Clive Stafford Smith: Why has the Government forsaken Binyam Mohamed?
Friday, 30 May 2008
Print
Email
It seems likely that the US military will soon seek to prosecute Binyam Mohamed in a military tribunal that fails to meet internationally recognised legal standards.
British officials have condemned the tribunals, and the former lord justice Steyn referred to them as "kangaroo courts". The British Government has strongly opposed Mr Mohamed being put on trial in such an unfair process, and has demanded that he be returned home to London.
This is admirable. Why, then, does the Government refuse to provide Mr Mohamed with assistance in proving his claim that he is innocent, and that he was tortured? Some magnet seems to have dragged the moral compass of this government radically off course.
With the generous assistance of the law firm Leigh Day, Mr Mohamed recently sued the British Government, asking simply that it provide evidence in its possession that would help us prove that Mr Mohamed was rendered by the CIA to Morocco, where he underwent 18 months of torture, including having a razor blade taken to his genitals. The Government's lawyers replied that "evidence held by the UK Government that US and Moroccan authorities engaged in torture or rendition cannot be obtained" by Mr Mohamed's lawyers to help defend him. Why not? We are not told.
The government lawyers went on to write that "the UK is under no obligation under international law to assist foreign courts or tribunals in ensuring that torture evidence is not admitted" against Mr Mohamed in Guantanamo. Again, why not?
"The trouble with the law is lawyers," wrote the famous American lawyer Clarence Darrow. No matter what the technical arguments that can be made in favour of an injustice, surely the just course of action is obvious here. We do not ask anyone merely to accept Mr Mohamed's claims, but we do ask that he be given an open trial in which to present them to a fair jury, and that he be allowed access to the evidence with which to prove his case.
We know that the British Government has various pieces of helpful evidence in its possession. For example, British agents met with Mr Mohamed when he was arrested in Pakistan, interviewed him for three hours, and apparently told the US that he was a "nobody" (a janitor from Kensington) as well as telling Mr Mohamed that he was going to be rendered by the US to a foreign country. When Mr Mohamed was duly sent to Morocco, the UK provided background information on him to the US that was used to manipulate him as part of his torture.
Why would the British Government refuse to disclose this kind of critical information? Here, we are left to speculate, since they won't give an explanation. Sadly, the most likely reason is that there is much more evidence that they would rather remained hidden – such as proof of systematic British co-operation in the US rendition process.
The British citizen used to have an absolute right to remain silent in the face of a criminal accusation. Two decades ago, this right was abolished. Surely, no official can be allowed to remain silent when asked to explain why the Government wants to cover up evidence that could help bring justice to a Londoner held in Guantanamo Bay?
The author is the director of Reprieve, the legal charity for the human rights of prisoners
This man is not a British Citizen , why the hell do we want him here , I know all you left wing nuts will go on about how bad gitmo is and it's so unfair to keep people banged up there , well good luck to the Americans , about time someone stood up to these terrorists nuts. I hope the American's keep Gitmo open for as long as possible and not listen to all this human rights clap trap, do the terrorists worry about us when they blow up a bus or train in the name of their god , no they don't , they should be treated if caught with the same contempt as they treat us.
Posted by Bryan | 31.05.08, 18:41 GMT
'With the generous assistance of the law firm Leigh Day, Mr Mohamed recently sued the British Government...' Leigh Day are personal injury specialists. Does anybody know if they are doing this pro-bono? Or will they get a cut of the settlement if their action is succesful? Maybe the author could disclose this piece of critical information.
Posted by Michael | 30.05.08, 13:14 GMT
Since the assent of a free and open trial,as a result of the Bill of Rights 1689,all British subjects have had the right to a fair trial jury hearing,regardless of how heinous the charge.
It is my understanding that the renowned International Human Rights lawyer Clive Stafford-Smith is asking the British Governmnet to support and respect the UN Charter of Human Rights and the right of a fair trial in the country of origin, for al foreign prisoners held abroad.
Many eminent British Human Rights politicians including Nick Clegg,Sarah Teather,and Norman Baker have repeatedly condemned the inhumanity implicit in the reported abuse of human rights process connected with everything at Guantanomo Bay.
I ask is n`t each citizen regardless of charge be entitled to equal representation at international law?
Is it time to review the terms of the UN Treaty of Human Rights dating from 1949, set in a different post WW2 era of Human Rights territory?
Should the Treaty not proclaim that Individuals and not exclusively the sovereignty of Memberr States in the UN be seen as being pr-eminent?
It is surely for the greater good for the humanity of the Individual is best servedby a new universal set of principles enshrined in a new Human Rights Charter fit for the 21C?
This new Charter could then provide for access to a judge and jury for all Individuals and then until/unless the due process of law and jurisprudence completed and delared, guilt or innocence can be senn to have been determined fairly and impartially.
This was the process at the Nuremburg Trials and that process has now been foresaken in Guantanomo Bay.
I was also under the view that the US Constitution has not foreswore the sanctity of Human Rights for each of its own citizens.
History informs us that the proud journey taken by the US to become the first world State to adopt a universal declaration of human rights (except for negroes or coloured persons' in 1776) and managed to still condone human slavery in part, until 1865,has still not become the finished article.
We now however are arriving at a crossroads in the US Elections when either the first coloured man,woman or eldest American citizen will become the next elected President.
I wonder what FDR Roosevelt,Woodrow Wilson or Sir Winston Churchill would have said about Guantanomo and all that it has symbolised?
Posted by Cllr Patrick Smith | 30.05.08, 12:49 GMT
This creeping toadism to a degenerate power must stop.
Posted by Patricia Pemberton-James | 30.05.08, 12:29 GMT
Hopefully the paradox of Brown will work here. He is part of a govt that has enthusiastically supported torture evidence yet he lectures on shared global values. He personally supports Aung Sung Suu Kyi whilst Britain has been a de facto supporter of the Burma regime judged on objective criteria that does not count hot air. He suddenly found out this country's support for cluster bombs was bordering on the zealotic and we suddenly change position - although we won't loudly ask the US to of course. Hopefully his weak desire to be popular here will be of some good here.
What is funny is that New Labour (and its acolytes) don't understand why they are so hated. It is stories like this and their hypocritical hot air.
Posted by Jon da Silva | 30.05.08, 11:30 GMT
The Government's lawyers write: "the UK is under no obligation under international law to assist foreign courts or tribunals in ensuring that torture evidence is not admitted". Why do they put the matter like this – as though the UK would be doing the foreign courts a favour by preventing torture evidence from being admitted? Surely, as Mr Stafford Smith implies, the UK Government's obligation should be first and foremost to its citizens, not to the justice system of a foreign country.
This whole business should be deeply shameful for all those involved.
Posted by Daniel Hewitt | 30.05.08, 10:54 GMT
The price we all pay for subservience to the US is shaming. It is to be hoped that the UK Government will act soon to ensure an end to all complicity in the abuse of Human Rights for which the US is becoming notorious. They should act immediately in this case to bring Binyam Mohamed home.
Posted by Peter | 30.05.08, 09:10 GMT
If only Mohamed were a director of BAE, he could rely on a staunch defence by ministers against efforts by US authorities to prosecute him. But he is a janitor so entitled to nothing.
The entire Iraq saga has proved little except that the best democracies can be intimidated into behaving like the worst tinpot dictatorships. On great issues, like the pointless deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, it can be written off as affairs of state. But for a single man, jailed illegally, the abject failure to comply with the same Rule of Law which was the reason for Iraqi interference brings the entire debate into sharp, and painful, focus.
Posted by richard | 30.05.08, 00:54 GMT