Today, one of the radio news headlines was the release of 4 people with British residency status from Guantanamo Bay. Obviously it is a slow news day because this had lots of coverage and not all of it made me feel warm and fuzzy about how the rule of law is viewed in this country.<\/p>\n
The War On Terror is a pervasive aspect of western society today. For some reason, jingoistic right wingers feel that this is a war which can both be fought and can be won. The reality is so different it may as well be in the seventh dimension. I wont rant for ages on this, but in a nutshell terror is an emotion which can’t be fought. Terrorism is a tactic which also cant be fought. The more society allows itself to worry about “fighting terror” the more afraid it becomes – and the terrorist organisations notch up yet another victory. UBL and the rest of the Islamic extremist terrorists no longer need to blow things up to destroy western civilisation, we are happily doing it to ourselves. Well done all.<\/p>\n
Anyway, the reason I harp on about this is the unadulterated fearmongering which has taken place, at the expense of any outmoded ideas of law or rights, following the release of the “Gitmo 4.”<\/p>\n
Before I go any further, the background to this is from the BBC:<\/p>\n
Three British residents held by the US at Guantanamo Bay for four-and-a-half years have been detained after arriving back in the UK. Omar Deghayes and Abdenour Samuer were arrested under the Terrorism Act after they arrived at Luton Airport and are being questioned at Paddington Green.<\/p>\n
Jamil el-Banna was not arrested but is being detained under the act and questioned at a Luton police station.<\/p>\n
The government has said their immigration status will be reviewed.<\/p>\n
Another freed UK resident, Shaker Abdur-Raheem Aamer, is expected to return to his native Saudi Arabia.<\/p>\n
A fifth UK resident, Ethiopian Binyam Mohammed, will remain at Guantanamo.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
So, they have already spent four and half years in prison (we wont go into the torture issue for now<\/a>) without any charges or there being sufficient evidence for them to face trial in a court of law. Amazing. Scary but still amazing. National pride forces me to point out that now the three who have now been arrested are at least in the system and most probably going to be protected (and punished should they be found guilty<\/em>) in accordance with the rule of law that acts as the cornerstone of our “society.”<\/p>\n
On Radio 4’s PM show today (listen again<\/a> 1<\/sup> is interesting, this bit starts at around 8 minutes into the show and lasts 2 minutes) the Shadow Security Minister Baroness Neville-Jones showed a very, very scary insight to what the UK will face should the Conservatve party get into government.<\/p>\n
After a nice start in which she spouts a few generalised terms about it being good for the US government to eventually<\/em> close Guantanamo Bay, she instantly jumps on the chance to attack the government – no matter how wrong her position is.<\/p>\n
Over and over she appeals to public fear with a phrase along the lines of:<\/p>\n
What we need to know and what we dont know is what the Government’s intentions [towards the released men] are.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Now, call me old fashioned but why do “we” need<\/strong> to know this? At the time the Baroness was making this heartfelt plea to fear, the men were on a plane back to the UK escorted by Metropolitan Police Counter Terrorist Officers. If the government had publicly stated “we will arrest them” or “we will release them without charge” what actual difference would it have made to the public I assume she means with the “we.”<\/p>\n
Her main argument that something must be done is:<\/p>\n
The Pentagon says, and has consistently maintained, that these men are dangerous.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
WTF. She follows this odd line of reasoning up with explaining this is why the government should hold the “public safety in sufficient regard to give us some idea what they [they government] intend to do next.” Seriously. I really can not follow this line of reasoning so if you can explain how telling the public what they intend to do has any impact on public safety please tell me. I could (sort of) understan<\/p>\n
d if she was complaining about the government choice of actions effecting public safety but this just struck me as rather feeble attempt to dig at the government without having anything to dig at.<\/p>\n
The really scary bit, considering she is a member of the house of Lords, is when the presenter asks her why we should think they are actually dangerous. He asks her why, if they are so dangerous, hasn’t the US government prosecuted them and why, if they are such a threat to civilisation, they have been released.<\/p>\n
In response to this the Baroness stumbles a little bit claiming you cant draw the conclusion that the lack of any legal action from the US government (after over 4 years of
torture<\/strike> questioning) means they are not the most dangerous people on Earth. She states that:<\/p>\nThe US government has consistently claimed these people are non-combatants, I mean not legitimate combatants …<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Worrying slip there…<\/p>\n
… and have not been willing to initiate trials for them. It doesn’t follow that there cant be a legal proceeding here or some measures and that is what we need to know.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Here we go with the “need to know” again…<\/p>\n
Over and over she stresses that some “responsible action” should be taken on these people until they can prove themselves innocent of all charges. It is comical how often she uses the phrase “we need to know what is going to happen” (or a close variant) and she seems to consider that, because the US government thinks these people may be terrorists, they must be terrorists despite no trial or disclosed evidence. She is taking it at 100% face value that the US are correct and do not make mistakes.<\/p>\n
The presenter points out that Amnesty International thinks the men should be treated first and foremost as the victims of a miscarriage of justice. The Shadow Security Minister replied:<\/p>\n
Part of our problem is that we dont know on what basis we can regard these people [mumbles her words a bit] on the basis that we dont know what the government is going to do next or what the government is going to do with the charges against them.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
What barely intelligible nonsense she is coming out with.\u00c2\u00a0 Worryingly, she has (despite claims to the contrary) decided that these men are guilty until proven innocent.<\/p>\n
I make no preconceived judgement on how these men should be treated, what is clear is that they must be subjected to some kind of procedure and that we will know why the government has resorted to the procedure it does,<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Is it me, or does her assumption that they be subjected to “some kind of procedure” imply a preconceived judgement on how they should be treated?<\/p>\n
These men are innocent until proven guilty. That the Shadow Security Minister seems to completely miss this concept – and if anything call for the opposite – is worrying. That the UK news is crawling with articles about terrorists being released to the UK is worrying. The comments made by idiotic Daily Mail readers<\/a> is predictable, however…<\/p>\n
Usama Bin Laden must be laughing himself all the way to the front of his cave. Western society is feasting on itself in an attempt to stop people dying. Well done us all.<\/p>\n
—
\n1: Please note, this will only point to the correct show until Wednesday 26 December 2007<\/p>\nShare this:<\/h3>