Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Rights and Liberties

Britain Gives Rude Welcome to Innocent Gitmo Prisoners

By Victoria Brittain, Comment Is Free. Posted December 24, 2007.


To admit that they pose no threat would show how complacent the Brits have been in supporting the U.S.'s black prison network.
Advertisement

The release from Guantanamo Bay of three UK residents after more than four years detention without charge or trial, marks a welcome change of government attitude from the shameful refusal of responsibility for them during the Blair years. Home secretaries and foreign office ministers came and went, but all stoutly maintained, including in successive court cases where the government side was argued by top British lawyers, that these men's fate was not Britain's problem.

However, the last-minute decision to subject two of the three to extradition warrants from Spain on unsubstantiated allegations of terrorism, which meant they had to appear in court immediately to contest deportation, marks yet another low point in the handling of these cases and subjected the distraught families to what felt like torture, as they said today.

Edward Fitzgerald QC and Tim Otty QC, appearing for Jamel el-Banna and Omar Deghayes, had little trouble in politely batting off the government's extremely weak case for opposing bail for el Banna, the first case heard.

The Spanish allegations are so vague and old, it is astonishing that anyone allowed them to be taken seriously. Over several years, the Spanish embassy in Washington has shown no inclination to follow up the fishing line held out by Judge Baltasar Garzon in December 2003, with the names of el-Banna and Deghayes on it as suspected terrorists. Two other men Garzon wanted questioned in Spain were flown there from Guantanamo, but released with no evidence against them. This history makes today's court cases a shocking welcome back to Britain for these two men and their families. (Two UK residents remain in Guantanamo and the UK authorities say they are still pressing their cases. So they should be.)

The newly released men's appalling stories of being kidnapped in Gambia by the US, or of being sold in Pakistan to the US, of extraordinary rendition, of psychological and physical torture in US prisons in Afghanistan and Cuba, are well enough known, thanks to their lawyers' extraordinary tenacity and the testimonies of their former colleagues in prison.

The undistinguished role of the British security services alongside the US every step of the way is also well known. In these cases, as with the previous two sets of releases back to Britain from Guantanamo Bay, much is being made of the security risk the men may pose for the UK. Dame Pauline Neville Jones, for instance, has spoken repeatedly on television about her conviction that people should know just what a risk we run by having these men home.

As with the previous cases, this security scaremongering is window-dressing to cover the complicity of our security services in these men's wrongful arrests, renditon, and serious ill-treatment over five years. To admit the truth - that they pose no threat - would reveal to the British public quite how unacceptable it is that they have been held all these years by our closest ally, in Guantanamo Bay, beyond the reach of the law.

It is not surprising that no one in MI5 has made an apology to any of the men who came back earlier for the service's part in what happened to them. British officials do not go in for apologies. And as far as we know, no one has been fired for incompetence in the intelligence-gathering behind these cases.

But another issue is even more important than British incompetence and hypocrisy. In one strand of multicultural Britain, the detail of these cases are hugely well-known. They are a symbol of why many Muslims feel this society regards them as second-class citizens who do not have the same rights to justice as the white middle class.

Digg!

See more stories tagged with: war on terror, detentions, gitmo, guantanamo bay

Victoria Brittain is a former associate foreign editor of the Guardian. She is co-author with Moazzam Begg of his book Enemy Combatant.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Rights and Liberties! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
These three clowns are not British citizens and have no God-given right to live in UK
Posted by: Bobsays on Dec 24, 2007 1:04 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
So it is a joke that the left even bothers wringing its hands over these guys. And then consider they are wanted on terrorism charges in Spain, and Britain was stupid to even let them get off the plane.

What bizarre bridge has been crossed where people who aren't even citizens of a country think they can never be kicked out if they commit crimes? What a strange world we now live in.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE:bobsays Posted by: Christie
Lies, torture and wars for control of Mideast Oil.
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on Dec 24, 2007 6:54 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
With a little hindsight, it becomes pretty clear that the entire time period between 9/11 and the invasion of Iraq in March 2003 was dedicated to whipping up fear in the public in order to justify (1) an aggressive seizure of the Iraqi oilfields, and (2) an expansion of the U.S. military presence in the Middle East. This had been the desire of Cheney since day one - and his Energy Task Force documents prove that.

The real reason this was done is that the Middle East contains the world's last large reserves of petroleum, and since the U.S. dollar went off the gold standard and onto the oil standard in the early 70s (yes - control of global petroleum supplies is really what backs up the value of the U.S. dollar, and is really what made it the 'global reserve currency.')

In order to control that oil, the U.S. supports brutal dictatorships all around the world - from Saudi Arabia to Nigeria. It's not like the U.S. is alone in this strategy - China and India do the same in Burma, for example.

However, the people who get the short end of the stick, who see their family members murdered by thugs, tend to get upset about it. In fact, they get so upset that they're willing to fly airplanes into large buildings in order to express their anger. It's called "blowback."

If you look into the 9/11 hijackings, you find that it all goes back to Saudi Arabia, not to Iraq. The Saudis supplied the money - it was probably U.S. dollars sent to Saudi Arabia for oil that financed the attacks. However, we can't attack Saudi Arabia (our loyal, if medieval, allies), so it was off to Afghanistan for a pre-Iraq test of the war plans - will people go for this?

Rounding up people in Guantanamo, using bogus anthrax attacks (sourced to Battelle Memorial Institute, the world's largest private research corporation, who manages nuclear and biological warfare research for the U.S. government) to scare the public, running the 'yellow-orange-red' terror alert system, making up fake claims about Saddam's connection with 9/11 and his "weapons of mass destruction", etc. etc. - all that was deliberate fear-mongering aimed at getting public support for a seizure of Iraqi oilfields - all for the benefit of the Bush-Cheney junta and their billionaire friends in the finance and energy sectors.

They even set up massive propaganda operations inside the U.S. - the most notable being the 9/11 Truth Movement, set up to discredit anti-war and anti-Bush activists by tarring them as freaky lunatics who thought that the CIA planted bombs in the WTC and fired a missile at the Pentagon.

Here's an odd question: why haven't the so-called masterminds of 9/11 been put on trial in the United States? Why wasn't KBM put on trial?

The most likely answer is that Bush and Cheney didn't want to see 9/11 wrapped up. They wanted to keep using it as the fear stick to flog the American public along their desired course - which is nothing less then the destruction of democracy in the U.S. They want the permanent enemy for the permanent war.

Here's an odd question: why haven't the so-called masterminds of 9/11 been put on trial in the United States? Why hasn't KBM been put on trial?

Bush and Cheney don't want to see 9/11 wrapped up. They wanted to keep using it as the fear stick to flog the American public along their desired course - which is nothing less then the destruction of democracy in the U.S. The rigged voter rolls, the Republican-owned electronic voting corporations, the fraudulent 2000 and 2004 elections -the pattern is pretty obvious.

Who was their biggest ally in all of this? Why, the incredibly dishonest and corrupt U.S. corporate media, who are also owned by the same people who put Bush in power in the first place - the private and princely socialists who view the U.S. Treasury as their personal piggy bank.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Let's face it
Posted by: willymack on Dec 24, 2007 10:03 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The illegal "war"(read brutalization) in Iraq and phony "war" on terror" are twin evils shared by the US and the UK. Sad to say, the Brits are in this with us up to their eyeballs.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The only possible motivations for abusing
Posted by: PaulC on Dec 24, 2007 12:36 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Muslim men, not to mention their innocence, as the author suggests is to provide cover for authoritarian policies and to encourage hatred and conflict between two major faiths.

When the Berlin Wall came down my first thought was "the intelligence/military/industrial establishment is going to need a new bogeyman - who will it be?" and "how long do we have before that happens?"

Of course, transferring your entire industrial and technological infrastructure to an authoritarian powerhouse, Communist China, gets you pretty far down that road - especially when you put your MIRV warhead blueprints on the web for them to download, as well as info on your stealth technology, if I remember correctly.

But Bush/Cheney needed a scary bogeyman who could provide immediate cover for a tanking Presidency, and what better choice than the old religious crusader mantle - the fill-in-the-blank bastards want to rape our white women and sodomize our little boys line. It is a tragic, ancient storyline.

peace,
Paul

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]