THE US, THE UN AND THE IRAQIS THEMSELVES, V. 7.0

Court Rules Against Britain on Detainees

Thursday December 16, 2004 By BETH GARDINER

Associated Press Writer

LONDON (AP) - Britain's highest court dealt a huge blow to the government's anti-terrorism policy Thursday by ruling that it cannot detain foreign suspects indefinitely without trial.

Judges in the House of Lords ruled 8-1 in favor of a group of foreign men jailed without charge for up to three years. Their lawyers say their detention is a gross violation of human rights.

One judge described the law allowing them to be held as a greater threat to the nation than terrorism.

The British government had argued that the detention without trial of some terrorist suspects was a tough but necessary measure to protect a free society from the threat of devastating attacks.

While the judges cannot directly strike down the law, their ruling that it is incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights puts the onus on the government to resolve that conflict by repealing or amending the disputed provision.

Home Secretary Charles Clarke said the detainees would remain imprisoned and the law would stay in force while legislators considered what to do next.

``It is ultimately for Parliament to decide whether and how we should amend the law,'' he said.

U.S. courts have also made some decisions reining in the Bush administration's strategy in fighting terrorism, which envisaged detaining so-called ``enemy combattants'' without charge or trial.

But the British court decision seems to go farther than a ruling earlier this year by the U.S. Supreme Court, which held that foreigners seized by U.S. forces as potential terrorists and held for several years may challenge their captivity in American courts.

While the June 2004 ruling does not guarantee detainees a trial, it did reject a central claim of the Bush administration: that the government has authority to seize and detain terrorism suspects and indefinitely deny access to courts or lawyers while interrogating them.

Since that ruling, lawsuits have been filed in federal court in Washington on behalf of dozens of people being held at a U.S. military prison in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. About 550 prisoners are being detained, accused of links to the Taliban or the al-Qaida terror network.

In the British case, the nine law lords - members of the House of Lords who constitute Britain's highest court of appeal - voted against the measures brought in after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, under which foreign terrorist suspects may be detained indefinitely without charge or trial if they cannot safely be removed to another country.

Lord Bingham of Cornhill presented the majority opinion.

``The measures unjustifiably discriminate against foreign nationals on the grounds of their nationality or immigration status and are not strictly required since they provide for the detention of some but not all of those who present the same risk,'' he said.

He was referring to the distinction the law makes between British suspects and foreigners. The law applies only to terrorism suspects who are not British citizens and whose lives would be endangered if they were deported.

Seventeen people have been detained under the disputed provision of the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act. Eleven remain in custody and six have been freed, deported or detained under other powers.

The government has not told the detainees why they were arrested, or on what evidence.

The law, which required the government to opt out of sections of the European Convention on Human Rights, allows police to arrest and hold foreign nationals if there are ``reasonable grounds to suspect'' links to terrorist groups. That is a far lower requirement than the standard of proof that would be required to convict them of a crime.

Lord Hoffmann, joining Bingham's decision, said the case was one of the most important to come before the court in recent years.

``It calls into question the very existence of an ancient liberty of which this country has until now been very proud: freedom from arbitrary arrest and detention,'' he wrote.

``The real threat to the life of the nation ... comes not from terrorism but from laws such as these,'' he argued. ``That is the true measure of what terrorism may achieve. It is for Parliament to decide whether to give the terrorists such a victory.''

The suspects are not allowed to hear all the evidence against them, nor can their lawyers access all the top secret documents and testimonies in the case. But the attorney general has appointed special advocates who have been checked by the MI5 security agency, to act on their behalf.

Bingham said he would quash the opt-out order and declare section 23 of the 2001 Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act incompatible with the European Convention.

One of the detainees, identified only as ``A,'' welcomed the ruling.

``I hope now that the government will act upon this decision, scrap this illegal 'law' and release me and the other internees,'' he said in a statement released by Gareth Peirce, one of the lawyers for the suspects.

Human rights campaigners also welcomed the verdict.

Of course there is an alpha; but why should an alpha be held to different standards than other countries?

Your original argument was that you cannot compare the actions/behaviour of America and 'non-alpha' countries, but why should this be so? I'd like to hear the reasoning.

Most alpha animals don't have to worry about a submissive animal spraying their den with Anthrax, Sarin or some other biological agent either...

So the question is: We are in a war against terror. Are terrorists ordinary prisoners? Or are they prisoners of war?

we have not, as of yet, declared war.

except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger

As to "public danger" more people in the USA die every year from falls in their bathrooms than from "terrorism" Shall we absolve victims of bathroom "accidents" their legal rights?

Bill,

I understand the point you are making better now, thanks for explaining it.

If we want the world to follow us, we have to have the courage to do the right thing!

Bill,I agree with your post, except that I would say to me the right thing isn't about whether we invade other countries, or whatever; it's in deciding not to torture people b/c torture is wrong. Even if it does make it easier for us to prosecute our war, it's still wrong.

By bending our morals, we lose respect internationally. This 'war on terror' sure isn't going to end in Iraq, and if we want to win said war, international respect and assistance is going to be critical; hell, we can't AFFORD another war where we foot the whole bill for years.

The pentagon said about 130 troops have been punished or charged in prisoner-abuse cases in Iraq, Afghanistan or Quantanamo Bay. Separately, the military said a May inspection by an American general found no continuing abuse in Afghanistan.

McTag, Cyclops, I ask you the same question:

Quote:

Of the countries who've made a push to become the Alpha in recent history, which one do you realistically think would be more benevolent? (The Swiss have made no such push)(Don't forget the word realistically either. Idealistically, I would agree we could do so much better. )

Your use of realistic and naive are laughably inverted unless you can put a name on a realistic substitute, whom would be more benevolent. Is that an un-realistic request for a liberal?