DOCSLIB.ORG

UK Army in Iraq – Time to Come Clean on Civilian

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
UK Army in Iraq – Time to Come Clean on Civilian UUUUUUKKKKKK AAAAAARRRRRRMMMMMMYYYYYY IIIIIINNNNNN IIIIIIRRRRRRAAAAAAQQQQQQ:::::: TTTTIIIIMMMMEEEE TTTTOOOO CCCCOOOOMMMMEEEE CCCCLLLLEEEEAAAANNNN OOOONNNN CCCCIIIIVVVVIIIILLLLIIIIAAAANNNN TTTTOOOORRRRTTTTUUUURRRREEEE Published by the Redress Trust October 2007 87 Vauxhall Walk London, SE11 5HJ United Kingdom Tel: +44 (0)20 7793 1777 Fax: +44 (0)20 7793 1719 WEB: www.redress.org T H E R E D R E S S T R U S T ACKNOWLEDGEMENTSACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This Report was written by Kevin Laue and Adam Lang of REDRESS and edited by Carla Ferstman, REDRESS Executive Director. The cover photo is attributed to the Birmingham based law firm Public Interest Lawyers and shows the late Baha Mousa’s father in front of the High Court in London holding pictures of Baha Mousa’s children. ii U K A R M Y I N I R A Q : T I M E T O C O M E C L E A N O N C I V I L I A N T O R T U R E III ... III NNN TTT RRR OOO DDD UUU CCC TTT III OOO NNN ........................................................................................1 III III ... AAA BBB UUU SSS EEE OOO FFF CCC III VVV III LLL III AAA NNN SSS ..........................................................................3 A.A. The case of Baha Mousa & others ...........................................3 B.B. OtherOther cases ............................................................................................8 a)a) CampCamp Breadbasket ...................................................................................9 b)b) HassanHassan Abbad Said ................................................................................11 c)c) NadhemNadhem Abdullah....................................................................................12 d)d) Ahmad Jabar Karheem..........................................................................12 e)e) AlAl-Al---AmarahAmarahAmarah incident April 2004: the video exposé .......................14 C.C. General ...................................................................................................16 III III III ... BBB AAA CCC KKK GGG RRR OOO UUU NNN DDD OOO FFF CCC OOO NNN DDD III TTT III OOO NNN III NNN GGG TTT EEE CCC HHH NNN III QQQ UUU EEE SSS ........18 A.A. Banning of the five techniques................................................18 B.B. The use of the ‘5 techniques’ in Iraq ...................................21 III VVV ... III NNN TTT EEE RRR NNN AAA TTT III OOO NNN AAA LLL LLL AAA WWW AAA NNN DDD UUU KKK PPP OOO LLL III CCC YYY AAA NNN DDD DDD OOO CCC TTT RRR III NNN EEE OOO NNN SSS TTT AAA TTT UUU SSS AAA NNN DDD TTT RRR EEE AAA TTT MMM EEE NNN TTT OOO FFF PPP EEE RRR SSS OOO NNN SSS DDD EEE PPP RRR III VVV EEE DDD OOO FFF TTT HHH EEE III RRR LLL III BBB EEE RRR TTT YYY ..........................23 A.A. Overview of humanitarian law and the status of peoplepeople deprived of their liberty.....................................................23 B.B. Status review......................................................................................25 C.C. Decentralised detention policy after 3 (UK) MechanisedMechanised Division took over ......................................................26 D.D. The current review system.........................................................27 E.E. Conditioning techniques and questioning in Iraq .........28 F.F. UK doctrine and training..............................................................29 a) JDP 1-10 “Prisoners of War, Internees and Detainees” 2006 .................30 b) JDP 10-1.1 “Prisoners of War”...................................................................31 c) JDP 10-1.2 “Internees”................................................................................31 d) JDP 10-1.3 “Detainees”...............................................................................32 VVV ... PPP RRR EEE --- DDD EEE PPP LLL OOO YYY MMM EEE NNN TTT PPP LLL AAA NNN NNN III NNN GGG AAA NNN DDD TTT HHH EEE OOO RRR III GGG III NNN AAA LLL SSS YYY SSS TTT EEE MMM FFF OOO RRR DDD EEE TTT AAA III NNN EEE EEE SSS ...............................................................33 i T H E R E D R E S S T R U S T A.A. Introduction.........................................................................................33 B.B. PrePre----deploymentdeploymentdeployment resource planning ........................................34 C.C. PrePre----deploymentdeploymentdeployment at 1sts t Queens Lancashire Regiment..36 D.D. Original system for detainees ..................................................37 VVV III ... DDD EEE CCC EEE NNN TTT RRR AAA LLL III SSS EEE DDD SSS YYY SSS TTT EEE MMM FFF OOO RRR III NNN TTT EEE RRR NNN EEE EEE SSS ////DDD EEE TTT AAA III NNN EEE EEE SSS DDD UUU RRR III NNN GGG OOO CCC CCC UUU PPP AAA TTT III OOO NNN ..........37 A.A. Problems with the decentralised policy instigated underunder FRAGO 29 ......................................................................................37 B.B. Why questioning of detainees was decentralised ........38 a) Opening hours of the Theatre Internment Facility...................................38 b) Unexpected numbers of detainees at the Joint Forward Intelligence Team ..................................................................................................................38 c) Shortage of tactical questioners................................................................39 d) Communications problems at the JFIT and TIF .......................................39 C.C. Tactical Questioning and Detention at the Battle GroupsGroups 40 a) Tactical questioning....................................................................................40 b) Detention ......................................................................................................40 D.D. Conclusion............................................................................................42 VVV III III ... MMM EEE DDD III CCC AAA LLL TTT RRR EEE AAA TTT MMM EEE NNN TTT AAA NNN DDD TTT HHH EEE RRR OOO LLL EEE OOO FFF MMM EEE DDD III CCC AAA LLL PPP EEE RRR SSS OOO NNN NNN EEE LLL ...............................................................................................43 A.A. The general procedure for examining detainees ..........43 B.B. Procedure used by 1 Queen’s Lancashire Regiment ...44 C.C. International standards and current UK doctrine and policypolicy 46 D.D. US approach ........................................................................................47 V I I I . III SSS SSS UUU EEE SSS RRR EEE GGG AAA RRR DDD III NNN GGG LLL EEE GGG AAA LLL AAA DDD VVV III CCC EEE AAA NNN DDD PPP OOO LLL III CCC YYY ..49 A.A. Introduction.........................................................................................49 B.B. Deciding and legally vetting policy on the conditioningconditioning process............................................................................50 ii U K A R M Y I N I R A Q : T I M E T O C O M E C L E A N O N C I V I L I A N T O R T U R E C.C. Confusion of policy on conditioning at PJHQ..................50 D.D. FRAGO 152 and the ban on hooding during Telic 1 .....52 E.E. Wider issue of Government legal advice............................54 III XXX ... CCC OOO NNN CCC LLL UUU SSS III OOO NNN SSS ...........................................................................................56 XXX ... RRR EEE CCC OOO MMM MMM EEE NNN DDD AAA TTT III OOO NNN SSS ..............................................................................57 A.A. ToTo the Joint Committee on Human Rights and to thethe Defence Committee ......................................................................57 B.B. To the Joint Committee on Human Rights ............57 C.C. To the Defence Committee .......................................................57 D.D. To the UK Government..................................................................58 AAA PPP PPP EEE NNN DDD III XXX AAA ::: AAA NNN SSS WWW EEE RRR SSS TTT OOO TTT HHH EEE SSS PPP EEE CCC III FFF III CCC QQQ UUU EEE SSS TTT III OOO NNN SSS OOO FFF TTT HHH EEE JJJ OOO III NNN TTT SSS EEE LLL EEE CCC TTT CCC OOO MMM MMM III TTT TTT EEE EEE OOO NNN HHH UUU MMM AAA NNN RRR III GGG HHH TTT SSS ..........................................................................................................62 AAA PPP PPP EEE NNN DDD III XXX BBB ::: CCC OOO UUU RRR TTT MMM AAA RRR TTT III AAA LLL CCC HHH AAA RRR GGG EEE SSS AAA RRR III SSS III NNN GGG FFF RRR OOO MMM OOO PPP EEE RRR AAA TTT III OOO NNN SSS AAA LLL EEE RRR NNN OOO ((( RRR VVV ... PPP AAA YYY NNN EEE AAA NNN DDD OOO TTT HHH EEE RRR SSS ))) ..68 AAA PPP PPP EEE NNN DDD III XXX CCC ::: SSS UUU MMM MMM AAA RRR YYY OOO FFF EEE VVV III DDD EEE NNN CCC EEE OOO NNN BBB AAA NNN NNN EEE DDD CCC OOO NNN DDD III TTT III OOO NNN III NNN GGG TTT EEE CCC HHH NNN III QQQ UUU EEE SSS AAA SSS III NNN TTT EEE LLL LLL III GGG EEE NNN CCC EEE CCC OOO RRR PPP SSS DDD OOO CCC TTT RRR III NNN EEE EEE MMM EEE RRR GGG III NNN GGG FFF RRR OOO MMM RRR vvv PPP AAA YYY NNN EEE AAA NNN DDD OOO TTT HHH EEE RRR SSS ............................................................................................70 iii U K A R M Y I N I R A Q : T I M E T O C O M E C L E A N O N C I V I L I A N T O R T U R E III... IIINNNTTTRRROOODDDUUUCCCTTTIIIOOONNN The Redress Trust (REDRESS) is an international NGO which exists to assist individuals and communities who have suffered torture. In this context, and as part of its UK programme, we have been concerned by reported incidences of ill-treatment and torture committed by UK forces against Iraqi citizens. One of the most appalling incidents
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Identity, Authority and Myth-Making: Politically-Motivated Prisoners and the Use of Music During the Northern Irish Conflict, 1962 - 2000
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Queen Mary Research Online Identity, authority and myth-making: Politically-motivated prisoners and the use of music during the Northern Irish conflict, 1962 - 2000 Claire Alexandra Green Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements of the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy 1 I, Claire Alexandra Green, confirm that the research included within this thesis is my own work or that where it has been carried out in collaboration with, or supported by others, that this is duly acknowledged below and my contribution indicated. Previously published material is also acknowledged below. I attest that I have exercised reasonable care to ensure that the work is original, and does not to the best of my knowledge break any UK law, infringe any third party’s copyright or other Intellectual Property Right, or contain any confidential material. I accept that the College has the right to use plagiarism detection software to check the electronic version of the thesis. I confirm that this thesis has not been previously submitted for the award of a degree by this or any other university. The copyright of this thesis rests with the author and no quotation from it or information derived from it may be published without the prior written consent of the author. Signature: Date: 29/04/19 Details of collaboration and publications: ‘It’s All Over: Romantic Relationships, Endurance and Loyalty in the Songs of Northern Irish Politically-Motivated Prisoners’, Estudios Irlandeses, 14, 70-82. 2 Abstract. In this study I examine the use of music by and in relation to politically-motivated prisoners in Northern Ireland, from the mid-1960s until 2000.
    [Show full text]
  • Table of Contents
    TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................... 1 Amnesty International's Concerns ..................................................................................... 3 BACKGROUND ......................................................................................................................... 5 Arrests and detentions ........................................................................................................ 7 ISRAEL AND THE OCCUPIED TERRITORIES ................................................................ 9 Regulations governing detention ........................................................................................ 9 The Landau Commission and the failure of judicial safeguards ................................. 11 Extending the guidelines or exceptional dispensations? ................................................ 14 Methods of torture ............................................................................................................ 15 Torture and ill-treatment: the practice ............................................................................. 17 THE PALESTINIAN AUTHORITY .................................................................................... 22 Regulations governing detention ...................................................................................... 22 Arbitrary political detentions in the Gaza Strip ..............................................................
    [Show full text]
  • S444-CAJ-Submission-To-ICCPR
    CAJ’s Submission no. S444 CAJ’s Submission to the United Nations Human Rights Committee on the UK’s 7th Periodic Report under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) June 2015 2nd Floor, Sturgen Building Tel – 028 9031 6000 9-15 Queen Street Email – [email protected] Belfast BT1 6EA Web – www.caj.org.uk About CAJ The Committee on the Administration of Justice (CAJ) was established in 1981 and is an independent non-governmental organisation affiliated to the International Federation of Human Rights. CAJ takes no position on the constitutional status of Northern Ireland and is firmly opposed to the use of violence for political ends. Its membership is drawn from across the community. The Committee seeks to ensure the highest standards in the administration of justice in Northern Ireland by ensuring that the government complies with its responsibilities in international human rights law. The CAJ works closely with other domestic and international human rights groups such as Amnesty International, Human Rights First (formerly the Lawyers Committee for Human Rights) and Human Rights Watch and makes regular submissions to a number of United Nations and European bodies established to protect human rights. CAJ’s activities include - publishing reports, conducting research, holding conferences, campaigning locally and internationally, individual casework and providing legal advice. Its areas of work are extensive and include policing, emergency laws and the criminal justice system, equality and advocacy for a Bill of Rights. CAJ however would not be in a position to do any of this work, without the financial help of its funders, individual donors and charitable trusts (since CAJ does not take government funding).
    [Show full text]
  • Catching Terrorists: the British System Versus the U.S
    S. HRG. 109–701 CATCHING TERRORISTS: THE BRITISH SYSTEM VERSUS THE U.S. SYSTEM HEARING BEFORE A SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS UNITED STATES SENATE ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION SPECIAL HEARING SEPTEMBER 14, 2006—WASHINGTON, DC Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations ( Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/index.html U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 30–707 PDF WASHINGTON : 2006 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800 Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001 COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi, Chairman TED STEVENS, Alaska ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri TOM HARKIN, Iowa MITCH MCCONNELL, Kentucky BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland CONRAD BURNS, Montana HARRY REID, Nevada RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama HERB KOHL, Wisconsin JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire PATTY MURRAY, Washington ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota LARRY CRAIG, Idaho DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois MIKE DEWINE, Ohio TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana WAYNE ALLARD, Colorado BRUCE EVANS, Staff Director TERRENCE E. SAUVAIN, Minority Staff Director SUBCOMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire, Chairman THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia TED STEVENS, Alaska DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico BARBARA A.
    [Show full text]
  • Volume I Return to an Address of the Honourable the House of Commons Dated 15 June 2010 for The
    Report of the Return to an Address of the Honourable the House of Commons dated 15 June 2010 for the Report of the Bloody Sunday Inquiry The Rt Hon The Lord Saville of Newdigate (Chairman) Bloody Sunday Inquiry – Volume I Bloody Sunday Inquiry – Volume The Hon William Hoyt OC The Hon John Toohey AC Volume I Outline Table of Contents General Introduction Glossary Principal Conclusions and Overall Assessment Published by TSO (The Stationery Office) and available from: Online The Background to Bloody www.tsoshop.co.uk Mail, Telephone, Fax & E-mail Sunday TSO PO Box 29, Norwich NR3 1GN Telephone orders/General enquiries: 0870 600 5522 Order through the Parliamentary Hotline Lo-Call: 0845 7 023474 Fax orders: 0870 600 5533 E-mail: [email protected] Textphone: 0870 240 3701 The Parliamentary Bookshop 12 Bridge Street, Parliament Square, London SW1A 2JX This volume is accompanied by a DVD containing the full Telephone orders/General enquiries: 020 7219 3890 Fax orders: 020 7219 3866 text of the report Email: [email protected] Internet: www.bookshop.parliament.uk TSO@Blackwell and other Accredited Agents Customers can also order publications from £572.00 TSO Ireland 10 volumes 16 Arthur Street, Belfast BT1 4GD not sold Telephone: 028 9023 8451 Fax: 028 9023 5401 HC29-I separately Return to an Address of the Honourable the House of Commons dated 15 June 2010 for the Report of the Bloody Sunday Inquiry The Rt Hon The Lord Saville of Newdigate (Chairman) The Hon William Hoyt OC The Hon John Toohey AC Ordered by the House of Commons
    [Show full text]
  • THE APPARATUS of IMPUNITY? Human Rights Violations and the Northern Ireland Conflict: a Narrative of Official Limitations on Post-Agreement Investigative Mechanisms
    THE APPARATUS OF IMPUNITY? Human rights violations and the Northern Ireland conflict: a narrative of official limitations on post-Agreement investigative mechanisms Committee on the Administration of Justice January 2015 The Apparatus of Impunity? Committee on the Administration of Justice (CAJ) © Committee on the Administration of Justice January 2015 The material may be reproduced, free of charge, in any format or medium without specific permission, provided the reproduction is not for financial or material gain.The material must be reproduced accurately and not used in a misleading context. If the material is to be republished or issued to others, acknowledgement must be given to its source, copyright status, and date of publication. This publication is available on our website. CAJ Committee on the Administration of Justice 2nd Floor, Sturgen Building 9-15 Queen Street Belfast BT1 6EA Tel: 028 9031 6000 Fax: 028 9031 4583 [email protected] www.caj.org.uk ISBN 978 1 873285 94 7 The Apparatus of Impunity? Committee on the Administration of Justice (CAJ) THE APPARATUS OF IMPUNITY? Human rights violations and the Northern Ireland conflict: a narrative of official limitations on post-Agreement investigative mechanisms Committee on the Administration of Justice January 2015 The Apparatus of Impunity? Committee on the Administration of Justice (CAJ) Recent comments from key Council of Europe and UN human rights bodies in relation to existing mechanisms investigating the conflict in Northern Ireland: The absence of any plausible explanation for the failure to collect key evidence at the time when this was possible, and for attempts to even obstruct this process, should be treated with particular vigilance.
    [Show full text]
  • THE DEATH of BAHA MOUSA the Death of Baha Mousa GERRY SIMPSON*
    THE DEATH OF BAHA MOUSA The Death of Baha Mousa GERRY SIMPSON* [Between March 2003 and September 2004, 100 000 Iraqis are believed to have died as a consequence of the invasion of Iraq on 20 March 2003. Baha Mousa, an Iraqi hotel clerk was one of them. Mr Mousa died in Basra on or around 15 September 2003, after sustaining 93 separate injuries while in the custody of British soldiers belonging to the Duke of Lancaster’s Regiment. This think piece is about the law produced and invoked by his death.] CONTENTS I Introduction II Unlawful Conditioning III Common Law Crime IV War Crime V Human Rights Violation VI Baha Mousa How violent Schultz had sounded over the telephone. ‘I want justice,’ he had said. I wonder how many murders have been committed, and how many wars have been fought with that as a slogan … Justice is a thing that is better to give than to receive, but I am sick of giving it … I think it should be a prerogative of the gods.1 I INTRODUCTION On 14 September 2003, in Basra, southern Iraq, a hotel receptionist named Baha Mousa2 was detained by soldiers of the British Army’s Duke of Lancaster’s Regiment. Mousa and several other Iraqis were brought to a detention facility operated by the United Kingdom Armed Forces, and formerly run by Saddam Hussein’s cousin, Ali Hassann al-Majid, better known as ‘Chemical Ali’. Thirty-six hours later, Mr Mousa’s family were informed that Mr Mousa had died during detention. A subsequent post-mortem revealed that he had received 93 separate injuries, including a broken nose and fractured ribs — other prisoners suffered serious kidney damage.3 The reaction (on the part of the military, the legal profession, the media and the British establishment) to this incident tells us a little about the way * Gerry Simpson is a Professor of International Law at the London School of Economics.
    [Show full text]
  • Download Article
    tHe ABU oMAr CAse And “eXtrAordinAry rendition” Caterina Mazza Abstract: In 2003 Hassan Mustafa Osama Nasr (known as Abu Omar), an Egyptian national with a recognised refugee status in Italy, was been illegally arrested by CIA agents operating on Italian territory. After the abduction he was been transferred to Egypt where he was in- terrogated and tortured for more than one year. The story of the Milan Imam is one of the several cases of “extraordinary renditions” imple- mented by the CIA in cooperation with both European and Middle- Eastern states in order to overwhelm the al-Qaeda organisation. This article analyses the particular vicissitude of Abu Omar, considered as a case study, and to face different issues linked to the more general phe- nomenon of extra-legal renditions thought as a fundamental element of US counter-terrorism strategies. Keywords: extra-legal detention, covert action, torture, counter- terrorism, CIA Introduction The story of Abu Omar is one of many cases which the Com- mission of Inquiry – headed by Dick Marty (a senator within the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe) – has investi- gated in relation to the “extraordinary rendition” programme im- plemented by the CIA as a counter-measure against the al-Qaeda organisation. The programme consists of secret and illegal arrests made by the police or by intelligence agents of both European and Middle-Eastern countries that cooperate with the US handing over individuals suspected of being involved in terrorist activities to the CIA. After their “arrest,” suspects are sent to states in which the use of torture is common such as Egypt, Morocco, Syria, Jor- dan, Uzbekistan, Somalia, Ethiopia.1 The practice of rendition, in- tensified over the course of just a few years, is one of the decisive and determining elements of the counter-terrorism strategy planned 134 and approved by the Bush Administration in the aftermath of the 11 September 2001 attacks.
    [Show full text]
  • The Perilous Dialogue
    Georgetown University Law Center Scholarship @ GEORGETOWN LAW 2009 The Perilous Dialogue Laura K. Donohue Georgetown University Law Center, [email protected] Georgetown Public Law and Legal Theory Research Paper No. 12-028 This paper can be downloaded free of charge from: https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/facpub/787 http://ssrn.com/abstract=2020353 97 Cal. L. Rev. 357-392 (2009) This open-access article is brought to you by the Georgetown Law Library. Posted with permission of the author. Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/facpub Part of the Comparative and Foreign Law Commons, Constitutional Law Commons, National Security Law Commons, and the President/Executive Department Commons DONOHUE FINAL.DOC 4/30/2009 11:11:35 PM The Perilous Dialogue Laura K. Donohue† Five months before his retirement, Justice William Brennan wrote in a dissent: “the Framers of the Bill of Rights did not purport to ‘create’ rights. Rather, they designed the Bill of Rights to prohibit our Government from infringing rights and liberties presumed to be pre-existing.”1 Professor Stephen Holmes reminds us in his lecture that such rights and liberties do not impede progress: they embody it.2 The rules preserving rights and liberties can help to focus action by bringing clarity to the present, while still preserving a long- term political perspective. Yet, time and again, both these rights and the rules designed to protect them are sacrificed in the name of national security. The master metaphor in each sacrifice is, indeed, “security or freedom,” and it is on this metaphor that I would like to focus.
    [Show full text]
  • Terrorism, Counter- Terrorism and Torture
    TERRORISM, COUNTER- TERRORISM AND TORTURE INTERNATIONAL LAW IN THE FIGHT AGAINST TERRORISM JULY 2004 REALISED WITH FINANCIAL SUPPORT FROM THE EUROPEAN INITIATIVE FOR DEMOCRACY AND HUMAN RIGHTS The Redress Trust 87 Vauxhall Walk, 3rd Floor London, SE11 5HJ Tel: +44 (0)207 793 1777 Fax: +44(0)207 793 1719 Website: www.redress.org ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This report was written by Gabriela Echeverria, Legal Advisor (International), and edited by Carla Ferstman, Legal Director. REDRESS would like to express it sincere appreciation to Evelyn Sook May Yuen for her assistance in the research and preparation of this report and to Kevin Laue and Clementine Olivier for their many helpful comments on the draft of this report. CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 1 PART 1. THE DISCOURSE................................ ................................ ................................ .. 3 1.1. DEFINITION/NON-DEFINITION OF TERRORISM..................................................................................3 1.1.1. Defining the ‘Crime’ of Terrorism in Domestic Law .......................................................................................................4 1.1.2. Vague and Overbroad Definitions of Terrorism.............................................................................................................5 1.1.3. Defining the Crime of Terrorism: Some Principles and Guidelines of International Law ..............................................7
    [Show full text]
  • Submission to the Baha Mousa Inquiry
    British Irish RIGHTS WATCH SUBMISSION TO THE BAHA MOUSA INQUIRY SEPTEMBER 2010 1 1 Introduction 1.1 British Irish RIGHTS WATCH (BIRW) is an independent non- governmental organisation that has been monitoring the human rights dimension of the conflict, and the peace process, in Northern Ireland since 1990. Our vision is of a Northern Ireland in which respect for human rights is integral to all its institutions and experienced by all who live there. Our mission is to secure respect for human rights in Northern Ireland and to disseminate the human rights lessons learned from the Northern Ireland conflict in order to promote peace, reconciliation and the prevention of conflict. BIRW’s services are available, free of charge, to anyone whose human rights have been violated because of the conflict, regardless of religious, political or community affiliations. BIRW take no position on the eventual constitutional outcome of the conflict. Our charitable ojects include the abolition of torture, extrajudicial execution, arbitrary arrest, detention and exile. 1.2 BIRW are responding to the invitation made by Sir William Gage to make submissions to the Baha Mousa Inquiry, which was instigated, as the Secretary of State for Defence has acknowledged1 not just because a man died in the custody of British soldiers but because an investigation by the Royal Military Police and a subsequent Court Martial highlighted further important questions that needed to be answered. 1.3 We are making submissions to the Baha Mousa Inquiry on the basis of our extensive experience of monitoring the human rights situation in Northern Ireland. We believe that we are in a position to offer valuable insights regarding the circumstances leading to the death of Baha Mousa and the aftermath of this tragedy given our extensive understanding of the historically analogous lessons from the conflict in Northern Ireland.
    [Show full text]
  • Sec 5.1~Abuse of Prisoners As Torture
    1 5. Substantive Legal Assessment 5.1 Abuse of Prisoners as Torture and War Crimes under Sec. 8 of the CCIL and International Law The crimes described above against detainees at Abu Ghraib and the plaintiffs al Qahtani and Mowsboush constitute torture and war crimes under German and international criminal law. Therefore, sufficient evidence exists of criminality under Sec. 8 I nos. 3 and 9 CCIL. The following will provide a detailed legal analysis of the prohibitions in the CCIL and international law that were violated by the above-described acts. First, it will note the way in which two high-ranking members of the U.S. government dealt with the traditional torture techniques of “water boarding” and “longtime standing,” which is significant from the plaintiff’s perspective. In their publicly documented statements, both of government officials reveal a high degree of cynicism, coupled with ignorance of historical, legal and medical contexts. “Water Boarding” and “Longtime Standing” In the course of an interview on 24 October 2006, the Vice President of the United States, Richard Cheney, asked by radio reporter Scott Hennen whether “a dunk in water is a no- brainer if it can save lives,” gave the following answer: “It's a no-brainer for me, but for a 2 while there, I was criticized as being the ‘Vice President for torture.’ We don't torture. That's not what we're involved in. We live up to our obligations in international treaties that we're party to.” Cheney was the first member of the Bush government to admit that “water boarding” had been used in the case of detainee Khalid Scheikh Mohammed and other high-ranking al Quaeda members.
    [Show full text]