All dressed up and nowhere to go on a Friday evening?
Then join the LONDON GUANTANAMO CAMPAIGN EVERYFRIDAY evening at 6-7pm outside the American Embassy, Grosvenor Square, Mayfair, W1, to call on the American government to shut down the detention facility at Guantánamo Bay (you’ll find us outside the MAIN (not temporary) entrance to the building on the west side of Grosvenor Square) – nearest tube: Marble Arch/Bond Street – Grosvenor Square is behind Oxford Street. Five years of detention without trial or charge. No access to their families. How long can this injustice go on? Come and join us!!! Organised by the London Guantánamo Campaign For more details, contact 07824 386 747 or
www.guantanamo.org.uk
Chaired by Frances Webber, barrister, Haldane Society of Socialist Lawyers and CAMPACC
The extent of our government’s complicity in the illegal CIA rendition programme which has been responsible for the abduction of dozens, if not hundreds, of people since the mid-1990s, is matched only by the obstinacy with which it stonewalls those who seek to uncover the truth. Those who attended the meeting at Garden Court Chambers on Friday 22 June, jointly hosted by the Campaign against Criminalising Communities (CAMPACC), the London Guantánamo Campaign and the Haldane Society of Socialist Lawyers together with the Bar Human Rights Committee, heard from some of the people best qualified to know what is going on in this particular front in the ‘War on Terror’.
On screen, in the film Outlawed,we heard German citizen Khaled El Masri describe his arrest while on holiday in Macedonia in December 2003 and his abduction to a US-run torture centre in Afghanistan, where he was held and mistreated for five months before being dumped on a road in eastern Europe. His subsequent legal claim in the US against the CIA and the airline which took him there was dismissed on the ground that it would involve ‘state secrets’, and the dismissal was recently upheld by the US Court of Appeal (4th circuit). The journey of the UK resident of Ethiopian nationality Binyam Mohamed from his arrest in Pakistan in April 2002, to his rendition to Morocco where he was tortured for 18 months, to further torture at two US-run sites in Afghanistan and finally to Guantánamo, was described through letters to his lawyer read on screen by his brother. In the film, a man described as the ‘architect’ of the CIA’s rendition programme revealed that it had been operating since 1995, and voiced his mild disapproval of the new (post-9/11) emphasis on heavy interrogation. In the good old days he would have had us accept rendition as an acceptable means of getting the baddies out of the way for a while. He opined that torture was counter-productive, but didn’t address the profound illegality of the whole ‘rendition’ operation.
The film was followed by contributions from Baroness Sarah Ludford MEP, Vice-President of the European Parliament’s committee on extraordinary rendition; legal director of Liberty James Welch; the lawyer Clara Gutteridge of Reprieve, the legal charity representing Guantánamo prisoners; Asim Qureshi of Cageprisoners, who investigate and publicise rendition and other illegal and inhuman practices in the WOT, and Mark Muller QC of the BHRC and the Kurdish Human Rights Project (KHRP).
The committee Sarah Ludford helped to set up had been given no teeth by the EP, and had no powers to compel the attendance of witnesses from member states believed to be involved in facilitating or allowing rendition flights, including Germany, Italy and the UK, and those believed to have hosted secret facilities, including Poland and Romania; the committee had to make do with the testimony of victims and documentary evidence. Having examined the flight logs of 1200 CIA flights across Europe, they found these closely corroborated victims’ testimony, and concluded that a number of member states had connived with the US to allow flights to cross the EU and to refuel at airports here including Prestwick. The CIA leased civilian planes to get around the legal obligations of providing notification of passengers, purpose and final destination.
A little known meeting between NATO and EU member states in 2002 which gave the US carte blanche to fly over the EU is the likely source of the authorisation of such flights.
James Welch described Liberty’s as yet fruitless attempts to persuade the British police to launch an inquiry into the UK government’s provision of logistical support for ‘torture flights’, using the UN Convention against Torture to call for an investigation into the facilitation of torture elsewhere by cooperation with the CIA. ACPO has said there is not enough evidence to justify a police inquiry. The campaign continues.
Clara Gutteridge updated the meeting about the civil suit brought by Binyam Mohamed against Jeppesen, the flight planning company known as ‘the CIA’s travel agent’, and about the limbo he and the other ‘British residents’ continue to suffer in Guantánamo. She and Asim Qureshi spoke about the close involvement of MI5 officers in the questioning of Mohamed and other rendition victims and about the role of the UK-run territory of Diego Garcia as a suspected torture site. Qureshi spoke of the massive US pressure on the administration in Bosnia to deport or remove foreign ex-fighters who settled in Bosnia after the conflict, and of the growing importance of the Horn of Africa to the US administration.
Mark Muller pointed out that “the issue of rendition did not just occur after 2001; its origins can be found in the Clinton administration and the development of a policy called ‘disruption of terrorist networks’. There were examples of “rendition” in 1996 relating to Albania and Croatia.” Mark also gave us a blow-by-blow account of one of the best publicised ‘renditions’ – that of PKK leader Abdullah Öcalan, whose odyssey around Europe in search of asylum ended with his capture in Nairobi followed by his abduction to Turkey. “One of the more startling forms of rendition was Abdullah Ocalan, who I represented. He was effectively kidnapped from Kenya and taken to Imrali Island which is a bit like Guantánamo Bay. It is in the Marmara Sea in Turkey where he is now incarcerated. ” He also talked about the effect of proscription on refugee communities and the importance of the work of CAMPACC in combating illegality and human rights abuses in the fight against terrorism.
Speech
Sarah Ludford MEP
22nd June 2007
Thank you to Witness US and all the non-profit organisations who produced a very moving and effective documentary on extraordinary rendition, and thankyou to the organisers of this meeting.
As the vice-chair on the temporary committee on extraordinary rendition in the European Parliament I am pleased to be able to speak to you all today on this subject. The European Parliament committee was set up in January 2006 to establish whether third countries agents (CIA or others) had carried out abductions, “extraordinary rendition”, detention at secret sites, incommunicado detention or torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment of prisoners on the territory of European Union or accession and candidate countries, or had used that territory to those ends, for example through flights.
We conducted 33 sessions, organised 7 official delegations, including to the US, Romania, Poland and the UK, analysed 19 cases of extraordinary renditions with the direct participation of several victims, as well as reading and analysing thousands of pages of documents and flight logs.
The committee produced its final report earlier this year and in so doing issued a damning indictment on EU member states. The adopted report asserted that over 1200 flights operated by the CIA flew into European airspace or stopped over at European airports between 2001 and 2005. We have not suggested that all of those flights were on extraordinary rendition missions of illegally transporting detainees, but we believe some were or were linked to ‘rendition circuits’ in that they were on their way to or from rendition missions.
We stated that almost a dozen European countries had either admitted such flights or turned a blind eye. Our report accused officials of several countries (notably Italy, UK, Germany, Sweden, Austria) of active involvement in, facilitation of or failure to prevent kidnapping or extraordinary rendition. In respect of the allegations of secret prisons, the final report (after tight votes) said that ‘no definitive evidence has been provided to contradict any of the allegations concerning the running of a secret detention facility on Romanian soil’ and ‘it is not possible to acknowledge or deny that secret detention centres were based in Poland.’ But Dick Marty in his recent report for the Council of Europe has made firm statements asserting there were such CIA prisons in those countries.
We were not a court, did not have the powers of a criminal prosecutor and were not empowered or required to establish poof beyond reasonable doubt. But we heard testimony and saw corroborating facts, such as flight logs, which attested to extraordinary renditions having taken place in Europe, and it is highly implausible that governments or their agencies had no idea what was going on. We did enough in cooperation and in complementarity with Dick Marty, with national MPs and judicial inquiries, to shift the burden of proof onto national governments to show they did not collude with US human rights abuses.
The report called on the Council of Ministers and the European Commission to meet their responsibilities under European and international human rights instruments. Once allegations are no longer speculative but are shown to be credible, as has been done, then under European and international human rights instruments Member States have a positive obligation to investigate and to punish anyone responsible for human rights abuses.
Questions have been raised about 170 possible CIA rendition flights through the UK, but the UK response has been deafening by its silence, and there has been no proper UK investigation. In fact it has been the policy of this government to refuse to address the issue of rendition fully and openly. The UK’s position is that it will only grant permission for a rendition if it would accord with the UK’s domestic and international obligations. But the government’s records on rendition are wholly inadequate, being incomplete and relying on personal recollections, as evidenced by the statement of former Foreign Secretary Jack Straw in December 2005. This poor quality of records assists a climate of confusion and obfuscation. It means, conveniently, that the government cannot adequately be held to account for the decisions they have taken.
The UK should support efforts within the Council of Europe and lead, not obstruct similar EU action, to adopt common measures to safeguard the rights of terrorist suspects being transported through member states territory. It should sign, as indeed all EU and Council of Europe member states should sign, the 2006 UN Convention on protection from enforced disappearance on which I put down a parliamentary question in the European Parliament. Terry Davis, the Secretary-general of the Council of Europe and of course a former Labour MP, last year made various suggestions for tightening the legal framework on control of domestic and foreign intelligence services and checks on possible rendition flights.
It is interesting – though possibly a red herring - to note that in the wake of Dick Marty’s most recent Council of Europe report, Harriet Harman has signalled her desire to have international law changed so that foreign governments are legally required to notify another country when flying prisoners through its airspace. This seems to be supporting a similar call by the all-party group on extraordinary rendition whereby every such transfer would require prior written permission and the state requesting permission would have to provide information on destination, purpose, applicable legal regime, legal safeguards in the destination state and so on. The state through which the transfer would take place would not grant permission unless the transfer was consistent with its legal obligations, including in the field of human rights.
While such moves would make the framework even clearer, every bit of the extraordinary rendition chain is of course already illegal and there is much that can be done under existing law to inspect and check flights, see for instance a House of Lords debate on July 18th 2006 in which I took part. The situation seems to be however that under a NATO decision of October 4th 2001, NATO states pledged overflight and refuelling rights in the fight against terrorism, see http://www.nato.int/docu/speech/2001/s011004b.htm) and this may have set a framework which may have allowed illegality ad impunity to flourish. They agreed inter alia to:
- “provide blanket overflight clearances for the United States and other Allies’ aircraft, in accordance with the necessary air traffic arrangements and national procedures, for military flights related to operations against terrorism”; and to - “provide access for the United States and other Allies to ports and airfields on the territory of NATO nations for operations against terrorism, including for refuelling, in accordance with national procedures”.
MEPs, believing that the fine print of this key decision might be enlightening, asked both Javier Solana and the NATO Secretary-General for a copy of the full document but our request was refused. I am now gong to explore making a freedom of information request in the US for it.
What the EP report has aptly brought to light is that aspiration of the EU to be an area of security, justice and human rights is not being fulfilled. On the one hand, some Member States have not implemented EU anti-terrorism laws passed five years ago, so they do not even have a definition of terrorism and terrorists can escape conviction and imprisonment, thus the EU as a whole is not properly equipped. At the same time it is apparent on the basis of credible indications that gross human rights abuses have taken place in the name of fighting terrorism – the so-called war on terror. The EU has allowed a situation to develop where we cannot prosecute terrorists, but we can persecute terrorist suspects and deprive them of their rights.
What credibility does this give the EU at home or abroad, either for effectively combating terrorism or for upholding human rights? If anything, it gives credence to those who are already dubious of our Western values. The Council of Ministers and member states are creating a lot of hot air and rhetoric about the EU as a beacon of human rights without delivering the results.
As well as being morally objectionable, torture will never produce sound and reliable evidence, and so in turn can never be a sustainable policy for tackling terrorism. As we saw from the documentary, victims of torture will say whatever they think they need to to avoid further abuse from their torturer. Certainly, if we are looking at psychological torture, the victims may not even be aware of what it is they are admitting to.
Of course, threats to our security are threats to our freedom, but the reverse is also true. Undue infringements of our civil liberties make us less secure as individuals. The UK government, and indeed all member state governments, must be held to account for any complicity in extraordinary rendition that has already occurred and may still be occurring today.
I am glad that, as I heard just this afternoon, there will be a Commons debate in Westminster hall next Tuesday on extraordinary rendition. I will certainly continue to make my voice heard on this matter both in the European Parliament and in the House of Lords. As EU citizens, we have a legitimate right to know what practices are being conducted in our name. I for one refuse to stand idly by while Europe becomes known as a condoner of torture and inhuman treatment.
The London Guantánamo Campaign welcomes the return of Bisher El-Rawi to the UK in March 2007.
Nine men with close links to the UK remain at the Guantánamo Bay detention camp, most for over five years without charge or trial.
The British government must act now to bring the remaining British residents back to the UK.
The London Guantánamo Campaign invites you to a PUBLIC MEETING AND FILM SHOWING OF “OMAR DEGHAYES: THE SEARCH FOR JUSTICE” FOLLOWED BY A PANEL DISCUSSION WITH: SARAH TEATHER MP VICTORIA BRITTAIN (JOURNALIST) SPEAKER FROM THE SAVE OMAR CAMPAIGN (BRIGHTON) ON SATURDAY 5 MAY 2007 AT 4-6PM AT GLADSTONE PARK PRIMARY SCHOOL, SHERRICK GREEN RD, NW10 1LB (NEAREST TUBE: DOLLIS HILL/ BUS: 226, 302/ STREET PARKING AVAILABLE)
The London Guantánamo Campaign was started up in March 2006 and is part of the National Guantánamo Coalition, a coalition of anti-Guantánamo and pro-human rights groups in Birmingham (Birmingham Guantánamo Campaign), Manchester (Manchester Guantánamo and Belmarsh Campaign) and Brighton (Save Omar Campaign). The aim of the campaign is to work towards the release of the eight British residents currently held in Guantánamo Bay in the short-term and the release of all prisoners and the closure of the detention facility in Guantánamo Bay and all secret jails in the war on terror in the long-term. We also support the families of the British residents in their campaigns. The national coalition also works with lawyers representing the British residents both in the UK and US, supporting the legal work that they do. Members of the National Guantánamo Coalition hold local events as well as joint national events.
We are rapidly approaching the fifth anniversary (11 January 2007) of the opening of the military camp in Guantánamo Bay, USA, in its current incarnation of a torture and detention without trial facility in the war on terror. Over the last five years, Guantánamo Bay had become a potent symbol of state-sponsored terror in the name of fighting terrorism and thus underlies and has a direct link to attempts to curb civil and human rights and endorse torture anywhere in the world, the UK included. Today, Guantánamo Bay, with its wire cages and orange jumpsuits, is the symbol of illegitimacy used by leaders (military and political) all over the world to legitimise their use of torture and flagrant disregard for international law and conventions and the rule of law. Guantánamo Bay is also the visible face of torture and repression in the war on the terror; there are countless other unknown detention and torture facilities throughout the world, including in Europe (EU territories) where individuals often caught up in the war on terror for the most spurious reasons end up or are transferred to if they are victims of “extraordinary rendition”.
In spite of often half-hearted verbal condemnation of illegal practices in the war on terror such as torture flights, rendition and torture, most countries are directly involved in these practices and use them as a basis to repress opposition and silence any dissent. Examples of the UK’s direct involvement in the war on terror include the “outsourcing” of torture, as in the case of Binyam Mohammed whose torture in Morocco British intelligence agents were aware of, visits by MI5 agents to the Tipton Three in Guantánamo and the use of British airports to refuel torture flights, originally denied by the government. Detention at Guantánamo Bay has had a trickle-down effect on policy in the UK and questions currently being debated in parliament such as whether “terror” detainees can be held without charge in British jails for up to 90 days would most likely not be possible were over 450 men not being held without charge for almost five years in Guantánamo Bay. The restrictions on their freedom also affect our freedom and the arbitrary, secretive nature of SIAC trials no doubt have a touch of the CSRTs (Combat Status Review Tribunal) “allowed” to Guantánamo detainees in them. ASBOs are part of the knock-on effect and the arbitrary detention of asylum seekers in British detention facilities smack of the same. The fact that ASBOs, the arbitrary detention of terror suspects and asylum seekers and other measures to curtail the freedoms and liberties of the British and non-British residents of these isles echo the largely global silence over what is happening in Guantánamo Bay. Further afield, Guantánamo Bay has given the international community the perfect excuse not to question or demand an inquiry into last year’s massacre in Andizhan, Uzbekistan. The hundreds, if not thousands of people, who have since been rounded up and detained arbitrarily, tortured and killed, remain as invisible and out of sight and mind as the 450 prisoners in Guantánamo Bay.
One of the most sinister aspects of the detention of prisoners in Guantánamo Bay has been the campaign to dehumanise them – through inhuman and degrading forms of torture, by denying them access to their families, legal and medical services and the outside world, sensory deprivation and trying to convince them through all of this that they are terrorists. This campaign is double-sided and while they are allowed little access to information about the outside world, the outside world, including their families, have little access to them. They are dehumanised in the eyes of the world as well. The fact that many of these prisoners do not speak English plays a role in this. New categories of humanity are created in which some “are more equal than others”. Indeed, many of the Guantánamo prisoners currently held there are there because no one (their country of origin in most cases) wants them. In the case of three of the British residents, Bisher El-Rawi, Jamil El-Banna and Omar Deghayes, all who entered the UK as refugees, the High Court upheld the government’s argument that they could not help them as they are not British citizens and having been out of UK territories for more than two years, the government has no duty towards them. That these men all have British families is quite irrelevant.
In the case of terror suspects, in the UK and abroad, and refugees, the fact that they are dehumanised makes it harder for the average person to identify with them and makes it easier for them to be criminalised. The media has a significant role to play in this perception and the court of popular opinion makes any real evidence of the true facts irrelevant. That such people are detained arbitrarily without being granted their day in court or any other platform to present their version of events means that not only is the “truth” completely one-sided but that we will never know the truth of events simply because, in most cases, the opportunity for it to be brought to light has passed. In the case of the prisoners in Guantánamo Bay, in spite of the myth of the majority of prisoners having been “enemy combatants” having long been exploded (foreigners were sold by the Pakistani military to the US for a bounty of USD5000), many still question what people like Moazzam Begg and the Tipton Three were doing in Afghanistan in the first place.
The issue of dehumanisation and criminalisation cuts into the deeper vein of identity and what Britishness (or at least being English) means. How does one define a good British citizen? Someone who hold a British passport? Someone who tows the government line? The Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 makes a distinction between British nationals and residents and offers an arbitrary definition of terrorism. Of course, the point here is not only to confuse foreigners and penalise them but to serve as a warning to all Britons, that should you fail to comply with the rules or dare to challenge them, you could meet a similar fate.
In the face of the strong campaign by the government and the media to dehumanise these individuals, the obvious plan of attack is to campaign to humanise them. All the organisations in the National Guantánamo Coalition actively do this. It is imperative that people know what the prisoners’ names are, what they look like and their story and that they do not get lost in the mire of being foreign, having an unpronounceable name and a story of no interest. The media can play a part in this. In NW London, where Jamil El-Banna lives, the local newspaper, The Willesden and Brent Times have started their own Justice for Dad campaign. The campaign has gained considerable support in the local area and has made local people aware of his plight. The newspaper has also worked alongside the family in their campaign and made residents in this part of London aware of their ordeal as well, particularly as Jamil has a three year old daughter he has never met as she was born after he was kidnapped and detained. The plight of others such as family members is often ignored, however raising the profile of the individual involved raises the profile of their family too, who are often suffering unspoken hardships. The support shown to them by campaigners often means a lot to the families who are isolated and ignored by those whose responsibility it is to represent them and help them.
There are absolutely lots of way of campaigning and raising the profile of these prisoners, from holding meetings and stalls to written and audiovisual materials and an Omar Deghayes festival recently held at Sussex University. The solidarity shown by other groups has also been incredibly important in campaigning for the Guantánamo prisoners. In the case of individuals whose rights are being extrajudicially abused, the law may not provide the best solution for them as it has already been circumvented. However, popular pressure and a call for their release can make all the difference; it worked for the British nationals who were held in Guantánamo for up to three years and the government has already started to shift its position.
In 2006, the situation for the remaining Guantánamo prisoners has become all the more critical. In January, Jamal Kiyemba, a Ugandan national who has lived in the UK since his teens and whose family live here, was returned to Uganda as the Americans did not consider him a threat. This did not prevent the Ugandan authorities from detaining him without charge for a further three months and he now has to rebuild his life without his family’s support and on a meagre income. This option is not open to prisoners like Omar Deghayes, whose family fled to the UK as refugees after the Libyan regime killed his father, and which has already promised to kill him if he returns to the country. In June, three prisoners (two Saudis and a Yemeni) were found dead in their cells; the American military claims they committed suicide as an act “of asymmetrical warfare”. No inquiry has been started into their deaths. The US has now sent two groups of prisoners to Albania; one of these groups constituted of five Uighurs, ethnic Chinese Muslims, who have no community and no support in Albania. Furthermore the Chinese government is now demanding their extradition; the Uighurs are a persecuted minority in China. The situation is worsening by the day and the prisoners’ lawyers are particularly concerned about their mental health. How much longer can we allow this detention without trial and dehumanisation of human beings to continue?
Gareth Peirce, Mark Thomas, Craig Murray, Brian Haw, Ben Hayes, Bill Bowring, Nafeez Ahmed
WORKSHOP THEMES · Punishment without trial · Migrants, refugees and terror suspects · Freedom of expression and association · Right to protest · Privacy, surveillance & ethnic profiling · Global context of the ‘war on terror’
Our conference on 2nd December 2006 was attended by over 80 people from diverse groups resisting the attacks on our rights. This report brings together key points from the talks and workshop discussions there. We aim to stimulate ideas for sharper analysis and more effective action. You can read further detailed reports on www.campacc.org.uk. Exercising our rights
Since the millennium, and especially since September 2001, the state has eroded traditional rights and freedoms which had been won through fierce struggles over centuries. The government has legal authority to proscribe any political organisation and imprison or deport any person, British or non-British who is a ‘terrorism suspect’ – that is, who supports, perhaps even just verbally, those whom the government considers ‘enemies’ in a violent conflict anywhere in the world; or who associates with any such person or organisation. It is difficult to challenge state policies which come packaged as ‘security’ measures. The state can give itself unlimited legal power in the case of any social unrest which a Minister regards as an emergency. The ‘anti-terror’ laws treat suspicion as guilt, impose punishment without trial, allow executive decisions to bypass due process of trial by jury on publicly stated evidence, and thus legalise injustice.
In her plenary talk, Gareth Peirce argued that our rights have been torched – that the legal profession can no longer defend ‘terrorism suspects’ because they are not allowed to know the accusations against them. She threw us a challenge: how to reclaim our rights. Certainly we should acknowledge the current difficulty for the legal profession.
However, historically, rights have been gained from the discourses and practices of social movements. That is, we protect and reclaim our rights only by exercising them. As CAMPACC warned in a 2003 leaflet, ‘Recent legislation grants powers for a police state, at least on paper. Such powers will be put into practice unless we oppose them and exercise the rights which they would take away from us.’ In struggles past and present, to persist is to resist. This was illustrated in various ways by workshop 1, on support for those subjected to punishment without trial, workshop 2, on support for asylum seekers in detention or facing deportation, workshop 3, on freedom of expression and workshop 4 on the right to protest.
Despite intimidation by ‘anti-terror’ laws, migrant communities have attempted to maintain the right of expression and association. They have continued their community activities and links with resistance movements abroad, thus effectively defying the ‘terrorist’ stigma. For example, Kurds have openly supported the PKK (Kurdistan Workers Party), and protested against the government decision which added its successor Kongra-Gel to the ‘terrorist’ list.
‘Anti-terror’ measures
The state has proliferated instruments and pretexts for punitive action, and placed these beyond accountability or scrutiny. It has created powers to act in ‘emergency’ situations, and can suspend due process on vague, arbitrary grounds such as ‘suspicion’, ‘pending deportation’ and many other such criteria. The definition of terrorism adopted by British and UK legislation is excessively broad, encompassing non-violent protest and potentially any resistance to oppressive regimes abroad. As Bill Bowring told the conference, no official definition of terrorism treats state actions and non-state actions even-handedly, e.g. by taking into account the terrorism of Abu Ghraib, of the war deaths of Afghan and Iraqi civilians, of state torture chambers from Tashkent to Guantánamo.
Nafeez Ahmed pointed out how under the mantle of fighting the post-9/11 ‘War on Terror’ there has been a massive US military expansion, in which Britain actively participates through both military and diplomatic contribution. Military expansion has in turn been accompanied by the institutionalization of criminal practices by state, military and security agencies, flouting international law in many ways. Western state strategies, domestically and internationally, are a response to growing, global systemic crises on the fronts of expected energy shortages, resource conflicts arising from climate change, and intensified international competition. The attempts to totalize state power by criminalizing communities, particularly Muslim communities, are linked with attempts to expand Western power into predominantly Muslim regions of vital geo-strategic interest. This process has been aided by the selective sponsorship of Islamist terrorist networks, such as the muhajadeen against the pro-Soviet regime in Afghanistan, as well as present-day successors (see The London Bombings).
Parliament is clearly not a sufficient means to regain our rights. After internment powers were set aside by the Law Lords, the British government re-created an equivalent regime using immigration law, which it could do without any Parliamentary scrutiny. Parliamentary oversight of new anti-terrorism measures has been superficial and prejudiced by the overwhelming majority of the government party (see contributions by Nafeez Ahmed and Gareth Peirce).
‘Terrorists’ or ‘partisans’ ?
Many foreign liberation movements, which constitute just struggles for freedom from oppression, need to be defended against the ‘war on terror’. This is used as a pretext for oppression to further the interests of global capitalism; Craig Murray’s talk showed us how the Uzbekistan dictatorship was supported by US and UK as an ally in the war on terror, producing cotton by near-slave labour and practising torture on its own Muslim dissidents to supply Western intelligence services with trumped up evidence about Al Qaida. The list of organisations proscribed under anti-terrorism laws includes a number of just liberation struggles – Tamil, Kurdish, Palestinian, Uzbek , Sikh, and so on – most of them resisting governments which the US supports in its quest for global capitalist hegemony.
Moreover, sometimes people who support struggles outside their own countries are incriminated as part of an alleged international conspiracy. For example several of the Algerians who have been resisting deportation, and some of the detainees in Guantánamo, fought (or attempted to go to fight) in Chechnya. Workshop 6 discussed the tensions and dilemmas around the concept of the just liberation struggle, in the face of demonisation by the ‘war on terror’. The intimidation of Muslim communities within Western states correlates directly with the intensification of Western conflict with predominantly Muslim populations abroad. Likewise the ‘terror’ bans on organisations (and with any association here) correlate with an imperialist strategy to provoke further violence abroad rather than to seek a just peace.
Amongst those targeted by the anti-terrorism laws are movements that in an earlier era would have been described as partisans or freedom fighters. Ben Hayes and Bill Bowring pointed out how the bans and associated offences have a profound effect on the life of migrant communities in the UK and elsewhere in Europe. Nafeez Ahmed emphasised that Muslims are worst affected: anti-terrorism measures both emerge from and fuel Islamophobia. Assets of individuals and organisations are frozen; freedom of assembly and publication are suspended; solidarity actions criminalised, opportunities for peaceful conflict resolution through dialogue and negotiation are lost.
We face the challenge of how to strengthen these communities and provide platforms for their voices, against government attempts to silence them. Proscriptions fly in the face of natural justice and proper rules of evidence. As Bill Bowring noted, there is no due process for challenging any decision to place an individual or an organisation on a ‘terrorist’ list; nor any apparent way of overcoming this stigma, except through experimental actions in the European Court. Persons under torture may incriminate others thousands of miles away, even persons they have never met, as Craig Murray told us did occur in Uzbekistan.
The struggle for the right to protest
The ‘war on terror’ has provided an excuse for the general widening of police powers in relation to surveillance and control of protest. Many of those affected by these measures, for example in the anti-war movement, are unaware of the full range of extended state powers and the agendas behind them. Workshop 4 covered these broader powers, described some resistance and discussed possible further responses.
The conference heard reports of activities which attempt to preserve and reclaim our rights. Formal restrictions and intimidation can be overcome through creative resistance, which can be developed through an interchange of ideas and experiences between affected communities. Some methods have tried to keep one step ahead of the law: Workshop 4 heard accounts of how persistent assertion of the right to protest, supported by firm resistance in court and good press coverage, had worn down the resistance of an arms company which had been continuously picketed in Brighton. The peace movement and Critical Mass, the cyclists’ campaign, had also had some success from dogged persistence in challenging the restrictions on assembly in central London.
Mark Thomas has shown creativity with his initiative for ‘lone mass demonstrations’ in Parliament Square (see picture), whereby dozens of people each apply for two one-hour one person demonstrations each on different issues, on the same day. This response effectively ridicules and undermines the cumbersome system for police permission; indeed, the police have abandoned any attempt to monitor whether all participants have obtained permission. From the Basque community in the Spanish state comes an experience of using cultural meetings and festivals to challenge a ban on proscribed organisations (e.g. Herri Batasuna); these events have gained widespread support.
The sheer perseverance of Brian Haw and his peace camp in Parliament Square has challenged the British government for over four years, and survives every attempt to legislate it away or drag it away. Since the conference, thanks to a creative collaboration with artist Mark Wallinger, Brian’s demonstration has been extended to the Tate Britain gallery, where all can be reminded of the driving force behind Brian’s personal resistance; that the war in Iraq is about mass death including many children, that our leaders have become ‘the lepers of the world’ and that we are each responsible if we do not stand against them.
Asserting the rights of ‘suspects’ and asylum seekers
Claims about ‘terror suspects’ have gained widespread deference. The notion that a terror suspect is dangerous or guilty, regardless of properly considered evidence and due legal process, thrives on a presumption that the state must be right. We need more effective ways to reverse the suspicion – thrown back upon state injustice, deceit and the politics of fear. The London Guantánamo Campaign has tried to humanise the Guantánamo detainees (especially former residents of Britain) as people, to counter the ‘terrorist’ label.
There has been a great increase in disguised monitoring, discussed in workshop 5. There are unclear criteria for regarding individuals as ‘suspects’, though clearly there has been ethnic profiling. This has been done in the name of so-called ‘preventive’ or pre-emptive action. We need a campaign against such profiling and its rationale in ‘preventive’ action, which would include lecturers, community workers and other individuals refusing to respond to Special Branch approaches for information about ordinary political or religious activities.
The conference also presented fertile ground, especially in workshops 1 and 2, for a growing commitment to defend those in trial-less detention, whether as ‘suspects’ or asylum seekers. Many activists already have a commitment to visit them, thus defying the stigma of ‘terror suspect’, and to support them and their families in various ways. Anyone who applies for permission is officially classified as a ‘known associate of a terror suspect’, thus deterring fellow refugees; so others have a special responsibility to fill the gap.
Conclusion: Defending and Reclaiming our Rights
The ‘war on terror’ has been used to suspend normal judicial procedures, as well as the rights of assembly and association. These attacks promote the neo-conservative project of world-wide military hegemony in its vicious circle of state terrorism, thus provoking sometimes violent response. ‘National security’ is invoked to justify these attacks and to suppress debate about their real political purpose. This agenda should be constantly challenged, e.g. by supporting the people being targeted and by using opportunities from news items in the mass media.
Practical proposals:
1) Pre-emptive resistance: ‘Anti-terror’ measures are officially justified as pre-empting violent acts and thus protecting the public – as a pretext for attacking our rights. These attacks have met various types of resistance, which need to be linked and strengthened. Going further, we can also build pre-emptive resistance, by actively reclaiming our rights through imaginative collective activity. 2) Beyond Islamophobia: Many migrant groups have been intimidated into silence or passivity by ‘anti-terror’ measures, so we should provide high-profile platforms for their stories. Links should be built among migrant communities being targeted by bans on ‘terrorist’ organisations, as well as between those communities and the wider society, e.g. anti-war groups. Muslims have become demonised in a new form of racism based on their religious and cultural identity. But opposition to ‘Islamophobia’ too narrowly identifies the problem – which is not simply fear of a religion, but also the demonisation and persecution of any person or group labelled as a ‘terror suspect’. 3) Persistence as resistance: Persistence in political or cultural activities by migrant community groups sets a positive example for others. These activities should be encouraged and publicised. 4) Ridicule and defiance: The ‘terrorist’ stigma can be challenged in imaginative, innovative ways. Bans on organisations should be ridiculed and defied (as already done by Kurdish groups here). 5) Countering mass media propaganda: Letters to the mass media should continue to protest at their complicity with the government’s agenda: the politics of fear, character assassination of ‘terror suspects’, fake emergencies, etc. Web-logs of some mass media (e.g. BBC2 Newsnight, The Guardian) are sometimes quoted, so it is worth sending comments there too. 6) Solidarity and support for ‘terror suspects’ and their families: Victims of unjust anti-terrorist measures need to be supported, e.g. by visits to prisons and those confined to domestic prisons. Misleading negative images of them should be challenged within civil society and in the mass media. 7) Parliamentary and constituency lobbying: Whenever more ‘anti-terror’ measures are proposed by government, we should protest to our MPs, demand that they oppose such measures, and hold them accountable for their position. Otherwise, their complicity will appear legitimate by default.
Underpinning all these strategies is the need to build a coalition of activists and organisations and for building solidarity across communities.
Co-sponsors: CAMPACC, Human Rights and Social Justice Research Institute at London Metropolitan University, Haldane Society of Socialist Lawyers, Garden Court Chambers, Statewatch, Campaign against Racism and Fascism (CARF), The Muslim Parliament, Islamic Human Rights Commission, Institute for Policy Research and Development, Redress, Baroness Helena Kennedy QC and Mark Thomas
Supporters: Liberty, Save Chechnya Campaign, Kurdish Federation UK, Tamil Centre for Human Rights, Article 19, Index on Censorship, Panjaab National History Society, 1984 Genocide Coalition, 1990 Trust, Cageprisoners, London Guantanamo Campaign, Iraq Occupation Focus, Scotland Against Criminalising Communities (SACC), The Jean Charles de Menezes Campaign
The London Guantánamo Campaign kicked off its weekly demonstrations outside the American Embassy in Mayfair, London , at 6pm on Friday 9 February. Around twenty people braved the cold and held banners and shouted slogans calling for Guantánamo to be shut down. Campaigners from other organisations including Amnesty International and CAMPACC also took part. The demonstrators are calling for the closure of the detention camp at Guantánamo Bay and for all the men held there to either be charged and put on trial or released to countries where they will not face further abuse. There is no excuse for five years of torture and arbitrary detention as the world sits by and watches. The London Guantánamo Campaign will be outside the American Embassy every Friday evening from 6-7pm calling for Guantánamo Bay to be closed down and for torture and arbitrary detention in the war on terror to end.
If you’re on your way home from work, on your way out or have nothing better to do, please come and join us. Bring your banners and groups.
No to torture, no to arbitrary detention and no detention without trial or charge.
Every Friday, 6-7pm, outside the US Embassy, Grosvenor Square, Mayfair, W1 (nearest tube: Marble Arch).
The London Guantánamo Campaign held its ninth monthly meeting on Thursday 25 January 2007 at 7-9pm at the Pakistani Community Centre in Willesden Green, northwest London . The meeting was attended by 4 people. GUANTANAMO NEWS: There has been no recent news about the British residents in Guantánamo, however a ruling is expected from the House of Lords in the coming months in the case of the families of Jamil El-Banna and Omar Deghayes in their application for a judicial review. The week of the fifth anniversary of the opening of the detention facility at Guantánamo Bay kicked off on 7 January 2007 with a front page news story focusing on Bisher El-Rawi’s appalling treatment and detention conditions in the Independent on Sundayhttp://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article2132551.ece Mr El-Rawi is being held in Camp V where he is held in solitary isolation and has been subject to sensory deprivation. The story claims that he is in a very fragile mental state. For many of the lawyers representing Guantánamo detainees, this is their main concern, that after 5 years of detention without trial or charge apparent end in sight, without access to their families and torture, many of these men have become or are close to madness. Subsequently, on Monday 8 January, Mr El-Rawi’s MP, Edward Davey (Kingston & Surbiton, Lib Dem) held a debate about Mr El-Rawi’s condition and what action the government has taken and can take since it made representations for his release last spring. (A transcript of the debate: http://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2007-01-08c.115.0) On Wednesday 10 January, a candlelight vigil was held opposite Downing Street , calling on the British government to act to bring the British residents home. The action was organised by Sarah Teather MP with the London Guantánamo Campaign and Amnesty International. Two hundred people attended on a cold night and the silent vigil kicked off with Anas El-Banna, Jamil El-Banna’s ten year old son, reading out his fourth letter to the PM. The vigil was attended by several MPs including Sarah Teather, Edward Davey and the leader of the Liberal Democrats, Sir Menzies Campbell. MPs from other parties also attended. Members of the families of Bisher El-Rawi, Jamil El-Banna and Abdelnour Sameur also attended. This video clip is a good overview of the action: http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2007/01/359961.html
On Thursday 11 January, actions were organised all over the world to condemn the continuing imprisonment of over 350 men at Guantánamo Bay . Actions in the UK included an Amnesty International demonstration outside the US Embassy in London at 11am. Over 300 people dressed up in orange jumpsuits and were harassed by “military guards” for well over half an hour as the international press watched on. The action was visually stunning:
Anas El-Banna went to Downing Street again on 11 January and delivered his letter to the PM. This time he received a prompt reply...that his letter had been forwarded to the Foreign Office! Sarah Teather MP accompanying him handed in the Justice for Dad petition, signed by almost 1500 people, calling for the release of Jamil El-Banna.
London Catholic Worker also held a demonstration outside the US Embassy at 4pm in protest at the continuing detention without charge or trial at Guantánamo Bay ; this action coincided with an action being held in Washington DC at the same time. The National Guantánamo Coalition held an action in Birmingham outside the Hiatt’s factory; this is the company that manufactures and supplies shackles to the US military that are used in Guantánamo. Over 80 people attended this action, including Dr David Nicholls and Abu Bakr Deghayes, Omar Deghayes’ brother. A cake was delivered to the factory but they refused to accept it and refused to respond to the protesters. http://www.guantanamo.org.uk/content/view/87/37/ A protest was also held outside the American Consulate in Edinburgh and a meeting was held in the Scottish Parliament. Other actions were held in other parts of the UK and worldwide, leading in large part to an attack on the lawyers representing the Guantánamo detainees by Mr Cully Stimson, a Pentagon lawyer, on the very same day of the anniversary, attacking their credibility and professionalism. In a radio interview in the US , he called on large corporations to reconsider working with the firms that employ them. Clearly the actions held all around the world and the international outcry against this injustice have had some effect… On 21 January, the Foreign Affairs Select Committee, an all-party committee of MPs who visited Guantánamo in September 2006, published a report into their findings (to read the report: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200607/cmselect/cmfaff/44/4402.htm). While the report recommended that Guantánamo Bay be shut down, it reported that no torture had been practiced there recently and that conditions were fine overall. The MPs had gone on a “guided tour” of Guantánamo and did not meet any of the detainees. The report was heavily criticized by several MPs and Amnesty International in particular. Previously, the UN Special Rapporteur had refused to visit Guantánamo if he was to be given this same “tour”. In other news, in a surprising move, some Middle Eastern countries have started asking for their nationals back. UPCOMING LGC ACTIVITIES: The London Guantánamo Campaign will start holding weekly demonstrations outside the American Embassy in Mayfair . Building on the impetus on the actions earlier this month, weekly demonstrations will be held on Fridays at 6-7pm. Please feel free to bring your banners and your groups. The first demonstration will take place on Friday 9 February. More details will be made available in the next few days. Watch this space.
All dressed up and nowhere to go on a Friday evening?
Then join the LONDON GUANTANAMO CAMPAIGN every FRIDAY evening at 6-7pm outside the American Embassy, Grosvenor Square, Mayfair, W1, to call on the American government to shut down the detention facility at Guantánamo Bay.
Five years of detention without trial or charge. No access to their families. How long can this injustice go on?
PROTEST LAUNCH ON 9 FEBRUARY AT 6-7PM OUTSIDE THE AMERICAN EMBASSY
London and Oxford Catholic Workers will be vigilling outside the US Embassy at Grosvenor Square in Mayfair, London, on 11th January 2007, the 5th Anniversary of the opening of Guantanamo Bay detention centre, 4pm - 6pm. Please join us if you can.
If you are unable to attend any of the events, you can still help in the efforts to mark this grim anniversary by writing to the press - local and national. Write a letter explaining that five years of detention without trial or charge sanctioned by the international community is simply unacceptable and the government must act now to help the British residents whose mental condition, like that of the other detainees, is rapidly deteriorating.
'Close Guantánamo Bay' demonstration - London (outside American Embassy)
Call to all supporters
We want at least 300 people to support us by wearing the infamous orange boiler suit and mask to form a powerful visual representation of detainees held at the military camp.
If you would like to be involved, and to register your interest in the stunt, please email
You will be asked to put on an orange boiler suit and mask which we will provide. You will be directed by stewards to take your place for the stunt and photo opportunity. You will be expected to kneel with your body bent forward for the duration of the stunt, approximately 40 minutes. There is likely to be considerable media interest in this stunt, and cameras will be present. People that wish to take part by holding placards are welcome.
London Campaign
The London Guantánamo Campaign kicked off its weekly demonstrations outside the American Embassy in Mayfair, London , at 6pm on Friday 9 February. Around twenty people braved the cold and held banners and shouted slogans calling for Guantánamo to be shut down. Campaigners from other organisations including Amnesty International and CAMPACC also took part. The demonstrators are calling for the closure of the detention 
camp at Guantánamo Bay and for all the men held there to either be charged and put on trial or released to countries where they will not face further abuse. There is no excuse for five years of torture and arbitrary detention as the world sits by and watches. The London Guantánamo Campaign will be outside the American Embassy every Friday evening from 6-7pm calling for Guantánamo Bay to be closed down and for torture and arbitrary detention in the war on terror to end.
On Wednesday 10 January, a candlelight vigil was held opposite Downing Street , calling on the British government to act to bring the British residents home. The action was organised by Sarah Teather MP with the London Guantánamo Campaign and Amnesty International. Two hundred people attended on a cold night and the silent vigil kicked off with Anas El-Banna, Jamil El-Banna’s ten year old son, reading out his fourth letter to the PM. The vigil was attended by several MPs including Sarah
Teather, Edward Davey and the leader of the Liberal Democrats, Sir Menzies Campbell. MPs from other parties also attended. Members of the families of Bisher El-Rawi, Jamil El-Banna and Abdelnour Sameur also attended. This video clip is a good overview of the action: 
On Thursday 11 January, actions were organised all over the world to condemn the continuing imprisonment of over 350 men at Guantánamo Bay . Actions in the UK included an Amnesty International demonstration outside the US Embassy in London at 11am. Over 300 people dressed up in orange jumpsuits and were harassed by “military guards” for well over half an hour as the international press watched on. The action was
visually stunning: