17/06/2007
Appeal pits human rights concerns against security
Paul Donavan
BRITAIN'S ENTIRE counter-terrorism strategy will come under close scrutiny this week as the government's attempt to deport an Algerian suspect is brought before the court of appeal. The move to return Mustafa Taleb, known publicly as suspect Y, to Algeria has come in for heavy criticism and now campaigners warn that the case is among a number being used as a test-bed by the government to see how far it can stretch the confines of the Human Rights Act.
Taleb was one of four Algerians acquitted in April 2005 on all charges of attempting to mount a plot to poison thousands of Britons using the substance ricin. No ricin was ever found.
Nevertheless, following the London bombings three months later, the quartet was once again held by police. This time they were served with deportation notices as they were viewed as a threat to national security.
The men had fled Algeria in fear of their lives, and it had indeed been ruled by the Special Immigration Appeals Commission (Siac) that it was not safe for them to return. This judgment, however, was reversed following assurances given to the prime minster by the Algerian government that "no torture, no ill treatment" would take place.
Taleb's defence, though, contends that Algeria remains an unsafe place for him to return to. Campaigners point to the cases of two other Algerians who recently returned home, only to be immediately detained and charged. One, known as H, languishes in a cell outside Algiers. He has reported hearing the screams of people being tortured and the cries of a woman being "stretched" in a neighbouring cell.
The government maintains that "Y is a long-term supporter of terrorist groups with a jihadist agenda".
Campaigners and lawyers, however, point out that a dangerous precedent could be set that sees people who have not been convicted of crimes being delivered into the arms of governments with questionable human rights records.
Solicitor Gareth Peirce believes the Algerians have effectively been used as guinea pigs by the government to see how far they can push the law and claims the lessons of the Troubles have not been learned. "Internment in Northern Ireland proved to be a recruiting sergeant for terrorism," said Peirce, who sees the Muslim community now being treated as "suspect" in the same way.
"The continuing experiment is dangerous and insidious in more than one way. It has become very clear that when one challenge is overcome the goalposts are moved and a new system comes in," said Peirce. "This breeds a belief in the suspect community that there is no hope of justice, which is a very dangerous development that will fuel conflict."
These sentiments were echoed by Amnesty International, which believes that the measures taken by the government in the name of the war on terror have undermined the rule of law at home and damaged Britain's reputation overseas. The organisation says that "if someone is suspected of a crime they should be charged, tried and punished if they are found guilty".
John Watson, Amnesty's Scotland director, added: "Counter-terrorism policies have ridden roughshod over some of the most basic human rights: the rights to liberty and to a fair trial.
"And, worryingly, the UK's actions have seriously undermined the global ban on torture. Returning people to countries where they may face torture, such as Algeria, can never be acceptable and diplomatic assurances offer people no real protection whatsoever."
The government has said it will remain in "close touch" with Algerian authorities if Taleb is removed.
Siac, having reversed its previous decision, states he was no "mere sympathiser, but a more influential and active member of extremist groups". "He is a risk to the UK's national security and should be deported," it ruled.
The lawyer Clive Stafford Smith, however, has drawn parallels between what has gone on in Guantanamo Bay, where he represents a number of clients, and the regime of detention built up in the UK. He claims that far from preventing terrorism, such strategies are in fact storing up problems for the future.
"I fail to see a distinction between Belmarsh the London prison where many terror suspect have been held and Guantanamo," said Stafford Smith, who recalled a CIA agent saying in 2004 that for every person held in Guantanamo, it would create 10 who wanted to blow up the US. "The US and UK governments are seeking to answer the wrong question and so get the wrong answer. The focus is on how to stop individuals who might commit a crime in the future. The operation of Guantanamo and Belmarsh means we are jettisoning the values we are supposed to be protecting. This is radicalising thousands," he said.
"Enforcing human rights is the best way to confront terrorism."
For the government, though, that is simply not enough. It contends that Britain faces a clear and present danger and must be willing to take strong measures to maintain the safety of the population at large. And it seems unlikely that the accession of Gordon Brown to 10 Downing Street will dilute that approach. Indeed, in recent days he gave a signal of his intent, indicating a desire to increase the 28-day limit on being able to detain terror suspects without charge.
Lord Alex Carlile, the government's independent reviewer of anti-terror legislation, believes the present regime works and denies there is a "suspect" community being created. "The purpose of anti-terror legislation has to be explained across communities. The religious leaders have an important role to play in this respect," he said.
Whatever the outcome of Mustafa Taleb's appeal this week, the court of appeals' ruling will provide an indication of how far the government will be allowed to go in its bid to jettison human rights in the name of security.
SOURCE: Sunday Herald
|
