingham Film Society — which had been booked before the election date was announced. We stayed with Moazzam Begg, who joined us for Q&A sessions following both screenings, had attentive crowds and great organizers, the sun shone and we discussed plans for future activities. Omar and I ate fish masala at a chip shop near Aston University, we ate lamb kebab and chips and drank freshly squeezed orange juice in a friendly Pakistani restaurant further out of town, and drank coffee and watched the world pass in the city centre. On Wednesday evening, we walked along the canals, and I was impressed at how, as in so many places in the UK, public spaces have been developed in the last decade or so. But the election hovered, largely unspoken, over everything. The popular support for proportional representation. The unaddressed fallout from the banking crisis. The savage cuts reportedly to come, which no one wants to discuss.

I could go on, attempting to capture this unease, and the strange feeling of discussing pressing issues of accountability for the British government’s complicity in rendition and torture — and calls for the return of Shaker Aamer, the last British resident in Guantánamo (also featured in the film) — without knowing who these calls should be directed at. Instead, however, I’m going to cross-post a short article, entitled, “England,” which I think perfectly captures these issues, and which was posted by a blogger named Jamblichus, who returned to the UK from South Korea just days before the Election, and came to see the film shortly after his arrival. He describes his interests as “[t]o point out and record the abuse of power by corporations, politicos, police and anyone else who has it coming,” and “[t]o give big-ups to academics, poets, musicians, activists and any other souls who have something interesting and unusual to say.”

“England”
By Jamblichus, May 6, 2010

Flying into England the air feels muggy. It reminds me on landing of arriving in Africa a decade ago; the night heavy, the air thick, the dark full of unknown but not unnerving sounds — a strange familiarity.

The English look heavy too: thickset, more tattoos than I remember there being, shoulders hunched and faces, posture, gestures all somewhat inward looking and deliberate, if not unpleasantly so.

It’s good to be home and I’m reminded that we drive like maniacs here. Not in the Korean way — erratic, mannerless, dismissive of red lights but respecting of speed limits — but in a distinctly British way: courteous, horn-free but brutally fast.

A few days after arriving I go to see the film “Outside the Law: Stories from Guantánamo” by campaigning journalist Andy Worthington and sit through a Q&A afterwards with former detainees Moazzam Begg and Omar Deghayes.

I won’t rehash their stories here — although I urge a visit to Begg’s site Cageprisoners — but it was their current concerns as much as the travesty that is Guantánamo and their horrific experiences there that shocked me.

Just yesterday the Court of Appeal overturned a ruling that, for the first time in British history, allowed the government to use secret evidence in a civil claim for damages.

The decision was a resounding victory for the six former Guantánamo prisoners — Bisher al-Rawi, Jamil El-Banna, Richard Belmar, Omar Deghayes, Binyam Mohamed and Martin Mubanga — who have brought a case against the British government.

But the government is likely to appeal the ruling. The precedent a win by the state on this issue would represent is astonishing. The right to use evidence in court against you in a civil suit that neither you nor your lawyer can see. It could be anything, entirely made up to smear political opponents.

Disgusting and deeply disturbing. Andy Worthington lists on his blog here the MPs who have signed up to early day motions opposing the use of secret evidence in UK courts and calling for the release of the last British resident in Guantánamo respectively. Of the 149 MPs who have signed the motions, just three are Conservative.

It seems utter madness that they look likely to get a majority.

A few days later, feeling guilty at not having registered to vote in enough time, I set the alarm for 4:00 am and drove into Birmingham Hall Green to canvass for the Liberal Democrats whose candidate could just clinch the seat if enough former Labour voters go that way …

Trudging the streets of Moseley and Kings Norton for three hours to the dawn chorus and the intermittent roar of buses I was struck by the beauty of the city. Old trees line many of the streets, decrepit redbrick buildings with crumpled but still magisterial presence and everywhere difference, unique variations in architecture that Seoul so lacks.

Most locals would no doubt think I’m nuts but it really struck me what a gorgeous place it was. Even if it did give me savage blisters. Note to inexperienced political leafleters: bring the following four essentials:

• MP3 player.

• Satchel.

• Thermos flask with coffee.

• Plasters.

About the film

“[T]his is a strong movie examining the imprisonment and subsequent torture of those falsely accused of anti-American conspiracy.”
Joe Burnham, Time Out

“Outside the Law: Stories from Guantánamo” is a new documentary film, directed by Polly Nash and Andy Worthington, telling the story of Guantánamo (and including sections on extraordinary rendition and secret prisons) with a particular focus on how the Bush administration turned its back on domestic and international laws, how prisoners were rounded up in Afghanistan and Pakistan without adequate screening (and often for bounty payments), and why some of these men may have been in Afghanistan or Pakistan for reasons unconnected with militancy or terrorism (as missionaries or humanitarian aid workers, for example).

The film is based around interviews with former prisoners (Moazzam Begg and, in his first major interview, Omar Deghayes, who was released in December 2007), lawyers for the prisoners (Clive Stafford Smith in the UK and Tom Wilner in the US), and journalist and author Andy Worthington, and also includes appearances from Guantánamo’s former Muslim chaplain James Yee, Shakeel Begg, a London-based Imam, and the British human rights lawyer Gareth Peirce.

Focusing on the stories of Shaker Aamer, Binyam Mohamed and Omar Deghayes, “Outside the Law: Stories from Guantánamo” provides a powerful rebuke to those who believe that Guantánamo holds “the worst of the worst” and that the Bush administration was justified in responding to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 by holding men neither as prisoners of war, protected by the Geneva Conventions, nor as criminal suspects with habeas corpus rights, but as “illegal enemy combatants” with no rights whatsoever.

For further information, interviews, or to inquire about broadcasting, distributing or showing “Outside the Law: Stories from Guantánamo,” please contact Polly Nash or Andy Worthington.

“Outside the Law: Stories from Guantánamo” is a Spectacle Production (74 minutes, 2009), and copies of the DVD are now available. As featured on Democracy Now!, ABC News and Truthout. See here for videos of the Q&A session (with Moazzam Begg, Omar Deghayes, Andy Worthington and Polly Nash) that followed the launch of the film in London on October 21, 2009, and see here for a short trailer.

Andy Worthington is the author of The Guantánamo Files: The Stories of the 774 Detainees in America’s Illegal Prison (published by Pluto Press, distributed by Macmillan in the US, and available from Amazon — click on the following for the US and the UK). To receive new articles in your inbox, please subscribe to my RSS feed (and I can also be found on Facebook and Twitter). Also see my definitive Guantánamo prisoner list, updated in January 2010, details about the new documentary film, “Outside the Law: Stories from Guantánamo” (co-directed by Polly Nash and Andy Worthington, and currently on tour in the UK), and, if you appreciate my work, feel free to make a donation.