DOCSLIB.ORG

Le Terrorisme, La Lutte Antiterroriste Et La Torture

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Le Terrorisme, La Lutte Antiterroriste Et La Torture LE TERRORISME, LA LUTTE ANTITERRORISTE ET LA TORTURE DROIT INTERNATIONAL ET LUTTE CONTRE LE TERRORISME JUILLET 2004 RÉ ALISÉ AVEC LE SOUTIEN FINANCIER DE L'INITIATIVE EUROPÉ ENNE POUR LA DÉ MOCRATIE ET DES DROITS DE L'HOMME 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 LE TERRORISME, LA LUTTE ANTITERRORISTE ET LA TORTURE REMERCIEMENTS Ce rapport a é té ré digé par Gabriela Echeverria, Conseillère juridique (International), et é dité par Carla Ferstman, Directrice juridique. REDRESS souhaite exprimer sa sincère reconnaissance à Evelyn Sook May Yuen pour son assistance dans la recherche et la pré paration de ce rapport ainsi qu'à Kevin Laue et Clé mentine Olivier pour leurs nombreux commentaires utiles sur des versions anté rieures de ce rapport. TABLE DES MATIÈRES INTRODUCTION................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 1 PARTIE 1. LE DISCOURS................................ ................................ ................................ .... 4 1.1. LA DEFINITION / NON-DÉ FINITION DU TERRORISME ........................................................................ 4 1.1.1. La dé finition du crime de "terrorisme" en droit national ................................................................................................. 4 1.1.2. Dé finitions vagues ou excessivement larges du Terrorisme.......................................................................................... 5 1.1.3. Dé finir le crime de terrorisme: quelques principes et lignes directrices du droit international ....................................... 8 1.1.4. Les avantages et inconvé nients des dé finitions vagues.............................................................................................. 11 1.2. LE TERRORISME : UNE MENACE QUI EXIGE UNE MISE À JOUR CONSTANTE DU DROIT INTERNATIONAL................................................................................................................................... 14 PARTIE 2. LE CADRE JURIDIQUE................................ ................................ .....................16 2.1. LE TERRORISME ET LA LUTTE ANTITERRORISTE EN DROIT INTERNATIONAL........................... 16 2.1.1. La lutte antiterroriste : une nouvelle obligation en droit international........................................................................... 16 2.1.2. L'absence de protection des droits de l'homme dans la mise en œ uvre de la "nouvelle" obligation de lutter contre le terrorisme ..................................................................................................................................................................... 17 2.2. LA TORTURE ET LES MAUVAIS TRAITEMENTS EN DROIT INTERNATIONAL ................................ 19 2.2.1. L'interdiction absolue de la torture et des mauvais traitements................................................................................... 19 2.2.2. La torture: un principe de Jus Cogens et un droit auquel on ne peut dé roger............................................................. 20 2.2.3. L'obligation absolue de non refoulement en droit international.................................................................................... 21 2.3. LA TORTURE DANS LE DISCOURS SUR LE TERRORISME : UNE MISE EN CAUSE DE L'INTERDICTION ABSOLUE ? .............................................................................................................. 23 2.3.1. La sé curité nationale c. les droits de l'homme ............................................................................................................. 23 2.3.2. La mise en cause de l'interdiction officielle de la torture : l'exception dite de la "bombe à retardement".................... 28 PARTIE 3. LA MISE-EN-OEUVRE RÉ ELLE................................ ................................ ........31 3.1. LES TRANSFÈRTS: LE TRANSFERT FORCÉ DE PERSONNES SOUPÇ ONNÉ ES D'ACTES TERRORISTES...................................................................................................................................... 31 3.1.1. Le droit relatif aux transferts interé tatiques : l'extradition, l'expulsion et le non refoulement....................................... 31 3.1.2. Garanties procé durales pour le transfert des personnes entre Etats : l'extradition et l'expulsion ............................... 32 3.1.3. Le recours aux "garanties diplomatiques" et/ou à la "sé curité nationale" pour contourner l'obligation de non refoulement .................................................................................................................................................................. 35 3.1.4. La "remise" illicite: le transfert interé tatique forcé de personnes en dehors des procé dures lé gales.......................... 40 3.2. LA DÉ TENTION ..................................................................................................................................... 43 3.2.1. Les conditions de dé tention et traitement durant l'interrogatoire ................................................................................. 44 3.2.2. Les garanties des droits de l'homme contre la torture et les peines ou traitements cruels, inhumains ou dé gradants45 3.2.3. La protection contre la torture et les peines ou traitements cruels, inhumains ou dé gradants pendant la dé tention en vertu du droit international humanitaire........................................................................................................................ 49 3.2.4. Les conditions de dé tention et de traitement pendant l'interrogatoire ......................................................................... 49 3.3. LES RÉ PARATIONS: LE DROIT DES VICTIMES A UN RECOURS PROCÉ DURAL ET A LA RÉ PARATION........................................................................................................................................ 61 3.3.1. Le droit des victimes de la torture et des peines ou traitements cruels, inhumains ou dé gradants à un recours et à la reparation ..................................................................................................................................................................... 61 3.3.2. Limitant le droit à ré paration : torture et lutte contre le terrorisme............................................................................... 63 3.3.3. L'absence de justification valable de la torture en vertu du droit international ............................................................ 78 LE TERRORISME, LA LUTTE ANTITERRORISTE ET LA TORTURE 3.3.4. Les immunité s gé né rales dans le cadre de la lutte contre le terrorisme et les opé rations militaires relevant de la "guerre contre le terrorisme": impunité pour torture?................................................................................................... 83 CONCLUSIONS................................ ................................ ................................ ...................84 INTRODUCTION Le terrorisme n'est pas un phé nomène nouveau. La torture non plus, ni le dilemme pour les Etats, qui doivent trouver un "é quilibre" entre les droits de l'homme et la sé curité nationale dans la lutte contre la terreur. Tout au long de l'histoire moderne, "terrorisme" et "anti- terrorisme" ont é té des termes communé ment employé s dans le langage juridique et politique. De fait, ce n'est pas la première fois qu'une "guerre contre le terrorisme" a é té lancé e1. Alors, est-ce vrai qu'il y a un "avant" et un "aprè s" 11 Septembre 2001? On considère que les atrocité s perpé tré es le 11 Septembre 2001 dans les villes amé ricaines de New York et Washington DC, souvent appelé es 9/11, ont changé la faç on dont la politique internationale et le droit international sont perç us et devraient ê tre conduits. Selon Les Etats-Unis et un certain nombre de leurs allié s, la menace engendré e par le terrorisme est aujourd'hui si grave qu'elle exige non seulement le recours à la force internationale (la guerre)2, mais né cessite é galement la réécriture des lois et coutumes de la guerre. Durant les trois anné es qui ont suivi les é vé nements du 9/11, le monde a é té confronté à cette "guerre" contre le terrorisme : d'Afghanistan en Irak, de Guantanamo Bay à Abou Ghraib. Parallèlement, beaucoup d'encre a coulé sur la lé galité de l'emploi de la force par les Etats et sur le besoin de trouver un é quilibre entre les inté rê ts lié s à la sé curité nationale des Etats et l'obligation de proté ger les droits de l'homme. Qu'en est-il de la légalité de la guerre en Afghanistan et en Irak en vertu du droit international? Les mesures antiterroristes sont elles proportionnelles au regard des menaces du terrorisme? Bien que ces questions aient é té dé battues dans le domaine "public", bien peu de choses a é té é crit concernant les effets passé s et les consé quences actuelles de la "guerre contre le terrorisme" sur la prohibition juridique absolue de la torture et d'autres peines ou traitements cruels, inhumains ou dé gradants. Cependant, le scandale ré cent à la prison d'Abou Ghraib en Irak - lorsque des photographies et vidé os de soldats amé ricains abusant des dé tenus irakiens d'une manière qui relève de la torture ou de traitements cruels, inhumains ou dé gradants furent enregistré s et publié s par les mé dias – a replacé le problème de torture au cœ ur des analyses de la "guerre contre le terrorisme" . S'agit-il d'é vé nements isolé
Load more

Recommended publications
  • [2006] EWHC 972 (Admin) Case No: CO/10470/2005 in the SUPREME
    Neutral Citation Number: [2006] EWHC 972 (Admin) Case No: CO/10470/2005 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION DIVISIONAL COURT Royal Courts of Justice Strand, London, WC2A 2LL Date: 04/05/2006 Before : LORD JUSTICE LATHAM and MR JUSTICE TUGENDHAT - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Between : R ON THE APPN OF BISHER AL RAWI & OTHERS Claimants - and - (1) SS FOR FOREIGN & COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS Defendants (2) THE SS FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Timothy Otty & Raza Husain (instructed by Birnberg Peirce) for the Claimants Christopher Greenwood QC, Phillip Sales & Ben Hooper (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) for the Defendants Hearing dates : 22nd & 23rd March 2006 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Judgment Lord Justice Latham : This is the judgment of the Court Introduction 1. This claim arises out of the continued detention in Guantanamo Bay of the first three named claimants by the United States authorities. None of them are British nationals, but each has been a long term resident of the United Kingdom in circumstances set out in more detail below. They claim that their connection with this country is such that they have a legitimate expectation that the British government will make a formal and unequivocal request for their return to this country, in the same way as it did in relation to British nationals, who were returned after such requests in March 2004, and January 2005. The first defendant, the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, has consistently declined to make such a request, making it clear that he considers himself under no obligation to do so because these claimants are not British nationals.
    [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]
  • The European Angle to the U.S. Terror Threat Robin Simcox | Emily Dyer
    AL-QAEDA IN THE UNITED STATES THE EUROPEAN ANGLE TO THE U.S. TERROR THREAT Robin Simcox | Emily Dyer THE EUROPEAN ANGLE TO THE U.S. TERROR THREAT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY • Nineteen individuals (11% of the overall total) who committed al-Qaeda related offenses (AQROs) in the U.S. between 1997 and 2011 were either European citizens or had previously lived in Europe. • The threat to America from those linked to Europe has remained reasonably constant – with European- linked individuals committing AQROs in ten of the fifteen years studied. • The majority (63%) of the nineteen European-linked individuals were unemployed, including all individuals who committed AQROs between 1998 and 2001, and from 2007 onwards. • 42% of individuals had some level of college education. Half of these individuals committed an AQRO between 1998 and 2001, while the remaining two individuals committed offenses in 2009. • 16% of offenders with European links were converts to Islam. Between 1998 and 2001, and between 2003 and 2009, there were no offenses committed by European-linked converts. • Over two thirds (68%) of European-linked offenders had received terrorist training, primarily in Afghanistan. However, nine of the ten individuals who had received training in Afghanistan committed their AQRO before 2002. Only one individual committed an AQRO afterwards (Oussama Kassir, whose charges were filed in 2006). • Among all trained individuals, 92% committed an AQRO between 1998 and 2006. • 16% of individuals had combat experience. However, there were no European-linked individuals with combat experience who committed an AQRO after 2005. • Active Participants – individuals who committed or were imminently about to commit acts of terrorism, or were formal members of al-Qaeda – committed thirteen AQROs (62%).
    [Show full text]
  • Detention in Afghanistan and Guantánamo
    Composite statement: Detention in Afghanistan and Guantanamo Bay Shafiq Rasul, Asif Iqbal and Rhuhel Ahmed 1. All three men come from Tipton in West Midlands, a poor area with a small community of Pakistani and Bangladeshi origin. The school all three attended is considered one of the worst in England. Rhuhel Ahmed and Asif Iqbal who are now both aged 22 were friends from school, although one year apart. Neither was brought up religiously but each was drawn towards Islam. Shafiq Rasul is now aged 27 and had a job working at the electronics store, Currys. He was also enrolled at the University of Central England. 2. This statement jointly made by them constitutes an attempt to set out details of their treatment at the hands of UK and US military personnel and civilian authorities during the time of their detention in Kandahar in Afghanistan in late December 2001 and throughout their time in American custody in Guantanamo Bay Cuba. This statement is a composite of the experiences of all 3. They are referred to throughout by their first names for brevity. There is far more that could be said by each, but that task is an open-ended one. They have tried to include the main features. 1 Detention in Afghanistan 3. All three men were detained in Northern Afghanistan on 28 November 2001 by forces loyal to General Dostum. They were loaded onto containers and transported to Sherbegan prison. The horrors of that transportation are well documented elsewhere and are not described in detail here. 4. According to information all three were given later, there were US forces present at the point they were packed into the containers together with almost 200 others.
    [Show full text]
  • September 2004 Urgent Action AI Index: ACT 60/017/2004
    Public September 2004 Urgent Action AI Index: ACT 60/017/2004 In Focus An insight into the stories behind UAs Guantánamo Bay – a human rights scandal Over the past year, Urgent Action letter-writers have sent over 10,000 letters of protest to US authorities on behalf of six men held under a US Military Order at the US Naval Base in Guantánamo Bay in Cuba. The conditions in which these men and other Guantánamo detainees are held are believed to have increased their susceptibility to making coerced statements – statements which, US authorities have said, will be admissible in trials by military commission. The majority of almost 600 detainees at the US military base are held in maximum security blocks in small cells, for up to 24 hours a day and with very little out-of-cell exercise time. They are also subjected to repeated interrogations sometimes for hours at a time and without the presence of a lawyer, raising fears that statements may be extracted under coercion. A first-hand account of conditions at Guantánamo emerged following the release in March 2004 of Shafiq Rasul, Asif Iqbal and Rhuhel Ahmed, three UK citizens known as the "Tipton Three" after their small home town. They allege they were beaten, shackled in painful positions during interrogations and subjected to sleep deprivation. They also report being photographed naked and subjected to anal searches after being shackled for hours. This led them to confess to being in a video of a Bin Laden rally in Afghanistan, despite the fact that court, workplace and university records show they were in the United Kingdom when the video was shot in 2000.
    [Show full text]
  • Report on Torture, Cruel, Inhuman, and Degrading Treatment Of
    Center for Constitutional Rights 666 Broadway, 7th Floor New York, NY 10012 Phone: (212) 614-6464 Fax: (212) 614-6499 E-Mail: [email protected] REPORT ON TORTURE AND CRUEL, INHUMAN, AND DEGRADING TREATMENT OF PRISONERS AT GUANTÁNAMO BAY, CUBA July 2006 Center for Constitutional Rights 666 Broadway, 7th Floor New York, NY 10012 Phone: (212) 614-6464 Fax: (212) 614-6499 E-Mail: [email protected] “You are in a place where there is no law – we are the law.” U.S. military intelligence officers1 REPORT ON TORTURE AND CRUEL, INHUMAN, AND DEGRADING TREATMENT OF PRISONERS AT GUANTÁNAMO BAY, CUBA TABLE OF CONTENTS Preface..........................................................................................................................................................................1 Introduction: The Accounts from Guantánamo ........................................................................................................3 I. A Legal Black Hole..................................................................................................................................................7 A. Enemy Combatants?.......................................................................................................................................7 B. Extreme Interrogation Techniques ..................................................................................................................9 II. Beyond the Law: Guantánamo, the Geneva Conventions, and the War Crimes Act........................................10 A. Abandoning the Geneva Conventions
    [Show full text]
  • Visit to Guantánamo Bay
    House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee Visit to Guantánamo Bay Second Report of Session 2006–07 Report, together with formal minutes and written evidence Ordered by The House of Commons to be printed 10 January 2007 HC 44 Published on 21 January 2007 by authority of the House of Commons London: The Stationery Office Limited £0.00 Foreign Affairs Committee The Foreign Affairs Committee is appointed by the House of Commons to examine the administration, expenditure and policy of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and its associated agencies. Current membership Mike Gapes (Labour, Ilford South), Chairman Mr Fabian Hamilton (Labour, Leeds North East) Rt Hon Mr David Heathcoat-Amory (Conservative, Wells) Mr John Horam (Conservative, Orpington) Mr Eric Illsley (Labour, Barnsley Central) Mr Paul Keetch (Liberal Democrat, Hereford) Andrew Mackinlay (Labour, Thurrock) Mr Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire) Sandra Osborne (Labour, Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) Mr Greg Pope (Labour, Hyndburn) Mr Ken Purchase (Labour, Wolverhampton North East) Rt Hon Sir John Stanley (Conservative, Tonbridge and Malling) Ms Gisela Stuart (Labour, Birmingham Edgbaston) Richard Younger-Ross (Liberal Democrat, Teignbridge) Powers The committee is one of the departmental select committees, the powers of which are set out in House of Commons Standing Orders, principally in SO No 152. These are available on the Internet via www.parliament.uk. Publication The Reports and evidence of the Committee are published by The Stationery Office by Order of the House. All publications of the Committee (including press notices) are on the Internet at http://www.parliament.uk/parliamentary_committees/foreign_affairs_committee.cfm. Committee staff The current staff of the Committee are Steve Priestley (Clerk), Gosia McBride (Second Clerk), Imran Shafi (Committee Specialist), Kevin Candy (Committee Assistant), Catherine Jackson (Secretary), Chintan Makwana (Senior Office Clerk) and Alex Paterson (Media Officer).
    [Show full text]
  • The Continuing Pursuit of Unchecked Executive Power 13 May 2005 AI Index: AMR 51/063/2005
    Public amnesty international UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Guantánamo and beyond: The continuing pursuit of unchecked executive power 13 May 2005 AI Index: AMR 51/063/2005 I used to think that America had respect for human rights when it came to prison. Mohammed Nechle, extrajudicially removed from Bosnia and Herzegovina by US agents1 My husband is a tall man with black hair and black eyes…He is now imprisoned in Guantánamo. We don’t know why. Wife of Mohammed Nechle, Algerian national, 20042 Public ........................................................................................................................ - 1 - UNITED STATES OF AMERICA .......................................................................... - 1 - Guantánamo and beyond: The continuing pursuit of unchecked executive power .. - 1 - 1. Summary: The pursuit of unfettered executive power .................................. - 3 - 2. Violating human rights erodes security and trust in government ............... - 10 - 3. Guantánamo detainees – the international legal framework ....................... - 13 - 4. Hypocrisy vs. human rights ........................................................................ - 15 - 5. Human rights law rejected by a war mentality ........................................... - 28 - 6. Seeking to render the Rasul decision meaningless ..................................... - 45 - 7. A judge with security credentials takes a more critical view ..................... - 52 - 8. The Combatant Status Review Tribunal – no laughing matter ..................
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Negotiating Liberty: the Use of Political Opportunities and Civil
    This is the peer reviewed version of the following article: Banham, C. and Goodin, B. (2016), Negotiating Liberty: The Use of Political Opportunities and Civil Society by Barbary State Captives and Guantánamo Bay Detainees. Australian Journal of Politics & History, 62: 171–185. doi:10.1111/ ajph.12243, which has been published in final form at http://doi.org/10.1111/ajph.12243. This article may be used for non-commercial purposes in accordance with Wiley Terms and Conditions for Self-Archiving. http://olabout.wiley.com/WileyCDA/Section/id-828039.html (Publisher journal website as of 12/10/2016) Negotiating Liberty: The Use of Political Opportunities and Civil Society by Barbary State Captives and Guantánamo Bay Detainees Cynthia Banham and Brett Goodin Australian Journal of Politics and History, Vol. 62, No. 2 (June 2016): 171-185 Abstract This article contrasts two distinct sets of prisoners who were held by foreign governments: sailors from the United States held captive in Algiers in the late eighteenth century and British citizens detained in Guantánamo Bay in the early twenty-first century. The article uses social movement theory to examine and compare the campaigns orchestrated by these men and their supporters, and the role of those campaigns in securing their freedom. It demonstrates the utility of social movement theory in comparing cases of foreign detention that transcend centuries, regions and communication technologies. We find that successful campaigns on behalf of citizens held captive abroad, and the timeline of those successes, are contingent on the exploitation of domestic political opportunities and an external event to trigger government action on behalf of the captives.
    [Show full text]
  • THE GUANTÁNAMO BAY ORAL HISTORY PROJECT the Reminiscences of Feroz Ali Abbasi Columbia Center for Oral History Columbia Univers
    THE GUANTÁNAMO BAY ORAL HISTORY PROJECT The Reminiscences of Feroz Ali Abbasi Columbia Center for Oral History Columbia University 2011 PREFACE The following oral history is the result of a recorded interview with Feroz Ali Abbasi conducted by Ronald J. Grele and Kanishk Tharoor on May 31, 2011. This interview is part of the Guantánamo Bay Oral History Project. The reader is asked to bear in mind that s/he is reading a verbatim transcript of the spoken word, rather than written prose. 3PM Session One Interviewee: Feroz Ali Abbasi Location: London, United Kingdom Interviewer: Ronald J. Grele and Kanishk Tharoor Date: May 31, 2011 Q: This is an interview through the Columbia University Oral History Research Office with Feroz Abbasi? Today's date is May 31, 2011. The interview is being conducted in London. The interviewers are Kanishk Tharoor and Ron Grele. This is an interview for the Columbia University Oral History Research Office. I guess where we would like to begin is with your early life, to understand who you were as young man, coming of age as a Muslim in England. Abbasi: Subhaana Rabbiyal A`laa. What do you mean, what age do you want me to start at? Q: Start wherever you want to start. Wherever you feel the beginning is. Abbasi: The beginning? I will just cover my background from the beginning in brief. I was born in Entebbe, Uganda. My father is Pakistani. My mother is Nubian. Her background is that the grandfather, or the great grandfather, came from southern Sudan, and then settled in northern Uganda.
    [Show full text]
  • The Ripple Effect: Guantanamo Bay in the United Kingdom's Courts
    Pace University DigitalCommons@Pace Pace International Law Review Online Companion School of Law 4-2010 The Ripple Effect: Guantanamo Bay in the United Kingdom's Courts C.R.G. Murray Newcastle University Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.pace.edu/pilronline Part of the Courts Commons, Human Rights Law Commons, and the International Law Commons Recommended Citation C.R.G. Murray, The Ripple Effect: Guantanamo Bay in the United Kingdom's Courts, Pace Int’l L. Rev. Online Companion, Apr. 2010, at 15. This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the School of Law at DigitalCommons@Pace. It has been accepted for inclusion in Pace International Law Review Online Companion by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@Pace. For more information, please contact [email protected]. PACE UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW INTERNATIONAL LAW REVIEW ONLINE COMPANION Volume 1, Number 9 April 2010 THE RIPPLE EFFECT: GUANTÁNAMO BAY IN THE UNITED KINGDOM’S COURTS C. R. G. Murray * KEY WORDS Guantánamo Bay – British Detainees – Diplomatic Protection – De- privation of Liberty – Inhuman and Degrading Treatment ABSTRACT The human rights abuses suffered by detainees held at Guantánamo Bay have dominated many of the cases before the United Kingdom‟s courts. The Human Rights Act of 1998, still relatively new to the statute book, played a central role in the detainees‟ arguments. The ultimate court decisions, however, often relegate such factors to the background of the case. This article examines why the deciding courts declined to develop the law of diplomatic protection on the basis of human rights * Lecturer, Newcastle Law School, Newcastle University, United Kingdom.
    [Show full text]
  • Al Muhajiroun
    IPCS No. 2, September 2005 SPECIAL REPORT Al Muhajiroun David Smith INSTITUTE OF PEACE AND CONFLICT STUDIES B 7/3 Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi110029, INDIA Tel: 91-1151652556-9; Fax: 91-11-51652560 Email: [email protected]; Web: www.ipcs.org AL-MUHAJIROUN David Smith, Research Intern, IPCS Al Muhajiroun is a radical Islamic fifth introduction of new terrorism laws column organisation formed in England on implemented after 7/7 London bombings.1 16 February 1996 by Syrian born Omar Bakri Mohammed after splitting with Hizb Organisations membership in the low ut-Tahrir (HuT – the Islamic Liberation hundreds recruiting mainly young Muslim Party) another extremist Islamic group also men, from unemployed to professional’s founded by Bakri. Al-Muhajiroun’s political classes. Al-Muhajiroun encourages its agenda differs from British HuT branch as members to live on state benefit and not it supports and condones violence to contribute to British society financially. promote its Islamic based ideology. A Bakri’s weekly meetings preach violence on fringe radical Muslim group based in topics such as "The virtue of the self Britain, while heavily criticised and sacrifice operation." They aim to justify the condemned by Muslim Council of Britain, employment of suicide terrorism for the largest UK Islamic organization. attacking political targets such as 10 Downing Street.2 Sheikh Omar Bakri Muhammad is the self- proclaimed spiritual leader with a long The Ideology follows a radical history of terrorist activities from Lebanon interpretation of Islam based upon the to Saudi Arabia before claiming British revitalisation of an Ottoman Empire type asylum in 1986.
    [Show full text]