DETENTION IMMORALITY The impact of UK domestic counter-terrorism policies on those detained in the War on Terror About Cageprisoners Cageprisoners is a not-for-profit company limited by guarantee which operates as a human rights NGO. The organisation seeks to work for political Muslim detainees, specifically those interned as a result of the ‘War on Terror’ and its peripheral campaigns, by raising awareness of the illegality and the global consequences of their detention. By promoting due process, the vision of the organisa- tion is to see a return to the respect of those fun- damental norms which transcend religion, socie- ties and political theories. Cageprisoners comprises of an advisory group which includes patrons, seasoned activists, law- yers, doctors and former detainees. From the group, a board has been elected which oversees the strategy and management of the organisation and its employees. By working in such a way the working environment of the organisation can con- stantly be reviewed in light of its aims and objec- tives. Copyright © 2009 Cageprisoners All rights reserved. Cageprisoners 27 Old Gloucester Street London WC1N 3XX Telephone: 00 (44) 7973264197 Email: [email protected] 2 | cageprisoners.com Table of contents FOREWORD by Sir Nigel Rodley ............................................................................................ 4 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................... 5 BACKGROUND .......................................................................................................................... 6 EXTRADITION .......................................................................................................................... 7 Extradition to the US ...................................................................................................... 8 Extradition to Europe ................................................................................................... 13 DEPORTATION ....................................................................................................................... 20 Memoranda of Understanding ................................................................................... 21 Special Immigration Appeals Commission ............................................................. 22 Deportation to Algeria ................................................................................................. 23 Voluntary Repatriation ................................................................................................ 30 Deportation to Jordan .................................................................................................. 35 Deportation to Libya ..................................................................................................... 36 Deportation to Pakistan ............................................................................................... 40 Deportation to Iraq ....................................................................................................... 41 Deportation to Egypt .................................................................................................... 41 ORDERS ................................................................................................................................... 42 Control orders ................................................................................................................ 42 Torture victims .............................................................................................................. 50 Financial orders ............................................................................................................. 55 CONCLUSION .......................................................................................................................... 56 RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................................................................... 57 DETAINEE LIST ...................................................................................................................... 58 cageprisoners.com | 3 DETENTION IMMORALITY Foreword by Sir Nigel Rodley This disturbing publication reminds us of three Of course, throughout the process, first in things; one, what a wide array of techniques SIAC, then through the courts, the person may have been developed to detain or otherwise remain detained for years. restrict people’s freedom in the United King- dom, without their having been charged or Many of the cases documented reveal that peo- convicted in this country of any offence; two, ple have eventually been released, whether how susceptible the techniques may be to er- after acquittal in this country or in the country ror or even abuse; and, three, how destructive to which they were eventually sent or because of the well-being of the affected individuals the authorities simply decided that they could, and their families, getting caught up in the after all, be released. This suggests that the maze of legal procedure can be. system may not be as careful as necessary and appropriate before it fundamentally disrupts Since the House of Lords decision in the people’s lives and livelihoods. ‘Belmarsh’ case ( A and others v. Secretary of State for the Home Department [2005] UKHL 71), there Particularly telling are the brief testimonies of is no longer a formal system of administrative some of the victims, describing how they have internment. Nevertheless, that has not meant had to undergo the kinds of extreme pressures the end of prolonged indefinite detention. For that it must be hard for anyone to whom it has example, all it takes is for a country with not happened really to understand. There are which we have an extradition agreement to cases in which people have been driven out of issue a request for extradition on terrorist their minds. In others, people have preferred charges and a person can be detained pending to opt to return to the risk of torture. the consequent protracted legal proceedings aimed at avoiding extradition. There are cases I believe the government is committed to re- of people detained for over a decade in that specting its commitments under international legal limbo. Particularly offensive to legal prin- human rights law (such as, seeking to avoid ciple is the effect of the Extradition Act 2003, sending people to a place where they face a under which the United States does not even real risk of torture by removing the risk), have to make out a prima facie case in support while having to thwart the plans of those who of its request. clandestinely go about realizing their goal of seeking to kill as many innocent people – of Some are detained while seeking to avoid de- any language, colour or religion -going about portation (other than by way of extradition) to their business as possible. At the same time, states with which the UK has concluded they have set up an array of powers, each of memoranda of understanding aimed at safe- which on its own may be legally defensible, but guarding them against torture or ill-treatment which together is prone to be oppressive at the hands of the receiving country. The whether by inadvertence or design. This publi- memoranda contemplate follow-up monitor- cation will suggest to thoughtful readers that ing measures, but serious questions about review of the system is called for. their effectiveness have entailed extensive liti- gation. Moreover, the procedures before the key Special Immigration Appeals Commission (SIAC), the usual first forum for legal challenge to a deportation in these cases, put the sub- jects at a substantial disadvantage, as neither they nor their lawyers can be sure to have ac- cess to all the material adduced against them. 4 | cageprisoners.com DETENTION IMMORALITY Introduction The storming of the Bastille on 14 th July 1789 In an age of suspected Islamic terrorism, secu- marked one of the most pivotal moments in rity officials in the UK and governmental min- the history of modern day democracy. The isters often make reference to the ‘new’ threat; Bastille itself was a symbol of oppression by a a threat which must be dealt with through giv- totalitarian monarchy and unlawful detention ing greater powers to the police and govern- was a common symptom. The destruction of ment. The result has been the re- France’s most famous detention facility was establishment of further counter-terrorism the staging point for the French Revolution measures; policies which only remind of the and the heralding of a new world where habeas failures of actions taken in the past. corpus and the recognition of the right to a fair trial would be the corner stone of civilised so- One of the main arguments excluded in the ciety. drawing up of legislation, is the impact that such policies have on individuals and commu- The War on Terror has again brought with it nities. Although the legislation may seem cor- images of the Bastille through the detention of rect in terms of the mechanisms of ratification, thousands of innocent men, women and chil- an inherent immorality is witnessed through dren worldwide. The prison camps at Guan- the destruction of the philosophical traditions tanamo Bay now stand as the modern day that traditionally would have stopped such French prison reminding the world that there legislation, and more importantly the destruc- are people in the western world who are being tion of families who are subjected to the