We need to know the truth about UK prisoners rendered to Bagram Prison
Today there are many prisoners who have been victims of kidnapping and imprisonment, the practice known as extraordinary rendition, they have been unlawful arrested and detained by the British and American governments.
Accused by their captors of having links with terrorism, these two men have been held in secret prisons for many years, held incommunicado without any access to the outside world.
Reprieve has recently released conclusive results that their investigations have revealed the identity of two such men, one man, Amanatullah Ali, and the other man is known by the name Salahuddin.
Reprieve is a UK based Human Rights organisation which investigates the cases of prisoners who have been imprisoned without recourse to due legal processes
Reprieve have produced evidence which shows that the the British government has consistently misled parliament and the public about their involvement in any extraordinary rendition operations.
The British Government has previously categorically denied any involvement in extraordinary renditions:
On 13 December 2005, Foreign Secretary Jack Straw told the UK Parliament’s Foreign Affairs Select Committee that, ‘Unless we all start to believe in conspiracy theories and that the officials are lying, that I am lying, that behind this there is some kind of secret state which is in league with some dark forces in the United States, and also let me say, we believe that Secretary Rice is lying, there simply is no truth in the claims that the United Kingdom has been involved in rendition full stop, because we have not been, and so what on earth a judicial inquiry would start to do I have no idea. I do not think it would be justified. While we are on this point, Chairman, can I say this? Some of the reports which are given credibility, including one this morning on the Today programme, are in the realms of the fantastic.’
A leaked home office memorandum to Prime-Minister Tony Blair in December 2005, advised him to “dodge” questions about the extent of UK involvement in US renditions.
On 7 December 2005, Prime Minister Tony Blair responded to questions about the extent of UK involvement in US renditions by stating that he has known of the US rendition policy for many years, and accepts US assurances that it is conducted in accordance with international law.
On 22 December 2005, Prime Minister Tony Blair said at a press conference: ‘I have absolutely no evidence to suggest that anything illegal has been happening here at all, and I am not going to start ordering inquiries into this, that and the next thing, when I have got no evidence to show whether this is right or not. And I honestly, it is like all this stuff about camps in Europe or something, I don’t know, I have never heard of such a thing, I can’t tell you whether such a thing exists.’
On 15 March 2006, Foreign Secretary Jack Straw was asked by a member of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee: ‘do you have anything to add to your previous robust denials of Government involvement in view of that admission [that perhaps the British Government still has not released its full knowledge of rendition issues]?’ Mr. Straw replied: ‘No….I have said to the Committee before that we conducted the most thorough of searches through the records and I have given the Committee the evidence that I have. If further evidence comes to light, I will bring it before the Committee.
On 1 December 2008, Defence Secretary John Hutton became aware of the capture and subsequent transfer of the two prisoners, and instructed officials to investigate the case.
in February 2009 then-Secretary of State for Defence John Hutton announced to the British Parliament that UK forces had captured two men in Iraq in February 2004, and handed them to US forces, they later become aware of the US transferred the men from Iraq to Afghanistan.
On 26 February 2009, John Hutton revealed the results of the MOD investigation to Parliament, confirming publicly for the first time that the two prisoners had been captured by UK forces in Iraq in February 2004, handed to US custody and subsequently rendered to Afghanistan. Mr Hutton did not disclose the names of the men, but claimed that they were members of extremist Sunni group Lashkar-e-Tayyiba. Mr Hutton said that the reason for the prisoners’ transfer to Afghanistan was to do with “linguistic” capacity of US forces operating in Iraq. Mr Hutton acknowledged that the transfer, “should have been questioned at the time”.
The British Government has unsuccesfully attempted to absolve itself of responsibility for the two men following their rendition to US custody and they have subsequently done nothing to ensure that they received legal help.
On 29 February 2009, the British High Court upheld a government application for an injunction preventing ex-SAS Ben Griffin from making further disclosures about UK forces capturing and transferring prisoners to US custody in Iraq.
On 2 March 2009, Reprieve wrote to the Defence Secretary, John Hutton asking him to identify the two men so that Reprieve lawyers could act for the men and their families and secure their release.
On 4 June 2009, the Ministry of Defence replied to Reprieve, refusing to provide information about the prisoners on the basis of the Data Prevention Act, and Freedom of Information Act
It took three months for the UK government to reply and then they wrote that they would not reveal the prisoners’ names, as doing so would violate the prisoners’s rights under the UK’s Data Protection legislation.
The legal consequences of Britain’s Iraq renditions
Reprieve identified one of the men as Amanatullah Ali, Reprieve has located and visited Amanatullah Ali family in a small village in the Punjab, Pakistan who informed Reprieve that in the limited, and censored communications that they have had from Amanatullah he has told them that he was detained by the British, rather than the Americans; he has asked them to pray for his safe return, and to get him help. .
In approximately January 2005 Amanatullah’s family received first a letter from him via the Red Cross, informing them that he was now being held by the US at Bagram Airforce Base, Afghanistan.
Reprieve have been unable to positively identify the second man, although their interviews with released Bagram prisoners have identified that he is known as “Salahuddin” and that he was brought up in the Gulf states, “Salahuddin” has been unable to contact his family or reassure them that he is alive.
Reprieve has been told by other former prisoners that as a result of his abuse in UK and US custody, “Salahuddin” is in terrible mental and physical health and he now spends most of his time in the mental health cells at Bagram Prison.
A former Bagram prisoner informed Reprieve that “The two brothers you are talking about were brought from Iraq to Afghanistan. Salahuddin was from a family prominent in the Arab world whose family originally came from Pakistan. He had been brought from Baghdad to Bagram in 2004. When I knew him in Bagram, he was in catastrophic physical and mental condition, and would often be put into a special cell reserved for people suffering serious mental health problems. Salah was not allowed any contact with his family.”
British Government lied to Parliament
In his statement to the UK Parliament on 26 February 2009, John Hutton stated that the Ministry of Defence had worked for almost three months in order to “bring a full account to Parliament.”
He made four salient assertions of fact. The evidence we have gathered indicates that the statement was misleading on all four.
John Hutton stated that “the individuals transferred to Afghanistan are members of Lashkar e Tayyiba, a proscribed Sunni organisation with links to al-Qaeda.” and now known for its alleged involvement in the Mumbai bombing.
Amanatullah is In fact a Shia rice merchant, whose family owns land in the Pakistani Punjab. Lashkar e Tayyiba is a Sunni extremist group that views all Shia as heretics, and that is currently conducting a violent campaign in the Punjab to dispossess Shia landholders such as Mr Amanatullah, it is incredible that to believe that he could be a member of Lashkar e Tayyiba.
Amanatullah’s family report that Amanatullah crossed from Iran, where he was on business involving the sale of rice, into Iraq in February 2004 to visit Shia shrines during the holy month of Muharram, Aminatullah and an unidentified other unidentified prisoner were captured by UK forces in the vicinity of Baghdad.
In February or March 2004, UK forces transferred Amanatullah Ali and Prisoner B to US custody.iv. British officials became aware of the US “intention to transfer” Amanatullah and Prisoner B from Iraq to Afghanistan in March 2004.v. Between 7 and 14 March 2004 the Boeing aircraft N313P which has been dubbed the “Guantanamo Bay Express” by Amnesty International made a circuit from Washington via Libya and Palma de Mallorca before stopping over in Iraq, the aircraft flew to Afghanistan and returned back to the US via Cyprus and Ireland.
In March 2004, Amanatullah Ali and an unidentified prisoner were moved to an unspecified prison in Afghanistan, from March 2004 until January 2005, Amanatullah Ali and the unidentified Prisoner were held in an unspecified US secret prison in Afghanistan.
British officials were aware by mid-June 2004 that Amanatullah Ali and the unidentified Prisoner were in US custody in Afghanistan.
In January 2005 Amanatullah’s family received first a letter from him via the Red Cross, informing them that he was now being held by the US at Bagram Airforce Base, Afghanistan.
The two men have been held beyond the rule of law for more than five years now. We do not know much about “Salahudin”, but Mr Amanatullah has five children, including a small daughter who he has not seen since she was a few months old.
Amanatullah’s family live in the village of Khurrianwala located just out side the city of Faisalabad, in the province of Punjab, Pakistan. The houses are made of bricks while significant portions are made of just mud as the residents are extremely poor.
Amanatullah had been working as a rice merchant since 2002, a business he started when his brother, Zulfiqar loaned him some money. He made frequent trips to Iran which is a major rice importing country because of a high level of consumption and a low level of domestic production.
In February 2004, Amanatullah made another business trip to Iran. Since he belongs to the Shia sect of Islam and it was the holy month of Muharram, Amanatullah decided to continue his journey west into Iraq for pilgrimage at what is considered to be one of the holiest shrines in Karbala. A visit to the holy shrines in Karbala and Najaf in Iraq is a dream for all practising Shia Muslims. In spite of the United States invasion of Iraq in 2003, Shia Muslims from all over the world, including Pakistan, continue to go to Iraq for their annual pilgrimage.
Amanatullah’s family never heard from him till a year later in 2005 when they received a letter through the ICRC. The family learnt that Amanatullah had been picked up by the British, shot in the foot and rendered to Bagram.
Through Amanatullah’s very limited contact with his family through the ICRC, he has asked them to engage a lawyer to help secure his release.
John Hutton further told Parliament that “the US Government has explained to us that they [the prisoners] were moved to Afghanistan because of a lack of relevant linguists necessary to interrogate them effectively in Iraq.”
In fact this was a pretext that did not stand up in view of the facts known to the British authorities at the time that both Amanatullah Ali and “Salahuddin” were known to be fluent in Arabic, which is the language of Iraq, therefore the US clearly had adequate “linguistic” resources to interrogate them in Iraq.
It appears that, because the two men were not Iraqi nationals the US felt no obligation to turn them over to the Iraqi authorities, therefore they rendered them to Bagram Prison in Afghanistan in order to continue to hold them.
John Hutton stated to the UK Parliament that “the US has categorised them as unlawful enemy combatants, and continues to review their status on a regular basis.” By this, he tried to reassure Parliament that the two men were being given some form of due process, and that the conditions of their imprisonment were appropriate.
The term “unlawful enemy combatant” is not regnised in international agreements, it has only ever been used by the US to justify holding prisoners beyond the rule of law in Guantánamo Bay and Bagram prison
The regulations used at Bagram Prison under which a detainee may have a “status review” before a “Detainee Review Board” are not in accordance with the Geneva Conventions, or any internationally recognised legal standards.
Under the Bagram rules, prisoners are not allowed to seek the assistance of a lawyer, they may not be told of all the evidence against them, or given the opportunity to gather evidence to help in their defence. The “Detainee Review Board” does not look at whether evidence has been obtained through torture, these procedures fall short of the Geneva Convention for the treatment of prisoners of war.
Under President Obama’s new Bagram guidelines, the “Detainee Review Board” system, prisoners in Bagram have far less rights than those held under the old Guantanamo regime. The US Supreme Court has held on three occasions (Rasul in 2004, Hamdan in 2006 and Boumediene in 2008), that the Guantánamo procedures are inadequate by any standards. It is therefore beyond dispute that the legal regime in Bagram fails to satisfy minimum legal requirements.
John Hutton declared that “the detainees are held in a humane, safe and secure environment meeting international standards which are consistent with cultural and religious norms and the ICRC has had regular access to the detainees.”
Mr Amanatullah has had access to the ICRC, but because such communications will be censored by the US, the ICRC has advised Amanatullah’s family not to question him about his treatment, conditions at Bagram or the allegations against him. The ICRC has under the terms of its access agreed not to respond to prisoners’ requests to secure legal assistance.
Reprieve has been informed that “Salahudin” has aparently met with the ICRC in Bagram, but he has not been able to communicate at all with his family.
The Memorandum of Understanding between the US and the UK
On 20 October 2009.The Ministry of Defence provided reprieve with a copy of a Memorandum of Understanding between the US and the UK.
Under the Memorandum of Understanding, as the two men were detained by the UK and then handed to the US, the UK is the “Detaining Power” and the US is the “Accepting Power”.
The Memorandum of Understanding contains, the following provisions:
Any prisoners of war, civilian internees, and civilian detainees transferred by a Detaining Power will be returned by the Accepting Power to the Detaining Power without delay upon request by the Detaining Power.
The release or repatriation or removal to territories outside Iraq of transferred prisoners of war, civilian internees, and civilian detainees will only be made upon the mutual arrangement of the Detaining Power and the Accepting Power.
The Detaining Power will retain full rights of access to any prisoners of war, civilian internees, and civilian detainees transferred from Detaining Power custody while such persons are in the custody of the Accepting Power.
The Detaining Power will be solely responsible for the classification under Articles 4 and 5 of the Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War of potential prisoners of war captured by its forces. Prior to such a determination being made, such detainees will be treated as prisoners of war and afforded all the rights and protections of the Convention even if transferred to the custody of an Accepting Power.
To the extent that jurisdiction may be exercised for criminal offenses, to include pre-capture offenses, allegedly committed by prisoners of war, civilian internees, and civilian detainees prior to a transfer to an Accepting Power, primary jurisdiction will initially rest with the Detaining Power. Detaining Powers will give favourable consideration to any request by an Accepting Power to waive jurisdiction.
The Detaining Power will reimburse the Accepting Power for the costs involved in maintaining prisoners of war, civilian internees, and civilian detainees transferred pursuant to this arrangement.”
Under the terms of the Memorandum of Understanding the UK could easily request that the US transfer Amanatullah and “Salahuddin” back to UK custody, and indeed given their knowledge of the illegal conditions at Bagram Prison, they should have done this a long time ago.
Under the terms of this agreement the UK Government could have made representations on the men’s behalf in relation to the conditions in which they are being held, and their due process rights.
The British government bears responsibility towards these men. Reprieve wishes to work with the government to right this wrong, and to ensure that Britain intervenes to assist in delivering justice to these men.
Amanatullah claims he is innocent and is anxious for a lawyer to represent him. Nobody in Amanatullah’s family was aware of an organization such as Reprieve that is helping prisoners who have been denied justice in the name of the “war on terror”.
Terry Waite, a former British victim of kidnap in Lebanon stated “The British government worked for my freedom when I was held captive for 1763 days, and I am glad and grateful for it. But if Amanatullah is as innocent as he seems to be, and if he has been held without any legal rights for more than 2000 days thanks to a mistake made by the British, then it would seem that the moral obligation on the British government has an even greater obligation to help right that wrong.”
Bagram Prison
General Stanley McCrystal’s confidential assesment of the situation in Afghanistan stated that the harsh conditions in the Bagram Theater Internment Camp could act as a recruiting sergeant for the forces arrayed against the US and the UK:and that providing due process to the prisoners in Bagram Prison would make soldiers safer.
General McCrystal recognizes that “With the drawdown in Iraq and the closing of Guantánamo Bay, the focus on U.S. detention operations will turn to the U.S. Bagram Theater Internment Facility (BTIF). Because of the classification level of the BTIF and the lack of public transparency, the Afghan people see U.S. detention operations as secretive and lacking in due process”
McCrystal further states “The U.S. came to Afghanistan vowing to deny these same enemies safe haven in 2001. They have gone from inaccessible mountain hideouts to recruiting and indoctrinating … in the open, in the ACS [Afghan Correctional System]. There are more insurgents per square foot in corrections facilities than anywhere else in Afghanistan. Unchecked, Taliban/Al Qaeda leaders patiently coordinate and plan, unconcerned with interference from prison personnel or the military.
General McCrystal was strongly criticism of the BTIF process, “Within the US Bagram Theater Internment Facility (BTIF), due to lack of capacity and capability, productive interrogations and detainee collection have been reduced. As a result, hundreds are held without charge or without a defined way ahead. This allows the enemy to radicalize them far beyond their pre-capture orientation. This problem can no longer be ignored”.
McCrystal advised that the US immediately set up a process to get out of the corrections business, that all interrogations be overseen by a new body, and that there be an emphasis on the rule of law before all other things, “These sound corrections management techniques … and Rule of Law principles, application to all detention facilities, include: adherence to international humanitarian law; due process; vocational and technical training; de-radicalization; rehabilitation; education; and classifying and segregating detainee population”.
On 4 December 2009 Reprieve wrote a Letter to Defence Secretary Bob Ainsworth on the Renditions Case.
On 7 december 2009 Conservative MP David Davis discussed the Iraq Renditions Case on BBC Television’s Today Programme
On 4 December 2009 Reprieve wrote a Letter to British Prime Minister Gordon Brown on behalf of Amanatullah Ali requesting clarification on the Iraq Renditions Case
The cases of Amanatullah Ali, and the other unidentified prisoner known by the name Salahuddin,
drag on and they are still no nearer to be granted access to legal representation and due legal process by the US authorities.
What we need to know about UK involvement
There are many questions which still need to be answered by members of the British Government about the extent of their knowledge of the fate of the two men and the veracity of the information that they provided to the UK Parliament about this matter, it appears that members of the Government including, Tony Blair, Jack Straw, John Hutton and Bob Ainsworth either lied or withheld information from Parliament.
Between March and June 2004 the two men vanished and remained off the radar, and the British public need to know what the British Government knew about whether these men were held in a CIA black site or secret military facility and if they were tortured?
What was the involvement of MI6 in the illegal detention of these two men and what was their involvement in interogatting them during their illegal detention?