Even as the UK was negotiating its assurances with Jordan, the United States was knowingly sending terrorism suspects to Jordan for purposes of interrogation under torture.
On March 29, 2007, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates told the House Appropriations Committee that there was a "taint" to Guantanamo and that the prison should be closed. More than six months later, several dozen prisoners have been moved out of Guantanamo, five more have been moved in, and the overall number of detainees is slightly under 300. Just about everyone agrees that the indefinite detention of hundreds of men without charge in the United States's backyard is a black spot on its reputation around the world. Flyers promised "enough money to take care of your family, your village, your tribe for the rest of your life" – simply for turning over al Qaeda and Taliban terrorists. Available capture information suggests that the vast majority were not picked up by U.S. forces, but turned over by the Pakistani government, Northern Alliance, and Afghan National Army – often for large sums of money. Rival clan members and neighbors with vendettas had a field day.
The United States can begin to regain its moral authority in combating terrorism when the Guantanamo Bay detention facility is closed. But that's only if the government stops sending detainees back to places like Tunisia.
In mid-June, a group of U.S. soldiers entered the cells of Abdullah al-Hajji and Lofti Lagha at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, where they had been held without charge for five years. The Americans cuffed the detainees' hands, shackled their ankles, muffed their ears and blindfolded them before loading them onto a military plane for the flight home.
In his response to the attempted terrorist bombings in London and the attack in Glasgow, Gordon Brown may have revealed a change of approach to counterterrorism. There was no overreaction, despite the seriousness of the threat, and no rush to introduce new security measures that flout human rights.
There is a chronic epidemic of torture in the Middle East and it feeds directly into political militancy, conflict and terrorism. Extremist groups like al-Qaida have long been led and inspired by victims of state torture.
CIA flights are only half the story when it comes to European complicity in torture. Much less well-known is the fact that EU states themselves have directly undermined the global torture ban in the name of countering terrorism.
This month's Queen's Speech looks set to contain legislation allowing national security to be weighed against concerns about torture. This would make it possible to send people back to countries where they risk torture - an extraordinary development in 21st-century Europe. More extraordinary still is the insistence that nothing in British attitudes has really changed.
As global leaders discuss trade, nuclear proliferation, and global warming at the G8 summit in St Petersburg this weekend, one might hope that respect for basic human rights could be taken for granted. Sadly, that is far from the case. Lawlessness is increasingly in fashion.
Human Rights Watch welcomes the Council of Europe’s Group of Specialists on Human Rights and the Fight against Terrorism (DH-S-TER) reflection and continuing debate on the human rights implications of the use of diplomatic assurances in transfers of terrorism suspects to places where they are at risk of torture and other ill-treatment. The objections of Human Rights Watch and a range of international non-governmental organizations (NGOs) to the use of diplomatic assurances are detailed in two joint statements already submitted to the Council of Europe for consideration in the course of this debate.
Even as the UK was negotiating its assurances with Jordan, the United States was knowingly sending terrorism suspects to Jordan for purposes of interrogation under torture.
On March 29, 2007, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates told the House Appropriations Committee that there was a "taint" to Guantanamo and that the prison should be closed. More than six months later, several dozen prisoners have been moved out of Guantanamo, five more have been moved in, and the overall number of detainees is slightly under 300. Just about everyone agrees that the indefinite detention of hundreds of men without charge in the United States's backyard is a black spot on its reputation around the world. Flyers promised "enough money to take care of your family, your village, your tribe for the rest of your life" – simply for turning over al Qaeda and Taliban terrorists. Available capture information suggests that the vast majority were not picked up by U.S. forces, but turned over by the Pakistani government, Northern Alliance, and Afghan National Army – often for large sums of money. Rival clan members and neighbors with vendettas had a field day.
The United States can begin to regain its moral authority in combating terrorism when the Guantanamo Bay detention facility is closed. But that's only if the government stops sending detainees back to places like Tunisia.
In mid-June, a group of U.S. soldiers entered the cells of Abdullah al-Hajji and Lofti Lagha at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, where they had been held without charge for five years. The Americans cuffed the detainees' hands, shackled their ankles, muffed their ears and blindfolded them before loading them onto a military plane for the flight home.
In his response to the attempted terrorist bombings in London and the attack in Glasgow, Gordon Brown may have revealed a change of approach to counterterrorism. There was no overreaction, despite the seriousness of the threat, and no rush to introduce new security measures that flout human rights.
There is a chronic epidemic of torture in the Middle East and it feeds directly into political militancy, conflict and terrorism. Extremist groups like al-Qaida have long been led and inspired by victims of state torture.
CIA flights are only half the story when it comes to European complicity in torture. Much less well-known is the fact that EU states themselves have directly undermined the global torture ban in the name of countering terrorism.
This month's Queen's Speech looks set to contain legislation allowing national security to be weighed against concerns about torture. This would make it possible to send people back to countries where they risk torture - an extraordinary development in 21st-century Europe. More extraordinary still is the insistence that nothing in British attitudes has really changed.
As global leaders discuss trade, nuclear proliferation, and global warming at the G8 summit in St Petersburg this weekend, one might hope that respect for basic human rights could be taken for granted. Sadly, that is far from the case. Lawlessness is increasingly in fashion.
Human Rights Watch welcomes the Council of Europe’s Group of Specialists on Human Rights and the Fight against Terrorism (DH-S-TER) reflection and continuing debate on the human rights implications of the use of diplomatic assurances in transfers of terrorism suspects to places where they are at risk of torture and other ill-treatment. The objections of Human Rights Watch and a range of international non-governmental organizations (NGOs) to the use of diplomatic assurances are detailed in two joint statements already submitted to the Council of Europe for consideration in the course of this debate.