-Caveat Lector-
>From www.wsws.org
WSWS : News & Analysis : Europe : Britain
Blair government says British terror suspects in Guantanamo should be
tried in UK
By Julie Hyland
26 January 2002
Back to screen version| Send this link by email | Email the author
Foreign Secretary Jack Straw has said that it would be �preferable�
for British al-Qaeda suspects currently being held at the US naval
base in Cuba to stand trial in the UK. Three Britons are thought to
be amongst the 158 detainees taken blindfolded and shackled to �Camp
X-ray� at Guantanamo Bay, where they face trial by military tribunal
and a possible death sentence.
Speaking on BBC Radio 4�s Today programme on January 23, the foreign
secretary said, �It is far preferable, if they are British citizens,
for them to come to the UK and face justice here... we continue to be
in discussion with the United States.�
According to reports, Prime Minister Tony Blair backed up Straw�s comments when he was
interviewed later on BBC Radio 2. Blair agreed �A UK trial was the most effective way
to bring the suspects to justice�. He also told
the programme that the prisoners� status was �under discussion� and that the most
important thing was that they were �humanely and properly treated�.
Their statements mark a shift away from the Labour government�s earlier instance that
it was �up to the US authorities� to decide what to do with the captives. The
prisoners� conditions and status has been the subject of
mounting international criticism, after the US authorities claimed the detainees were
not prisoners of war, but �illegal combatants�. In inventing this definition, which
has no basis in international law, the Bush adminis
tration is flouting the Geneva Convention and is seeking to justify the inhumane
conditions under which it is holding the Afghan prisoners.
Human rights groups have condemned the US actions as illegal. The International
Committee of the Red Cross said that the detainees must be classified as prisoners of
war under the Geneva Convention and enjoy all the prote
ctions it affords. Under the Convention, prisoners cannot be forced to reveal more
than their name, rank, serial number and date of birth. Moreover, unless they are
formally tried for war crimes, POWs must be returned to
their home countries at the end of �active hostilities�.
Amnesty International insisted, �It is not the prerogative of the Secretary of Defense
[Rumsfeld] or any other US administration official to determine whether those held in
Guantanamo are POWs. An independent US court, fo
llowing due process, is the appropriate organ.� The group had also suggested that the
mistreatment of Afghan prisoners might itself constitute a war crime.
For more than a week, Blair had sought to defend the actions of the Bush
administration and its abrogation of international law, whilst claiming that the
prisoners were being treated in accordance with the Geneva Conventi
on. Dismissing all the protests, Blair said that he had felt no need to raise the
issue with Bush during their regular transatlantic phone calls, because he was
�certain� the prisoners were being treated humanely.
The prime minister�s apologetics fell apart last Sunday, January 20, when the US
military released photographs from the camp, showing several prisoners kneeling before
razor wire fencing, their legs and arms bound. Despit
e the sweltering heat, the men were dressed in heavy boiler suits, and were hooded and
masked. ICRC spokesman Darcy Christen condemned the distribution of the photographs by
the Pentagon as a violation of the Geneva Conve
ntion, which states that prisoners of war �should be protected from public curiosity.�
Jens Modvig, secretary-general of the Copenhagen-based International Rehabilitation
Council for Torture Victims, said that the continu
ed denial of POW status to the detainees �arguably equals a war crime.�
For the first time, Germany publicly joined several other European countries in
criticising US actions. �Regarding those under arrest in Guantanamo, we are of the
view that, regardless of any later definition of their sta
tus, they are to be treated as prisoners of war,� German Foreign Minister Joschka
Fischer said in a statement. �That means in accordance with international law and in a
humanitarian way, as written in the Geneva Conventio
n,� he said.
In Britain, the photographs provoked a storm of outrage from Labour MPs and through
most of the media. Splashing the Pentagon pictures across its front page, the Daily
Mirror asked, �What the hell are you doing in OUR nam
e Mister Blair?�
In its leader comment, January 21, the New Statesman magazine complained, �In
President Bush�s airily dismissive words, �whatever the procedures are for military
tribunals, our system will be a lot more fair than the syst
em of Bin Laden and the Taliban�. But if everything is now to be judged by Taliban
standards, we are all lost. Legal questions nearly always hang on the interpretation
of words. What is so alarming is the American indiffe
rence to legality, since legality is a defining characteristic of a liberal democracy
and of the way of life that the US is supposedly fighting to protect.�
In parliament, Labour MPs attacked the prisoners� treatment, whilst the parliamentary
Human Rights Committee, chaired by Labour MP Ann Clwyd, requested an urgent meeting
with US Ambassador William Farish to express its co
ncerns at conditions in Guantanamo Bay.
Even some of the conservative press, which has championed President Bush�s �war
against terrorism�, were up in arms. The Sunday Mail ran the banner headline
�TORTURED� over the Pentagon photograph, whilst a columnist in i
ts daily sister paper warned, �by treating its prisoners in this way, America has
abandoned the moral high ground and offered its enemies, both within and without, the
chance to plant their hostile flag on it instead�
Concern that US actions are undermining the humanitarian rhetoric used to justify the
war against Afghanistan is not the only factor motivating these criticisms. America�s
insistence on its right to try foreign nationals
using the host of undemocratic measures introduced by Bush after the September 11
atrocities has come to epitomise Washington�s increasingly unilateralist stance. The
US administration is demanding its allies surrender th
eir national sovereignty over their own citizens. This has caused disquiet amongst
broad sections of Europe�s ruling classes. In Britain, Blair has already faced growing
criticism from within the political and military el
ite for having subordinated Britain�s national interests to those of the US for little
reward.
In a bid to silence the critics, Blair reported that a Foreign Office team had
interviewed the three Britons at Guantanamo last week, and reported that the prisoners
had �no substantial complaints� about their treatment,
which was in line with �international humanitarian norms�. The government refused make
public its findings or to reveal further details about the team, which contrary to
normal consular visits to British detainees abroad
is believed to have also included members of the security services.
Blair�s contortions have been made all the more difficult by the increasingly
belligerent stance of the Bush administration and, in particular, the right wing cabal
grouped around Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. In a p
rovocative swipe at his British critics, Rumsfeld told a Washington press conference,
�The allegations that have been made by many from a comfortable distance, that the men
and women in the US armed forces are somehow not
properly treating the detainees under their charge, are just plain false. It is
amazing the insight that parliamentarians can get from 5,000 miles away�.
The January 20 Observer newspaper reported that the Blair government was dismayed at
some of the statements coming from the Pentagon. It quoted Whitehall sources saying
that Straw �has been talking about British concerns
with [Secretary of State] Colin Powell but frustratingly it is Donald Rumsfeld who
appears to be taking the lead. While Jack Straw has been talking to Powell, Rumsfeld
has been coming out with these extraordinarily gratui
tous remarks. The man is just a magnet for trouble.�
Robin Cook, a former foreign secretary and now Leader of the House of Commons, was
said to have irritated US officials when he described Rumsfeld witheringly as a �man
of robust views�, before adding that, �The secretary
of state for defense is an honourable post and we pay respect to that post, but it is
not an independent post.�
Ann Clwyd described Rumsfeld�s statement as �extremely discourteous�. The
Parliamentary Human Rights Committee had �complained about Rumsfeld� to Ambassador
Farish during their meeting, said Clwyd. �We think it is somewha
t crass to dismiss the concerns of elected representatives, most of whom supported
them [the US] in the war.�
European Union Commissioner, and a former Conservative minister, Chris Patten said the
global anti-terrorist coalition may have won the war in Afghanistan but it risked
�losing the peace� over the United States� treatment
of Afghan prisoners. �I don�t think ... when Europeans express rationally and calmly
some concerns on this particular issue that those concerns should be simply dismissed
out of hand, and I do not think any sensible Amer
ican would do so,� he said.
However, the Bush administration has maintained its hardline stance. American embassy
representatives told Clwyd and a delegation of seven other MPs that the US could not
exclude British al-Qaeda suspects facing capital p
unishment. Glyn Davies, deputy head of mission at the US embassy in London, refused to
make any guarantees, and said he could not rule out the death penalty for any
prisoners convicted of terrorist offences.
Copyright 1998-2001
World Socialist Web Site
All rights reserved
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Forwarded as information only; no endorsement to be presumed
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material
is distributed without charge or profit to those who have
expressed a prior interest in receiving this type of information
for non-profit research and educational purposes only.
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
The only real voyage of discovery consists not in seeking
new landscapes but in having new eyes. -Marcel Proust
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
"Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe
simply because it has been handed down for many generations. Do not
believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many. Do
not believe in anything simply because it is written in Holy Scriptures. Do not
believe in anything merely on the authority of Teachers, elders or wise men.
Believe only after careful observation and analysis, when you find that it
agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all.
Then accept it and live up to it."
The Buddha on Belief, from the Kalama Sutta
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
A merely fallen enemy may rise again, but the reconciled
one is truly vanquished. -Johann Christoph Schiller,
German Writer (1759-1805)
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
It is preoccupation with possessions, more than anything else, that
prevents us from living freely and nobly. -Bertrand Russell
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
"Everyone has the right...to seek, receive and impart
information and ideas through any media and regardless
of frontiers."
Universal Declaration of Human Rights
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
"Always do sober what you said you'd do drunk. That will
teach you to keep your mouth shut."
--- Ernest Hemingway
<A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/";>www.ctrl.org</A>
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic
screeds are unwelcomed. Substance�not soap-boxing�please! These are
sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'�with its many half-truths, mis-
directions and outright frauds�is used politically by different groups with
major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought.
That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and
always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no
credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html
<A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html";>Archives of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]</A>
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
<A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/";>ctrl</A>
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
