2006
February 2006 : First Report : Human Rights
Annual Report 2005
Guantánamo Bay
35. Amnesty International has attacked the system
of detentions at Guantánamo Bay, saying:
The detention camp at the US Naval Base in Guantánamo
Bay in Cuba has become a symbol of the US administration's refusal
to put human rights and the rule of law at the heart of its response
to the atrocities of 11 September 2001. Hundreds of people of
around 35 different nationalities remain held in effect in a legal
black hole, many without access to any court, legal counsel or
family visits. As evidence of torture and widespread cruel, inhuman
and degrading treatment mounts, it is more urgent than ever that
the US Government bring the Guantánamo Bay detention camp
and any other facilities it is operating outside the USA into
full compliance with international law and standards. The only
alternative is to close them down.
According to Human Rights Watch, detainees in Guantánamo
are subjected to sleep deprivation, loud music, dietary manipulation,
isolation, 'hooding', sensory deprivation, exposure to extremes
of temperature, and 'water boarding', which involves the simulation
of drowning. However, the US government has issued strong denials
of mistreatment at the facility. The USA has also made clear that
it will continue to hold detainees at Guantánamo Bay, and
the US Supreme Court ruled in June 2004 that detainees had a right
to appeal their detention, but that they can also be held without
charge or trial. The House of Representatives Armed Services Committee
has also heard evidence on the Guantánamo Bay complex,
but has not opposed the prison complex's existence. In its Report
last year, the Committee called on the Government to make strong
representations about the abuses committed at Guantánamo
Bay. The Government responded both by saying that the US authorities
were familiar with the UK position and by expressing support for
the negotiations between the UN Rapporteurs on Torture and the
US government.
36. However, Human Rights Watch contend that "the
UK government chooses to praise the US government even while it
remains in blatant defiance of international law. As far as we
area aware, the British government has not expressed its concerns
about the US failure to provide the conditions in which rapporteurs
can do their work. Instead, it has publicly 'welcomed' the alleged
'engagement', which has so far proved worthless."
37. Kate Allen of Amnesty International told the
Committee, in relation to the Annual Report: "I think we
have moved from commenting in that report on Guantánamo
to an attempt to offer an explanation as to why Guantánamo
might be necessary." She added that Amnesty International
saw the Government's record on Guantánamo as "lamentable
and not improving". Amnesty International also brought forward
their concerns about the 210 men on hunger strike in Guantánamo
Bay, and said that if diplomatic routes are not working, then
the United Kingdom should take a more publicly critical stance
against the detention facility.
38. The Minister for Human Rights was quick to reject
these suggestions. He told us: "We made clear to the US authorities
on many occasion and at every level that we regard the circumstances
under which detainees are held in Guantánamo Bay as unacceptable,
and the US Government knows our view on this."
39. We conclude that the continued use of Guantánamo
Bay as a detention centre outside all legal regimes diminishes
the USA's moral authority and is a hindrance to the effective
pursuit of the war against terrorism. We recommend that the Government
make loud and public its objections to the existence of such a
prison regime.
MAY 2006 : FCO RESPONSE CM 6774
The Government has made clear publicly that it regards
the circumstances under which detainees continue to be held in
Guantanamo as unacceptable. The United States Government knows
our views. As the Prime Minister said on 16 March 2006, it would
be better if Guantanamo were closed. We will continue to raise
our concerns about Guantanamo Bay and work with the US authorities
to resolve outstanding issues.
JULY 2006 : FOURTH REPORT : FOREIGN POLICY ASPECTS
OF THE WAR AGAINST TERRORISM
GUANTÁNAMO BAY
32. The US government has claimed that the detention
camp at Guantánamo Bay, which has been used to hold suspected
al Qaeda terrorists since shortly after the attacks of 11 September
2001, plays a key role in the 'war against terrorism'. However,
its existence has been extremely controversial, especially among
human rights groups, many of which have condemned what they believe
are extralegal detentions at the camp. Current criticism centres
on the continuing detention of about 500 people, including nine
individuals previously resident in the United Kingdom and one
Australian citizen currently seeking British citizenship, and
allegations of abuses committed at the Guantánamo Bay prison
complex. The USA has made moves recently to release 140 of the
detainees; in April 2006, the Pentagon announced that 141 detainees
could no longer be classified as enemy combatants and would be
freed. Positively, it has also now released the names of all those
held at the camp.
33. Amnesty International has attacked the system
of detentions, saying:
The detention camp at the US Naval Base in Guantánamo
Bay in Cuba has become a symbol of the US administration's refusal
to put human rights and the rule of law at the heart of its response
to the atrocities of 11 September 2001. Hundreds of people of
around 35 different nationalities remain held in effect in a legal
black hole, many without access to any court, legal counsel or
family visits. As evidence of torture and widespread cruel, inhuman
and degrading treatment mounts, it is more urgent than ever that
the US Government bring the Guantánamo Bay detention camp
and any other facilities it is operating outside the USA into
full compliance with international law and standards. The only
alternative is to close them down.
34. We asked Amnesty International and Human Rights
Watch for evidence that torture is being used at Guantánamo
Bay. Kate Allen, Director of Amnesty International UK, told us:
"I think we have very strong accounts, particularly from
young men from Tipton, who documented on their return to the UK
what had happened to them, of being kept awake, of loud music,
of threats being made to them, of being held and interrogated
endlessly day after day… I think that amounts to torture."
Ms Allen went on to say: "I think if you hold people incommunicado
and you interrogate them endlessly day upon day, that you have
extremes of temperature that are used, that you do not allow them
any contact with their families, that you have loud noise playing
continuously, that you threaten people in terms of their lives
and their well-being, I think that adds up to torture." Steve
Crawshaw, London Director at Human Rights Watch gave his perspective:
I think it is important to remember that torture
is not just applying electrodes to the testicles… to put
it this way, a number of the techniques that have been used have
led to both self-incriminating evidence which was completely false—in
other words the pressures were great enough that they confessed
to things which they had not done and provably had not done—you
know, having been together with Osama bin Laden at a particular
time when demonstrably, and as, indeed, the British authorities
later confirmed, they had actually been somewhere else. Those
kinds of pressures are banned for the same reasons… [N]ot
everybody has been tortured at Guantánamo. That is not
the suggestion. Some people have got off relatively lightly and
others have not.
35. In April 2006, Professor Philippe Sands QC told
us his views on Guantánamo Bay:
I think Guantánamo should be closed down tomorrow.
Guantánamo is terribly undermining of a legitimate effort
to protect against a serious threat and it is being used mainly
as an indication of the values that our societies purport to hold
dear not being followed when their vital interests are at stake,
and I think it has been terribly undermining in that sense. I
recall here a statement made by the great American diplomat, George
Kennan, who wrote a famous telex in 1947 from Moscow, where he
was posted for the State Department, on the emergent Soviet threat,
and he ended that telex by saying, "The greatest threat that
can befall us as a nation is to become like those who seek to
destroy us."
The recent suicide of three detainees at Guantánamo
Bay has reinvigorated calls for the camp to be closed down.
36. Professor Sands told us that in his view there
were only two categories into which those detained at Guantánamo
might fall and that they should either be treated as Prisoners
of War or as Criminals. He said that there is no third category
of Illegal Combatants as the US asserts. The US view is that they
are not Prisoners of War and they cannot all be treated as criminals
and prosecuted with due process for practical as well as legal
reasons. The USA therefore argues that there is a third category
of Illegal Combatants into which those detained at Guantánamo
fall and that they are entitled to detain them.
37. The USA denies allegations that it is mistreating
detainees and argues that Guantánamo Bay is an important
tool in the 'war against terrorism'. Speaking at Chatham House
in February 2006, John Bellinger, Legal Adviser to the US Department
of State, outlined the US position:
[W]e believe we have been and still are engaged in
an international armed conflict with al Qaida. They have attacked
our embassies, our military vessels and military bases, our capital
city, and our financial center. On September 11, they killed nearly
three thousand people, including 67 British nationals. The UN
Security Council has reaffirmed our right of self-defense in relation
to their attacks, which were planned and launched from abroad,
in resolution 1373. In the context of this conflict, we believe
that the appropriate legal framework for the detention and transfer
of al Qaeda is the international law of war. While domestic criminal
law has been used in the past to deal with terrorism, we believe
that traditional systems of criminal justice, which were designed
for different needs, do not adequately address the threat posed
by this enemy, which continues to plan and launch attacks of a
magnitude and sophistication previously achievable only by organized
states.
Mr Bellinger went on to set out the USA's position
on torture:
"In its activities relating to detainees, the
United States Government complies with its Constitution, its laws,
and its treaty obligations. We have made clear our position on
torture: U.S. criminal law and treaty obligations prohibit torture,
and United States policy is not to engage or condone torture anywhere…
Where there have been cases of unlawful treatment of detainees,
the U.S. has vigorously investigated and, where the facts have
warranted it, prosecuted and punished those responsible."
38. During her visit to Blackburn on 1 April 2006,
US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice spelled out the difficulties
that the USA faces over what to do with suspects captured in Afghanistan
and elsewhere. She also reiterated the point that Guantánamo
Bay is a US response to the very real threat posed by international
terrorism:
[W]e have to recognize that Guantanamo is there for
a reason. It's there because we captured people on battlefields,
particularly in Afghanistan but sometimes, frankly, on the battlefields
of our own democratic societies, who were either plotting or planning
or actively engaged in terrorist activities. And we have released
hundreds of people from Guantanamo. It is not as if everybody
who was in Guantanamo on October 1st, 2001 or January 1st, 2002
is still in Guantanamo. We have gone out of our way to try to
release people. We've released British citizens back to Great
Britain. We've done that with many different countries. But there
are some people who cannot either be safely be released to their
countries or certainly safely released, and there are people for
whom the value of the information that they have is still relevant
to the fight against terror.
39. The British Government has been criticised for
its reticence to criticise loudly the Guantánamo Bay camp.
In evidence to this Committee, Human Rights Watch said: "the
UK government chooses to praise the US government even while it
remains in blatant defiance of international law. As far as we
are aware, the British government has not expressed its concerns
about the US failure to provide the conditions in which rapporteurs
can do their work. Instead, it has publicly 'welcomed' the alleged
'engagement', which has so far proved worthless." For its
part, Amnesty International has described the United Kingdom's
role on Guantánamo as "lamentable and not improving"
since "we have moved from commenting…on Guantánamo
to an attempt to offer an explanation as to why Guantánamo
might be necessary."
40. The last Report in this inquiry called on the
Government to make strong representations about the complex. The
Government responded by saying that the US authorities were familiar
with the British position. In a previous Human Rights Report,
we noted the oppressive conditions and mistreatment at Guantánamo
Bay and the USA's strong denial of mistreatment at the facility
as well as its determination to continue to hold detainees there.
The Report also noted criticisms of the Government's failure to
engage seriously with the USA on these points as well as calls
by international human rights groups for the Government to take
a more publicly critical stance. Ian Pearson, the then Minister
for Human Rights, was quick to reject these suggestions, telling
the Committee: "We made clear to the US authorities on many
occasions and at every level that we regard the circumstances
under which detainees are held in Guantánamo Bay as unacceptable,
and the US Government knows our view on this." Notwithstanding
the Minister's comments, we concluded that the continued use of
Guantánamo Bay as a detention centre outside all legal
regimes diminishes the USA's moral authority and is a hindrance
to the effective pursuit of the 'war against terrorism'. We recommended
that the Government make "loud and public" its objections
to such a prison regime.
41. The Committee's concerns were echoed by a UN
report released in February 2006, which called for the closure
of Guantánamo Bay as soon as possible. Among its conclusions,
the Report says:
Terrorism suspects should be detained in accordance
with criminal procedure that respects the safeguards enshrined
in relevant international law. Accordingly, the United States
Government should either expeditiously bring all Guantánamo
Bay detainees to trial, in compliance with articles 9(3) and 14
of ICCPR, or release them without further delay. Consideration
should also be given to trying suspected terrorists before a competent
international tribunal.
The White House dismissed the report as "a discredit
to the UN", because investigators did not travel to the camp.
"[The Unedited Report] selectively includes only those factual
assertions needed to support those conclusions and ignores other
facts that would undermine those conclusions. As a result we categorically
object to most of the Unedited Report's content and conclusions
as largely without merit and not based clearly in the facts."
In response, the investigators said they rejected an offer to
go to the prison complex because they would not have been allowed
to meet the prisoners.
42. Recently, the British Government has edged towards
a more critical public stance on Guantánamo Bay. In the
wake of the UN report, Northern Ireland Secretary Peter Hain said
that he would prefer to see the camp closed. The Prime Minister,
who had previously referred to the prison complex as an "anomaly"
that should be dealt with "sooner or later", went further
when he said on 17 March 2006 that it would be better if it were
closed. We asked the former Foreign Secretary Jack Straw about
Guantánamo Bay just two days before this, and he told us:
On Guantánamo Bay…it is an anomaly which,
as the Prime Minister said, will come to an end and should come
to an end sooner or later, we all hope sooner. The American Government
is aware of that and it is working on it, but again I simply,
at the risk of repetition, say that they have practical problems.
On the issue of damage to the United States' reputation, I think
views vary but it is just worth bearing in mind that the September
11 terrorist atrocities actually happened and they were not caused
by the CIA or Mossad but by al Qaeda.
43. He went on to explain that the USA's attempts
to close Guantánamo Bay had slowed because:
[T]he problem they face is what to do with these
individuals, which countries they go back to. In the case of British
citizens, it would be straightforward, we would have them back
here. I was able to negotiate that, and that has been true for
citizens of a number of other countries, but their concern is
that quite a number of these are Afghans. Do they go back to Afghanistan?
Some are Pakistanis. Do they go back to other countries? In what
circumstances can they transfer them? There is a process taking
place.
Notwithstanding the practical difficulties of closing
the camp, the right to a free and fair trial is enshrined in international
instruments to which the USA and United Kingdom are party, such
as the Universal Declaration on Human Rights and the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
44. We also asked Mr Straw why the Government had
not made loud and public its opposition to the prison regime,
and he said:
I talk about the issue quite regularly to my American
counterparts. They are also well aware of opinion around the world
and in the United States on it, but they have just got practical
problems they have got to deal with, and if we were in that situation
we would have a practical problem, too. I do just say that if
September 11 had happened in this country rather than the United
States, it would have changed our politics and security parameters
just as it has changed the Americans. It just would have done.
In its response to our annual Report on Human Rights,
the FCO went further than in previous exchanges with the Committee
when it stated that the Government:
has made clear publicly that it regards the circumstances
under which detainees continue to be held in Guantanamo as unacceptable.
The United States Government knows our views. As the Prime Minister
said on 16 March 2006, it would be better if Guantanamo were closed.
We will continue to raise our concerns about Guantanamo Bay and
work with the US authorities to resolve outstanding issues.
45. We note that in a speech to the Royal United
Services Institute the Attorney-General described not just the
circumstances but the very existence of the camp at Guantánamo
as "unacceptable", although he was careful to say that
this was his personal opinion. He called for the camp to be closed
down:
Not only would it, in my personal opinion, be right
to close Guantanamo as a matter of principle, I believe it would
also help to remove what has become a symbol to many—right
or wrong—of injustice. The historic tradition of the United
States as a beacon of freedom, liberty and of justice deserves
the removal of this symbol.
On 15 June 2006, during a debate on the Committee's
Report on Human Rights, Minister for Trade and Human Rights Ian
McCartney told the House:
We have long made it clear that we regard the circumstances
under which detainees continue to be held at Guantánamo
Bay as unacceptable. The US Government know our views, which we
have reiterated to them. As the Prime Minister has said, it would
be better if Guantánamo were closed. We have also heard
the public remarks of the Attorney-General and the Lord Chancellor.
We raise those concerns in our regular discussions on detainee-related
issues with the US Government. I give my hon. Friends the commitment
that we will continue to do so.
Pressed by the Chairman on whether Guantánamo
Bay is unacceptable and should be closed, the Minister added:
"Yes, that is what has been said. Furthermore, that is what
I believe." On 19 May 2006, the UN Committee against Torture
added its voice to those calling for the closure of the camp.
46. We acknowledge that there is a problem of what
to do with some of the detainees at Guantánamo and that
those detained include some very dangerous terrorists. We also
conclude that the continuing existence of Guantánamo diminishes
US moral authority and adds to the list of grievances against
the US. We further conclude that detentions without either national
or international authority work against British as well as US
interests and hinder the effective pursuit of the 'war against
terrorism'. We conclude that those who can be reasonably safely
released should be released, those who can be prosecuted as criminals
should be prosecuted and that as many others as possible should
be returned to their countries of citizenship. We commend the
British Government for its policy of urging the US government
to move towards closing Guantánamo.
SEPTEMBER 2006 : FCO RESPONSE CM 6905
10. The Government welcomes the US Administration's
public indications of its desire to see the number of detainees
at Guantánamo Bay reduced or the detention facilities at
Guantánamo Bay closed down altogether. But the Government
agrees that careful consideration needs to be given to how the
detention facility at Guantánamo Bay should be closed so
that international security is maintained and the human rights
of detainees are respected if returned to their countries of citizenship.
On 29 June the US Supreme Court gave judgment in the case of Salim
Hamdan v. Donald Rumsfeld et al. The Court held that the Military
Commissions, which had been established to try certain detainees
at Guantánamo Bay, did not comply with either US or relevant
international humanitarian law. The US Administration I still
considering how to respond to the Hamdan decision although it
has promised to respect the Court's decision and produce new legislation
aimed at bringing the military commission process more into line
with US and international law. We expect the new legislation to
be presented to Congress by the Autumn.
11. The Government continues to discuss detainee
related issues, including Guantánamo Bay, regularly with
the US Administration and seeks to ensure that the handling of
detainees is consistent with the British Government's other objectives.
These objectives include preventing further terrorist attacks,
undermining the work of those who recruit terrorists, and upholding
respect for human rights and the rule of law.
