MISCELLANEOUS NEWS REPORTS * 2003.07.01 - 2003.07.31 misc_digest_2003_2.txt * Associated Press: http://www.ap.org/ * Inter Press Service (IPS): http://ipsnews.net/ * Reuters: http://www.reuters.com/ * BBC: http://news.bbc.co.uk/ * CBS: http://www.cbsnews.com/ * CNN: http://www.cnn.com/ * The Age (Melbourne): * Chicago Tribune: http://www.chicagotribune.com/ * The Daily Telegraph (UK): http://www.telegraph.co.uk/ * Dawn (Islamabad): http://www.dawn.com/ * The Guardian (UK): http://www.guardian.co.uk/guardian/ * The Globe and Mail (Toronto): http://www.theglobeandmail.com/ * The Independent (UK): http://www.independent.co.uk/ * Los Angeles Times: http://www.latimes.com/ * The Mirror (UK): http://www.mirror.co.uk/ * The Observer (UK): http://www.observer.co.uk/ * Newsweek: http://www.msnbc.com/news/NW-front_Front.asp * San Francisco Chronicle: http://www.sfgate.com/news/ * Sydney Morning Herald: http://www.smh.com.au/ * The Times (UK): http://www.timesonline.co.uk/ ================================================================================ BBC: July 31, 2003 'FREE MY SON' FROM GUANTANAMO The mother of one of the British terror suspects held by the US at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba has begged for his safe return to Britain. Her son, Feroz Abbasi, has been at Camp Delta for 18 months and Zumrati Juma says it is "distressing" that she has not heard from him since February. She wants Britain's Attorney General, Lord Goldsmith QC, to negotiate with the American authorities for the return of Mr Abbasi to Britain, where he could be tried. Lord Goldsmith recently visited the US, where he secured an assurance that the nine Britons held at the military base would not face the death penalty. Law Society President Peter Williamson called on Thursday for the British suspects to either be tried in a US civil court, with safeguards for a fair trial, or be repatriated and tried in the UK. However, the American authorities propose a system of military commissions in which US officials would appoint defence lawyers, with the cases heard by military judges. Mrs Juma, a nurse from south London, told a press conference on Thursday: "I personally don't think that the military commission is going to be a fair trial simply because, if Feroz is tried in Guantanamo Bay, he will have to serve his sentence in Guantanamo Bay". Also attending that press conference was Amzat Begg, whose son, Moazzam, from Birmingham, was detained by the CIA in Pakistan last February. He was then taken to Afghanistan and held there for one year without access to consular staff before being shipped to Camp Delta. Moazzam Begg's family insist that he has been a victim of mistaken identity. His father previously said that Lord Goldsmith's recent trip to the US had brought no news as far as he was concerned, because he had already been assured that his son would not be executed. And he said that life imprisonment for Moazzam was "more or less the same as the death penalty" anyway. He said all the Britons held at the Cuba camp should be brought to the UK. "They should give him proper human rights and after this has satisfied the family and the doctors they should be tried at home," Mr Begg said. Louise Christian, a solicitor for Feroz Abbasi, is also opposed to the military commissions, as proposed by the American authorities. She said: "What we're going to be seeing if this goes ahead is those incarcerated in Guantanamo Bay without any access to a lawyer being placed on trial before judges who will be wearing the same uniform as those who have been keeping them in custody." She revealed that Mr Abbasi had requested a Muslim lawyer to represent him and that her company had delegated a partner, Sadiq Khan. However, US military trial rules mean that Mr Khan will not be able to represent his client because he is not a US citizen. Meanwhile, at his annual news conference the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Woolf, said he supported the government's efforts to ensure the detainees at Guantanemo Bay get a fair trial. * * * San Francisco Chronicle: Tuesday, July 29, 2003 IRAQI DETAINEES REPORT 'INHUMANE' TREATMENT Human rights groups question U.S. tactics Robert Collier, Chronicle Staff Writer Baghdad -- Former Iraqi air force Brig. Gen. Sabah Saleh, his wife and their four children were sleeping on the ground floor of their Baghdad house at about 2: 30 a.m. July 14 when loud explosions tore through the front door and blew the ground-floor windows to pieces. As helicopters hovered overhead, American soldiers stormed inside, shouting. Saleh's wife, Mayda, recalls with horror what happened next. The soldiers rounded up five family members, including the general, and handcuffed them. Seventeen-year-old Ahmed fled upstairs, and the Americans pursued him with a hail of gunfire. A couple of minutes later, they dragged Ahmed downstairs, bleeding heavily. When Gen. Saleh protested, the soldiers beat and kicked him. Then they hustled the general and Ahmed out the door in handcuffs after freeing the rest. From the Americans' point of view, the arrest of Gen. Saleh, an engineer and Baath Party member who was in charge of security at all Iraqi air force bases, was just another step in the campaign to root out remnants of Saddam Hussein's regime and stifle guerrilla attacks. But an increasing number of Iraqis and international human-rights organizations are questioning the U.S. arrest tactics and treatment of Iraqi captives. According to rights groups, none of several thousand detainees being held at 18 U.S. military jails throughout Iraq has been allowed to see a lawyer or meet with relatives, and none has yet been charged with a crime or brought to trial. They have essentially fallen into a black hole. A week of requests by a Chronicle reporter to the U.S. military and civilian officials for information about detainees brought no response, except a remark by one military press aide who said in private, "It's a controversial issue, you know, and I don't expect anyone is going to want to talk." The Saleh family made repeated visits to American military units and Iraqi police stations in Baghdad but were told no information was available on their detained relatives. Finally, on Sunday came word that both Gen. Saleh and Ahmed were being held at Camp Cropper, a large U.S. prison at the Baghdad airport. 'INHUMANE' CONDITIONS A recent report by Amnesty International, based on interviews with detainees who were later freed, raised concerns about excessive force by U.S. troops, "inhumane" conditions suffered by American detainees and the failure to provide information on prisoners to their families. "What we see is a complete lack of transparency and accountability," said Joanna Oyediran, a British lawyer who is an Amnesty representative in Iraq. Oyediran said U.S. officials had told her that about 3,000 Iraqis are being held, including 400 prisoners of war (among them 34 of the 55 on America's most- wanted list), and 400 accused of participating in guerrilla attacks on U. S. troops after the war. The rest are a mix of people suspected of common crimes and those imprisoned for membership in the Baath Party. She said the American officials could give no exact breakdown of the final category. About 1.5 million Iraqis -- almost 10 percent of the adult population -- belonged to the Baath Party before the war. Although American officials say that only the Baath leadership faces arrest, U.S. military press releases routinely announce the detention of scores of people for being Baath Party members. It is not known how many are still being held. According to the Amnesty report, freed detainees complained of conditions at the two detention centers in Baghdad -- Camp Cropper and Abu Ghraib prison, a huge complex that held political prisoners under Hussein's regime. Tactics reportedly included prolonged sleep deprivation, restraint in painful positions, loud music and bright lights, and the use of tight hoods over prisoners' heads. Amnesty has said U.S. occupation authorities maintain that detainees are treated humanely and that reports of abuses will be investigated. On Saturday, the Pentagon announced that four military police from an Army Reserve unit based in Pennsylvania have been accused of punching, kicking and breaking the bones of prisoners at Camp Bucca near Umm Qasr in southern Iraq. VIOLENT ARRESTS The Saleh home bears witness to the violence of the arrests there. When a Chronicle reporter visited recently, there were dozens of bullet holes on the second-floor landing of the stairwell, indicating the fire of soldiers shooting at Ahmed as he fled upstairs. Only one bullet mark was visible on the ground floor, and it appeared to be from a bullet fired from below that ricocheted off the wall. The stairway and upstairs bedroom were smeared with bloodstains, which Mayda Saleh tearfully said was her son's blood. On both floors, cabinets and dressers were smashed, and windows, beds and even picture frames were broken. In a similar raid nearby on June 26, American troops shot and killed a 13- year- old boy, Muhammad al-Kubaisi, who neighbors said was standing on a rooftop watching the raid. Interviews with Iraqis in recent weeks turned up dozens of allegations of abuses committed during arrests or interrogations. Even well-respected Iraqis have complained of their treatment. Dr. Jamad al-Karboli, president of the Iraqi Red Crescent Society, spent four hours in detention two weeks ago when he left work shortly after the 11 p. m. curfew. Al-Karboli said he was forced to sit at a roadblock with his hands tied behind his back, denied water and prohibited from using his American-supplied cell phone, which was one of those given to U.S. government officials and leaders of humanitarian organizations. He said he saw soldiers confiscate large sums of cash from several detainees. "What can they think of Iraqis if they treat us like that?" he said. "They are not respecting the dignity of Iraqis." During his detention, al-Karboli said, a large Oldsmobile passed by and its occupants strafed the American position with automatic rifle fire -- hitting no one -- then sped away. "What I suffered was very mild compared to what other Iraqis have gone through. The Americans should not be surprised when some people get angry," he said. WAR CONTINUES WITHOUT END Under the Geneva Conventions, the U.S.-led alliance has wide leeway to detain anyone it deems to be a security threat and hold them until after hostilities end. Because President Bush has not declared an end to the war -- only an end to "major combat operations in Iraq" -- Gen. Saleh and others may be held indefinitely. When and if Saleh is charged with a crime, it is unclear what court will hear his case. The American administration has announced the formation of a Central Criminal Court in Baghdad, which will have jurisdiction over some of those held in U.S. captivity. Prospective judges are currently being screened by American officials. The recently established Iraqi Governing Council has also announced the establishment of a judicial commission that will set up a special court system to investigate and prosecute former members of Hussein's government and others who may have been involved in genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. But both plans have been criticized by some rights advocates. Any court made up only of Iraqi judges hand-picked by the Americans or the Governing Council is "unlikely to produce sound prosecutions or fair trials" and might dispense only "show trials or victor's justice," said Kenneth Roth, executive director of Human Rights Watch. Roth advocates the creation of an international tribunal for Iraq that would include judges with experience in similar trials in Kosovo, Rwanda and Bosnia. The Bush administration opposes the idea, seeing it as a stalking- horse for the International Criminal Court, which was created last year in the Netherlands despite intense opposition by the administration. "The Americans need to be careful about being seen as legitimate among the Iraqi people," said Wamid Nadhmi, a prominent political science professor at Baghdad University who took an independent stance from Hussein's regime during the prewar years. "If they are seen to be punishing people unjustly, if they keep jailing people and mistreating them like they have been doing, it will only make problems worse." * * * Sydney Morning Herald: July 29, 2003 EXERCISE AND THE KORAN - LIFE IN HICKS'S CELL By Caroline Overington, Herald Correspondent in New York David Hicks spends his days in Guantanamo Bay reading the Koran in ancient Arabic. His faith is now in Islam - he only eats halal food prepared in accordance with Islamic law - and exercise, which he does every day within his cell. He does not know that his case has attracted the attention of the Pentagon, the White House, the Federal Parliament, and a team of civil rights lawyers in Washington and New York. His father, Terry, learnt these details of his son's life from an Afghani man who was recently released from the US military prison at Guantanamo Bay, in Cuba, and who has since flown back to Afghanistan. Mr Hicks tracked down the man, who gave his name as John Muhammad, as part of a documentary he is making with SBS tracing David's journey from Adelaide to the battlefields of Afghanistan. Mr Muhammad told Mr Hicks that he was held in the wire cell next to David's, and that they became close friends. Mr Hicks said: "I asked him if it was true that David was aggressive, and that he was making threats to kill the guards, and he just laughed. He said, no, no, he's very friendly, he gets along with everybody, and he acts as a go-between, because some of the other prisoners can't speak English." David Hicks was captured fighting for the Taliban in Afghanistan in October 2001, and has since been held as an enemy combatant. The Pentagon announced earlier this month that Mr Hicks would be one of the first prisoners to go before a military tribunal. The Australian Government says that he has admitted being a member of al-Qaeda, but it has extracted a guarantee that he will not be charged with an offence that carries the death penalty. Terry Hicks has travelled to New York for meetings with civil rights lawyers who are trying to make sure his son gets a fair hearing. As well as talking to Mr Muhammad, Mr Hicks also met some of the Northern Alliance soldiers who were guards at the prison where his son was held when he was first arrested in Afghanistan. "They couldn't say a bad word about David," Mr Hicks said. "The told me if they could turn back time, they wouldn't have handed him over to the Americans." * * * The Independent (UK): July 28, 2003 US TROOPS TURN BOTCHED SADDAM RAID INTO A MASSACRE by Robert Fisk Baghdad. Obsessed with capturing Saddam Hussein, American soldiers turned a botched raid on a house in the Mansur district of Baghdad yesterday into a bloodbath, opening fire on scores of Iraqi civilians in a crowded street and killing up to 11, including two children, their mother and crippled father. At least one civilian car caught fire, cremating its occupants. The vehicle carrying the two children and their mother and father was riddled by bullets as it approached a razor-wired checkpoint outside the house. Amid the fury generated among the largely middle-class residents of Mansur - by ghastly coincidence, the killings were scarcely 40 metres from the houses in which 16 civilians died when the Americans tried to kill Saddam towards the end of the war in April - whatever political advantages were gained by the killing of Saddam's sons have been squandered. A doctor at the Yarmouk hospital, which received four of the dead, turned on me angrily last night, shouting: "If an American came to my emergency room, maybe I would kill him." Two civilians, both believed to have been driving with their families, were brought to the Yarmouk, one with abdominal wounds and the other with "his brain outside of his head", according to another doctor. At the scene of the killings, there was pandemonium. While US troops were loading the bullet-shattered cars on trucks - and trying to stop cameramen filming the carnage - crowds screamed abuse at them. One American soldier a few feet from me climbed into the seat of his Humvee, threw his helmet on the floor of the vehicle and shouted: "Shit! Shit!" There was no doubt about the target: the home of Sheikh Rabia Mohamed Habib, a prominent tribal leader who had met Saddam but who was not even in his house when the Americans stormed it. One report says they killed a guard as they entered. "The Americans searched the house completely, very roughly," Sheikh Habib said. "It seems they thought Saddam Hussein was inside." It appears the killings started as the troops were searching the building and as motorists approached the barbed wire which the soldiers had placed without warning across the road. Witnesses said the first car contained at least two men. "The second contained two children about 10, their mother and their father who had been wounded in the Iran-Iraq war - he was a cripple," a local shopkeeper told me. "They all died. The man's legs were cut in half by the bullets," he added. A third car then approached the Americans, who opened fire again. One of the occupants fled, but the other two remained in the vehicle and were killed. When another car arrived US troops riddled it with more bullets and it burst into flames. It is believed that two people were inside and both were burnt to death. "The Americans didn't try to help the civilians they had shot, not once," a witness said. "They let the car burn and left the bodies where they lay, even the children. It was we who had to take them to the hospitals." Yet again, false informers, ill-trained American soldiers who appeared to exercise no fire control and a lack of military planning has created a tragedy among the people the Americans claimed to be 'liberating' from Saddam Hussein only 15 weeks ago. Last night, there were reports from the southern city of Karbala that three men had been shot dead by American troops during a demonstration. * * * The Guardian (UK): July 25, 2003 FRIGHTENING RUMOURS LEAK OUT ABOUT SONS HELD IN CELLS Chris McGreal in Deheisha, West Bank Israel's security system sucked 15-year-old Mohammed Najaar behind the barbed wire of its labyrinth of detention camps nine months ago. For weeks the boy's desperate father heard only disturbing fragments about his son. A former prisoner told Hassan Najaar that his child had been held in solitary confinement for more than a month; another claimed the boy had been hung upside down and interrogated. Finally, a lawyer told Mr Najaar that a military judge had ordered Mohammed's continued detention on accusations that even his lawyer is not permitted to know. He has not heard any of this directly from his son because the Israeli authorities refuse to allow him to see or write to him. "We were told through other prisoners who were released that Mohammed was held in solitary confinement for 45 days in a row, that he was treated very badly," he said. "They say he was singing all the time. It's a sign of hallucinations. "I was really worried about him, but you can't visit prisoners until the Shin Bet [security service] has finished its interrogation, and it says it hasn't finished yet." Mohammed Najaar is one of about 6,000 Palestinian prisoners in Israeli jails, including 350 children, whose continued detention has surfaced as the principal obstacle on the "road map" to peace. The Israeli government is offering to free a few hundred of the thousands of detainees, for now at least, but not those with "blood on their hands". Talks between the two prime ministers in Jerusalem this week degenerated into a shouting match over the fate of the prisoners. "People feel very strongly about the prisoners," said Diana Buttu, a lawyer with the Palestinian negotiating team. "They are really symbolic of Israel's occupation. MOCK TRIALS "We have statistics that 20% of the Palestinian population has been in prison or detained by the Israelis. There's hardly anyone not touched by it. Then there's the sense of injustice. Palestinians are often tortured in prison. There are no visitation rights. And if there is a trial, it's a mock trial." The bulk of the prisoners have never been tried and many are not even told the accusations against them. Just 1,461 have been convicted of any crime - some of atrocities against civilians which the Israelis use to justify their sweeping security laws. The Israeli human rights organisation B'Tselem says many are locked up for their political views. "Security is interpreted in an extremely broad manner, such that non-violent speech and political activity are considered dangerous," it said. Mohammed Najaar is one of about 800 people held without charge under "administrative detention" - a system used when there is not enough evidence to take a case to court. Detentions can be renewed every six months by a military judge. Some detainees have been held for more than a decade. The army came for Mohammed and his 17-year-old brother Mahmoud at 3am one day last November. Their family - including an 18-month-old baby - was given one minute to get out of the house in Deheisha and into the freezing winter night. "Do you know the feeling when you are asleep and someone bursts in and you are staring at this face covered in camouflage paint?" Mr Najaar said. "It was a shock, like seeing ghosts." The soldiers refused to give a reason for the arrests of Mohammed and Mahmoud. Four days later Mr Najaar heard through a Palestinian prisoners' organisation that the elder of the two was in a prison in the Negev desert. But it took him two months to find out that Mohammed was being held at Etzion detention camp. Mohammed was finally able to see a lawyer, Tamar Pelleg-Sryck, in January. She confirms that the boy was held in solitary confinement for 45 days. She does not know if he was physically abused, as some prisoners have told his father, but believes he is suffering psychological torture. "Think of yourself at age 15, pulled out of home and put in a terrible place," she said. "He's not well. He treats me just like a grandmother in the questions he asked. He seems like a child compared to the other people his age. It's very cruel." Ms Pelleg-Sryck says the army still refuses to reveal the accusations against Mohammed. She was able to glean that they are based on information from a single detained Palestinian who under interrogation confirmed that he knew the boy and that he had shown an interest in joining the armed struggle. Ms Pelleg-Sryck considers that to be flimsy evidence, and is particularly outraged that interrogators have not asked Mohammed's older brother about it. Mahmoud has been charged with a range of crimes, including stone throwing, attempting to make a bomb, and membership of a banned organisation. But Mohammed remains in limbo. When in May he turned 16 years old - the age at which Israeli military law regards him as an adult - he was brought before a military judge who extended his detention for six months. He was moved to Ofra detention camp near Ramallah and interrogated for a further 10 days. Mr Najaar said his son had described the interrogation to a third party who passed it on. "The Israelis said, 'Just say you made a mistake,' but he refused. He said he hadn't done anything. The interrogator provoked him, 'Have you ever been fucked anywhere, kid?' This is very shocking for us," Mr Najaar said. Israeli officials decline to discuss specific cases, but defend administrative detention by pointing out that the US is doing much the same in Guantanamo Bay. "Every country that has to cope with the phenomenon of terrorism has found it has had to use administrative detention," said an Israeli government legal adviser, Daniel Taub. "It is one of the tools in the fight against terrorism, because intelligence is a major weapon, and sometimes it is necessary to keep it secret." * * * Sydney Morning Herald: July 25, 2003 HICKS SPARED DEATH BUT WILL NOT GET AUSTRALIAN LAWYER By Marian Wilkinson in Washington, Penelope Debelle and Cynthia Banham Australian officials are to travel to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba to tell Australian detainee David Hicks he has been slated for possible trial by a United States military commission, allowing him the first understanding of his legal future since his detention 18 months ago. Australian officials in Washington indicated yesterday that the visit was "likely to inform Hicks of the military commission and its procedures" and would take place "as soon as practicable". US officials yesterday also agreed to concessions for Mr Hicks, similar to those won by the British Government for its detained citizens. They include that he will not face the death penalty and is likely to be able to serve his sentence in Australia. The Foreign Minister, Alexander Downer, said: "We're ... pleased that if he's convicted by the military commission, and sentenced, the Americans would be willing to allow him to serve his sentence in Australia." However, the details "would have to be worked out by our lawyers". The breakthrough came after the Justice Minister, Chris Ellison, wrapped up talks in Washington with US officials, including the Deputy Defence Secretary, Paul Wolfowitz, who will decide whether Mr Hicks will finally be tried by a military commission. Pentagon lawyers told Senator Ellison they would not monitor Mr Hicks's conversations with his US lawyers and would not rely on classified material that would exclude him from hearing the evidence against him. "We have every faith in the American judicial system," Senator Ellison said after the agreement was reached. Despite the concessions won, Senator Ellison was not able to secure the right for Mr Hicks to have access to an Australian lawyer because of what he called US "security considerations". He could not explain what these were, nor why Mr Hicks could not have access to a US lawyer until after charges were laid. Australian officials are still hoping to negotiate access to an Australian lawyer, and telephone contact for Mr Hicks's family once he is charged. The opposition parties yesterday continued to call for Mr Hicks to be brought to trial in Australia. Labor welcomed the announcement he would not face the death penalty, but said it was regrettable the Government had failed to secure changes to ensure his trial would meet "Australian standards of fairness". The Democrats said the death penalty decision was "cold comfort", given Mr Hicks would be tried in secret "by a kangaroo court". US legal advisers acting on behalf of the Guantanamo Bay detainees said the concessions for the British and Australian detainees were minimal and the military commissions were still unconstitutional. "The fact that there is no independent review of the military commissions by a court in the United States is still the most fundamental flaw," said Steven Watt, of the Centre for Constitutional Rights. Senator Ellison offered little news on the detainee from Sydney, Mamdouh Habib. His situation was discussed, but investigations were continuing. However, Australian officials travelling to Guantanamo Bay to see Mr Hicks will also be given access to Mr Habib. Mr Hicks's lawyer, Franco Camatta, said Australian legal representation would run into tens of thousands of dollars and would not be possible without federal funding. "Are they going to provide legal aid to facilitate that?" he said. "What is the Federal Government going to do to ensure he has access to an Australian lawyer? Without funding it is simply not possible." * * * The Associated Press (via Herald Sun): July 25, 2003 DETAINEES SPROUT PRE-TRIAL INTEL TIPS From correspondents in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba TERRORIST suspects have become more compliant and are offering up many more important intelligence tips, says the US Army general who commands the prison where preparations are under way for expected military tribunals. In an exclusive interview, Major General Geoffrey Miller said that three- quarters of the 660 or so detainees have confessed to some involvement in terrorism. Many have turned on former friends and colleagues, he added. Miller said detainees are giving up information in "incentive-based interrogations". Rewards include more recreation time, extra food rations to keep in their cells, or a move to the prison's medium-security facility. "We have a large number of detainees who have been very cooperative describing their actions, either terrorist actions or in support of terrorism - more than 75 per cent" of them, Miller said yesterday. Some tips have led to more arrests, others revealed terrorist recruiting techniques, he said. "In February we were able to get 35 'high value' - the highest value - intelligence (pieces) ... In June we had more than 225," Miller said. Interrogators do about 300 interviews each week, he said. The prisoners' statements, which Miller said have been verbal, could be used as evidence before the secret tribunals, unlike in the United States. The prison's location at this US naval base at the eastern end of Cuba puts the detainees out of the jurisdiction of American courts and constitutional protections, a situation that has been criticised by lawyers and human rights groups as a violation of the detainees' rights. The prisoners, all suspected of ties to the al-Qaeda terrorist network or Afghanistan's ousted Taliban regime, range from a member of Bahrain's royal family to some juveniles and many low-level foot soldiers. None have been allowed to meet with lawyers. The US government has been criticised for designating the detainees as unlawful combatants rather than prisoners of war, and critics are urging Washington to ensure any tribunals are fair. "The obstacles will be many, and they will be litigated," said Michael Ratner of the New York-based Centre for Constitutional Rights, which is helping represent an Australian detainee. US Senator Jeff Bingamon, (Democrat - New Mexico), pushed for Congress to force the Bush administration to be more accountable and reveal its intentions toward the detainees, but the measure failed. "It's an embarrassment for us to be going ahead with proceedings that go against our own Constitution," Bingamon said. "One of the ways the rest of the world is going to judge us is how we deal with these detainees and what legal process we follow." Although crimes have been spelled out, no detainees have been charged since the detentions began after the war in Afghanistan, and there are still no sentencing guidelines. Also in question is whether detainees from 42 countries will get equal treatment. US officials said this week that two Britons and an Australian among the first six detainees designated to go before tribunals would not face the death penalty. Nothing has been said about the other three, reportedly from Pakistan, Sudan and Yemen. "I think it underscores the lack of any clear policy that the United States government has with respect to the detainees," said Tom Wilner, a lawyer for 12 Kuwaiti detainees. "The ones who get to go before the military commissions may actually turn out to be the lucky ones. But what happens to the rest?" There are also questions about the tribunals' procedures. Guidelines rule out lawyer-client privilege and allow conversations to be recorded, Ratner said. US officials are pressing ahead with preparations for a courtroom, permanent detention facility and execution chamber. The makeshift courthouse windows have been masked by yellow paint. Its 70-year- old electrical wiring has been revamped and dark wood tables with brass-tacked upholstered chairs are in place, Miller said. About 70 detainees have been released, and about 120 have been rewarded with moves to a medium-security wing where they get more exercise, books and other liberties for cooperating in interrogations, Miller said. Officials have reported 29 suicide attempts by detainees depressed by their prolonged incarceration, according to relatives who have received letters through the Red Cross, which is the only independent group allowed access to detainees. * * * Independent (UK): July 24, 2003 INJUSTICE & IRAQ : UNITED STATES CONCENTRATION CAMPS The Ugly Truth Of America's Camp Cropper, A Story To Shame Us All by Robert Fisk Now here's a story to shame us all. It's about America's shameful prison camps in Iraq. It's about the beating of prisoners during interrogation. "Sources" may be a dubious word in journalism right now, but the sources for the beatings in Iraq are impeccable. This story is also about the gunning down of three prisoners in Baghdad, two of them "while trying to escape". But most of all, it's about Qais Mohamed al-Salman. Qais al-Salman is just the sort of guy the US ambassador Paul Bremer and his dead-end assistants need now. He hated Saddam, fled Iraq in 1976, then returned after the "liberation" with a briefcase literally full of plans to help in the restoration of his country's infrastructure and water purification system. He's an engineer who has worked in Africa, Asia and Europe. He is a Danish citizen. He speaks good English. He even likes America. Or did until 6 June this year. That day he was travelling in Abu Nawas Street when his car came under American fire. He says he never saw a checkpoint. Bullets hit the tyres and his driver and another passenger ran for their lives. Qais al-Salman stood meekly beside the vehicle. He was carrying his Danish passport, Danish driving licence and medical records. But let him tell his own story. "A civilian car came up with American soldiers in it. Then more soldiers in military vehicles. I told them I didn't understand what had happened, that I was a scientific researcher. But they made me lie down in the street, tied my arms behind me with plastic-and-steel cuffs and tied up my feet and put me in one of their vehicles." The next bit of his story carries implications for our own journalistic profession. "After 10 minutes in the vehicle, I was taken out again. There were journalists with cameras. The Americans untied me, then made me lie on the road again. Then, in front of the cameras, they tied my hands and feet all over again and put me back in the vehicle." If this wasn't a common story in Baghdad today - if the gross injustices meted out to ordinary Iraqis and the equally gross mistreatment in America's prison camps here was not so common - then Qais al-Salman's story would not be so important. Amnesty International turned up in Baghdad yesterday to investigate, as well as Saddam's monstrous crimes, the mass detention centre run by the Americans at Baghdad international airport in which up to 2,000 prisoners live in hot, airless tents. The makeshift jail is called Camp Cropper and there have already been two attempted breakouts. Both would-be escapees, needless to say, were swiftly shot dead by their American captors. Yesterday, Amnesty was forbidden permission to visit Camp Cropper. This is where the Americans took Qais Al-Salman on 6 June. He was put in Tent B, a vast canvas room containing up to 130 prisoners. "There were different classes of people there," Qais al-Salman says. "There were people of high culture, doctors and university people, and there were the most dirty, animal people, thieves and criminals the like of which I never saw before. "In the morning, I was taken for interrogation before an American military intelligence officer. I showed him letters involving me in US aid projects . He pinned a label on my shirt. It read, Suspected Assassin'." Now there probably are some assassins in Camp Cropper. The good, the bad and the ugly have been incarcerated there: old Baathists, possible Iraqi torturers, looters and just about anyone who has got in the way of the American military. Only "selected" prisoners are beaten during interrogation. Again, I repeat, the source is impeccable, and Western. Qais Al-Salman was given no water to wash in, and after trying to explain his innocence to a second interrogator, he went on hunger strike. No formal charges were made against him. There were no rules for the American jailers. "Some soldiers drove me back to Baghdad after 33 days in that camp," Qais al- Salman says. "They dropped me in Rashid Street and gave me back my documents and Danish passport and they said, Sorry'." Qais al-Salman went home to his grief-stricken mother who had long believed her son was dead. No American had contacted her despite her desperate requests to the US authorities for help. Not one of the Americans had bothered to tell the Danish government they had imprisoned one of its citizens. Just as in Saddam's day, a man had simply been "disappeared" off the streets of Baghdad. Robert Fisk is a journalist for the Independent Of London and writes frequently on Middle Eastern politics and events. More articles on Iraq by Robert Fisk * * * The Guardian (UK): July 24, 2003 THERE IS NO DEFENCE FOR GUANTANAMO Goldsmith's US trial concessions are a sham and he should resign By Louise Christian When it was first announced that two British citizens, Feroz Abbasi and Moazzam Begg, were to stand trial before a military commission in Guantanamo Bay, it appeared that at long last Tony Blair would do something to stand up for their human rights. The government came under parliamentary pressure, with 200 MPs of all political parties, including senior Tories and Labour loyalists, signing a motion calling for the men's repatriation to this country. Government ministers Chris Mullin and Baroness Symons were authorised to say that vigorous representations would be made and the government dispatched its most senior law officer, Lord Peter Goldsmith, the attorney general to the US for talks. Now, however, it appears Tony Blair has done a u-turn and is not to stand up to the US government at all. The "concessions" announced by the attorney general yesterday - that British citizens will not face the death penalty and that a British lawyer may be allowed on to the defence team as a "consultant" - cannot disguise the simple fact that the proposed trial will breach all international norms. It will be in front of judges who are military officers. They will be wearing the same uniforms as those who have held Feroz and Moazzam captive for over 18 months incommunicado and in conditions which can only be described as inhuman and degrading. Detainees are incarcerated in wire cages 8ft by 6ft 6in, with no privacy and with the lights on all night. They are allowed out for exercise only twice a week for 20 minutes in a small, enclosed exercise yard. These are conditions which would challenge anybody's mental health. During this time the detainees have been intimidated and coerced into speaking to interrogators without a lawyer being present. The situation is already one of grave abuse of human rights. After 18 months of doing nothing about this, despite pleas and even court proceedings in the UK and US brought by the families, it finally appeared that the British government would have to do something. The attorney general will have been well aware that military commissions that are not independent of the US government (George Bush is head of the US armed forces) cannot satisfy the basic requirement for a fair trial as set out in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, article 14, to which the US is a signatory. It is inconceivable that he will not have pointed this out to US officials and asked for a fair trial in a civil court. His representations have gone unheeded. What should happen, and should have happened long ago, is for the British government to make formal diplomatic protests. The Pakistani government has done this and has secured the release, with no requirement for domestic court proceedings, of 30 to 40 of its nationals. A Pakistani passport is a better protection than a British one against US abuses. Instead of making diplomatic protests, or even indicating that the concessions he has won are not enough, the attorney general appears to have been given instructions to present the situation as acceptable. The first hint that this would be the case was when Tony Blair told a television interviewer over the weekend that military commissions would be accepted provided they met our standards. It may be a long time since the prime minister practised law but surely he cannot be ignorant that a military commission is not capable of meeting the most fundamental requirement of all that a criminal court must be independent of the government. The spectacle of the attorney general, the government's most senior and respected law officer, appearing to agree that British citizens can be placed on trial in such a totally unfair tribunal is sickening. Twenty-five years ago he and I gave free advice together one evening a week at a legal clinic in Bethnal Green. The Peter Goldsmith I knew then was an idealistic young barrister doing pro bono work for the poor and oppressed. He would have been appalled at the racism that motivates the unfair treatment of these young Muslim men and the discriminatory treatment of them compared to US citizens, none of whom are in Guantanamo Bay. I cannot believe that he has changed so much that he will now allow his professional skills to be used to defend the indefensible. People may choose to stay in government and not to criticise it because they think they are doing more good that way. But there has to be a bottom line. If Peter Goldsmith is unable to persuade Tony Blair to do the right thing by British citizens and say openly to the US that military commissions are wholly unacceptable, I believe the only decent thing he can do is resign. [ Louise Christian, of Christian Khan solicitors, is acting for the families of Feroz Abbasi, Tarek Dergoul and Martin Mubanga who are detained in Guantanamo Bay. Email: louisec@christianf.co.uk ] * * * BBC: July 23, 2003 GUANTANAMO BRITONS 'MUST COME HOME' The guarantee that two British terror suspects held by the US will not be executed if found guilty does not go far enough, the families and lawyers of the men have argued. The concession was offered by the US following a meeting about Guantanamo Bay prisoners Feroz Abbasi and Moazzam Begg with Attorney General Lord Goldsmith. Mr Begg's father, Azmat, told BBC News Online his son had been deprived of human rights at Camp Delta and it would be "impossible" for him to receive a fair hearing from the US military. Mr Abbasi's solicitor, Louise Christian, said: "We're talking about fundamental human rights in being allowed to be tried by a court independent of the government accusing you." Ms Christian, who is also representing two of the other seven British prisoners, said that if any of the men are to face trial it should be in the UK. Calling on ministers to do more, she said: "These men have spent 18 months in wire cages and the British government has stood by and done nothing." 'PROPER HUMAN RIGHTS' Mr Begg's father said Lord Goldsmith's trip had brought no news as far as he was concerned, because he had already been assured that his 35-year-old son would not be executed. And he said that life imprisonment for Moazzam was "more or less the same as the death penalty" anyway. He said all the Britons held at the Cuba camp should be brought to the UK. "They should give him proper human rights and after this has satisfied the family and the doctors they should be tried at home," Mr Begg said. Louise Christian told BBC News Online that Mr Abbasi - along with the other Britons - had not even been charged with a crime to be tried for. She said all nine men were being held in "appalling" conditions and that the families of her other clients, Tarek Dergoul and Martin Mubanga, were worried because they were receiving fewer letters from them. "When the family of Tarek complained about this to the Foreign Office their response was to say 'this is the same for everyone'," Ms Christian said. Stephen Jakobi, of campaign group Fair Trials Abroad, welcomed the decision on the death penalty but said the rest of the deal was no more than "a fig leaf". A Foreign Office spokesman said it was pressing the US for a decision on what happens to all nine men and added: "Our view is that if they are not going to be charged they have to be released." 'SIGNIFICANT PROGRESS' Lord Goldsmith said the prospect of repatriating Mr Abbasi, 23, from London, Mr Begg, 35, from Birmingham and the other British prisoners was still being discussed. He said his objective in the talks had been to ensure that all the men "fair trials that meet generally recognised principles, wherever those trials take place". While that has not yet been achieved, Lord Goldsmith said he had made "significant progress" in ensuring a fair trial for Mr Begg and Mr Abbasi. They would be able to have a US civilian lawyer of their own choosing, and a UK lawyer to act as a "consultant". Foreign Secretary Jack Straw said: "I understand the concern of the parents of all of the UK detainees that are held there," he told BBC Radio 4's Today programme." It was "quite usual" for prisoners convicted by a tribunal in one country to serve their sentence in the country of their origin, he added. * * * The Daily Telegraph (UK): July 23, 2003 BRITONS HELD IN CUBA WILL NOT FACE DEATH PENALTY By Benedict Brogan Political Correspondent Two of the Britons held by the United States at Guantanamo Bay will not face the death penalty if found guilty on terrorism charges, Lord Goldsmith, the Attorney General, announced last night. After talks with justice officials in Washington, he said America had agreed to waive its capital punishment statutes when the two appear before a military tribunal. Moazzam Begg and Feroz Abbasi have been held for more than a year on suspicion of being members of al-Qa'eda. Their families deny the charges and claim that they are being held illegally. The decision to exempt them from the death penalty, which is expected to be extended to the other seven Britons held at Camp Delta, the prison on the south coast of Cuba built to hold al-Qa'eda suspects after September 11, will come as a relief to Tony Blair. More than 200 MPs have signed a Commons motion condemning the detention of the two men. The Prime Minister raised their case with President George W Bush when the two met in Washington last week. Abbasi, 23, from London, and Begg, 35, from Birmingham, were on the list of the first six prisoners designated to face military tribunals at the Cuban naval base. Lord Goldsmith said his objective had been "to ensure that the British detainees in Guantanamo Bay, if prosecuted, are assured of fair trials that meet generally recognised principles, wherever those trials take place, and to make clear our opposition to the death penalty". In a statement, he said he would continue to discuss the possibility of repatriating detainees to Britain for trial. "We also covered the US Administration's intention to establish military commissions to try certain detainees. We made significant progress. "On the military commissions, the US has assured us that the prosecution will not seek the death penalty in the cases of Feroz Abbasi and Moazzem Begg." * * * LA Times: July 22, 2003 AUSTRALIA LOBBIES U.S. ON DETAINEE From Associated Press CANBERRA, Australia -- The United States has assured Australia that it will not seek a death sentence against an Australian terrorism suspect detained at Guantanamo Bay if he is convicted, Defense Minister Robert Hill said Monday. The comment came as Australian Justice Minister Christopher Ellison arrived in Washington to join a British delegation lobbying U.S. officials for a fair trial for detained nationals. The United States agreed last week to temporarily suspend legal action against Australian David Hicks, 27, and two British citizens -- Feroz Abbasi, 23, and Moazzam Begg, 35 -- held at the U.S. base in Cuba. The three were among six men set to face military tribunals as "enemy combatants" against the United States. Hicks was captured while allegedly fighting with the Taliban in Afghanistan and has been imprisoned without charge at Guantanamo Bay for 18 months. According to U.S. authorities, Hicks trained with Al Qaeda for several months in surveillance techniques and with weaponry, Australian Foreign Minister Alexander Downer said today. "The training was during the period during 2000 and 2001," he said. Australia has been one of Washington's closest allies since Sept. 11, 2001, sending troops to Afghanistan and Iraq. * * * The Gaurdian: July 22, 2003 TORTURE TESTIMONY 'ACCEPTABLE' Expert tells terror appeal hearing that MI5 would use information obtained under duress in court By Audrey Gillan, The Guardian An MI5 expert in terrorism has admitted that the security service would use information extracted from tortured prisoners as evidence in court. The secret witness told a panel of judges that in spite of knowing that a victim had been tortured or had come from a country where the regime sanctioned torture, she would still consider their testimony to be relevant to security service investigations. The admissions will add to growing public concern over the detainees at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba, who were questioned by the CIA and by MI5 officers. Critics claim that the government has condoned torture by the US in its attempts to garner evidence against people it suspects of having been involved in al- Qaida or the Taliban. The implication of the testimony has shocked human rights campaigners, as well as lawyers and the families of those detained. Article three of the Human Rights Act says "no one shall be subjected to torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment". Malcolm Smart, director of the Medical Foundation for the Care of Victims of Torture, criticised the government for being party to torture, "either directly or by proxy". He said: "Information obtained under torture is cheap and dirty information. British intelligence should regard it with the deepest suspicion. It is well- established that such information is not reliable. International law requires that courts reject evidence gathered by torture as inadmissible. If the intelligence services are cooperating in this way then they are in effect condoning, even encouraging, the torturers." The security service expert, known only as witness A, told a hearing of the special immigration appeals commission in London: "It doesn't mean to say that because somebody is tortured that they have provided information that's not actually true." Speaking to a panel of three judges who are hearing the appeals of 10 men detained without charge or trial since December 2001, the witness said: "We would weigh all information carefully, no matter where it came from, against our other knowledge and sources before we made an assessment, but it is still, obviously, speaking theoretically, possible that intelligence provided which may have been obtained in a way that would not be compatible with somebody's human rights could still be assessed to be reliable based on existing knowledge or because we've conducted further investigations on the basis of what they've told us." The home secretary believes that the men appealing against detention are connected to terrorism. They are all asylum seekers or refugees. The government has said it is holding them because they cannot be returned to their country of origin as they may be tortured there. Because the majority of these hearings are held in closed session, it is unclear how much of the evidence is reliant on that obtained under duress. Lawyers for the 10 have tried to establish the extent to which the home secretary is relying on evidence in closed session that is a result of torture but the government need not reveal this. The home secretary says it is up to the men to prove that the evidence has been obtained under torture but the men are not allowed to hear the evidence against them. It is understood that testimony has been taken from detainees both at Bagram air base in Afghanistan and in Guantanamo Bay. Campaigners allege that torture took place in both. A US military coroner, Elizabeth Rowse, ruled that two men from Afghanistan held at a secret CIA interrogation centre at Bagram air base had been killed under interrogation. She confirmed that the official cause of death of the two men was "homicide". A further death at a holding facility near Asadabad is under investigation. Witness A said the security service had no concerns about the way the Americans were gathering evidence that she was aware of. She had not been aware of any deaths in custody and would be surprised to learn that people held at Bagram had been tortured. But US officials have previously admitted using "stress and duress" on prisoners including sleep deprivation, denial of medication for battle injuries, and forcing them to stand or kneel for hours on end with hoods on. Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have denounced this as torture as defined by international treaty. * * * The Times (UK): July 21, 2003 UK WANTS LEGAL ACCESS FOR GUANTANAMO BRITONS by pa news The nine British terror suspects held at Guantanamo Bay must be given access to legal advice, the Government told the United States today. Lord Goldsmith, the Attorney General, began talks in Washington with officials from the US Defence Department on the future of the men, including two who have already been put forward for military tribunal. "My objective in these discussions is to ensure that the British detainees held at Guantanamo Bay are assured of fair trials that meet international legal standards, wherever those trials take place," Lord Goldsmith said in a statement before the talks. "One of the first steps that must be taken is for the detainees to have the benefit of legal advice. The Government remains opposed to the death penalty in all circumstances." The United States has already made concessions over two Britons who were among six detainees put forward for an American military tribunal which carried the death penalty. Their trial has been postponed for the time being. Tory Blair conceded yesterday that they will face either face trial according to a US military tribunal or be repatriated to stand trial in Britain However, he appeared to rule out repatriating the men because of "national security" issues amid fears that their trial in Britain might lead to terrorist attacks. He did, however, stress that the British Government would try to "make sure any rules are fully compliant with our own standards." Lord Goldsmith's trip to the United States has already been attacked by human rights lawyers representing the Guantanamo Bay detainees. Gareth Peirce, who represents Moazzam Begg, said that the mens' continued detention in Guantanamo has "violated every single international norm." She said the Government should insist that the men be repatriated to Britain and she criticised Lord Goldsmith for trading, what she called, "human rights for marginal reassurances in relation to the death penalty". The nine British detainees are Shafiq Rasul, 24, of Tipton, West Midlands, Asif Iqbal, 20, of Tipton Ruhal Ahmed, 20, of Tipton, Martin Mubanga, 29, from North London, Jamal Udeen, 35, from Manchester, Richard Belmar, 23, from London, Tarek Dergoul, 24, from East London, Moazzam Begg, 35, from Birmingham and Feroz Abbasi, 23, from South London. * * * BBC: 21 July, 2003 - 2048 GMT UK PRESSES US OVER GUANTANAMO The UK's attorney general has told the US that the nine British terror suspects at Guantanamo Bay must be given access to legal advice. Lord Goldsmith is in talks in Washington with officials from the US Defense Department. The talks were prompted by the row over the US decision to put forward two British detainees for military tribunal. "My objective in these discussions is to ensure that the British detainees held at Guantanamo Bay are assured of fair trials that meet international legal standards, wherever those trials take place," said Lord Goldsmith in a statement issued before the talks. "One of the first steps that must be taken is for the detainees to have the benefit of legal advice. The government remains opposed to the death penalty in all circumstances." LAWLESSNESS Feroz Abbasi, 23, from London, and Moazzam Begg, 35, from Birmingham were on President George Bush's initial list of six detainees who could face the American military tribunals at the air base in Cuba. The Pentagon has confirmed that no charges will be brought against any of the British detainees pending the completion of the talks. Earlier the lawyer for one of the Britons accused the US government of totally ignoring all internationally agreed standards relating to detention. Gareth Peirce - who represents Moazzam Begg - told BBC Radio 4's Today programme: "It sounds as if we've given our unconditional approval to a new international lawlessness. "The United States not by one iota have acted in compliance with any international treaty, either by recognising competence, so-called, under the Geneva Convention, or recognising the rights of detainees not to be interrogated or by ignoring the question of torture. "Some human rights are absolute - torture is prohibited in all circumstances and detention in Bagram and in Guantanamo has violated every single international norm." UNFAIR TRIAL? A spokesman for the US military commissions or tribunals, Major John Smith, defended the trials and said they could be open to the media. "They'll be able to report first-hand on things like, that there is a presumption of innocence, there is proof beyond a reasonable doubt, the accused had an attorney. "I think when the media is able to see this and tell that to the public, these will be seen as full and fair." However, he confirmed that defendants may not be able to hear all the evidence against them for security reasons, even though their military defence counsels would. Last week, following meetings between Tony Blair and George Bush, the Americans suspended proceedings against two of the Britons, who were on the first list of detainees selected to face a tribunal. Critics said the men had no prospect of receiving a fair trial at the hearing, which would have the power to sentence them to death. On Sunday, Mr Blair told Sky News there were two alternatives for dealing with the Britons held at Guantanamo Bay. "We can either have them tried according to a US military commission - but then we need to make sure any rules are fully compliant with our own standards - and the other option is to bring people back to Britain." The Foreign Office has said it is continuing to press the US for a decision about the future of all the Britons held. More than 200 British MPs signed a parliamentary petition calling for the men to be repatriated. Stephen Jakobi of Fair Trials Abroad, which has been campaigning for proper access to legal advice for the detainees, criticised President Bush's description of the men as "bad people". * * * ABC (Australia): 21 July, 2003 TALKS ON GUANTANAMO PRISONERS BEGIN Australian and United States officials have held talks on the two Australian detainees being held at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba. The Australian delegation met representatives of the US Defence Department and the Department of Justice in Washington. The meetings at the Pentagon were chaired by Department of Defence general counsel William Haynes. Colonel Will Gunn, who would be in charge of David Hicks's defence in the event of military trial, was not formally involved. Defence officials say the Australian detainees were discussed on an individual basis. They say US officials emphasised that they would happily repatriate anybody who was no longer a threat to the US, was not providing useful intelligence and was not eligible for criminal charges. The Australian Government has ruled out repatriation for David Hicks but has not commented on the other detainee, Mamdouh Habib. Australian Justice Minister Chris Ellison arrives in Washington tonight and will join day two of the talks tomorrow at the White House, State Department and back at the Pentagon. * * * The Guardian: July 21, 2003 BLAIR ACCEPTS MILITARY TRIAL FOR BRITONS US warnings shift view on Guantanamo Bay prisoners Nicholas Watt in Seoul and Julian Borger in Washington Tony Blair indicated yesterday that two of the British men being detained at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba will still stand trial before a US military court because national security would be at risk if they were returned to Britain. With the attorney general, Lord Goldsmith, expected to start talks today in Washington about the fate of the two men, Mr Blair hinted that their best hope would be a slight loosening of the military tribunal's rules. Meanwhile, Clive Stafford Smith, a lawyer who has represented the British inmates at American hearings, said he had been told by US government sources that a deal had been done before Lord Goldsmith even arrived in the country. The only significant concession would be to lift the threat of the death penalty. The news will infuriate supporters of Moazzem Begg and Feroz Abbasi, whose hopes were raised last week when George Bush authorised a temporary halt in the legal proceedings to allow Lord Goldsmith to travel to the talks. Speaking to Sky television during his trip to the far east, Mr Blair hinted that President Bush had handed him intelligence warning of the dangers of returning the men to Britain, where they would almost certainly be set free. "We have got to look at a whole range of considerations, not least our own national security," he said. His remarks show he has been persuaded by US concern that Mr Begg and Mr Abbasi would be free to return to Pakistan if they were repatriated because legal experts do not believe they could be charged with any offence in Britain. In his first public comment about the men since a White House dinner with Mr Bush on Thursday, Mr Blair indicated that he now supported a military trial as he called on people to give the US credit for the tribunal. "Any military commission that [the Americans] have is subject to rules that I think would be regarded as reasonably strict by anyone." But he said the Americans would have to go some way to observing legal norms. "Obviously if we have our own nationals tried in that way we would want to make sure that every single aspect of this was consistent with the proper rules." Britain has expressed "strong reservations" about the trial, which would be conducted by a military judge and prosecution. The men would be entitled to appoint their own defence team but the lawyers would have to pass a strict vetting procedure, for which the lawyers themselves would have to pay. The prosecution would be able to present as evidence testimony gained under duress and unsworn statements, and the tribunal has the power to impose the death penalty. Mr Blair's remarks indicate that President Bush has agreed to loosen the rules, but a normal criminal trial on the mainland, along the lines of the trial of the Californian supporter of the Taliban, John Walker Lindh, has been ruled out. Mr Blair qualified his remarks by saying that Lord Goldsmith would discuss two options in Washington - repatriating the two men to face trial in Britain or amending the rules of the US tribunal to bring them more into line with the British legal system. But Mr Blair's warning about national security, and his praise for the "strict" rules governing the tribunal, indicated that he is prepared to face down a row by agreeing to a trial at Guantanamo Bay. "Unfortunately, I am informed by the Americans that the 'fix' is in, and that the result of your visit has already been determined," Mr Stafford Smith wrote to Lord Goldsmith yesterday. "I understand that the only concession that President Bush will make is that the British will not be subject to the death penalty. Again, this would be no concession at all, since there is no evidence to date that our citizens committed any act that would justify a death sentence." The men's supporters are likely to be angered that Mr Blair came close to endorsing Mr Bush's description of the two as "bad men". Mr Blair told Sky: "These cases all arise out the situation in Afghanistan where people were supporting al-Qaida, the terrorist network and the Taliban against British and American forces ... it is just worth pointing out that this came out of a situation of huge danger for ourselves and our armed forces." Asked whether he agreed with Mr Bush's controversial remarks, Mr Blair said: "I think what he was meaning by that was the situation in terms of people going over and supporting al-Qaida and the Taliban ... some of the discussion of this in the past few weeks has rather forgotten the context in which this arose." * * * Chicago Tribune: July 20, 2003 U.S. LEAVES FATE OF GUANTANAMO DETAINEES IN LIMBO Critics renew calls to clarify status By Matthew Hay Brown, Tribune Newspapers: Orlando Sentinel GUANTANAMO BAY, Cuba -- As the sun makes its appearance on the Caribbean horizon, the chant of the muezzin rolls through the cellblocks of Camp Delta. The recorded voice calls the Muslims among the 650 prisoners of the United States to kneel on their mats, bow toward Mecca and pray. It also marks the dawn of another day in their indefinite detention without criminal charge or prisoner-of-war status, access to lawyers or visits from family. These are the men that Pentagon officials called the "worst of the worst" enemies in the Bush administration's war on terrorism, combatants they say are ineligible for legal representation and unworthy of Geneva Convention guarantees. Commanders at the Guantanamo naval base say they will hold the prisoners, most of them locked into 7- by 8-foot cells for at least 23 1/2 hours a day, until they are drained of their intelligence value, cleared of criminal wrongdoing and no longer pose a threat to the United States. Now 18 months into the mission, the military is still not saying just how long that could take. That uncertainty, camp officials say, might be a factor in the number of suicide attempts among detainees. "There's no question it makes it a lot harder if you have a person incarcerated where they don't know their end date," said Army Sgt. Maj. John Van Natta, the Camp Delta superintendent. "I don't see that as a positive as far as controlling behavior." Family members and some former prisoners dispute claims that all the detainees are terrorists. Military sources, frustrated by low-yield interrogations, have said that dozens who were sent here had no meaningful connection to the Taliban or Al Qaeda. No recourse for detainees But the United States has left the men no way to challenge their detentions. The Pentagon has refused to hold the Geneva Convention hearings that would sort the prisoners of war from the terrorism suspects. Federal courts have ruled that the base, a U.S. outpost on Cuban soil, is beyond their reach. With preparations under way for the first anti-terror military tribunals, critics are renewing calls for the administration to clarify the status of the prisoners and the terms under which they're being held. "It's a rights-free zone," said Vienna Colucci, an international justice specialist at Amnesty International. "There's a real concern about how seriously the United States is taking its responsibilities under international law." Army Maj. Gen. Geoffrey Miller, commander of Joint Task Force-Guantanamo, said every detainee at Camp Delta is a terrorist or has supported terrorism. He said they may be held until the end of the war on terrorism. Joint Task Force-Guantanamo "is only one part of a very large effort by our country to be able to harness the intelligence capability of this country ... to attack this scourge," Miller said. The prison lies beyond a checkpoint in the southeast corner of this 45-square- mile base. The maze of chain-link fences, lined with heavy green nylon windscreen and topped with spirals of razor wire, sprawls across a scrubby bluff overlooking the Caribbean Sea. Troops patrol the perimeter on foot, in machine gun-mounted Humvees and aboard Piranha boats. Military police guards survey rows of cellblocks from watchtowers. Citizens of 42 nations held The United States is holding citizens of 42 countries. Most come from the Middle East and Central Asia, but some are nationals of Britain, Canada, Australia, China and Russia. Officials have not detailed the process or divulged the criteria that determines who gets sent to Camp Delta. Rules prevent U.S. citizens from being held at the camp. When the first prisoners arrived from Afghanistan in January 2002, four months after the attacks of Sept. 11, soldiers boasted that conditions would be uncomfortable. Pentagon photographs of detainees in hoods and shackles kneeling before their captors sparked international outrage, and the military changed the message. Now camp officials emphasize their sensitivity to the prisoners' needs. On the standard media tour, reporters are taken to the kitchen where workers prepare halal meals for observant Muslims, the medical clinic where prisoners receive treatment on a par with that of U.S. personnel, and the new medium- security section for those who cooperate with interrogators. A cellblock consists of a long hallway flanked by cells. At the end of the block is a covered gravel exercise area, where the best-behaved prisoners may go up to 30 minutes each day, and individual outdoor showers. The detainees are issued a Koran, oils, beads and a prayer mat. An arrow stenciled on each steel bed points to Mecca in the east. The prisoners eat in their cells; each cell has a sink with running water and a floor toilet. They may receive and write letters to family members. All correspondence is read by censors. Detainees are interrogated regularly by the military, CIA, FBI and other agencies. Miller declined to provide details. "We use the standard approved U.S. Army interrogation techniques," he said. "We use those to their full capability. But, for example, there are no coercive physical techniques used on any of the interrogations that go on in JTF- Guantanamo." Miller said about 75 percent of the detainees are cooperating with interrogators. While some have been held for 18 months, he said, they still can provide understanding of terrorist organization and networks. Van Natta, a reservist who in civilian life is superintendent of the largest penitentiary in Indiana, compared Camp Delta to a super-maximum-security prison in the United States. To date, he says, there have been no escape attempts. Most detainees are quiet, he said, but some throw water and perhaps urine on the guards and yell insults and obscenities. The most aggressive prisoners are moved to cells with solid steel walls that inhibit communication and are allowed out for showers only twice a week. Detainees who cooperate with interrogators may graduate to Camp Four, the new medium-security section of Camp Delta. Prisoners there live in open bays of 10 bunks and may gather and eat in common areas. For some of these men, Camp Four may be a final stop before freedom. To date, President Bush has authorized the transfer of 78 detainees. 29 suicide attempts Former prisoners have said they were not mistreated at Guantanamo Bay, but they also told how despair over being confined to small cells and not knowing their fate led some to contemplate or attempt suicide. Since the operation started, camp officials said, 18 detainees have made 29 suicide attempts, mostly by hanging. . Critics call for the United States to charge the prisoners or release them, and earlier this year Secretary of State Colin Powell sent Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld what a Pentagon official described as a "strongly worded" letter urging him to speed the process by which detainees are released. Retired Air Force Col. Scott Silliman, a former judge advocate who heads the Center of Law, Ethics and National Security at Duke University, worries about the precedent the United States is setting. "In doing what we're doing down there, what are we going to say 10 years from now when Somalia or Yemen has in its own possession one of our servicemen that's been captured?" Silliman asks. "We'll say, `Well, you've got to release them, you've got to give them their rights.' And they'll say, `What did you do 10 years ago at Guantanamo Bay?'" * * * The Morning Call (Allentown, PA): http://www.mcall.com/news/nationworld/all-detain0919,0,3481528.story CHILD DETAINEES GIVEN COUNSELING AT CAMP IGUANA Teens held under same conditions as adults: no charges, no legal help. By Matthew Hay-Brown of The Morning Call July 20, 2003 If not for the chain-link enclosure and the guards in jungle camouflage, Camp Iguana could be just another hurricane-proof holiday cottage. The cream-colored cinder block building sits on a grassy bluff overlooking the Caribbean Sea. Each of the two air-conditioned living units has been set up to resemble a Western home, with a bedroom, living room with couch, reclining chairs and television, kitchen with stove and refrigerator. It is in these homey surroundings that the United States is holding a small group of children -- officially, the military puts their number at less than six, and estimates their ages as 13 to 15 - - who commanders say were captured as enemy combatants in Afghanistan. Like the rest of the detainees at the U.S. Navy base at Guantanamo, they have been imprisoned indefinitely, without prisoner- of-war designation or criminal charge, access to legal counsel or visits from family, while undergoing regular interrogation by the Department of Defense and other agencies. But unlike the others, they have been placed in a program of education and counseling, with hours each day of study indoors and play outside, that officials say is designed to prepare them to return to their communities. "Our number-one mission here in Gitmo is intelligence-gathering toward the global war on terrorism and to detain those that pose a safety risk to U.S. forces," said Army 1st Lt. David Wodushek, who oversees Camp Iguana. "So that's why they're here. "Obviously, because of their age group, we may have some opportunity to influence what their later behavior may be, especially toward U.S. forces. If what we do here can sway them down the road into not taking arms against U.S. forces, then certainly that's a good fringe benefit." The detention of the children, announced in April, has sparked renewed outrage about operations at Guantanamo. Human-rights advocates say holding the youngsters violates the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child, which guarantees that "every child deprived of his or her liberty shall have the right to prompt access to legal and other appropriate assistance." "Simply providing the United States with military intelligence does not justify the detention of children," said Jo Becker, child rights advocacy director for Human Rights Watch. "If these children have committed offenses, they should be provided with counsel and adjudicated in accordance with standards of juvenile justice. Otherwise, they should be released immediately." Officials have declined to detail how the children were captured. But Gen. Richard B. Myers, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said they are "very, very dangerous people." "Some have killed," Myers said. "Some have stated they're going to kill again. So they may be juveniles, but they're not on a Little League team anywhere; they're on a major-league team, and it's a terrorist team." Army Maj. Gen. Geoffrey D. Miller, commander of Joint Task Force- Guantanamo, said the youths "all met the screening requirement to come here -- that they had intelligence of value and that they're a threat to the nation." Friendlier atmosphere The children were seized after fighting U.S. troops in Afghanistan, officials say, and shipped to Guantanamo earlier this year. A detailed medical examination indicated they were younger than 16, the age at which they would be sent to Camp Delta. They were placed in a group setting while a team that included a pediatrician, a psychologist, a social worker and a Muslim chaplain designed a program for them. In contrast to the maximum-security Camp Delta, Camp Iguana has neither guard towers nor razor wire. Wodushek said the design was intended to suggest a friendlier atmosphere to the detainees; he hinted at substantial unseen security measures. "Though you see a lesser security posture and certainly more care given the educational future of the juveniles, I don't think they're any less dangerous than many of those that we have down in Camp Delta," he said. Guarded 24 hours a day by military police selected for experience with children -- the staff includes a juvenile corrections officer and a middle-school teacher -- the youngsters spend their waking hours doing light chores, studying math, science and the Quran, and receiving individual and group counseling. The unplugged stove in the kitchen is strictly for show; meals are delivered from outside. The children pass quiet time playing chess, assembling jigsaw puzzles or talking among themselves and, through an interpreter who is present during their waking hours, with the guards. "They're allowed more interaction to go toward that overall less- traumatic environment that we want to put them in," Wodushek said. Escorted outside for three hours in the late afternoon, the children kick a soccer ball, throw a football, or gaze out at the water. The Caribbean is the first sea any have seen. Back inside, they are not allowed to see live television, but may draw on a library of videotapes -- Disney cartoons, National Geographic specials and others. "Cast Away," the 2000 film in which Tom Hanks finds himself stranded indefinitely on a tropical island, is a favorite. Wodushek said the youngsters have picked up some English. He described them as "basically very friendly," "eager to learn," and "pretty bright and intelligent young men," and said there have been "virtually no behavioral or discipline problems" at Camp Iguana. "Overall, we've been really impressed with how respectful they are, and that probably has a lot to do with their culture," he said. "Of course, everybody they have to deal with here is older than they are, and they have significant respect for everybody that comes into contact with them. They'll rise to their feet whenever somebody comes in to visit them, shake your hand, say hello." Periodically, the children are questioned by intelligence agencies. Officials declined to provide specifics. "It's a different form of interrogation, a debriefing, if you will, than we put other detainees through," said Army Lt. Col. Barry Johnson, spokesman for Joint Task Force-Guantanamo. "It's a debriefing process that takes into consideration their age and the circumstances of them being pressed into being enemy combatants as children." "Not the place' for children Christophe Girod, head of the International Committee of the Red Cross mission in Washington, says delegates visit the children at Camp Iguana "with regret." "I think the U.S. has made a commendable effort in keeping them there," Girod said. "The problem is that Guantanamo is not the place." Randolph Macon College psychology Prof. Michael Wessells, who has helped to design programs to reintegrate former child soldiers in Afghanistan as a senior child protection specialist with the Christian Children's Fund, called conditions at Camp Iguana "completely inadequate." "One of the prerequisites for healing is that children be in a safe secure environment," Wessells said. "It goes without saying there is no perceived security for these young people when they're being held by hostile forces in an atmosphere of interrogation and information collection." International law permits the detention of children only as a last resort, and for the shortest possible time. "It's inappropriate to hold these kids for this long," said Rachel D. Stohl, a senior analyst specializing in child soldiers at the Center for Defense Information. "If you look at international norms and standards, kids have to be reunited with their family members as soon as possible. The part that I question is why they were taken away from their homes in the first place?" As the United States deepens its military involvement in the Middle East and Africa, Stohl said, U.S. forces likely will come into contact with more child combatants. She said the Pentagon should develop policies to govern such encounters. For now, rights groups are calling for the release of the children at Camp Iguana. "You can't reintegrate a child back into his community when you're detaining him thousands of miles away," said Becker, of Human Rights Watch. "For a successful rehabilitation and integration, they should be back in their home communities." Miller, the Joint Task Force-Guantnamo commander, redirected criticism to those who recruited the children. "I think it's despicable that these terrorists would kidnap and impress these juveniles into terrorism," he said. "We're doing our very best to quickly debrief them, and have our behavioral sciences team work with them to try to very quickly allow us to make a recommendation that they could be integrated back into Afghanistani society." mhbrown@tribune.com In Puerto Rico at 787-729-9072 Copyright © 2003, The Morning Call * * * The Guardian (UK): July 19, 2003 THE BITTEREST BETRAYAL Among the 680 men imprisoned at Camp Delta, Cuba, are nine Britons. The US says they are hardcore terrorists, and holds them without charge. But where is the evidence? And why is our government so silent on their plight? By Tania Branigan and Vikram Dodd Nusaba Begg was barely a year old when the twin towers in New York were attacked on September 11 2001: a little girl from Birmingham on a big adventure in Afghanistan with her family. She is nearly three now and back home, but her father, Moazzam Begg, is in Camp Delta, held by the Americans as part of their war on terror. Eighteen months ago, Pakistani security forces seized the 35- year-old, bundling him into a car boot, and handed him over to US authorities. He was taken to an airbase in Bagram, Afghanistan, where he was held for a year in a cell deprived of natural light. Now he is a prisoner of the US at Guantanamo Bay. Nusaba cannot remember what her father looks like. "When she sees a man with a beard about the same age as her father, she points and says, 'He's my dad,' " says her grandfather, Azmat Begg. "When the man walks away, she gets sad." The Beggs are one of 11 families up and down Britain who, for up to 18 months, have been waiting for any news of the men held as "unlawful enemy combatants" in the military camp at Guantanamo Bay. All the prisoners have been held without charge, trial or promise of eventual release; without access to lawyers; without contact with anyone but their guards, secret service interrogators and - occasionally - visiting British officials. There are nine Britons and two British residents among the 680 detainees at Guantanamo: more than from any other western country. The youngest of the Britons are 20; the eldest 36. Two of the men, Moazzam Begg and Feroz Abbasi, a 23-year-old former computer studies student from Croydon, are among the first six detainees selected to face trial before a military tribunal. In the system devised by the Americans, military officers are judge and jury, with defence counsel handpicked by Washington. Conversations between lawyer and client are monitored by the military. The accused could face the death penalty. The US says they are either terrorists or linked to terrorism, although it will not elaborate on its suspicions, let alone the charges. Critics argue that the courts are loaded to ensure convictions. In the unlikely event of acquittal, the prisoners could still be detained indefinitely. The planned trials have provoked outrage around the world, not just from human rights groups such as Amnesty International and Fair Trials Abroad, but from usually steadfast supporters of America such as the former Tory ministers Douglas Hogg and Nicholas Soames. More than 200 MPs signed a Commons motion last week calling for the men to be given a fair trial. The mounting pressure has forced the government at least to be seen to be making serious efforts to have the Britons sent home to face any trial. This in turn has provoked scepticism, not least because of the unlikelihood of securing a conviction. The evidence the Americans have against Begg and Abbasi is probably too flimsy and circumstantial to satisfy a British criminal court, even if an appropriate charge could be decided upon. Azmat Begg says that the best option would be for his son to face trial in Britain. "At least he will be relieved by seeing his wife and children, and he'll get a fair trial." But relief is clouded by worry. "The uncertainty is causing more pain to the whole family. He's been one and a half years in prison and he will say anything they want him to say." Moazzam Begg - or detainee JJEEH#00558 to his captors - is described by his family as a deeply religious man and devoted father, though his sole contact with his children is now through letters he sends home via the Red Cross. In one, he urges them to work on their English spelling. In another, he asks his family to video his youngest child, born a few months after he was seized and whom he has never seen. Replying to a message from his nephews - who know only that he is "away" - he wrote gently, "I don't know when I am coming home and am afraid 'souvenirs' will be quite hard to bring back." His family say that Moazzam used to run an Islamic book and video store in Birmingham. In the spring of 2001, he and his family left for Afghanistan, where Moazzam worked on a literacy project and another scheme to provide villages with a water supply. When, after the September 11 attacks, the US bombed Afghanistan in early October, Begg took his wife and three children to Islamabad in Pakistan for safety. It was there in February 2002 that he was picked up by Pakistani security forces. In the car driving him away, locked inside the boot, he was able to make a brief mobile phone call to his father telling him of his arrest. Azmat Begg, a retired bank manager and member of the Liberal Democrats, does not recognise the US description of his son as a fundamentalist terrorist; he says Moazzam went to a Jewish school, and still has Jewish friends. Furthermore, it is unlikely that someone intending to be an al-Qaida operative would take a family of small children with him. Guantanamo Bay, located on the south-eastern tip of Cuba, is reachable only by a US military flight: its remoteness adds to its security. With its white sand and turquoise sea, it would make an ideal holiday resort. Instead, it is home to the prison with the tightest security in the world. The 45-mile territory, held by the US under a lease signed in 1934 and still used as a naval base, is uniquely useful to Washington. The US courts have ruled that it is not American soil, which means that they have no jurisdiction over how the detainees are treated. But nor does Cuba. The prisoners here are in a legal black hole. The base's motto, emblazoned on a sign at the airport, reads: "Honour Bound To Defend Freedom." In the face of international criticism, the US now permits reporters a restricted visit to Camp Delta. Here, the officials talk carefully of "detainees"; never, ever, of "prisoners". In his office, General Geoffrey Miller, who heads the mission, brushes off questions about three-year-old Nusaba's pain. Each of the 680 men held - the largest proportion of them Afghans and Pakistanis - is a dangerous terrorist, he says: "Everyone here, as they came in, was a great threat. We've gone through a very thorough screening process before any enemy combatants came to Guantanamo, [to ensure] that they both have intelligence value to help us win the global war on terrorism, and that they pose a threat to the US or our allies." Other officials, however, have been less keen to support US defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld's initial boast that the prisoners were "very tough, hardcore, well-trained terrorists"; off the record, some have privately admitted that detainees included those who were in the wrong place at the wrong time. Among the 40 or so men so far released from the camp are several pensioners. Although the Guardian tour was tightly managed, there were cracks in the image that the US has strived so hard to construct. Those in daily contact with the prisoners - their guards - contradict the official line; they do not talk of trapping dangerous terrorists, but primarily of holding people to pump them for intelligence. "These people may not be criminally orientated; they might be having information we might want to know," says Sergeant David Keefer. "I don't view any one of them as terrorists - that's not my job to decide - but neither am I a bleeding heart. I treat each one as a pertinent information giver. The mindset of dealing with a criminal is different from dealing with an Afghan farmer," he adds, ambiguously. Officially, the US will give no information about the British detainees - whether they are being held together, or whether any of them are ill. However, Sgt Keefer did concede: "I'd say they fare better in this environment because the connection is easier for us with them [because of the shared language], and for us to facilitate their needs," adding that they are "helpful, if they are in a good mood", acting as unofficial interpreters; the guards speak no Arabic or Urdu and many inmates speak no English. "They want to talk about football, or soccer, they want to know the scores, what club is strong or about the cup." Another guard, Private Jennifer Bartlett, says that the Britons are suffering. "Some get angry and do not want anything to do with anyone; some sit there and talk about their family, tell you about their kids - it helps them cope with it," she says. Their apparently endless detention depresses them, she admits. "It's just the duration of the time they have spent here, not knowing what's going to happen, when they are going home. They will sit and read a letter from their family, and they are frustrated, sometimes they get down. Sometimes they cry after reading their letters." When they receive them, that is. Three of the Britons, who, to the bewilderment of their families, are believed to have become caught up in the war in Afghanistan, come from Tipton, a small town in the West Midlands. They played football together each week, and two of them - Asif Iqbal and Rhuhel Ahmed, both 20 - were classmates at Alexandra high school. They, and their team-mate, Shafiq Rasul, all flew to Pakistan, separately but within a week or so of each other - between the end of September 2001 and the start of thewar against the Taliban on October 7. A fourth man from Tipton, Munir Ali, who was in the year above Asif and Rhuhel at school, also flew to Pakistan in October, telling his family he was meeting mates for a holiday. He has not been seen or heard of since. It was at his family's suggestion that Asif Iqbal went to Pakistan, and his father, Mohammed, accompanied him; his parents believed it was time for him to get married and settle down. Asif met his prospective bride during his first week in Faisalabad, but told his father that he wanted some time to think. He would visit a friend in Karachi for a break and give his decision on his return. "I told him: careful," says Mohammed. "Karachi is a big city, a dangerous city. When he got there, he phoned and said, 'Dad, I'm fine, don't worry about me.' He said he would be back in two weeks' time. That was nearly two years ago." Mohammed pulls on the first of a chain of Benson & Hedges. He has dark circles under his eyes and shuffles a little when he walks; the stress has exacerbated his heart condition. "I am 70. I wanted him to get married and be happy. I made a mistake and am sorry about that. Now my missus wakes up in the morning crying, 'When is my Asif coming back? When will my Asif come back?'" Asif Iqbal, whose school photographs show a slight boy with candid eyes and a shy but engaging smile, was devoted to his family, often returning from long factory night-shifts and beginning to cook and clean at once, so that his invalid mother could rest. On October 4, shortly after Asif left, Rhuhel Ahmed announced to his family that he was flying to Pakistan to help with his friend's wedding. On January 26 2002, they learned that he was being held at Guantanamo Bay. "He is a kid, straight out of school. How could he be a terrorist? Out of here, and then at end of one month he was stopped," says his father Riasoth, pondering Rhuhel's journey to the prison camp. Rhuhel was 19 when he left; a college student and keen kickboxer who had trained from the age of 14 and who rarely came home from a contest empty-handed. A handful of chrome trophies still line the walls of his parents' pebble-dashed terraced house on a shabby estate. "We go to bed every day and, passing his room, his bed seems very empty," says Riasoth as his wife Salaha Begum keens on the sofa. "My wife, sometimes she cries, sometimes she shouts. Last week she could not sleep. You sleep two minutes and wake for five hours. She is making herself ill. It's very lonely. Of the six kids, he is the most friendly, the most active. He was full of life, joking and laughing. He talked too much. Trying to make you happy. Lovely." But in the weeks before Rhuhel flew to Pakistan, he became depressed after discovering that problems with his eyesight appeared much more serious than he had initially suspected. "Everything in his life had been for boxing purposes. Then he said his eyes were wrong. The doctor said he couldn't see from there to there," says Riasoth, gesturing across the room. "Rhuhel said, 'If I don't see anyone in front of me, how can I fight?'" Shafiq Rasul, at 25, is older than the others. His older brother Habib admits that he was concerned when he saw Shafiq preparing for his departure to Pakistan in late September 2001. "He was wearing a [Ralph Lauren] Polo cap with the Stars and Stripes on and a Polo T-shirt, Armani jeans," says Habib, 30, a compact man with a Black Country twang and the intensity of an easy-going man stretched taut by circumstance. "War was coming in Afghanistan and I knew there were marches in Pakistan and I said, 'I wouldn't wear that there - any suggestion that you are British or American won't go down well.'" The trip had been Habib's suggestion. A successful IT consultant, he had hoped to set up a business with Shafiq, who was at a loose end after finishing college. Habib knew that computer training in Lahore cost a tenth of its price in the UK and proposed that Shafiq should gain new skills while exploring his family's roots; the younger man's previous trips abroad had been to Benidorm and Tenerife on an 18-30 holiday. Shafiq is 6ft 2in, but "baby-faced", says his brother, and cheeky; a passionate Liverpool fan who dreamed of fast cars. "A very young lad, in a world of his own - a kid, really," says Habib, who slips into the past tense unwittingly when speaking of his brother. "He was more westernised than anyone. Most of his friends were into clubbing and drinking; he'd go out all the time. Our first language is Punjabi, and he couldn't even speak that, not very well. He was into designer clothes; he'd spend £280 on a pair of trousers. He didn't lose his identity, but it was very rare to see him in the mosque." Shafiq's girlfriend, like most of his friends, was white; he insisted that he would make a love match. To the Rasuls, Shafiq's detention is as baffling as it is disturbing. He took most of his designer wardrobe with him - hardly an indication that he planned to fight on the frontline - and they spoke to him shortly before he was apparently picked up by the Northern Alliance. "They are saying that he had gone to the border, learned to speak the language and how to fire a weapon in one week," says Habib. "The summer before this happened, we went camping together in Wales. About 2am, we heard rustling and he said, 'I'm going to sleep in the car.' He was scared of a squirrel running around in the night and they think he was involved with the worst terrorists in the world?" If it appears implausible that three young friends should all end up in the hands of US forces by chance, it seems still more unlikely that they could be described as hardened al-Qaida terrorists and Taliban fighters. It is impossible to tell whether they had a particular plan in mind when they left the UK, but it seems more probable that, if they did hatch a plan to fight for the Taliban, they did so impulsively, possibly following their arrival in Pakistan. And it seems equally likely that they did not go to fight at all - that at most they went in search of excitement, naive young men caught up in the moment, wondering what the war meant, how it would be, perhaps wanting simply to witness a world event. Iqbal and Ahmed had convictions for violent disorder and actual bodily harm respectively, following what Midlands police describe as a minor gangfight a few years earlier. But despite extensive inquiries, there is no evidence that they had links to fundamentalist groups. Other young Asians in Tipton say that all three were friendly and good-humoured to newcomers, and "looked out" for younger, more vulnerable boys. All had reached potential turning points in their lives - but there was nothing to suggest that they were set on a path of extremism. Plenty of people have speculated as to what happened in the very few weeks between the boys' arrival in Pakistan and their capture; but firm information is scarce. Unconfirmed reports have suggested that Rasul, Iqbal and Ahmed were detained in northern Afghanistan by Northern Alliance troops; a Red Cross worker told their local newspaper that he had seen them in Shibergan prison in December that year, observing that they did not seem to be "battle-hardened" and that they had told him they were not terrorists. Their families doubt whether they were ever in Afghanistan at all, and suggest they may have been picked up from the Pakistan side of the border by overzealous Alliance troops who may have hoped for rewards from the US authorities. Riasoth Ahmed, father of Rhuhel, expresses the bafflement of them all: "How he got there and why he went there, God knows. Honest to God, I do not know." All that is known for certain is that, by the time they arrived in Cuba, Rasul was "very, very lucky to be alive", according to the Red Cross - his weight had plummeted from 12 and a half stone to seven stone. Back home in Tipton, Nasreen Iqbal leafs through brief messages from her younger brother Asif. "We treasure them as if they were gold," she says. "They are the only form of reassurance we have. We sit here every morning, waiting for the postman, thinking, 'Has it come today?' But it doesn't, and we have been waiting since January." What little does get through makes disturbing reading, as much for what it omits as for what it contains. Whole sections are blacked out - one postcard was censored so brutally that it now reads only: "Dear Pops how are you, I'm fine [censored] lots of luv, Asif." On another, a lengthy blacked-out section ends, "but other than that, everything is fine". At one point, Asif writes that he "may lose my mentality"; at another, "Have you ever eaten [censored] or sometimes [censored]? Ha ha. People have started killing mice for entertainment." Nasreen shakes her head. "There's obviously something not right with him psychologically." Like other relatives, she fears that her brother will return a broken, even unrecognisable, man. There have been at least 28 suicide attempts at Camp X-Ray - the original Guantanamo prison camp, now abandoned - and its replacement, Camp Delta. Some prisoners have found enough material in their sparse cells to fashion ligatures with which to hang themselves; others have tried to dash their heads against hard surfaces. Azmat Begg has begun to fear, from some of his son Moazzam's letters, that he may be contemplating suicide. A specialist mental-health unit, Delta block, opened in March this year - eight months after the first suicide attempt. Captain Al Shimkus, who runs the prison hospital, says that the detainees have the same quality of care as the soldiers. However, unlike their guards, the prisoners are strapped to their hospital beds. General Miller blames the suicide attempts on factors such as pre-existing mental illness, rather than the stress of incarceration. But the Red Cross, which is allowed access to inmates, is uncharacteristically forthright about the regime's effects: "The uncertainty these internees face as regards their legal status and their future does have a very adverse impact on their physical and mental wellbeing," says spokeswoman Antonella Notari. "A lot of them are pushed to despair. It is a clear indication that these people are under extreme stress and anxiety." Their diet hasn't helped, either. James Kluck, the man in charge of catering, says that from this month detainees will get three hot meals a day. Until now, their lunch had been a special military meal, called a "meal ready to eat", or MRE, which has "impacted on their health", says Kluck. "It's a polite way of saying it makes some of them ill." The MRE is designed for troops in the field, providing enough calories and nutrients for a strenuous day with heavy equipment. Camp Delta's prisoners are locked up for a minimum 23-and-a-half hours a day, and the lack of fibre and excess calories caused by prison meals has played havoc with their systems, causing some to develop high blood pressure. "With hindsight, it could have been thought about earlier," admits Kluck. Reel after reel of concertinaed razor wire surrounds Camp Delta. Countless soldiers patrol the boundary and the many gates; floodlights around the camp are kept on all night. Our guide, Captain Adolph McQueen, the camp commandant, tells us that the row of portable cabins just inside the entrance are for "admin". In fact, they are where the interrogations take place. Both Begg and Abbasi have been questioned here, by the British secret service as well as by US agents. Further inside the compound is a series of huts, each with 48 cells, where a network of blowers battles to cool the merciless heat, 110F today. Each small cell is surrounded by solid green mesh, to ensure that inmates can be seen at all times; lights burn into them all through the night. One of the bright orange jumpsuits worn by inmates - polyester mix, despite the crushing heat - is lain out for media inspection. On the floor, a painted white arrow points to Mecca, 12,793km away. A 25ft by 35ft exercise area, also enmeshed, is draped with a net for shade. The prisoners can exercise two at a time, for half an hour, between three and seven times a week - depending on how well they comply with orders. Some, however, prefer the small acts of rebellion available to them; one in 10 inmates is deemed "non-compliant". The most serious offence was throwing water on the guards; others have stuffed the wrappers from their cereal bars down the toilets, to block them. Those who show "positive behaviour", says Capt McQueen, move to the "medium- security" fourth camp, where 125 white-clad inmates are allowed to lunch outside, behind high wire fences, and associate with each other. The other three interconnected camps are all high security. Guantanamo's newest and most notorious addition is Camp Iguana, which holds children whom the US regards as enemy combatants. It is less formidable than the adult version: the wire fence is just 12ft high and the all-night floodlights are softer. A 20ft long rectangle has been cut from the green canvas surrounding the camp, so that the children can see the Caribbean sea. "It adds a certain tranquillity to the environment," says Dave Wodushek, who runs Camp Iguana. He is saddened that people so young are held here: the four children, believed to be Afghans, are as young as 13. He blames those countries which use children as soldiers. The boys incarcerated here live two to a flat, where they spend at least 21 hours a day. With permission from their guards, they can cross the black tape line in front of the fridge - inside are pretzels, peanut butter, fruit, and a packet of beef jerky that is probably not halal. In the freezer lies a half- eaten Hershey chocolate bar. The regime is strict, and formal education lasts two hours a day, with group therapy sessions provided once a week. Board games and half-completed jigsaws lie on a table in the living area. At other times, intelligence agents come to their flats to interrogate them. Wodushek says that the children are respectful and compliant, but sometimes cry: "They ask when they are going home," he says. The stridency of US foreign policy unleashed by September 11 is evident all around the base. In the base shop, a T-shirt sports a rat in Afghan clothing, with the slogan "Taliban bowl" and below it "JTF [Joint Task Force] Guantanamo Bay". Another has a cartoon of Saddam Hussein fleeing Baghdad - for France. Elsewhere on the base, a poster warning soldiers not to send sensitive information in emails has a picture of the fireball bursting from one of the twin towers. In New York and Washington, there are, as yet, no official monuments to those who died that day. Instead, Camp Delta serves as a memorial, not to America's sorrow, but to its anger. "Americans cry about freedom of speech, democracy and liberty, but what are they doing themselves?" asks Habib Rasul, whose 25-year-old brother Shafiq was one of the first Britons taken to Guantanamo Bay. For Maxine Fiddler, older sister of Jamal Udeen, another of the Britons held in Cuba, there is a double sense of injustice - she had initially heard from the authorities that her brother was safe and in good hands, only to have hope dashed. And now she has learned from the Red Cross that none of the scores of letters sent to him at Camp Delta in more than a year has reached him. Udeen, who is 36, left for Pakistan around the same time as the men from Tipton. He had been away from home for only three weeks when the Americans stumbled across him in a prison in Kandahar. He told them he had paid a lorry driver to take him from northern Pakistan to Iran as part of a backpacking trip, but was stopped near the Afghan border by Taliban soldiers who saw his British passport and jailed him, fearing he was a spy. Maxine says that at that time he described the Americans as "his saviours". The British Foreign Office told her that he would be back home as soon as they had got him a passport. Weeks later, the family discovered from the media that he had been taken to Guantanamo Bay. The US appeared to believe that he had joined the Taliban only for them to turn on him, perhaps fearing he was a spy; one Foreign Office source described his travel itinerary as "weird". But his family say he was retracing a journey he had made a decade earlier, following the Footsteps To Pakistan guidebook. Born Ronald Fiddler to devout church-going Jamaican parents, Jamal converted to Islam in his 20s. His sister believes he found peace there after years of emotional trauma; their mother left the family home when he was just two. Maxine describes her "baby brother" as a gentle, quiet man with a dry and occasionally silly sense of humour: "a very smart, a very serious person". He rarely spoke of his faith unless asked, and after four years learning Arabic and teaching English at Khartoum University in Sudan, seemed happy enough to return home, marrying and setting up a computer business with his wife. He was a devoted father to their three children and was devastated when the marriage broke down, moving back to Manchester, where he worked as an administrator in a Muslim school. His trip was supposed to be part of that fresh start. Two of the other British detainees flew out to Pakistan at some point in summer 2001, telling their families they wanted to study Arabic. Tarek Dergoul, 25, is of Moroccan origin and a lifelong Muslim; he grew up in Bethnal Green, London, and was a care worker for the elderly. His whereabouts were a mystery for many months, until, in May 2002, his family learned that he was held in Cuba. He had allegedly been captured in the Tora Bora mountain complex, where retreating al- Qaida forces fled, and had apparently had an arm amputated. Richard Belmar, 24, was raised as a Catholic by his devout parents, but went off the rails a little in his adolescence and was expelled from his secondary school. His conversion to Islam in his late teens, following in the path of his elder brother Andrew, appeared to steady him and he grew into a polite, respectful man. He worshipped at Regent's Park Mosque, a mainstream mosque with no history of radicalism, close to his home in Maida Vale, London. The ninth Briton, Martin Mubanga, was raised as a Catholic on a council estate in London, and turned to Islam later in life. The 29-year-old motorcycle courier was of dual nationality, the son of a Zambian government official who moved to Wembley in the 1970s. His brother and sisters still live in the area, but refuse to discuss his case. Neighbours said he moved out of his last flat, on a new- build estate in Neasden, at least two years ago, and there are rumours, unsubstantiated, that he had attended terrorist training camps in Afghanistan. All that is known is that he appears to have fled the war zone for Zambia, only to be picked up by the authorities and returned to the Americans in spring 2002. For 18 months, there has been very little public outcry about the Britons held in Cuba. Only now, when the military tribunals have been mooted, have a substantial body of politicians found their voice and begun lobbying for a fair trial. If America's treatment of its prisoners angers their families, the British government's failure to press the case of its citizens is the bitterest betrayal. "The Foreign Office are basically a bunch of jokers," says Habib. "Talk to them? I may as well go in a corner and talk to the wall." The families' only real support has come from campaigning lawyers such as the solicitor Louise Christian, who is acting for several of the families, and a handful of sympathetic MPs. The problems may have been exacerbated by the families' inability to act en masse. Although several are in touch with each other, there is no single campaign for the rights of those imprisoned in Cuba. Some families have simply kept their heads down, fearing that anything they say could be distorted and used against their loved ones. But there is also the problem that many of the accusations made about the detainees rest on little more than guilt by association. Despite thorough investigations by police and secret services, there is no evidence that the Tipton men, for example, associated with fundamentalist groups - merely a rash of unsubstantiated and often contradictory claims. Unsurprisingly, this has left the families reluctant to associate their men with others who they fear might have more substantive links to extremists. Until the announcement of the military tribunals, ministers had refused even to meet relatives of the detainees. The news brought the government's most outspoken comments yet - Foreign Office minister Chris Mullin told the Commons that it had "strong reservations" about them - but Tony Blair initially promised only to make "active representations" to the US to ensure a fair trial. Not enough, say the families, who have lost faith in the government that is supposed to represent them. They are convinced that the detainees' religion and race - all are black or Asian - are to blame. It is as if the men are "not really" British because they are Muslim, and because they are not white. "We can shout and scream as much as we like - they aren't going to listen to us," says Habib. "Being British doesn't mean anything now. I always thought being British was something to be proud of. I've been all over the world, and if you say you're from Britain they respect you. Now it just means you have a passport." "We have gone everywhere and no one can help," says Riasoth Ahmed. "I cannot say anything to Tony Blair. He doesn't listen to me. I cannot say anything to Bush; he doesn't listen to me. These are big people. They are not interested. I'm very happy in this country. The last 25 years I have been here have been good for the government as well as for me. Now my boy is taken, the government say nothing to help. Nobody understands why these boys are there. But nobody bothers." * * * The Daily Telegraph (UK): July 19, 2003 DEAL WORKED OUT OVER BRITISH DETAINEES By Andrew Sparrow in Tokyo The Attorney General's trip to Washington next week to finalise a deal over the nine British detainees at Guantanamo Bay is part of a carefully choreographed sequence of events agreed by Downing Street and the White House. Aware of the domestic pressure Tony Blair faces on the issue, President George W Bush is all but certain to have agreed the outcome of the talks between his administration and Lord Goldsmith. Whatever that outcome is, it is unlikely to satisfy the many MPs calling for the prisoners to be repatriated. So far, the Americans have only announced their intention to bring two Britons, Moazzam Begg and Feroz Abbasi, before a military commission. But there are seven more British terrorist suspects being held in Guantanamo Bay, a US military outpost perched on the edge of communist Cuba, who could also be tried in this way. Campaigners in Britain object to the military tribunal proceedings because they do not believe they will allow the men a fair trial. The jury would be composed of military officers and the suspects would have to use lawyers approved by the military. Lord Goldsmith is likely to call for the men to be tried by civil court in America rather than military tribunal. * * * The Daily Telegraph (UK): July 19, 2003 RAY OF HOPE FOR FAMILIES OF TERROR SUSPECTS By Nick Britten For the families of Moazzam Begg and Feroz Abbasi, any delight that legal proceedings against their loved ones have been suspended is tempered with the knowledge that nothing really has changed. After a turbulent 24 hours, which began with George W Bush describing the detainees as "illegal combatants" and "bad people" - dashing any hopes in the families' minds that they night have a fair trial - and ended with Washington agreeing to kick the whole thing into the long grass, they were still asking exactly what had been achieved by Tony Blair's visit to America. While recognising it as a significant climbdown by the Bush administration, still the men are being held incommunicado, with no access to a lawyer or independent doctor, and still they have the threat of trial by military tribunal hanging over them. Azmat Begg has been doing his best to campaign for his son's return to Britain, appearing in local newspapers almost every day for the last fortnight. His Birmingham home has become a well-trodden path for local television crews as he continues to protest his son's innocence and express outrage at the authorities. Sally Begg, his daughter-in-law, raised the emotional stakes before Mr Blair's visit to America by speaking of her fears that her husband might be tried and executed without ever seeing their one-year-old son, who was born six months after Begg, 35, was arrested. Yesterday Mr Begg reacted furiously to Mr Bush's assessment of the detainees that "the only thing we know for certain is that these are bad people". Mr Begg, 65, said: "How can he say that? I do not accept that sort of remark. If he is found guilty here I will say that my son is a bad man but if he's tried there under military jury or in America I will have a different opinion altogether." By last night, his mood had lightened considerably. He said the statement from America was the "first step to flying my son back home". He added: "To hear that the tribunal has been suspended is wonderful. However, I would have liked there to be a bit more news, I think that would have given me and my family more hope. "This is the first step though, it is a very small step and we have got to keep on hoping. "From here I will just keep on trying to bring my son back home to this country where he belongs." However, Stephen Jakobi, of Fair Trials Abroad, said that while suspension of legal action was "extraordinary", the pair might still face trial at Guantanamo Bay if "they fly in an American court and American lawyers and it is done under proper American rules". In a statement Abbasi's mother, Zumrati Juma, from Croydon, south London, said that if Mr Blair did not stop the Americans "torturing and killing my son", he would never again be able to say he upheld human rights. She said she was "absolutely devastated" when it was announced that Abbasi, 23, was facing trial and the death penalty if found guilty, adding: "He may have been foolish but he does not deserve to die." While Miss Juma can at least rest easier on that front, the waiting and uncertainty seems certain to continue for some time to come. * * * The Globe and Mail (Toronto): July 19, 2003 CANADIAN FINGERED BY AL-QAEDA CAPTIVE: CSIS By Tu Thanh Ha Montreal -- A Montrealer who was arrested this spring and accused of being an al-Qaeda sleeper agent has now been fingered by Abu Zubaydah, a close adviser to Osama bin Laden now in U.S. custody, Canadian intelligence officials allege. The revelation, outlined in a declassified briefing document filed late yesterday in Federal Court, is a damning allegation against the Moroccan-born Adil Charkaoui. The brief, prepared by the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, says that top al-Qaeda operative Abu Zubaydah has said he saw Mr. Charkaoui in Afghanistan in 1993 and perhaps again in 1997-98. This would suggest Mr. Charkaoui was involved with radical militants in Afghanistan as far back as a decade before his arrest and two years before his arrival in Canada. Until now, CSIS has alleged that Mr. Charkaoui is an al-Qaeda sleeper agent but has divulged little else about any evidence it has against him. Now in U.S. custody, Abu Zubaydah is one of the highest-ranking al-Qaeda operatives ever captured. As a lieutenant to Mr. bin Laden, the Saudi-born head of the al-Qaeda terror network, Abu Zubaydah oversaw the group's training camps in Afghanistan. The CSIS document says that last month, Abu Zubaydah was shown a photo of Mr. Charkaoui and "has confirmed recognizing Charkaoui as an individual he saw in Afghanistan." Abu Zubaydah told his interrogators that Mr. Charkaoui was known under the pseudonym "Zubeir al-Maghrebi" -- Zubeir the North African. (Past trials against al-Qaeda suspects have shown that recruits in the Afghanistan training camps usually adopt a name followed by a suffix indicating their country of origin.) The CSIS court document says only that its allegation comes from "a foreign intelligence service," but it has been widely reported that Abu Zubaydah is in U.S. custody since his March, 2002, capture in Pakistan. News reports have speculated that he is either at the U.S. naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, or at the British base of Diego Garcia, an island in the Indian Ocean. So far, citing security concerns, government officials have disclosed very little about what led them to detain Mr. Charkaoui and seek his expulsion from Canada under a certificate declaring him a threat to national security. Public sympathy for Mr. Charkaoui, a student and former pizza-parlour owner, has been mounting in Montreal because of the secretive nature of the proceedings against him. Several character witnesses -- friends and university professors -- testified on Mr. Charkaoui's behalf earlier this month during an unsuccessful attempt to obtain his release on bail until his case is heard in the fall. The presiding judge noted, however, that those witnesses didn't know him until until the late 1990s, leaving a period of his life in the early 1990s unaccounted for. Abu Zubaydah is the nom de guerre of a Saudi-born Palestinian who has been identified in various court proceedings as the man who ran al-Qaeda's recruiting network and training camps. The Montrealer Ahmed Ressam, a convicted al-Qaeda bomb plotter, has testified that Abu Zubaydah personally briefed him before sending him out on his mission, giving him bomb-making chemicals and cash. "He is the person in charge of the camps," Mr. Ressam said. "He receives young men from all countries. He accepts you or rejects you. And he takes care of the expenses of the camps. He makes arrangements for you when you travel, coming or leaving." Some terrorism experts have, however, been skeptical about the intelligence provided by people like Abu Zubaydah, saying that he could well be feeding his jailers misinformation. * * * The Age (Melbourne): July 19, 2003 DELEGATION TO DISCUSS HICKS' FATE Australia will send a delegation to Washington next week to discuss details of the military commission for suspected terrorist David Hicks. Foreign Minister Alexander told a press conference in his home town of Stirling, in the Adelaide Hills, today that the senior delegation would meet with US legal military officials throughout the week to discuss the commission which has been put on hold pending discussions with Britain and Australia. The United States overnight said it would hold off military trials of British and Australian suspected terrorists imprisoned at its base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, pending legal discussions about their fates. "Pending these discussions, the president has determined not to commence any military commission proceedings against UK nationals," Bush spokesman Scott McClellan said in a statement released by the White House. "Similarly, the United States will not commence military commission proceedings against any Australian nationals pending parallel discussions with Australian legal experts next week," he said. Britain's attorney general will lead a delegation to Washington early next week. Mr Downer said a decision had not been made concerning who would be part of the Australian delegation. He said no representations had been made for Hicks to be tried in Australia and that he believed it was "unlikely in the extreme" that Mr Hicks would be sentenced to death if found guilty by the military commission. "We do not think it is likely at all that the death penalty will apply to him," Mr Downer said. "We have obviously had information that depending on exactly what charges are brought against him, in the event that he's convicted of those charges it won't be a sentence that will bring a death penalty." However, he expected talks to last throughout the week to ensure that Hicks' trial would be "fair and meets appropriate standards of judicial fairness". "Any Australian who has trained with al-Qaeda and has trained in Afghanistan with al-Qaeda is of enormous concern to us, we have an obligation to protect the Australian community as best we can," Mr Downer said. "But it is our view that if he is to face a military commission, the equivalent of a court martial in the US, then the proceedings should be appropriately fair." Hicks denies having fought with al-Qaeda. His father says he has admitted fighting with the Taliban in Afghanistan. Kay Bilney, spokesperson for the "Fair Go For David" group formed by Hicks family and friends, said the group remained extremely concerned for his welfare. "Considering that any decision by a military commission is at President Bush's pleasure, we have no confidence at all," Ms Bilney said. "They've forgotten the principal of innocent until proven guilty." Hicks, 27, of Adelaide, is one of six people held at Guantanamo that the US said were eligible to be put on trial before a special military commission. He has been detained at Guantanamo Bay without charge since being captured fighting for the Taliban in Afghanistan in November 2001. Hicks is being held as an "enemy combatant" against the US as opposed to a "prisoner of war" under conventional international legal guidelines. US Ambassador to Australia Thomas Schieffer earlier said the military commission would determine whether Hicks had performed a criminal act in addition to his combat action, which would determine whether he would be tried in a military tribunal. Sydney man Mamdouh Habib, 46, is also being held in Guantanamo Bay after being arrested in Pakistan on suspicion of training with al-Qaeda. The military is holding at Guantanamo more than 600 foreign nationals from Afghanistan and dozens of other countries. - AAP * * * LA Times: July 18, 2003 CASES HALTED AGAINST BRITISH PRISONERS · British Prime Minister Tony Blair's office says the action was taken pending further discussions next week. From Associated Press TOKYO -- The United States has agreed to suspend legal proceedings against British terrorist suspects at Guantanamo Bay until U.S. and British officials have discussed their cases, Prime Minister Tony Blair's official spokesman said today. The spokesman, briefing reporters accompanying Blair on a flight from Washington to Tokyo, said the White House was due to make a formal statement on the issue later today. "There will be no further legal proceedings against the individuals concerned, pending discussions next week involving high-level legal teams in the U.S. led on the U.K. side by the attorney general when all aspects of the cases of the nine individuals concerned will be discussed," the spokesman said on condition of anonymity. Maj. John Smith, a spokesman for the Pentagon office preparing for the military trials of terrorism suspects, said the office had not been notified this morning about any change in plans for the Britons. Nine Britons are being held at Guantanamo Bay -- two of whom are on an initial list of six detainees who could be tried by the military tribunal. U.S. officials say the six were, like other prisoners at the U.S. Naval base in Cuba, suspected of involvement with al-Qaida, Afghanistan's Taliban or some other group. The next step is for a prosecutor to draft charges against the men. President Bush said Thursday at a joint news conference with Blair in Washington that the two leaders would discuss the fate of the two British citizens on the initial list. Blair, who is under pressure from British lawmakers to win concessions from Bush on the military tribunal issue, arrived in Tokyo today for the first leg of a tour of Far East Asia. The British government has said it would be unacceptable for Moazzam Begg, 35, and Feroz Abbasi, 23, to be denied a fair trial, and has said it has "strong reservations" about such a military tribunal. Britain is opposed to the death penalty and the Blair government said it would raise the strongest possible objections to any chance of capital punishment being applied in the Britons' cases. At a joint White House news conference Thursday, Bush responded to a reporter's question on the issue, saying, "the only thing we know for certain is that these are bad people and we look forward to working with the Blair government to deal with the issue." When pressed that such an assertion would do little to assuage British concerns that the men should be viewed as innocent until proven guilty, the president responded, "Let me just say, these were illegal combatants. They were picked up off the battlefield aiding and abetting the Taliban." Begg has been held at Guantanamo Bay for nearly five months, and was previously detained in Afghanistan for a year, according to the London-based Fair Trials Abroad. It said the father of four was seized in Pakistan in February 2002 and may have been the victim of mistaken identity. Abbasi has been held at Guantanamo Bay for 18 months. His mother, who last saw him in December 2000, has described him as a computer student who could not have become involved in terrorism. Abbasi's lawyer, Louise Christian, gave a cautious welcome to news the United States was suspending legal proceedings. "Obviously it's a relief if they are not going to have to face trial in front of these completely unfair military commissions," she told Sky News TV. "But it's not a relief if they are going to continue to be held incommunicado without access to a lawyer or to a court in these dreadful conditions." * * * CNN: July 18, 2003 - 1418 GMT GITMO CASES 'SUSPENDED' FOR TALKS LONDON, England -- Washington has agreed to suspend controversial military proceedings against terror suspects at Guantanamo Bay pending talks with British legal officials next week, the UK government said. A joint U.S.-British statement confirming the decision will be released later Friday by the White House, a spokesman for UK Prime Minister Tony Blair said. The decision follows Blair's talks on the subject with U.S. President George W. Bush in Washington Thursday. "The president listened to the concerns of the prime minister and we believe that this is the best way forward," the spokesman told reporters travelling with Blair in Asia. "There will be no further legal proceedings against the individuals concerned, pending discussions next week involving high level legal teams in the U.S. led on the U.K. side by the attorney general when all aspects of the cases of the nine individuals concerned will be discussed," the spokesman said, speaking on condition of anonymity. The UK government has been in delicate negotiations with Washington over the fate of nine British prisoners held at the U.S. naval base at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba. Two of them -- Moazzam Begg and Feroz Abbasi -- are among six inmates selected to face the first military tribunal for terror suspects held at Guantanamo Bay. The charges are unknown, although their detention is a result of American suspicion of involvement with the terror network al Qaeda. Although repatriation to face trial in Britain has been suggested as an option, some lawyers say it is unlikely their cases could be prosecuted in the UK. "The kind of evidence available means there could never be trial here in reality," leading defense counsel Jonathan Goldberg told CNN. "I'm sure it's going to be predominantly confession, and confessions induced by methods which would not be tolerated by the courts of this country." British politicians and human rights organizations are enraged at the planned U.S. military tribunal. In such a trial, the defendants will be denied the right to choose their own lawyers, who will be appointed instead by the Pentagon. And if convicted, the defendants could face the death penalty, a sentence outlawed in Britain. "I think it would be a bit rich if it were said, 'Well, we're not going to return them to England because they might be acquitted or they might not be prosecuted and we're going to keep them in Guantanamo Bay because we want to prosecute them unfairly with no evidence,'" Abbasi's lawyer Louise Christian said earlier. But some U.S. lawyers argue the rules governing the proposed tribunal do provide a fair trial. "They are not kangaroo courts, they will comply with international law and there will be a considerable degree of due process," international law expert David B. Rivkin Jr. said. "It is a different process because their offenses are not criminal. This is very important to understand these are individuals who violated the laws of war." Blair is under pressure in the UK to earn concessions for the British prisoners. He may be able to win the same rights as those granted to John Walker Lindh, a U.S. citizen captured in the war in Afghanistan, who was tried in an open U.S. civilian court. Experts argue, however, that it is unlikely the United States would grant a civilian trial to the British prisoners -- favoring them above the other inmates held at Guantanamo Bay. -- CNN Correspondent Diana Muriel contributed to this report. * * * BBC: July 18, 2003 - 1537 GMT BRITONS' TERROR HEARINGS HALTED The United States has agreed to suspend controversial military court proceedings against two Britons held at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba pending talks with British authorities. The move, disclosed by a UK Government spokesman, follows Thursday's summit in Washington between Prime Minister Tony Blair and US President George W Bush. A statement from the Foreign Office in London said: "This shows that the President of the United States has listened to the concerns of the Prime Minister." A joint US-British statement, due to be released later on Friday by the White House, would confirm the decision, the spokesman told reporters in Tokyo, as Mr Blair arrived on an Asia tour. Civil rights campaigners, and some UK cabinet ministers, have expressed concern that the men - Moazzam Begg and Feroz Abbasi - might not have a fair trial when they go before a US military court, which has the power to sentence them to death. These concerns were intensified on Thursday, when the US president, during a joint press conference with Mr Blair, said the prisoners in Guantanamo Bay are "bad people". BBC Washington correspondent Nick Bryant says the suspension is a significant climb-down by the Bush administration which has been reluctant to try terror suspects in open courts out of fear of compromising intelligence sources. FLOOD GATES UK Attorney General Peter Goldsmith is heading to Washington on Sunday for two days of talks on the future of the two men who were among the first to be threatened with a military trial. They are among nine Britons held at Camp Delta. Lord Goldsmith is to ask US justice and defence officials that "if any of the nine British citizens currently detained eventually face charges they will get a fair trial", his spokesman said. He said Lord Goldsmith would reinforce London's opposition to the death penalty. BBC security correspondent Frank Gardner says US authorities have to be seen to be acting fairly to avoid facing similar requests that would "open the flood gates". Other countries supporting the US war on terror - like Yemen and Saudi Arabia - may threaten to withdraw their co-operation if similar action is not taken over their nationals, our correspondent says. 'BAD PEOPLE' On Thursday, Mr Bush promised to "work with the British Government" on the Guantanamo Bay issue. He went on: "These were illegal combatants. They were picked up off the battlefield aiding and abetting the Taleban. "The only thing we know for certain is that these are bad people." The description of the men as "bad" was attacked by Mr Begg's father, Azmat. "If he is found guilty here [in the UK] I will say that my son is a bad man but if he's tried there under military jury or in America I will have a different opinion altogether," he said in a television interview. UK Home Secretary David Blunkett is thought to favour a civil trial in America, while Foreign Secretary Jack Straw has said he wants the men to be repatriated to Britain for trial. More than 200 British MPs have signed a parliamentary petition calling for the men to be repatriated. * * * CNN: July 18, 2003 0735 GMT ROW OVER BRITISH PRISONERS' FATE From CNN Correspondent Diana Muriel LONDON, England (CNN) -- UK Prime Minister Tony Blair's rapturous welcome in America is unlikely to help the plight of nine British prisoners held at the U.S. naval base at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba. The UK government is in delicate negotiations with Washington over their fate, including possible repatriation to face trial. Two of them -- Moazzam Begg and Feroz Abbasi -- are among the six inmates selected to face the first military tribunal for terror suspects held at Guantanamo Bay. The charges are unknown, although their detention is a result of American suspicion of involvement with the terror network al Qaeda. Some lawyers, however, say it is unlikely their cases could be prosecuted in the UK. "The kind of evidence available means there could never be trial here in reality," leading defense counsel Jonathan Goldberg told CNN. "I'm sure it's going to be predominantly confession, and confessions induced by methods which would not be tolerated by the courts of this country." British politicians and human rights organizations are enraged at the planned U.S. military tribunal. There the defendants will be denied the right to choose their own lawyers, who will be appointed instead by the Pentagon, and if convicted they could face the death penalty, a sentence outlawed in Britain. "I think it would be a bit rich if it were said well we're not going to return them to England because they might be acquitted or they might not be prosecuted and we're going to keep them in Guantanamo Bay because we want to prosecute them unfairly with no evidence," Abbasi's lawyer Louise Christian says. But some U.S. lawyers argue the rules governing the proposed tribunal do provide a fair trial. "They are not Kangaroo courts, they will comply with international law and there will be a considerable degree of due process," international law expert David B. Rivkin Jr. says. "It is a different process because their offenses are not criminal. This is very important to understand these are individuals who violated the laws of war." Blair is under pressure in the UK to earn concessions for the British prisoners. He may be able to win the same rights as those granted to John Walker Lindh, an American citizen captured in the war in Afghanistan, who was tried in an open U.S. civilian court. Experts argue, however, that it is unlikely the United States would grant a civilian trial to the British prisoners -- favoring them above the other inmates held at Guantanamo Bay. * * * BBC: July 18, 2003 0029 GMT CAPTIVE BRITONS ON BLAIR'S AGENDA The leaders faced the press and then held private talks After backslapping public addresses, Tony Blair and George W Bush tackled more sensitive issues behind closed doors in Washington. Among them was the fate of two British men being held as suspected terrorists at the Guantanamo Bay camp. There are concerns among civil rights campaigners and even cabinet ministers that the men - Moazzam Begg and Feroz Abbasi - might not have a fair trial in a US military court and could face the death penalty. Comments by the US president, during a joint press conference with Mr Blair, that the prisoners in Guantanamo Bay are "bad people" will have intensified those concerns. Home Secretary David Blunkett is thought to favour a civil trial in America, while Foreign Secretary Jack Straw has said he wants the men to be repatriated to Britain for trial. However there are concerns that should the men be brought home for trial, the Crown Prosecution Service would have difficulty mounting any prosecution at all. On Thursday, Mr Bush promised to "work with the British government" on the Guantanamo Bay men. He went on: "These were illegal combatants. They were picked up off the battlefield aiding and abetting the Taleban." "The only thing we know for certain is that these are bad people," he added. Earlier, one of the men's fathers called on Mr Blair to demand his son's repatriation. Azmat Begg insisted his son was innocent, and accused the US authorities of denying him human rights during his 18-month captivity. "He should be brought here and tried here," he told BBC Radio 4's Today programme. "(Tony Blair) should assure the Americans that our system of justice is quite good and this country is the mother of the democratic world with the oldest legal system in the entire Western world, internationally accepted as a fair and objective legal system." Niger connection A statement is expected from the British leader on Friday following the late night talks at the White House on Thursday. Mr Blair addressed another difficult subject - that of Iraq buying nuclear material from Niger - during the press conference. The issue has caused furore in the US after the president included a reference to it in his State of the Union address. The CIA's director George Tenet was forced to publicly acknowledge that the claims were unsubstantiated. However, Mr Blair has continued to stand by the allegation, adding on Thursday "we know for sure" that Iraq purchased 270 tonnes of nuclear material from Niger in the 1980s. Following the talks with Mr Bush, the prime minister left Washington for Tokyo, on the next leg of his diplomatic tour. * * * Dawn (Islamabad): July 17, 2003 11 Pakistani detainees arrive from Guantanamo By Our Staff Reporter ISLAMABAD, July 17: A batch of 11 Pakistani detainees released from Guantanamo Bay arrived here on Thursday evening. An official announcement made here earlier in the day had said 13 Pakistanis freed from Guantanamo Bay's Camp X-ray would be arriving here in the evening. However, it was clarified later that the number of the released was 11 and not 13. With the arrival of this batch, the total number of Pakistanis released so far from the Camp X-ray comes to 15. Four were released earlier. The government on Thursday claimed that the release of Pakistani detainees was the outcome of its "persistent efforts" and held out an assurance that the remaining would be released soon. "The government of Pakistan is making every effort to secure the release of the remaining Pakistani detainees at Guantanamo Bay as well," said the official statement. A senior interior ministry official told Dawn that there were still 42 countrymen detained at Guantanamo Bay. He said the 11 people would be set free after a joint interrogation by the Pakistani law enforcing agencies. This procedure would take five to six days, he added. Most of the Pakistanis detained at Camp X-Ray had been arrested from Afghanistan. * * * BBC: July 17, 2003 PAKISTANIS FREED FROM GUANTANAMO By Zaffar Abbas, BBC correspondent in Islamabad An American military aircraft has brought back 11 Pakistani nationals after they were released from US custody at the maximum security prison at Guantanamo Bay. This is the biggest group to be set free from among the 54 Pakistanis taken to the Camp Delta detention centre, most of whom were arrested by the US authorities in Afghanistan - suspected of links to al-Qaeda. A Pakistani official said all the prisoners brought back from Guantanamo Bay were formally handed over to the local authorities after being flown back to Pakistan. The official did not disclose their identities but said the move was part of the efforts to secure the release of all the Pakistani nationals being kept at Camp Delta. Most of the detained Pakistani nationals were members of the country's hardline Islamic groups that were sympathetic to Afghanistan's former Taleban regime. In those days, many of them considered Afghanistan as their second home. PLEAS FOR RELEASE When the Taleban regime fell, several hundred such Pakistanis were taken prisoner by different Afghan warlords. The American authorities later took away more than 50 Pakistani prisoners, along with hundreds of others, to the detention camp. Late last year, Pakistan's President Pervez Musharraf sent a delegation of senior security officials to Guantanamo Bay to collect details of the Pakistani nationals being held there. The delegation declared that none of the Pakistani prisoners were actively involved with al-Qaeda and requested the American authorities to set them free. It is widely believed that President Musharraf also took up the issue of the release during his recent visit to the United States. * * * BBC: July 17, 2003 LETTERS HOME FROM GUANTANAMO BAY By Megan Lane, BBC News Online Every couple of months, a letter arrives at the Birmingham home of Azmat and Gull Begg from their son, Moazzam, one of two British detainees in Camp Delta facing a US military tribunal - and possible death penalty - behind closed doors. "November 2002. To Dad, today is the first day of Ramadan and it is going as well as can be expected. Our meals are all arranged, now, to the dark hours. As the weather has become quite cold, now we have been issued with warm thermal underclothes. Boredom here is extreme. I have not seen the sun for over seven months except once, for around two minutes. I wish you all the best for the blessed month of Ramadan and a happy Eid!!! Your son, Moazzam" This is an extract from a letter written in the cells of Camp Delta, the controversial US base in Cuba where more than 600 terror suspects are held. It is written by Moazzam Begg, a 35-year-old father of four from Birmingham. Since his arrest in Islamabad in February 2002 - the same night his wife Sally had told him she was pregnant with their fourth child - Moazzam has written pages and pages to his family in Birmingham. But few letters get through, and those that do typically have several passages heavily crossed out by those who monitor goings-on at the prison camp. "I too write and write, but to judge from his comments, few of my letters are delivered," Moazzam's father Azmat Begg tells BBC News Online as he fans out his son's missives, written in neat hand-writing on paper supplied by the Red Cross. Moazzam writes of family gossip, of boredom, of the nasty creepy-crawlies, and of his uncertain fate. "Jan 2003. Dear Mum and Dad, I have done a lot of reading in the past few months (45 books or so), just having read about the United States' war of independence and Civil War. I had a discussion recently with someone about the US's major contribution to civilisation (after talking about Ancient Greece, Egypt, Mesopotamia, India, China etc). I pondered for many hours and then came up with the answer - peanut butter (both smooth and crunchy). My co-debater was not amused with the results of my hours of research. I have that every now and then and it tastes fairly good! My salaam and love to you all, Moazzam" His family hope against hope that Moazzam and fellow Briton, Feroz Abbasi, 23, of Luton, will be handed over to the UK to face justice here. But despite supportive noises from the Foreign Secretary Jack Straw and a host of MPs, fears are mounting that the US will not bow to pressure to repatriate the pair. "This country is the mother of justice - how can they say our laws are not good enough?" asks Mr Begg, a retired bank manager who once harboured dreams of becoming a barrister. "If the laws do not exist to try my son here, then we can make new laws." Mr Begg plans to go to Brussels next month with Stephen Jakobi, of Fair Trials Abroad, to plead with the EU to intervene. "I don't yet know who we might meet or when we can go. But I would like to go with a delegation with one member of each family who has a son facing trial - so far I'm the only one to step up." "January 03. The camel spider is the only 10-legged spider in the world and, I believe, it's not an arachnid (technically not a spider). But it grows bigger than human hand-sized and has a bite that causes flesh to decay - if left untreated. In the summer there were plenty here, running into the cells and clambering over people; one person was bitten and had to be treated. Thank God it's winter!" Over tea and a plate of sweet dates, Moazzam's mother Gull explains in her soft, Brummie-tinged tones how even daily chores have been thrown into disarray since Moazzam's arrest. All attention is now on keeping his plight in the public eye, in campaigning for his right to fair treatment. "I'm sorry about the mess. We should be in the middle of redecorating but..." Mrs Begg's voice trails off as she waves a hand around the Begg's flock- wallpapered terrace house. She is still perplexed at the fate of her son. Moazzam, like his mother, was born in England; his father India, under the British Raj. At 12, Moazzam went to stay with relatives in Pakistan where, his father says, his interests in humanitarian work began. But the couple have not seen their son for several years now - he, Sally and their young children moved to Afghanistan about a year before the arrest. There they helped install water pumps and tried to set up a school - Moazzam looking after boys, Sally the girls - in the Taleban-run nation. When the US bombardment began as the war on al-Qaeda took place following the 9/11 attacks on New York and Washington, the family moved to an apartment in Islamabad to wait out the strikes. They planned to return when the dust had settled. But Moazzam was arrested and the family's funds - about £8,000 - were seized, leaving Sally and the children to fend for themselves in a country where they did not speak the language. "I got a phone call from Moazzam in the middle of the night. At first I could not even tell if it was him, he was speaking so quietly. He said 'Dad, I've been arrested.' I thought he was joking, or that I was still dreaming," Mr Begg says, his voice dropping as he remembers that night. But Moazzam wasn't joking. Eighteen months on, should efforts to repatriate him fail, he could face a military tribunal with the power to impose the death penalty. "March 03. Dear Dad, I am doing OK and trying as patiently as possible to overcome despair. These days I have found things getting easier and occupy my time with much of the same activities - exercise, conversation, prayer and sleep. Your son, Moazzam" * * * LA Times: July 16, 2003 SHOWDOWN NEARS OVER TERRORISM DETENTIONS · Abrupt transfer of a suspect from Peoria, Ill., to a brig sets up test case on post-9/11 jailings. By Richard A. Serrano, Times Staff Writer WASHINGTON -- One moment he was preparing for trial on relatively routine criminal charges in the nation's heartland and the next he was gone, designated an enemy combatant by President Bush and spirited away to a military brig in South Carolina. Government authorities want to hold Ali Saleh Kahlah Al-Marri indefinitely, saying they believe he may be a "sleeper cell operative" working to settle foreign terrorists in the United States. But Al-Marri's lawyers say his abrupt transfer is unfair and deprives him of the protections of the U.S. court system. The dispute, headed for a showdown this month in a federal courthouse in Peoria, Ill., is being called a test case that could set the standard for how far the Justice Department, the Pentagon and, ultimately, the White House can go in detaining terrorism suspects in their efforts to protect the nation. Al-Marri, a 37-year-old native of Qatar, entered this country with his family on Sept. 10, 2001, the eve of the terror attacks on New York and the Pentagon. Before the year was out, he was arrested by FBI agents in central Illinois on charges of fraud and making false statements to authorities. He would have gone on trial in Peoria next Monday. Instead came a turn of events that not only triggered Al-Marri's removal to military custody but could foreshadow the fates of Jose Padilla and Yaser Esam Hamdi, U.S. citizens who also have been named enemy combatants. Al-Marri's case could also affect the government's prosecution of Zacarias Moussaoui, a French citizen facing terrorism charges in federal court and who could be named an enemy combatant. Al-Marri declined to cooperate and plead guilty, choosing a jury trial in federal court. Then he was abruptly removed to a military brig, an imprisonment that could last as long as the war on terror. Defense attorneys have asked U.S. District Judge Michael H. Mihm in Peoria to free Al-Marri, and a response from government attorneys is due today. Mihm is set to hear arguments from both sides July 28 before ruling. Al-Marri "may prove to be the test case," said Eugene R. Fidell, president of the National Institute of Military Justice, a private organization that analyzes military legal issues. "But it's a little like a legal Belmont Stakes as the various cases pull ahead or fall behind in the race to the Supreme Court," Fidell said. "We won't know for a while which will be the landmark case and which will be follow-ons." Jennifer K. Elsea, a legislative attorney with the Congressional Research Service, a nonpartisan organization that studies national legislation, said Congress' authorization of the enemy combatant statute was never intended to be invoked so broadly. When the war on terror began, Bush said no American citizens would be designated enemy combatants and that they would be tried in open court, with their constitutional rights protected. But that has not always been the case. John Walker Lindh is an American citizen from Northern California who was captured fighting for the Taliban in Afghanistan. Following Bush's directives, he was returned to this country and prosecuted in federal court in Virginia, eventually pleading guilty. From there, the standard begins to blur. Hamdi too is an American, born in Louisiana, and he too was captured on the Afghan battlefield. But unlike Lindh, he was taken to Guantanamo Bay and, after his nationality was confirmed, he was named an enemy combatant and transferred to a Navy brig in Norfolk, Va. Padilla, accused of plotting to detonate a radioactive "dirty bomb," is also an American citizen, born in New York and raised in Chicago. But unlike Lindh or Hamdi, he was arrested in this country, immediately named an enemy combatant and taken to the Navy brig at Charleston, S.C. The rule also has not been uniformly applied to foreigners. Richard Reid, a British citizen who attempted to bring down a transatlantic flight with a shoe bomb, was prosecuted in federal court in Boston and pleaded guilty there. The case of Moussaoui, suspected of being the 20th hijacker in the Sept. 11 plot, is in federal court in Virginia. Complications in the prosecutors' case stemming from Moussaoui's request to meet with a suspected Al Qaeda leader, however, have raised questions about whether the government should confer on him enemy combatant status. That leaves Al-Marri -- a foreigner arrested in this country who was being prosecuted here but suddenly was shifted into military custody at the Naval Consolidated Brig in Charleston. "The Bush administration has once again done an end-run around the criminal justice system," said Wendy Patten, U.S. advocacy director for Human Rights Watch. "This kind of military detention has no place in a country committed to the rule of law." But the government strongly defends its transfer of Al-Marri. The president, in his June 23 declaration of Al-Marri as an enemy combatant, contended that he "is closely associated with Al Qaeda" and has been "engaged in conduct that constituted hostile and warlike acts, including conduct in preparation for acts of international terrorism." More important, the president said, Al-Marri "represents a continuing, present and grave danger to the national security of the United States, and detention of Mr. Al-Marri is necessary to prevent him from aiding Al Qaeda in its efforts to attack the United States or its armed forces, other governmental personnel, or citizens." Lawrence S. Lustberg of Newark, N.J., one of Al-Marri's attorneys, said his client lawfully entered the U.S. with his wife and five children to pursue a master's degree at Peoria's Bradley University, where he earned a bachelor's degree in 1991. The FBI arrested him on Dec. 12, 2001, on a material witness warrant and took him to New York as part their Sept. 11 investigation. According to Lustberg, Al- Marri "was held in solitary confinement, locked down without exercise or recreation and was under constant monitoring." He was indicted in New York on fraud and false statement charges. But the indictment was dismissed and a second grand jury indictment was obtained in Peoria, where he was charged with seven counts of making false statements to the FBI and identity fraud. Jan Paul Miller, the U.S. attorney in central Illinois, said Al-Marri lied about phone calls to a man in the United Arab Emirates believed to be associated with Mustafa Ahmed Al-Hawsawi. According to court records, Miller said, Al-Hawsawi is an unindicted co-conspirator in the Moussaoui case. Prosecutors in Washington and Illinois also have said that Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, Al Qaeda's operations chief now in U.S. custody, has identified Al- Marri as a conduit for helping Al Qaeda operatives get settled in this country for future attacks. In addition, prosecutors said Al-Marri's laptop computer held the numbers of hundreds of stolen credit cards that were to be used to fund terrorism, as well as anti-American literature. Lustberg, said he knows only that defense attorneys were preparing for a July 21 trial on the charges of false statements and fraud when suddenly, on June 23, everything changed. Lustberg said prosecutors went to court in Peoria and dismissed the charges against Al-Marri, then moved him to military custody in South Carolina. Lustberg said that because prosecutors dropped the case "with prejudice," they cannot reinstate the charges. He said if the defense can convince Mihm that Al- Marri does not meet the enemy combatant standard and that the transfer was improper, he should be released. Lustberg said he has had no luck getting in contact with his client, despite letters and phone calls to the Pentagon and Department of Justice. "They don't even respond," he said. Lustberg said that after Al-Marri was removed from Peoria, the local jail sent the defense team his Koran and prayer rug. They mailed it to the brig in South Carolina but, Lustberg said, "We don't even know whether that got to him either." * * * Chicago Sun-Times: July 14, 2003 MISSION TO NIGER By Robert Novak, Sun-Times Columnist The CIA's decision to send retired diplomat Joseph C. Wilson to Africa in February 2002 to investigate possible Iraqi purchases of uranium was made routinely at a low level without Director George Tenet's knowledge. Remarkably, this produced a political firestorm that has not yet subsided. Wilson's report that an Iraqi purchase of uranium yellowcake from Niger was highly unlikely was regarded by the CIA as less than definitive, and it is doubtful Tenet ever saw it. Certainly, President Bush did not, prior to his 2003 State of the Union address, when he attributed reports of attempted uranium purchases to the British government. That the British relied on forged documents made Wilson's mission, nearly a year earlier, the basis of furious Democratic accusations of burying intelligence though the report was forgotten by the time the president spoke. Reluctance at the White House to admit a mistake has led Democrats ever closer to saying the president lied the country into war. Even after a belated admission of error last Monday, finger-pointing between Bush administration agencies continued. Messages between Washington and the presidential entourage traveling in Africa hashed over the mission to Niger. Wilson's mission was created after an early 2002 report by the Italian intelligence service about attempted uranium purchases from Niger, derived from forged documents prepared by what the CIA calls a "con man." This misinformation, peddled by Italian journalists, spread through the U.S. government. The White House, State Department and Pentagon, and not just Vice President Dick Cheney, asked the CIA to look into it. That's where Joe Wilson came in. His first public notice had come in 1991 after 15 years as a Foreign Service officer when, as U.S. charge in Baghdad, he risked his life to shelter in the embassy some 800 Americans from Saddam Hussein's wrath. My partner Rowland Evans reported from the Iraqi capital in our column that Wilson showed "the stuff of heroism." President George H.W. Bush the next year named him ambassador to Gabon, and President Bill Clinton put him in charge of African affairs at the National Security Council until his retirement in 1998. Wilson never worked for the CIA, but his wife, Valerie Plame, is an Agency operative on weapons of mass destruction. Two senior administration officials told me Wilson's wife suggested sending him to Niger to investigate the Italian report. The CIA says its counter-proliferation officials selected Wilson and asked his wife to contact him. "I will not answer any question about my wife," Wilson told me. After eight days in the Niger capital of Niamey (where he once served), Wilson made an oral report in Langley that an Iraqi uranium purchase was "highly unlikely," though he also mentioned in passing that a 1988 Iraqi delegation tried to establish commercial contacts. CIA officials did not regard Wilson's intelligence as definitive, being based primarily on what the Niger officials told him and probably would have claimed under any circumstances. The CIA report of Wilson's briefing remains classified. All this was forgotten until reporter Walter Pincus revealed in the Washington Post June 12 that an unnamed retired diplomat had given the CIA a negative report. Not until Wilson went public on July 6, however, did his finding ignite the firestorm. During the run-up to the invasion of Iraq, Wilson had taken a measured public position -- viewing weapons of mass destruction as a danger but considering military action as a last resort. He has seemed much more critical of the administration since revealing his role in Niger. In the Washington Post July 6, he talked about the Bush team "misrepresenting the facts," asking: "What else are they lying about?" After the White House admitted error, Wilson declined all television and radio interviews. "The story was never me," he told me, "it was always the statement in (Bush's) speech." The story, actually, is whether the administration deliberately ignored Wilson's advice, and that requires scrutinizing the CIA summary of what their envoy reported. The Agency never before has declassified that kind of information, but the White House would like it to do just that now -- in its and in the public's interest. * * * The Age (Melbourne): July 14, 2003 THE END OF OUR INDEPENDENCE? By Malcolm Fraser The trial of David Hicks is of absolute importance to David. He could be executed, he could be sent to an American jail for the rest of his life, or he could be exonerated. But the trial and the issues surrounding it are also of fundamental importance to all Australians. Australians have always believed that the application of due process, the rule of law, is fundamental to our democracy. Enough has been written for us to know Hicks will have a second-class trial. The original order signed and published by President George Bush was as wide as the sky. His Secretary of Defence, Donald Rumsfeld, must be given credit for establishing orders that go some way towards establishing a less unjust trial. But there are many issues remaining. A guilty verdict need not be unanimous. There seem to be no comprehensive rules to guard against the misuse of evidence. Hearsay, reportedly, is to be accepted. Confidentiality between lawyer and client remain in serious doubt. There is no appeal to an independent judicial tribunal. Hicks and his family are right to be concerned about the conduct of this trial. Our Government seems convinced the trial will be just. The British Government is much more concerned about its citizens in the same situation. Important as this is to the individuals involved, the issue says much about the relationship between Australia, Britain and the United States. This matter is fundamental, and more serious for Australia than Britain, which has a choice between the US and the European Union. It is clear the Australian Government has determined that Australia's interests will be best served by avoiding any argument with the US and supporting American policy. This change in Australian foreign policy is even more fundamental than the Government's announcements some weeks ago would indicate. It goes to the heart of what we are about as an independent nation. It raises more starkly than ever the question of identity and purpose. Are we indeed able to stand for Australians who may need the protection of their nationality? The present answer is clear: not if such actions cut across relations with the United States. Some would believe we are now a completely subservient ally. It is time Australians started to ask what additional interests we are going to forsake in our support of this present American Administration. At the end of World War II, the Menzies government negotiated ANZUS. It is a fragile treaty that goes no further than committing each country to consult, in accordance with its constitutional processes, if a territory or forces of either country were attacked in the Pacific theatre. There is only one country on whom Australians can rely absolutely. That is Australia itself. That capacity should never be prejudiced or diminished by other relationships. Great powers have a history of pursuing their own interests to the exclusion even of the interests of states that have been close friends and allies. The communist era gave validity to Australia's relationship with the US. Terrorism may create an equivalent concern in the US, but this wrongly named "war on terror" will not be won by guns, by bombs, or by armies. It will be won by intelligence and police work and co-operation between states. Even if the war on Afghanistan did not, the war on Iraq has arguably made the pursuit of the "war on terror" more difficult. The US has dissipated the friendship generated in September 2001. We have made ourselves the closest of allies in this "war", and have supported strategies that make its success more difficult. America's enemies will unnecessarily become Australia's enemies. I have a living memory of what is, for many, history. Britain was left alone with Commonwealth support for two years and five months in the war against Nazism. Britain was bankrupt and desperate, but fighting with a tenacity that led to democracy's greatest victory. I do not believe America would have joined that war if Japan had not attacked Pearl Harbour and forced her into it. There were many who believed the US could deal with a triumphant Hitler. The US was concerned that Britain could not again be a financial power. Were it not for Pearl Harbour, America would probably have stood aloof. If America could not see the way its interests coincided with the interests of Britain at that time, until it was forced to by Japan's actions, how can we believe that the US will see its interests coincide with ours? I do not believe that America, however benign the exercise of its present power, would necessarily use that power for Australia's protection. The US has become a fundamentalist regime, believing fervently that what it judges to be right is in fact right, and that others do not have anything much worthwhile to contribute. Such an America will not make friends. Dean Nye, from the Kennedy School of Government, and Henry Kissinger have both conceded this point. They recognise the need for America to wrap her military power with the cloak of diplomacy, with persuasion, with respect and esteem for the views of other states. That would make the exercise of America's power more acceptable. But this is not the America we deal with. This is illustrated by the presidential order establishing military tribunals. That order makes it perfectly clear that the US expects any country to give up to America any person the US believes to be covered by the order. From that point of view it makes no difference whether David Hicks is in Guantanamo Bay or walking free in Sydney. Such a presumption, such an exercise in arbitrary power, should make us more cautious. The US is not prepared to comply with international law carefully drafted and supported by legal authorities from many countries. It is prepared to assert, and I believe to enforce, its law well beyond normal US jurisdiction, if America perceives this to be in its interests. Do we really serve Australia's interests by such uncritical support and by such an apparent loss of our own sense of purpose and independence? [ Malcolm Fraser is a former Liberal prime minister of Australia. ] * * * Sydney Morning Herald: July 13, 2003 HICKS OWNS UP TO LINK WITH TERROR GROUP By Annabel Crabb, Canberra Australian Taliban fighter David Hicks has freely admitted to Australian intelligence agencies that he trained with the terrorist group al-Qaeda, a senior intelligence source has told The Sun-Herald. The comments support claims by Prime Minister John Howard, which have been denied by Mr Hicks's family and legal team, who are yet to speak to the 27-year- old detainee at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba. "If it revolves around him having trained with al-Qaeda, then it's a lay-down misere," the intelligence source told The Sun-Herald. "There's this artificial debate going on with his lawyers saying he was only with the Taliban - but he's never denied training with al-Qaeda." In four interviews with ASIO and the Australian Federal Police, the latest of which occurred in May this year, Mr Hicks has apparently made no effort to deny an association with the terrorist organisation. The Federal Police twice accompanied ASIO on its interrogations of Mr Hicks, but charges under Australian law have not been laid and it is understood investigators are sceptical about whether an appropriate offence exists under Australian law for the purpose of trying him at home. But Attorney-General Daryl Williams would not rule out the possibility of Mr Hicks facing trial in Australia after his US military hearing. Mr Williams has told The Sun-Herald that in negotiations with the United States he has extracted an undertaking that the Australian Government will be permitted to send an official observer to Mr Hicks's military hearing, if and when it occurs. But the Australian Government is unlikely to provide assistance with Mr Hicks's legal costs, and the detained Australian will not be permitted to see his family during the process. Mr Williams said he had not received a request for financial assistance from the Hicks family, but he doubted that it would be possible to make funds available, as the military commission formed to try Mr Hicks would make a publicly funded military lawyer available to him. The British Government, it was reported yesterday, is holding discussions with the US about the possible return of two British terrorist suspects from Guantanamo Bay for domestic prosecution. About 200 British MPs have signed a parliamentary motion calling for the two citizens to be returned, amid fears they will not get a fair trial in the US military system. British opposition politicians say Prime Minister Tony Blair must prove that his US ties can deliver results over the Guantanamo prisoners. Britain has expressed concern that US rules for military tribunals would not guarantee their rights. "I think a special relationship has to be a two-way street," opposition Liberal Democrats leader Charles Kennedy said. "What we seem to be encountering at this stage is very much one-way traffic." Meanwhile, the Uniting Church's policy-making body will consider a motion next week condemning the detention without trial of Mr Hicks and Mamdouh Habib. The proposer, Canberra minister Gregor Henderson, said he was approached by church people who found the pair's plight unjust on Christian and democratic grounds. * * * The Times (UK): July 12, 2003 BRITONS DETAINED IN CUBA FACE LONG WAIT FOR HEARING By Michael Evans, Defence Editor and Greg Hurst The fate of the nine Britons detained in Guantanamo Bay, in Cuba, will not be resolved for a long time, despite new efforts to ensure trials are held in Britain, Whitehall officials said yesterday. Tony Blair will raise the issue next week, when he sees President Bush in Washington. After the United States announced that two of the nine Britons, Moazzam Begg and Feroz Abbasi, were to be among the first batch of detainees to face prosecution, the Prime Minister came under pressure to persuade Washington to repatriate them for possible trial. Whitehall officials emphasised that resolution of this issue was still a long way off, because there were numerous legal complications. Human rights groups said that Mr Blair had three options under international law: if the two Britons were repatriated, they could be tried under the Terrorism Act 2000; or they could be charged with terrorism offences in American criminal courts or dealt with through a United Nations tribunal. Amnesty International UK said that adherence to international standards was more likely to be met by a British court, particularly because of the absence of the death penalty. However, the Whitehall officials said that even if a diplomatic decision was reached to hold a trial in Britain, the police would have to carry out a full investigation into any allegations against them. A spokeswoman for the Crown Prosecution Service said that it was impossible at this stage to say what charges, if any, could be made against Britons sent back from Cuba. The official said that none of the nine Britons detained in Cuba could be imprisoned in Britain under the new Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act. This act, which came into force after the September 11 attacks, only covers foreign nationals who can be held without charge if suspected of being involved in international terrorism, until they can be deported. Two other terrorist suspects held at Guantanamo Bay who previously lived in Britain will not be included in the discussions between Mr Blair and President Bush because they are not British nationals. Whitehall sources said the Home Office had ruled that neither Bisher al-Rawi, an Iraqi national who had lived in Britain for 19 years, nor Jamil al-Banna, a Jordanian granted refugee status in Britain in 2000, could be assisted in any way by the Government because they were not British citizens. For this reason, MI5 officers who have made a number of visits to Guantanamo Bay to interview the nine British suspects, did not see Mr alRawi or Mr al-Banna. The interviews with the nine were carried out on the understanding that their answers were not going to be used in evidence against them in any future prosecution. On that basis, the suspects are understood to have been relatively open about their reasons for going to Afghanistan, where most of them were arrested by the Americans during the campaign against the Taleban and al-Qaeda. However, all the interviews took place in the hearing of CIA officers, who also questioned them on numerous occasions without MI5 officers being present. As part of its general surveillance operations against suspected Muslim extremists in this country, MI5 is believed to have acquired intelligence about at least one of the nine suspected terrorists now being held at Guantanamo Bay. However, this information, too, would be inadmissible in court and cannot be passed to the Americans if any of the British suspects are put on trial in a military court in the US or at Guantanamo Bay. What can be given to the Americans are details of any previous police action against the suspects. Mr Begg, for example, had been arrested by police on a number of occasions, the last time only shortly before he left Britain for Afghanistan. * * * The Times (UK): July 12, 2003 THE SUSPECTS AT GUANTANAMO BAY · Feroz Abbasi: a 23-year-old student from Croydon, South London, born in Uganda. Captured in Afghanistan. Claims he was paid to go to an al-Qaeda training camp. · Moazzam Begg: aged 35, married with four children, from Sparkbrook, Birmingham. Arrested in Pakistan after escaping from Afghanistan. · Shafiq Rasul: a 24-year-old law student from Tipton, West Midlands. Captured in Afghanistan. · Asif Iqbal: a 20-year-old parcel depot worker from Tipton. Captured in Afghanistan. · Ruhal Ahmed: a 20-year-old student from Tipton. Captured in Kandahar, southern Afghanistan. · Jamal Udeen: a website designer, aged 35, from Hulme, near Manchester. Arrested in Afghanistan. Claims he was travelling in the country and got caught up in the fighting. · Tarek Dergoul: a 24-year-old former care worker from East London. Arrested in Afghanistan. Came to Britain from Morocco in 1970. [ ?? If he's only 24, he can't have arrived from Morrocco in 1970. ] · Martin Mubanga: a motorcyle courier, aged 29, from West London. Arrested in Afghanistan. Holds dual British and Zambian nationality. · Richard Belmar: a former pupil at a Catholic school in North London, aged 23. Arrested in Pakistan. Told his parents that he had gone to the region to learn Arabic. * * * The Independent (UK): July 12, 2003 BLAIR TO CHALLENGE BUSH OVER BRITONS HELD AT CAMP DELTA By Ben Russell, Political Correspondent Tony Blair will challenge President George Bush next week over the fate of the Britons being held in Guantanamo Bay as disquiet over their legal status grows among opposition parties and Labour backbenchers. Charles Kennedy, the Liberal Democrat leader, demanded that Mr Blair use the first leg of a round-the-world diplomatic tour next week to press President Bush for the detainees' return. Mr Blair will give a historic joint address to Congress on Thursday before holding talks with President Bush at the start of a week-long trip that will take in Japan, South Korea, China and Hong Kong. Downing Street said yesterday that repatriation was bring discussed as one option for the two British detainees, Feroz Abbasi and Moazzam Begg, but insisted that other options were being considered. More than 200 MPs have signed a Commons motion calling for the British prisoners at Guantanamo Bay to be brought back to Britain for trial. Yesterday the leader of barristers in England and Wales, Matthias Kelly QC, made a formal request for Foreign Office funding for a legal team to travel to Guantanamo Bay. In a letter to the Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw, Mr Kelly asked for financial support for barristers intending to act as independent observers at the military tribunals at which the US wants to try Mr Begg and Mr Abbasi. The men are among 700 terrorist suspects detained at Guantanamo Bay. Mr Kelly said: "The English Bar has an effective record of observing contentious or politicised trials. I have very real concerns about the integrity of the proposed Guantanamo hearings. Mr Kennedy told BBC Radio 4: "Mr Blair has got to point out this is not a personal favour or something that represents the interests of his Government, but an affront to more than 200 MPs of all parties who have signed a motion in the House of Commons and a huge cross-section of legal opinion in the House of Lords." The row came as the British Government was accused of abandoning two London- based businessmen held at Guantanamo Bay, Bisher al-Rawi, an Iraqi national, and Jamil al-Banna a Jordanian citizen. Vera Baird, QC, Labour MP for Redcar, wrote to Mr Blair yesterday urging him to insist "in the strongest possible terms" that President Bush allow the British detainees to return home for a full trial. She said: "If they are going to insist on trying people in what is frankly a kangaroo court, justice will not be seen to be done. She added: "The prospect of somebody being sent for trial in a court, which as I understand it will be appointed by Donald Rumsfeld [the US Defence Secretary], which consists of military officers and where people will be defended by military officers who can be sacked at will, is very worrying." Alice Mahon, Labour MP for Halifax, said: "Mr Blair has got to get these people out of there. If we were holding nine Americans for 18 months they would be appalled." Ian Gibson, Labour MP for Norwich North, said "This is one issue on which he has to grasp the nettle. He must lay the law down to Bush." Geraint Davies, Labour MP for Croydon Central, said: "What we need is the intervention of President Bush." He warned: "This will threaten the security of Americans across the globe who could now face copycat kangaroo courts and summary execution." Lord Morris, a former attorney general, said: "I would have thought the more heinous the allegations, the greater the need that we should all heed the precept that justice should be seen to be done and should actually be done." The shadow Foreign Secretary, Michael Ancram, demanded to know whether the issue had been raised with the US administration. Mr Ancram said: "The Government must come clean on when it first discussed the possibility of repatriation of British prisoners with the US and on whether at any time the Government have shown themselves less than willing to consider it." SWEDISH DEMANDS Mehdi Muhammed Ghezali, 23, is among 700 prisoners at Guantanamo on suspicion of involvement with Osama bin Laden's al-Qa'ida network. Last year Mr Ghezali's father built a metal cage in a central Stockholm square and began a hunger strike to demand the release of his son. "I will live here, day and night, and be on hunger strike," Mehdi Ghezali, 57, said. "I demand that my son be allowed to return to Sweden." His actions provoked Swedish ministers into demanding that the United States provide proof of the allegations or set free the suspect. They have also handed a list of questions to the US ambassador to Sweden. One million of Sweden's nine million people are immigrants, almost half of them Muslims. Few other European countries have taken such public steps. Robert Verkaik * * * The Daily Telegraph (UK): July 12, 2003 YOUR SHOUT: FEARS FOR TERROR SUSPECT IN THE DOCK OF THE BAY By Andrew Gimson Birmingham Neighbours of Moazzam Begg, one of the British terrorist suspects held by the United States at Guantanamo Bay, insisted yesterday that he must be tried in Britain rather than America. Omar Mohammed, 24, one of the family who run the Royal Al-Faisal Tandoori and Balti Buffet Restaurant in the Sparkbrook district of Birmingham, said: "I know Moazzam. He's a very nice guy, very down to earth. There's nothing to give the impression he's a terrorist-type person. "He's always there to give a helping hand to anyone. It's terrible for his wife and four children [who are still in Sparkbrook]. I think it's a struggle for them, but they just have to get along. Moazzam used to do a lot of community activities, helping kids to stay off the streets, setting up classes in kick- boxing and stuff." Like the great majority of Asians in Sparkbrook, Mr Mohammed believes Begg will get a fair trial only if he is repatriated to Britain instead of being put before an American military court: "The Americans just want to grab someone to put the blame on. They haven't caught Osama bin Laden or anyone. They've had two wars in one year and they haven't found any of the main culprits. "Instead they're getting the smaller end of the stick. If you can't get the root out of a tree there's no point grabbing the twigs, though I don't even think Moazzam comes in the category of a twig. "If Moazzam doesn't get a trial in this country [instead of America] I don't think any British citizen's safe, because the American government needs a sort of scapegoat to crucify in front of everyone, to show they've got the culprits. "I don't think there's enough evidence to try Moazzam. That's why I think the Americans might not hand him over. It would be easier for them to kill him there than send him here. Under the American system, with American judges, American prosecutors and American defence lawyers, the British defendants won't stand a chance. They've got more chance of marrying the Queen." Ali Shan, a retired restaurateur who came to Britain from the Pakistani part of Kashmir in 1957, said of Begg: "I know his father, Azmat Begg. He's a gentleman. He lives peacefully. He was a bank manager. "I worked very hard in this country. We have fair justice in this country. The Americans have a different system. They're keeping their suspects in cages like animals. We believe in God, and if you're not fair with other people, God will not be fair with you. Any country that does unjust things, that makes people suffer, God will not tolerate." At a second Asian restaurant, a young British-born Muslim who declined to give his name expressed even greater hostility towards America: "America wants to destroy everyone. When they've finished this job they're going to destroy Britain as well. Bush is going to destroy Iran next, or Syria. "Then he's going to move on to India, then Pakistan, then China. He's going to conquer everywhere." Among the mainly white drinkers at the nearby Royal Oak pub, opinion was split about what should happen to Begg. One pensioner said: "He went to fight over there so he should be tried over there." A second pensioner said: "They were captured by America. If they were British citizens why did they go over there and volunteer? You volunteer for it, you've got to accept the consequences. They were caught on the front as soldiers. They'll say anything to save their own necks." Another man commented: "They ain't going to get a fair trial over there. They'll kill anyone, the Americans." A sixth man said: "If you play with fire you get your hands burnt. They'll just set an example over there. They'll fry them. So bring them back here to try." * * * July 11, 2003 The Daily Telegraph (UK): Prosecution in Britain would face difficulties By Joshua Rozenberg, Legal Editor Repatriation of Feroz Abbasi and Moazzam Begg, together with the other British citizens held by US troops at Guantanamo Bay, might solve the diplomatic row between Britain and the United States but the Government cannot undertake that the detainees will stand trial in Britain, let alone be convicted and imprisoned. The most that Britain can promise is that all the allegations against these individuals will be investigated by the police here and put before the Crown Prosecution Service for a decision on whether they can be charged with offences under English law. One possible charge might be treason, if it could be shown that they were waging war on British troops in Afghanistan. Under the Treason Act 1351, it is high treason "if a man do levy war against our lord the King in his realm, or be adherent to the King's enemies in his realm, giving to them aid and comfort in the realm, or elsewhere". William Joyce, the wartime broadcaster Lord Haw-Haw, was convicted under this provision in 1945 and sentenced to death. The maximum penalty is now life imprisonment. The English courts also have jurisdiction over murder or manslaughter committed abroad by British citizens, whatever the nationality of the victim. More usefully, there is jurisdiction under the Terrorism Act 2000 over certain offences committed abroad, including bombings and funding. There is also extra-territorial jurisdiction over aircraft hijacking. However, to bring any prosecution in Britain there has to be sufficient admissible evidence. It is unlikely that any admissions or confessions made by the detainees at Guantanamo Bay would be admissible in an English court, given the decision of the US authorities to deny them access to legal advice. It is even less likely that eyewitnesses could be found to give evidence of events in which they were said to have taken part before these men were detained. There may be other evidence against them - but, if there is, the US authorities have not disclosed it publicly. The Americans are well aware of the difficulties of bringing charges against the detainees here. That is one reason why they have not been repatriated before now. But the prospect of them being held in a British prison while allegations against them are investigated by the authorities may act as something of a face- saving measure, even though all concerned realise that charges are unlikely to stand up in a court of law. * * * The Times (UK): July 11, 2003 BLAIR CALLS FOR BRITISH TERROR SUSPECTS TO BE TRIED AT HOME By Rosemary Bennett and Helen Rumblelow TONY BLAIR caved in last night to mounting pressure over the two British terrorist suspects facing a secret US military trial at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba and appealed for their repatriation. Downing Street officials said that the return of Feroz Abbasi, Moazzam Begg and seven other suspects to face trial in the UK was under discussion with Washington. Ministers had previously said repatriation was not an option. Yesterday the Prime Minister told MPs that his "active representations" were to "make sure any trials take place in accordance with international law". Downing Street said that ministers would continue to talk to the US authorities about the terms of a military trial; repatriation was only one option. Mr Blair is set to intervene when he meets President Bush next week. MPs from all sides have attacked the Government for neglecting the two suspects, and more than 200 have backed a motion calling for them to be repatriated Yesterday Nelson Mandela, speaking in London, reminded Mr Blair and President Bush of the importance of the Geneva Convention, which has been overlooked in the case of the Guantanamo Bay prisoners. "It continues to remind us most forcefully of our common obligations to care for each other even, and particularly, in conditions that foster behaviour to the contrary," he said. Jack Straw, the Foreign Secretary, has telephoned Colin Powell several times over the issue, expressing his concern over the nature of the trial in which the two suspects will be represented by a US military lawyer. Mr Abbasi, 23, from Croydon, South London, and Mr Begg, 35, from Sparkbrook, Birmingham, have been held for 18 months without charge. * * * The Gaurdian (UK): July 11, 2003 THE UK BUSINESSMEN TRAPPED IN GUANTANAMO Arrested in Gambia, interrogated in Afghanistan, abandoned in Cuba By Vikram Dodd The British government is facing claims that it has abandoned two London businessmen jailed without charge by the US at Guantanamo Bay. The men's ordeal began last November, when Bisher al-Rawi and Jamil al-Banna were arrested by British police at Gatwick airport. Although freed without charge and allowed to travel to Gambia they were rearrested on arrival and detained for a month by local secret police. They were then handed over to US agents who flew them to a CIA interrogation centre at Bagram airbase in Afghanistan, before being transferred to Camp Delta in Cuba where they have been held since March. The men have been jailed for alleged links to al-Qaida. Yet neither they nor their families have been given any information about the substance of the claims against them. Their supporters say it was the British authorities who passed information to the US which led to their detention. The Foreign Office has denied asking Gambia to arrest them. Two British nationals who were arrested with them in Gambia, where the businessmen had set up a peanut oil processing plant, were eventually freed after the intervention of the British high commissioner. But the government, already under fire for failing to help nine other Britons held at Camp Delta, says it will not press US authorities because the men are not British citizens. The foreign secretary, Jack Straw, supports such a stance, which Amnesty International calls "scandalous". Mr Rawi, an Iraqi national, lives in Kingston-upon-Thames, south-west London. He has been a British resident for 19 years and was granted indefinite leave to remain. His brother and sister are both British citizens. Mr Banna, a Jordanian, was granted refugee status in Britain in 2000 after seeking sanctuary from persecution. Britain says both men's countries of birth are the only states who can provide help. But in Mr Rawi's case, the Iraqi government no longer exists. In fact, the country is run jointly by Britain and the US. The bizarre chain of events began as the duo prepared to travel to Gambia. Special branch officers visited Mr Banna saying they already knew about his trip. When asked whether they objected, the officers replied that they did not. The pair were due to travel on November 2, accompanied by Abdullah Eljanoudi, a British national. But as they tried to board the plane at Gatwick all three were arrested under anti-terrorist legislation and taken to a police station in Sussex before being transferred to the high-security Paddington Green station in west London. Anti-terrorist officers told them the reason for their detention was a suspect device in their luggage - a battery charger. Their lawyer, Gareth Pierce, said they had been freed after an Argos catalogue was produced to prove the charger was widely available. Six days later the three men flew to Gambia and were met by Mr Rawi's brother Wahab, a British national. But on arrival in the capital Banjul, all four were arrested by Gambia's national intelligence agency. According to the Rawi family, Gambian agents told one of the brothers that their arrest followed a request from Britain: "Upon asking they were told there were irregularities with their papers. At first, Wahab refused to cooperate with them and asked either for a lawyer or a representative from the British high commission. "At his request [the Gambian agents] laughed and told him it was the British who have told us to arrest you." They were held at several locations in Banjul, and interrogated first by NIA agents and then American agents, thought to be from the CIA. Livio Zilli of Amnesty said: "One of them was reportedly threatened by a US investigator who told him unless he cooperated he would be handed over to the Gambian police who would beat and rape him." After a month of being held incommunicado, the two British nationals were freed. But Mr Banna and Bisher al-Rawi were transferred to Bagram airbase in January 2003, to a section commonly associated with accusations of torture by US agents. Steven Watt of the Washington-based Centre for Constitutional Rights said: "It's curious they were taken to Bagram and not straight to Guantanamo Bay. At Bagram there are two facilities, one run by the CIA where no one, not even the International Committee for the Red Cross, has access. Nobody knows what techniques are used there, but reports of the use of 'torture light' have concentrated on the CIA facility at Bagram." It is thought that they were transferred in March to Guantanamo. Under Camp Delta's draconian regime, they will have been allowed out of their small cell for 30 minutes each day, and only when shackled. Their British-based families are now battling to find out any information they can. The families only discovered where their relatives were being held through letters received via the Red Cross. Neither the British nor US governments had told them anything. In correspondence to the foreign secretary about British complicity in the arrest, Mr Rawi's MP, Edward Davey, wrote: "This is not a conspiracy theory ... In Gambia the group were interviewed by American officials. They had a file on Bisher, which must have come from the UK authorities. "It had information on Bisher's hobbies that he pursued in the UK ... flying planes and parachuting. Perhaps such hobbies post-September 11 aroused suspicion, but is it illegal to be an Iraqi with a pilot's licence." Mr Davey, Liberal Democrat MP for Kingston and Surbiton, said: "My constituent has been in the UK for nearly 20 years, paying taxes and has permanent residency rights and has close British relatives. "The British government is washing their hands of him. For the UK to say he should get help from a non-existent Iraqi government, when we are jointly governing the country, is beyond Kafkaesque." Mr Zilli of Amnesty said the British decision not to help Mr Banna was "questionable morally and legally". He added: "We have serious questions about the role the UK may have had in the unlawful rendering to US custody of these people." In a letter to Mr Davey, the Foreign Office minister Lady Amos denied Britain had asked Gambia to arrest the men. In another letter, Mr Straw denied any government responsibility to help Mr Rawi. A Foreign Office spokesman said: "The men detained in Gambia are not British nationals so we're not able to provide any consular or diplomatic protection for them. "The other two who are British nationals, when we learned of their detention and sought consular access, were released shortly after the British high commissioner in Gambia intervened." * * * The Economist: July 10, 2003 http://www.economist.com/opinion/displayStory.cfm?story_id=1908281 UNJUST, UNWISE, UNAMERICAN America's plan to set up military commissions for the trials of terrorist suspects is a big mistake YOU are taken prisoner in Afghanistan, bound and gagged, flown to the other side of the world and then imprisoned for months in solitary confinement punctuated by interrogations during which you have no legal advice. Finally, you are told what is to be your fate: a trial before a panel of military officers. Your defence lawyer will also be a military officer, and anything you say to him can be recorded. Your trial might be held in secret. You might not be told all the evidence against you. You might be sentenced to death. If you are convicted, you can appeal, but only to yet another panel of military officers. Your ultimate right of appeal is not to a judge but to politicians who have already called everyone in the prison where you are held "killers" and the "worst of the worst". Even if you are acquitted, or if your appeal against conviction succeeds, you might not go free. Instead you could be returned to your cell and held indefinitely as an "enemy combatant". Sad to say, that is America's latest innovation in its war against terrorism: justice by "military commission". Over-reaction to the scourge of terrorism is nothing new, even in established democracies. The British "interned" Catholics in Northern Ireland without trial; Israel still bulldozes the homes of families of suicide bombers. Given the barbarism of September 11th, it is not surprising that America should demand retribution--particularly against people caught fighting for al-Qaeda in Afghanistan. This newspaper firmly supported George Bush's battles against the Taliban and Saddam Hussein. We also believe that in some areas, such as domestic intelligence gathering (see article[1]), his government should nudge the line between liberty and security towards the latter. But the military commissions the Bush administration has set up to try al-Qaeda suspects are still wrong-- illiberal, unjust and likely to be counter-productive for the war against terrorism. A QUESTION OF INTEGRITY The day before America's Independence Day celebrations last week, the Pentagon quietly announced that Mr Bush had identified six "enemy combatants" as eligible for trials before military commissions, which are to be set up outside America's civilian and military court systems. The Pentagon did not release the names of the accused, or any charges against them, but the families of two British prisoners and one Australian held at the American naval base at Cuba's Guantanamo Bay were told by their governments that their sons were among the six deemed eligible for trial. The Australian government's failure to protest about this has caused protests (see article[2]). British ministers have expressed "strong reservations" about the commissions. In the past, they have asked for British citizens caught in Afghanistan to be sent home for trial in British courts--just as Mr Bush allowed John Walker Lindh, a (white, middle-class Californian) member of the Taliban, to be tried in American courts. American officials insist that the commissions will provide fair trials. The regulations published by the Pentagon stipulate that the accused will be considered innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, that he cannot be compelled to testify against himself, and that the trials should be open to the press and public if possible. The problem is that every procedural privilege the defendant is awarded in the regulations is provisional, a gift of the panel which is judging him. The regulations explicitly deny him any enforceable rights of the sort that criminal defendants won as long ago as the Middle Ages. Moreover, the planned commissions lack the one element indispensable to any genuinely fair proceeding--an independent judiciary, both for the trial itself and for any appeal against a conviction. The military officers sitting as judges belong to a single chain of command reporting to the secretary of defence and the president, who will designate any accused for trial before the commissions and will also hear any final appeals. For years, America has rightly condemned the use of similar military courts in other countries for denying due process. Why dispense with such basic rules of justice? Mr Bush's officials say they must balance the demand for fair trials with the need to gather intelligence to fend off further terrorist attacks. Nobody denies that fighting terrorism puts justice systems under extraordinary strain. But this dilemma has frequently been faced by others without resorting to military trials. The established procedure is to pass special anti-terrorism laws, altering trial rules somewhat to handle terrorist cases, but not abandoning established court systems, and trying to retain the basic rights of those accused as far as possible. Britain and Spain have done this. There is no reason why America's own civilian courts, which have successfully tried plenty of domestic and foreign terrorists (including Mr Lindh), could not be adapted to this purpose. Since the 2001 attacks, the Bush administration has avoided America's own courts repeatedly. Soon after the attacks, Mr Bush issued his executive order permitting military commissions outside the purview of the courts. Since then, his administration has imprisoned some 680 people at Guantanamo Bay precisely because it believed that the naval base, held on a perpetual lease, is outside the reach of anyone's courts, including America's. It has also claimed the right to arrest American citizens, even on American soil, as "enemy combatants" and to imprison them without charge until the war on terrorism is over. Appeals by civil libertarians to America's court system have been resisted at every stage. Mr Bush could have asked Congress to pass new anti-terrorism laws. Instead, he is setting up a shadow court system outside the reach of either Congress or America's judiciary, and answerable only to himself. Such a system is the antithesis of the rule of law which the United States was founded to uphold. In a speech on July 4th, Mr Bush rightly noted that American ideals have been a beacon of hope to others around the world. In compromising those ideals in this matter, Mr Bush is not only dismaying America's friends but also blunting one of America's most powerful weapons against terrorism. * * * LA Times: July 10, 2003 Commentary JUSTICE, AND SECURITY TOO · Military tribunals at Guantanamo Bay are proper and necessary By Ruth Wedgwood To the operatives of Al Qaeda, war against the West is not a metaphor. On Sept. 11, 2001, the group tried to decapitate the U.S. government, using civilian airplanes as missiles in a surprise attack. America's right to return fire against this declared adversary was recognized by the U.S. Congress, NATO and the United Nations Security Council. U.S. forces took to the field under the laws of war and captured and routed Taliban and Al Qaeda combatants. Under the usual protocols of armed conflict, captured fighters can be interned as enemy combatants until hostilities are over. But there is an important moral difference between Al Qaeda and ordinary soldiers -- for Al Qaeda has deliberately waged war against civilians. In recognition of this, the Pentagon announced July 3 that six of the captured combatants held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, may be prosecuted for war crimes in military tribunals -- the first American prosecutions of foreign soldiers since World War II. Critics of tribunals have complained that the judge, jury and defense attorneys are military personnel and that portions of the proceedings can be kept secret; a conviction is handed down on a two-thirds vote. But the choice of a military forum is the right one. In fact, the Geneva Convention demands the use of military tribunals for war crimes cases. The rationale is that military fact-finders will understand and share a common interest in a protective law of war. A Guantanamo defendant will have free choice among a panel of military defense counsel and can retain civilian counsel as well. The Geneva treaty also allows criminal proof involving sensitive operational information to be presented behind closed doors. And Geneva does not require more than a majority verdict. The procedural rules for the Guantanamo war crimes trials were debated for 18 months in the light of the Geneva principles and the particular problems presented by Al Qaeda, which has proved adept at exploiting disclosures of U.S. intelligence methods. The basic framework was settled only after Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld sought the advice of bipartisan wise men. These included Lloyd Cutler (White House counsel to Presidents Carter and Clinton), Bernard Meltzer (a Nuremberg prosecutor and University of Chicago law professor) and William Webster (a judge and chief of the FBI under Carter and of the CIA under President Reagan). There was a hubbub, to be sure, when the White House issued a preliminary order on enemy prisoners in November 2001. But the subsequent rules were written with a sensibility that takes full account of modern standards of international humanitarian and human rights law. The rules respect the common law's presumption of innocence in favor of the defendant, burden of proof on the government, right to cross-examination of witnesses, right to call defense witnesses, mandated disclosure of any exculpatory evidence and requirement of proof beyond reasonable doubt. Any finding of guilt must be rendered by a two-thirds vote, and a death sentence must be unanimous. All convictions will be reviewed by an independent appellate panel with one or more civilian members endowed with the authority to reverse judgments for serious errors of law. Members of the media are entitled to witness the full trial proceedings, except when classified or sensitive information is presented. In ordinary civilian trials, there is no significant cost to sharing everything the government knows. But this does not hold true against the background of Al Qaeda's stated ambition to mount new attacks. In partial concession, the tribunal rules provide that discrete pieces of evidence may be presented in closed court and, indeed, may need to be examined by the military defense counsel rather than by the defendant. This is not ideal and may be a good reason to delay some trials until the operational backbone of Al Qaeda is broken. But the call for timely trials must make its peace with the equal right of civilians to be guarded against Al Qaeda's violence. As Winston Churchill aptly noted in October 1940: "I do not relish laying bare to the enemy all our internal resources." There will surely be practical adjustments to the procedures as problems are encountered. Working through these will depend on the good-faith efforts of military judges, zealous defense counsel and fair-minded prosecutors. The president's order for military tribunals has one guiding principle: to provide a full and fair trial for any accused, while upholding the laws of war. [ Ruth Wedgwood is a professor of international law at Johns Hopkins University and was one of the advisors to the Department of Defense on implementing rules for the military tribunals. This article appears here by special arrangement with London's Financial Times. ] * * * BBC: July 10, 2003 UK 'CALLS FOR RETURN' OF TERROR SUSPECTS The UK government is holding talks with the US about the possible return of two British terror suspects being held in Guantanamo Bay, Downing Street has said. The repatriation of Moazzam Begg and Feroz Abbasi for trial in Britain is among a "range of issues" being discussed between the UK and the US, according to a Number 10 spokesman. About 200 MPs have already signed a parliamentary motion calling for the two British citizens to be returned, amid fears they will not get a fair trial. But a Number 10 spokeswoman said: "We are discussing a range of issues with the US administration, including repatriation, and those discussions continue." The prime minister's official spokesman has said the government had "strong reservations" about the use of military commissions to try terror suspects held in Guantanamo Bay. Earlier, when pressed on whether the home secretary had turned down an offer of repatriation for the British detainees, Mr Blair's spokesman replied that David Blunkett "hadn't blocked any proposal to try them here". 'DIFFICULT SITUATION' But on Thursday, the spokesman said: "We have made it clear to the United States that the detainees should be treated humanely. "We have got strong reservations about military commissions and those reservations have been raised and will continue to be raised with the United States. "We have said repeatedly that this is a highly unusual and difficult situation and obviously we would want to bring an end to it as swiftly as possible, but it is a complex situation," the spokesman said. Feroz Abbasi and Moazzam Begg are among those facing the tribunals "The information flowing from those at Guantanamo Bay is important in terms of the war against terrorism and we can't over look that." Mr Blair will be under pressure to raise the matter with President George W Bush when the two meet in Washington next week. Menzies Campbell, the Liberal Democrats foreign affairs spokesman, said: "Tony Blair must ask for President Bush's personal intervention in order that British nationals are returned to Britain, where they would stand trial if the evidence justified it." But Conservative former chancellor Kenneth Clarke said the government should have raised this with the US months ago saying the prisoners were being held in an "extraordinary situation" in contravention of the Geneva Convention. The two British citizens, who face trial in a secret military court, would be better off in a British court, he said. RIGHTS DENIED Under the proposed trial arrangements it is understood Mr Begg and Mr Abbasi will be denied the right to choose their legal representation. Seventy Labour MPs have signed the parliamentary petition and have been joined by Conservatives and Lib Dems, including former Tory frontbenchers Francis Maude and John Bercow. The motion says the prisoners face a choice between pleading guilty and being given 20 years, or if they fail to do that and are convicted they face the death penalty. The MPs also raise concern about the mental state of the two men after 18 months of incarceration in cages two metres wide and only 30 minutes of exercise twice a week. CONCERNS During prime minister's question time on Wednesday, Mr Blair insisted: "Any commission or tribunal that tries these men must be one conducted within proper canons of law so that a fair trial is both taking place and seen to take place." He said Britain's opposition to the death penalty was well-known. Foreign Secretary Jack Straw is understood to have raised the issue with his US counterpart Colin Powell twice in the past week. There are at least 680 suspected al-Qaeda and Taleban members at the US naval base in Cuba. President Bush decided last week that six of them, including Britons Mr Begg and Mr Abbasi and Australian David Hicks, should face trial in a military tribunal. The announcement sparked a wave of protest from human rights groups who said the tribunals would be a "legal black hole". The UK Government has already expressed concern about the men's access to lawyers, the standards of evidence and their rights to appeal in the case of any guilty verdicts. * * * BBC: July 9, 2003 -- 15:40 GMT PRESSURE GROWS ON GUANTANAMO TRIALS Tony Blair has been challenged to "put his foot down" and tell the Americans that the British men currently imprisoned at Guantanamo Bay should be tried in the UK. Amid fears that Moazzam Begg and Feroz Abbasi will not get a fair trial, more than 200 MPs have now signed a parliamentary petition calling for the men to be repatriated. Pressed several times on the issue at prime minister's questions on Wednesday, Mr Blair said the nature of the trials planned for the prisoners held at the base in Cuba had yet to be decided. He promised to continue making "active representations" to the US Government to ensure the men had a fair trial. On Monday Foreign Office Minister Chris Mullin said the UK had "strong reservations" about US plans to use military tribunals to try the two men. Under the proposed trial arrangements it is understood that Mr Begg and Mr Abbasi will be denied the right to choose their own legal representation. Seventy Labour MPs have signed the parliamentary petition and they have been joined by some Conservatives and Lib Dems, including former Tory frontbenchers Francis Maude and John Bercow. The motion says the prisoners face a choice between pleading guilty and being given 20 years, or if they fail to do that and are convicted they face the death penalty. The MPs also raise concern about the mental state of the two men after 18 months of incarceration in cages two metres wide and only 30 minutes of exercise twice a week. Liberal Democrat leader Charles Kennedy took up those concerns on Wednesday, asking what the affair said about British influence in Washington. "How long must it be that UK citizens are left to languish in this legal no- man's land?" asked Mr Kennedy. And Labour MP David Winnick told Mr Blair: "Put your foot down, prime minister." FAIR TRIAL APPEALS Responding to those fears, Mr Blair told MPs there had to be a time when the detentions at Guantanamo Bay had to come to an end. "There has to be no question about this at all," he said. "Any commission or tribunal that tries these men must be one conducted within proper canons of law so that a fair trial is both taking place and seen to take place." He went on: "The precise nature of these trials has not yet been formulated and therefore it is important that we wait and see whether our representations have been heeded." Mr Blair said Britain's opposition to the death penalty was well-known. Foreign Secretary Jack Straw raised the concerns over the treatment of Mr Begg and Mr Abbasi when he spoke to his US counterpart Colin Powell at the weekend. There are at least 680 suspected al-Qaeda and Taleban members at the US naval base in Cuba. LEGAL BLACK HOLE US President George W Bush decided on Thursday that six of them, including Britons Mr Begg and Mr Abbasi and Australian David Hicks, should face trial in a military tribunal rather than in a regular court. The announcement sparked a wave of protest from human rights groups who said the tribunals would be a "legal black hole". The UK government has already expressed concern about the men's access to lawyers, the standards of evidence and their rights to appeal in the case of any guilty verdicts. On Monday, former cabinet minister and Tory MP Douglas Hogg said that America's reputation would suffer if they proceeded with the trials by tribunal which he described as "wrong" and "potentially unjust". Mr Mullin responded: "In our view it's strongly in the interests of the US that these trials are conducted in a credible and transparent fashion because it obviously will affect the respect with which the US is held throughout the world." The minister insisted that the government would not indulge in "megaphone diplomacy" in order to get its point across. * * * CNN: July 8, 2003 (1915 GMT) ATTORNEYS SEEK RELEASE OF LATEST 'ENEMY COMBATANT' From Phil Hirschkorn PEORIA, Illinois (CNN) -- Defense attorneys for a Qatari man named an "enemy combatant" and transferred to military custody last month contend his detention is illegal and unconstitutional. Attorneys for Ali Saleh al-Marri, 37, filed a petition Tuesday seeking his release. The petition was filed in the U.S. District Court in the Central District of Illinois, where al-Marri was due to stand trial in two weeks. A signed order by President Bush on June 23 led to the dismissal of criminal charges against al-Marri and his relocation to the U.S. Navy brig in Charleston, South Carolina. Bush's order says he engaged "in preparation for acts of international terrorism" and "represents a continuing, present and grave danger to the national security of the United States." Al-Marri had been accused in a seven-count indictment with making false statements to FBI investigators and to financial institutions, and with identity and credit card fraud. Bush, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, and M.A. Marr, commander of the naval station, are sued in the al-Marri petition. "Petitioner was in fact a civilian, not a combatant, and was treated as such by respondents for over one year and a half," the petition said. The petition argues that the president has no legal authority to designate enemy combatants on U.S. and that his order should be subject to judicial review. "This usurpation of power by the executive branch is unprecedented in American history, threatens individual rights, undermines the structure of our government, and constitutes the type of unbridled authority against which the Constitution was intended to guard," the petition said. The petition is similar to the legal efforts undertaken on behalf of the two other "enemy combatants" detained in the United States since the U.S. launched its war on terrorism in response to the September 11, 2001, attacks by al Qaeda. Those earlier detentions of alleged "dirty bomber" Jose Padilla and Taliban partisan Yasser Hamdi have been upheld by federal judges in two different regions of the country but are undergoing appeals. The al-Marri petition was filed in a third jurisdiction, of the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. "Is it an uphill battle? Absolutely," said al-Marri attorney Mark Berman. "But important principles are stake." Al-Marri came to the United States on September 10, 2001, with his wife and five children to pursue a master's degree in computer science from Bradley University, where he had earned a bachelor's degree 10 years earlier. The FBI arrested him three months later as a material witness in the September 11 investigation after tips that he had made telephone calls to a suspected September 11 hijacker paymaster in the United Arab Emirates. Al-Marri has denied making those calls to Mohamed al-Hawsawi, who was captured in Pakistan earlier this year and is being held at an undisclosed, overseas location. Though al-Marri was never charged with any terrorism-related crimes, he was detained in Illinois and New York in solitary confinement and denied contact with his family. His attorneys, denied access to al-Marri since his transfer, have received no response from the Justice or Defense departments to requests to visit al-Marri in South Carolina. The government has staunchly opposed such access in the cases against Hamdi and Padilla, who are both U.S. citizens. Neither department had an immediate reaction to the al-Marri petition. Government sources have said al-Marri's change of status resulted from recent information from other detainees, including September 11 planner Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, who identified al-Marri as someone who facilitated other al Qaeda operatives entering the country. Officials did not disclose what they believed al-Marri might have been planning. FBI agents who searched al-Marri's West Peoria apartment in late 2001 said his laptop computer contained audio lectures by al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden about "jihad" and "martyrdom," an Arabic prayer asking God to "protect" and "guard" bin Laden, photos of the September 11 attacks, and bookmarked Web sites about the ousted Taliban regime of Afghanistan. The agents said al-Marri surfed Web sites about dangerous chemicals and marked pages in an almanac with information about U.S. dams, railroads, waterways and railroads, according to court documents. His trial, which was due to start July 21, was to be on charges of possessing more than 15 unauthorized credit cards and counterfeit credit numbers and using fake identification and a false Social Security number to open three bank accounts in Illinois so he could deposit and withdraw money under an assumed name. * * * The Guardian (UK): July 8, 2003 MPS' FURY AT SECRET US TRIALS OF 'TERROR' BRITONS Geneva convention breached, claims minister by Nicholas Watt and Vikram Dodd Tony Blair is facing the most serious crisis in his relations with George Bush after ministers criticised the president for ruling that two Britons are to stand trial before a military court which can order executions. Amid rising anger across the political spectrum, the Foreign Office minister Chris Mullin yesterday all but accused the US of breaching the Geneva convention as he expressed "strong reservations" about the secretive trial. To ram home his message, Mr Mullin took the rare step of announcing that he would pass on copies of furious exchanges in the House of Commons yesterday afternoon to the US ambassador, William Farish. Mr Mullin spoke out after Washington announced last week that President Bush had "designated" Moazzam Begg and Feroz Abbasi to face trial before a military tribunal at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba. Mr Abbasi, 23, from Croydon, south London, and Mr Begg, 35, from Sparkbrook, Birmingham, have been held for 18 months without charge or access to a lawyer. The two men face a trial where US military officers will serve as judge, jury and prosecution. The men can nominate their defence lawyer, but the lawyers have to get special US clearance. In an emergency Commons statement, Mr Mullin let rip at the US. "We have strong reservations about the military commission," he told MPs. He added: "We have raised and will continue to raise these reservations energetically with the US." Mr Mullin indicated that the US was in breach of the Geneva convention. Asked whether Britain accepted that the convention does not apply to prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay, Mr Mullin said: "It is something we have discussed with the US, and frankly we disagree with them about it." Mr Mullin, who made his name campaigning for the victims of injustice in Britain, warned that Britain would not tolerate the imposition of the death penalty. "The US is aware of our fundamental opposition to the use of the death penalty in all circumstances. "If there is any question that the death penalty might be sought in these cases we would raise the strongest possible objections." The outspoken government assault on the US came as the mother of one of the detainees met the Foreign Office minister, Lady Symons. Zumrati Juma, mother of Feroz Abbasi, left the Foreign Office in tears after the meeting. Mrs Juma and her lawyer Louise Christian tabled a series of demands including a call for Britain to increase the vehemence of its protests about the detention of its citizens, and about the fairness of any trial they may face. Ms Christian said: "Private representations and diplomacy have not worked. Governments that have made formal protests, like Pakistan, have got a better deal. We are fearful that Feroz will be bullied into a plea bargain." Within hours of the meeting, Mr Mullin launched his attack on the US. But he warned that "megaphone diplomacy" would be counter-productive. His remarks came as MPs from all sides of the house lined up to condemn the Americans. Geraint Davies, Labour MP for Croydon Central, protested at the "stark choice" faced by his constituent Feroz Abbasi - either to plead guilty and serve 20 years or plead not guilty and face an "unfair" trial. "Will you make every effort to ensure the repatriation of my constituent and a fair trial in Britain, so that this kangaroo court does not proceed in Guantanamo Bay that could well end up with the killing of my constituent?" Mr Davies asked. Mr Mullin replied: "You can rest assured, we are going to take a close interest in the wel fare of your constituent." Douglas Hogg, the former Tory cabinet minister who secured the emergency Commons statement, condemned the US plan as "wrong, potentially unjust and gravely damaging to the Americans' reputation". Nicholas Soames, the former Tory former defence minister, said: "All America's friends, while understanding the very difficult and sensitive issues that surround these matters, nevertheless regret deeply the harm that is being done to America's cause by their behaviour in this matter." Mr Mullin said: "I certainly will pass that on. "In fact, I shall pass on to the American ambassador the record of our exchanges this afternoon so the Americans can see for themselves how strongly members of this house feel." * * * BBC: July 7, 2003 -- 15:58 GMT UK WORRIES ABOUT GUANTANAMO PLANS Britain has "strong reservations" about US plans to use military tribunals to try two UK citizens currently being held at Guantanamo Bay, Foreign Office Minister Chris Mullin said. Foreign Secretary Jack Straw raised the concerns over the treatment of Moazzam Begg and Refoz Abbasi when he spoke to his US counterpart Colin Powell at the weekend. In a House of Commons statement Mr Mullin said the government expected the US to abide by international standards for fair trials. The UK would also make clear its "fundamental opposition" to the death penalty if the issue arose. "We have make clear to the US that we expect the process to meet internationally accepted standards of a fair trial and we will follow the process very carefully," Mr Mullin told MPs. There are at least 680 suspected al-Qaeda and Taleban members at the US naval base in Cuba. LEGAL BLACK HOLE US President George W Bush decided on Thursday that six of them, including Britons Mr Begg and Mr Abbasi and Australian David Hicks, should face trial in a military tribunal rather than in a regular court. The announcement sparked a wave of protest from human rights groups who said the tribunals would be a "legal black hole". The UK government has already expressed concern about the men's access to lawyers, the standards of evidence and their rights to appeal in the case of any guilty verdicts. Former cabinet minister and Tory MP Douglas Hogg said that America's reputation would suffer if they proceeded with the trials by tribunal which he described as "wrong" and "potentially unjust". Mr Mullin responded: "In our view it's strongly in the interests of the US that these trials are conducted in a credible and transparent fashion because it obviously will affect the respect with which the US is held throughout the world." The minister insisted that the government would not indulge in "megaphone diplomacy" in order to get its point across. * * * The Guardian (UK): July 7, 2003 LETTERS: My school friend at Guantanamo Bay I realise it is possible for a person to change over 24 years. It has been that long since I saw my primary school friend Moazzam Begg, currently a detainee in Guantanamo Bay and facing a possible death sentence from the US government (Concern as Britons face US tribunal, July 5). However, I feel it is impossible that this organiser of a charitable school in Afghanistan took away none of the liberal ideas imparted by the King David Jewish junior and infants school in Birmingham. I would urge all those in a position to do so to put as much pressure as possible on the relevant authorities to see that my old mate "Mozambique" gets a fair trial. My thoughts are with Moazzam and his family. Mischa Moselle Lamma Island, Hong Kong · Your report (Lives are in US military's hands, July 5) refers to George Bush's ruling about six Guantanamo detainees being members of al-Qaida. Ruling? Were I a judge, I would feel defamed. Well-armed criminals invaded Afghanistan, murdered many, kidnapped hundreds to Guantanamo Bay and now plan killings there. As a US citizen, I am disgraced by these gangland actions. George Bush is merely the latest boss of the gang. Could we stop dignifying its vengeance and violence as "rulings"? Dr Sanjoy Mahajan Cambridge · Six of the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay have been selected to go on trial before a US military court - this, I presume, will assist the election of George Bush (one cannot justify calling it a re-election). Will the executions occur before or during the actual electoral process in 2004? Keith Nolan Carrick-on-Shannon, Co Leitrim · The Americans seem to have missed an awful irony in treating the inmates of Guantanamo Bay as "illegal combatants". Do they not realise that most of the world sees American troops operating in Iraq as illegal combatants? Tony Wilson-Ing Crymych, Pembrokeshire * * * The Observer (UK): July 6, 2003 CONFESS OR DIE, US TELLS JAILED BRITONS Outrage over plight of Guantanamo detainees By Martin Bright, Kamal Ahmed and Peter Beaumont (The Observer) The two British terrorist suspects facing a secret US military tribunal in Guantanamo Bay will be given a choice: plead guilty and accept a 20- year prison sentence, or be executed if found guilty. American legal sources close to the process said that the prisoners' dilemma was intended to encourage maximum 'co-operation'. The news comes as Jack Straw, the Foreign Secretary, prepares to urge US Secretary of State Colin Powell to repatriate the two Britons. He will say that they should face a fair trial here under English law. Backed by Home Secretary David Blunkett, Straw will make it clear that the Government opposes the death penalty and wants to see both men tried 'under normal judicial process'. Lawyers acting for Moazzam Begg, 35, from Sparkbrook, Birmingham, and Feroz Abassi, 23, from Croydon, said that any confessions gathered while the men were kept without charge or access to lawyers in Bagram airbase in Afghanistan and Camp Delta in Cuba would have no status in international law and would be inadmissible in British courts. Gareth Peirce, who acts for Moazzam Begg, said: 'Anything that any human being says or admits under threat of brutality is regarded internationally and nationally as worthless. It makes the process an abuse. Moazzam Begg had a year in Bagram airbase and then six months in Guantanamo Bay. If this treatment happened for an hour in a British police station, no evidence gathered would be admissible,' she said. Stephen Jakobi of Fair Trials Abroad, which is leading the campaign for the two men, said: 'Our concern is that there will be no meaningful way of testing the evidence against these people. The US Defence Department has set itself up as prosecution, judge and defence counsel and has created the rules of trial. This is patently a kangaroo court.' Begg's family believe he was kidnapped in Pakistan by US authorities. He was taken to Bagram on suspicion of passing funds to al-Qaeda and later transferred to Camp Delta. He has not seen a lawyer since he was seized. In a clear signal of the high lev els of concern within the Government, the acting British ambassador in Washington, Tony Brenton, will raise 'official concern' with the White House. According to US legal and constitutional experts, the Final Rule, the regulations that will govern the military commissions, has rendered a fair trial almost impossible. Among those representing the two British men in the United States is Michael Ratner, of the Centre for Constitutional Rights, who believes the tribunals are weighted in favour of securing guilt verdicts. 'The trial system in Guantanamo Bay allows a whole series of serious breaches of defendant rights that would mean that they could never come to trial in the US. 'First, it allows the wiretapping of attorney-client meetings, although those wiretaps cannot actually be used in evidence. Then there is the fact that the Pentagon "Appointing Authority" - probably US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld - has the ability to remove a judge at any time without giving any reason.' Among other concerns about the 50-page Final Rule, which was published by the Department of Defence last week for governing the trials, are: · that rules of evidence are so broad that it is left at the discretion of the trial's presiding officer whether to allow any evidence he believes would be convincing to a 'reasonable person' and that that would appear to allow the admission of hearsay evidence; · that evidence can be admitted by telephone and by pseudonym; · that it is insisted that only security-screened civil attorneys be allowed to appear before the court and they can also be removed at any time. The concerns follow allegations by Amnesty and other human rights groups that US detainees in Guantanamo Bay have suffered severe abuse, including beatings that may have led to the death of two men held at the US detention facility at Bagram. In March, Amnesty wrote to President Bush to complain about the treatment of detainees after US military officials reportedly confirmed that post-mortem reports in the cases of the two men who died at Bagram gave cause of death as 'homicide' and 'blunt force injuries'. * * * The Independent (UK): July 5, 2003 TWO BRITONS AT GUANTANAMO FACE THE DEATH PENALTY By Paul Peachey Two Britons held at Guantanamo Bay face a possible death penalty after being named among the first group of prisoners likely to be tried before secretive US military tribunals. Feroz Abbasi, 23, and Moazzam Begg, 35, are accused of links to al-Qa'ida and are among six suspects identified by the Bush administration to face military justice. A decision on charges will be decided later but yesterday's move was condemned by families, lawyers and pressure groups as an attempt by the US administration to undermine international law. The men have already been denied the right to a normal trial after US authorities designated them "unlawful combatants", to the fury of human rights groups. Stephen Jakobi, director of the pressure group Fair Trials Abroad, said the tribunals were designed to secure convictions. "The whole Cuban exercise has become a failed and cynical public relations stunt," he said. "After 18 months, six people out of more than 600 are to be tried and the rules have to be fixed, otherwise there might be no convictions." Mr Abbasi, from Croydon, south London, and Mr Begg, of Birmingham who has four children, are among nine British nationals at the maximum-security Camp Delta in Cuba. There was no news on the fate of the remaining seven. Mr Begg has been at Guantanamo Bay for four months. He had been detained in Afghan-istan for a year after being taken by Pakistani special forces from his rented home in Islamabad. His family claim he was a victim of a mistaken identity and had planned to teach the poor in Afghanistan. His father, Azmat Begg, 63, said yesterday he did not believe his son would get a fair trial. "The trial will be military, the judge will be military and yet my son is a civilian," he said. "This is just not right." Mr Abbasi was among of the first people moved to Cuba 18 months ago and was described by the US Defence Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, as one of the hard core of al-Qa'ida terrorists. Louise Christian, the solicitor for Mr Abbasi, criticised the "victor's justice" and said: "It's extremely surprising and shocking that British participation in the war against terrorism means nothing in terms of the fundamental human rights of British citizens." David Hicks, an Australian, was also revealed to be among the group of six. The identities of the other three are unknown and their names have not been released by the US. Pentagon officials said the six were alleged to be either linked to terrorist training camps or fund-raising or recruitment. The tribunals will have up to seven military officers acting as judge and jury with the power to sentence to death by unanimous consent. The appointments are made by the US Department of Defence and the process applies only to non-US nationals and denies appeals to independent courts. Last night, US chief defence lawyer for Guantanamo Bay Colonel Will Gunn told the BBC's Newsnight: "As we go into this process, the ability for an individual accused person to feel comfortable with their lawyers is something I'm extremely concerned about.We will have a cultural divide which will take us time to overcome, if we're ever able to overcome it. But with respect to that what I'm convinced of is that we have people on the staff who are going to make use of all the resources in order to provide the very best possible defence for such an individual. This country has long said we're about justice being done. That's what the principle of Americanism means to many people. But Neil Durkin of Amnesty International said: "This development is worrying. The outline plan for the military commissions shows they are discriminatory, as they apply only to non-US nationals, and seem to afford a second-class form of justice." The Government came under renewed pressure last night to press the US for concessions. At the time of the first detentions in Guantanamo Bay 18 months ago, Jack Straw, the Foreign Secretary, said he wanted British to be citizens tried in the UK. But the latest legal moves have made that impossible, the Foreign Office minister Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean said yesterday. Lady Symons, who is to meet Ms Christian and Mrs Zumrati Juma, the mother of Mr Abbasi, on Monday, said she would press the US hard over the rights of the Britons. "The fact is that I can't alter the legal processes in the US," she said. The military commissions are to be given "wide latitude in sentencing", and, "any lawful punishment or condition of punishment is authorised, including death". Mrs Juma lost a court battle last year to compel Mr Straw to intervene and make diplomatic protests to Washington. The men facing trial in Guantanamo Bay MOAZZAM BEGG, 35, FROM BIRMINGHAM Moazzam Begg left Britain nearly two years ago to make a new life for his family in Afghanistan and set up a school to teach the poor, his family said. Mr Begg, 35, was in Kabul but fled over the border and rented a home in Islamabad, Pakistan, after the start of the US bombing. He lived there with his wife, Sally, and three children until he was taken in February last year by Pakistani and US intelligence officers, friends claimed. His father, Azmat, said he received a phone call from his son as he was being taken away in the boot of a car but the phone went dead. He later learned that his son was being held by the Americans in Afghanistan but legal attempts to return him to Pakistan failed. Mr Begg is believed to have been seized after the discovery of a photocopy of a money transfer order found in an al-Qa'ida camp that asked for a London bank to credit the account of a Moazzam Begg in Karachi. His supporters say the arrest was a case of mistaken identity and have campaigned for his release. His wife said he went only to teach and help the poor, and that he hated terrorism. Mr Begg, a Muslim scholar and translator, had his home and bookshop raided before leaving Birmingham. Since his detention, his family home in Britain has been raided and computer equipment has been seized. The Begg family was one of dozens of British families to emigrate to Afghanistan before 11 September. While being held in Islamabad, Mr Begg became a father for the fourth time - he has two young boys and two young girls - but the family has returned to live in Britain. While in Afghanistan, he was held for a year in a hangar at Bagram air base, without access to consular staff, and his family became concerned for his state of mind. In one letter to them he wrote: "I'm losing the fight against depression and feel hopeless. I do not complain about my treatment but I've not seen the sun, sky and moon for nearly a year." In February this year, Mr Begg was transferred from Bagram air base to Guantanamo Bay. His father said yesterday: "My son was never involved in al- Qa'ida. He is a proper family man." FEROZ ABBASI, 23, FROM CROYDON Feroz Abbasi, from Croydon, was a talented student and a strong athlete who told friends that he wanted to become the first black astronaut from Britain. To his teachers, he was well behaved and courteous. But by the middle of 1999, he had dropped out of mainstream education and turned towards hardline Islamist thinking with visits to the Finsbury Park mosque in north London, led by the fiery imam Abu Hamza at the time. His family last saw him in December 2000 and had no idea that he was in Afghanistan until they heard that he had been seized in Kunduz and taken to a US compound in Kandahar. He became one of the first people to be taken shackled and hooded to Guantanamo Bay in Cuba. He was, said Donald Rumsfeld, the US Defence Secretary, one of the "very tough, hard-core, well-trained terrorists". Born to Muslim parents in Uganda, he moved to Britain with his mother, Zumrati Juma, aged eight. He did well at school and went on to study A-levels and a computer course. But as he became disenchanted with life, he dropped out. He went to the Croydon mosque and from there went to Finsbury Park, where he is thought to have been filmed by Special Branch officers watching the mosque. He stopped wearing Western clothes and friends reported that he had become much more at ease with the world. Before Mr Abbasi left Britain, he told school friends why he supported some militants. He has been interrogated extensively at Guantanamo Bay. He wrote to his family: "I have hope in Allah that you all are well and good. I have sent many messages out to you but received none yet so far ... I have hope in Allah that their contents are full of good news and blessings from Allah." Geraint Davies, his constituency MP, said there were now serious concerns about his mental health. On the last visit by the British authorities to his tiny cell, he refused to speak. In the most recent legal attempt to free him from Camp Delta, three senior judges said his detention was "objectionable" and he was in a "legal black hole". But the court said the Government could not be forced to intervene in his case. Profiles by Paul Peachey * * * Daily Telegraph (UK): July 5, 2003 BRITONS COULD FACE DEATH SENTENCE AS US PREPARES AL-QAEDA TRIALS IN CUBA By Sean O'Neill and David Rennie in Washington Two British al-Qaeda suspects could face the death penalty at the American detention camp in Guantanamo Bay after President George W Bush ordered that they should stand trial before a secretive military tribunal. The Foreign Office promised yesterday to hold "very vigorous discussions" with US authorities to ensure that Feroz Abbasi, 23, and Moazzam Begg, 35, received fair trials. Lady Symonds, the Foreign Office minister, expressed "serious reservations" about the military commissions that will try Abbasi, Begg and four other Camp Delta detainees. The Pentagon has insisted the hearings will be "full and fair" but refused to say what the Britons will be charged with or how the trials will be conducted. They will be defended by lawyers who are required to be US citizens, must have security clearance and are part of a team headed by a US air force colonel. The cases will be decided not by a jury but by a military panel. Officials in Washington indicated that the first inmates to be tried may be encouraged to plead guilty in return for a measure of leniency. The US authorities believe they have strong evidence against the two Britons and the four others to be tried. The tribunals are expected to be held at the US naval base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, where the men are among 680 people incarcerated as "enemy combatants" and where courtroom and execution facilities are being built. The Britons' families were told late on Thursday night in telephone calls from Foreign Office officials that they had been "designated" by the President to stand trial as suspected members of al-Qaeda. Begg, who is married with four young children, left Birmingham in June 2001 and was detained in Pakistan in February last year. Abbasi, from Croydon, south London, was indoctrinated in Islamic radicalism at Finsbury Park mosque. He was captured in Afghanistan by US forces in January 2002. Lady Symonds said she had many concerns about how the pair would be dealt with by the US military. "I have serious reservations both about the principle of military commissions and the way in which those commissions are going to operate," she said. "It now behoves Government to vigorously pursue the issues about access to lawyers, standards of evidence to be adopted and any appeals procedure." But the US has paid little attention to previous representations from Britain. Jack Straw, the Foreign Secretary, has asked in vain for the detainees to be repatriated to face trial here and the Appeal Court said Abbasi's detention was "objectionable". Louise Christian, solicitor for Zumrati Juma, Abbasi's mother, said she would press the Government to take a tougher stance with the US when she meets Lady Symonds on Monday. "The United States has not consulted with the UK Government in any way," said Miss Christian. "The fact that we are America's closest ally in the war against terror has won us no influence. "We would expect the British Government to make sure that British citizens are not put on trial in a patently unfair court. Britain should take a case against the US government in the International Court of Justice on behalf of its citizens." Miss Christian said Mrs Juma was "extremely distressed". Azmat Begg, 63, said he learned that his son was to be tried from a telephone message left by the Foreign Office. "I was very upset, very unhappy and very worried," he said. "The judge will be a military man, the prosecutor will be military and the defence lawyer will be military. Everything is being done by the military, how can it be a fair trial? "I am 100 per cent sure my son has nothing to do with al-Qaeda. My son went from here with his wife and four very small children to Afghanistan to establish a school. "We come from British Indian Army people, some of my family were prisoners of war in Germany." Stephen Jakobi, of Fair Trials Abroad, who has been helping Mr Begg, said the trials were without precedent because they would be conducted under "a new kind of law invented by the US Department of Defense". Mr Jakobi added: "British citizens are facing the death penalty at the hands of a power which has promised them an unfair trial. Everything has been rigged in advance." Col Will Gunn, the chief defence counsel appointed to the military commissions, told BBC2's Newsnight his team faced major challenges but would provide "the very best possible defence" for the detainees. "This country has long said we're about justice being done," he said. "That's what the principle of Americanism means to many people." Menzies Campbell, the Liberal Democrats foreign affairs spokesman, said: "The British Government has a duty to be robust in its defence of civil rights of British citizens. "So far today, there has been little indication of any intention to do so. These men should be sent back to Britain immediately." One of the other detainees who will face a tribunal is David Hicks, 27, an Australian citizen who was captured while fighting for the Taliban in December 2001. The other Britons being held at Guantanamo Bay are: Shafiq Rasul, 24, Asif Iqbal, 20, Ruhal Ahmed, 20 - all from Tipton, West Midlands; Jamal Udeen, 35, from Manchester and three Londoners: Tarek Dergoul, 24, Martin Mubanga, 29, and Richard Belmar, 23. * * * Daily Telegraph (UK): July 5, 2003 CAMP DELTA LEAVES DETAINEES IN LEGAL LIMBO By David Rennie in Washington British ministers say in public that they have "issues" about the military court that is to try two Britons held at Guantanamo Bay. In private, officials admitted yesterday that a British court might well throw out the charges being prepared by Pentagon prosecutors and rule that the military trials did not constitute "due process". So serious are those concerns, the officials said, that if British citizens are sentenced to terms in prison, it may not be possible to ask for their transfer home so that they can serve their sentences in a British prison. That is because there is no guarantee that they could be legally kept behind bars in Britain, as the convictions might not survive judicial review. Nine British nationals are held at Camp Delta, the prison camp hastily erected at an American naval base on the south-eastern tip of Cuba. Depending on their behaviour, they live in barrack blocks or, in the case of most of the 680 detainees, in maximum security steel cages, 8ft by 6ft 8in. They are allowed out of the cages twice a week for 15 minutes of solitary exercise in a chain-link pen. Although their families have hired lawyers and they have been visited by British diplomats, their fate rests squarely in the hands of the Pentagon and, ultimately, President Bush. The Government has promised to press for the British defendants to be spared the death penalty if they are convicted of capital crimes. To America, the primary purpose of Camp Delta is to extract intelligence from "enemy combatants" it has seized in the worldwide war on terrorism and prevent them from attacking the United States. Only foreign nationals are held at Guantanamo Bay. The rules for the military tribunals have been crafted to protect American national security. Defence officials have adopted a policy of cleaving to the hardest possible line now to give the Bush administration the maximum "flexibility" later. From the start of the war on terrorism, Washington provoked an international outcry by refusing to declare that the captives were prisoners of war, saying that Geneva Convention rights enjoyed by PoWs were incompatible with good security. Some detainees have been in Cuba for more than a year without charge. In theory, they can be held there indefinitely. Trials will be heard by a panel of three to seven military officers. Death penalties will require a unanimous verdict. There will be no jury. The choice of Guantanamo Bay as a site for Camp Delta was carefully judged. The naval base, leased from Havana under an unbreakable treaty, is technically on Cuban soil, leaving the detainees in legal limbo, beyond the reach of any American court. The base is impossible to reach from communist Cuba and access is by American military transport flight only, making it unlikely that large numbers of relatives of witnesses can attend hearings. The prisoners who are put on trial will be given the services of a military lawyer and will also be allowed to engage a civilian lawyer if they can afford one. Civilian lawyers must be American citizens approved by the Pentagon to hear classified information and must agree to have contacts with their clients monitored. Lawyers and will be barred for life from speaking to the media about the case without Pentagon permission. Civilian lawyers will be barred from hearings involving secret evidence. Although the Foreign Office has named the two Britons who have been ordered to stand trial first, the Pentagon has refused to identify them, or describe their alleged crimes, beyond saying that they may have attended terrorist training camps or offered support to al-Qaeda. Defence officials in Washington reserved the right never to name those sent for trial, even after their conviction. They also made clear that their status as enemy combatants was separate from any decision made during a military trial. They confirmed that, in theory, a prisoner could be acquitted by a military tribunal then be sent straight back to his cell if he were deemed to be a continuing danger to the United States. No appeals from the military court can be heard by any civilian court. Instead, appeals may be submitted to the defence secretary and, as a last resort, to the president. * * * BBC: July 5, 2003 'AMERICAN JUSTICE' FOR BRITONS Two Britons among six al-Qaeda suspects will get the "best possible defence" if they face a military tribunal in Cuba, a US chief defence lawyer has said. Moazzam Begg, 35, from Birmingham, and Feroz Abbasi, 23, from London, are on a list of suspects who could face the secret trials and be sentenced to death if convicted. The two men have already been held for many months at the military base in Guantanamo Bay. Colonel Will Gunn, the base's chief defence lawyer, said he had concerns about the possibility of a death penalty for any convicted but said he had "staff who were going to make use of all the resources to provide the very best possible defence". He told BBC Two's Newsnight: "This country has long said we're about justice being done. "That's what the principle of Americanism means to many people". His comments came after the UK Government joined the men's families and human rights lawyers in voicing concern over the possibility of a fair trial. But Colonel Gunn's reassurances about the suspects' fate only went so far. He said he too had "concerns" about the legal process given the prospect of a death penalty. "Any time we're talking about a death penalty case of course we're talking about the ultimate aspect of criminal justice and I'm very concerned with respect to that," he said. CULTURAL BARRIERS Colonel Gunn warned there would be "cultural divides" to overcome in providing a defence and it would be a "challenge" given that defendants might not be told about certain evidence against them. Concern about the fate of these men has already been expressed by Foreign Officer Minister Lady Symons. She told the BBC it would have been preferable for the British citizens to face justice in the UK. But she said the government would press America over access to lawyers, standards of evidence and appeals against a guilty verdict. And it would fight any attempt to impose the death penalty. 'INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE' Human rights campaigners have also condemned plans for a military tribunal. Stephen Jakobi, director of the British pressure group Fair Trials Abroad, said: "If they were prepared to take these people to American soil and try them under normal US prosecution, the evidence wouldn't stand up," he said. And Mr Begg's father Azmat has also said he feared his son, a father-of-four, would not get a fair trial. He said his son, who was arrested by the CIA in Pakistan in February 2002, is innocent. Mr Abbasi was said to have been captured in Kunduz, Afghanistan, in late 2001. Pentagon officials say all six suspects are believed to be either members of the al-Qaeda terrorist network or have other terrorist involvement such as training or fund-raising. The US authorities will now consider whether to draft charges against any or all of the six, and decide whether they will be tried. There are seven other Britons in Guantanamo Bay, according to the Foreign Office: Shafiq Rasul, 24, of Tipton, West Midlands Asif Iqbal, 20, also of Tipton Ruhal Ahmed, 20, also of Tipton Martin Mubanga, 29, from north London Jamal Udeen, 35, from Manchester Richard Belmar, 23, from London Tarek Dergoul, 24, from east London. * * * LA Times: 5 July, 2003 2 BRITONS, AUSTRALIAN COULD FACE MILITARY TRIAL · Rights groups decry the U.S. decision on a tribunal for the terrorism suspects. From Times Staff and Wire Reports LONDON -- British and Australian officials announced Friday that two Britons and one Australian are among the six terrorism suspects that the United States says are eligible for U.S. military trials, sparking criticism from human rights groups, lawyers and suspects' relatives. U.S. officials had refused to identify the suspects when they announced the tribunal decision Thursday, since charges have not been filed, but three names were released Friday in Britain and Australia, both of which joined the U.S.-led war in Iraq. British officials said they would "vigorously" seek access to citizens Moazzam Begg, 35, and Feroz Abbasi, 23. Australian national David Hicks is also in the group, said Australian Atty. Gen. Daryl Williams. Criticism of the U.S. decision was swift. "This is the first time I've ever heard a friendly government announce that Britons are not going to get a fair trial in advance of starting the trial," said Stephen Jakobi, who heads a legal assistance movement called Fair Trials Abroad. He was one of several people who spoke to BBC News. "The U.S. Department of Defense will appoint the judges and prosecutors, control the defense and make up the rules of the trial," Jakobi said. "It appears to have only one objective -- to secure a conviction." "We have made it very clear that as far as this government is concerned we object to the death penalty -- and certainly if there is a suggestion that there may be resort to the death penalty, the British government will object very strongly," said Baroness Elizabeth Symond of the Foreign Office. She also said: "I think there are issues about the principle of using military commissions." "The prosecutor is military, the jury is from the military everything is being done by the military -- it is not a fair trial," said Azmat Begg, Moazzam's father, in Birmingham. "My son was never involved in Al Qaeda. He is a proper, family man." Abbasi's attorney, Louise Christian, said his client's mother, Zumrati Juma, was "extremely upset and very fearful for her son." "He was only 19 when he left home, and it is impossible to believe that her son could have been a senior member of any organization," Christian said. In Australia, Hicks' lawyer, Stephen Kenny, said his client faced "an American kangaroo court." Amnesty International, the London-based human rights organization, said the selection of the six for possible military trial was "another retrograde step for human rights in the U.S.-led 'war against terrorism' and will further undermine the U.S.A.'s claims to be a country that champions the rule of law." U.S. officials have said all six prisoners -- like the others at the U.S. naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba -- were suspected of involvement with Al Qaeda, the Taliban or another terrorist group. Some of the six may have attended terrorist training camps, and others were involved in raising money and recruiting for terrorist groups, Pentagon officials said. There was no immediate reaction to Friday's criticism. The tribunals would have three to seven military officers acting as judge and jury. Convictions could be by a majority vote, but a death sentence would have to be unanimous. Decisions by the tribunals could be appealed only to a panel of judges appointed by the U.S. Defense Department, and then directly to the president. Only non-U.S. citizens can face a tribunal under President Bush's order creating the military trials. Military officials have discussed building an execution chamber at Guantanamo, where about 600 prisoners are being held, but said talk of executions is premature. In Brussels, the European Commission said the United States risked damaging the coalition it has tried to build in its "war on terrorism." "The death sentence cannot be applied by military courts, as this would make the international coalition lose the integrity and credibility it has so far enjoyed," said commission spokesman Diego de Ojeda, recalling comments by external relations chief Chris Patten. * * * The Guardian (UK): July 5, 2003 CONCERN AS BRITONS FACE US TRIBUNAL By Vikram Dodd and Richard Norton-Taylor The Foreign Office last night expressed serious concern about Washington's decision to put two Britons held as suspected terrorists in Guantanamo Bay before a secretive military tribunal which has the power to order executions. President Bush's decision to "designate" six inmates of the maximum security Camp Delta - including the Britons, an Australian, and three others - to face the military hearings sparked worldwide condemnation, and lawyers accused the US of devising a process that was loaded towards ensuring guilty verdicts. Feroz Abbasi, 23, from Croydon, south London, and Moazzam Begg, 35, from Aparkbrook, Birmingham, have been held for 18 months without charge or access to a lawyer. Asked about the possibility of the death penalty, the father of Moazzam, Azmat Begg, said: "It's a disaster for the family." Britain has "strong reservations" about the US plans for the military commission, where US military officers - the judge and jury - will sit in judgment on charges brought by their government. The defence and prosecution lawyers will also be US military officers. The Foreign Office minister, Lady Symons, said: "We would want to ensure that there is a separation between government on one hand and the judiciary on the other. It is now up to us to have a very vigorous discussion with the US about securing a fair trial for the individuals involved." A British source said that although no charges had been yet indicated, they were expected to be insufficiently serious to qualify for the death penalty. "It appears very unlikely that any of the two British detainees would face the death penalty," a British official said. The proceedings will be held mainly in secret, although the Pentagon plans to hold some sections in public to assuage human rights concerns. Britain is in an embarrassing diplomatic position. It does not seek a public row with the US, its closest ally, but also knows the men's families will campaign vigorously against the decision to subject the Britons to military tribunals. The Guardian has learned of concerns about the mental health of both British men. In his last meeting with British officials in April, Mr Abbasi said nothing for an hour, and Mr Begg in a recent letter to his wife wrote that he would take a decision that would affect the entire family. "He said anything just in the hope of getting out of there," said his father. Stephen Jakobi, director of the British pressure group Fair Trials Abroad, said the tribunals were being "fixed" to secure convictions. Louise Christian, solicitor for Feroz Abbasi, said his mother, Zumrati Juma, was "very, very distressed and very despondent and believes the British government has let her down". There are nine Britons are among the 680 men from 42 countries held at Camp Delta. They were seized after the US attack on Afghanistan and branded "the hardest of the hard" by the US. They are held in cells eight feet by six feet eight inches, locked up for no less than 23 and a half hours a day, and bound hand and foot when out of their cell. The regime and conditions, including lights being left on outside the inmates' cells at night, have been condemned by international human rights groups and there have been 28 suicide attempts. Antonella Notari, spokeswoman for the International Committee of the Red Cross, said the hearings would need a presumption of innocence, defendants having adequate time and counsel to prepare their case, and the exclusion of any evidence gained through torture or through cruel or degrading treatment. Neil Durkin, of Amnesty International, said: "This development is worrying in the extreme. "We have been at pains for the past 18 months to point out that all circumstances in Guantanamo Bay flout international standards." * * * Sydney Morning Herald: July 5, 2003 HICKS FACES US MILITARY TRIAL AS TERRORIST By Penelope Debelle and Tom Allard Australian Taliban fighter David Hicks faces a United States military tribunal in Cuba, and a possible death penalty, after becoming one of six foreign nationals singled out as eligible for trial as terrorists. Under military orders issued by President George Bush after September 11 to detain and try terrorists, Hicks could be charged, convicted and sentenced by a simple two-thirds majority, with no rights of appeal. A final decision on his fate, including the power of the death penalty, lay with President Bush. The lawyer for Hicks's family in Adelaide, Stephen Kenny, who obtained copies of the orders from the White House website, yesterday rejected assurances by the Prime Minister, John Howard, and the Attorney-General, Daryl Williams, that Hicks would have a fair trial. Mr Williams said the Australian Government had extensive and ongoing discussions with US authorities "to ensure that any trial that is undertaken of an Australian before a military commission is fair and transparent". "[Hicks] will be entitled to the normal rights accorded to an accused in a criminal court," he said. Those rights included the presumption of innocence, the requirement of proof beyond reasonable doubt, access to legal representation, a right to silence without adverse influence and access to witnesses and documents. But the hearings will be held away from the public gaze and it was unclear whether Hicks would have access to a civilian lawyer. He may just have a US- appointed military lawyer. Mr Williams added that the Government had made it "very plain" to the US it did not support the death penalty for Hicks. Mr Howard also said yesterday that Hicks would be fairly treated, saying he had faith in the US justice system. "I am satisfied on the information that I have, if any Australians are tried in the United States, the basic conditions of the presumption of innocence, access to a lawyer and so forth ... will be applied," he told journalists in south-west Queensland. However, Mr Kenny, who is travelling to the US on Sunday to meet civil rights lawyers in New York, said the orders governing the military tribunal hearings contradicted this. "We do not believe that the trial that he may be facing will be a fair and free trial," he said. Mr Kenny said the military orders contained no presumption of innocence, no requirement of proof beyond reasonable doubt, no right to silence and no right of appeal to any court in the US or Australia. He said the provision for President Bush to make a final decision was like sending Hicks to Mr Howard for trial and judgement. "I don't see how the Australian Attorney-General can suggest that is a fair trial," he said. Labor's foreign affairs spokesman, Kevin Rudd, said: "This is unacceptable handling by the Attorney-General. Labor has a hardline attitude on terrorists but we are equally determined to see Australians are treated equally under the law." Mr Kenny said Hicks, 27, and an Egyptian-born Australian also held at Guantanamo Bay, Mamdouh Habib, 46 - whose inclusion among the six eligible for military trial was not confirmed - had rights equal to Americans. "They should be sent back to Australia to be tried according to Australian law," he said. * * * The Times (UK): July 5, 2003 PLEA FOR ‘AL-QAEDA’ BRITONS by Tim Reid BRITAIN is to make "vigorous" representations to America to try to ensure fair treatment for two terrorism suspects who are to be tried by military tribunals with powers to impose the death penalty. Moazzam Begg, 36, of Birmingham, and Feroz Abbasi, 23, of Croydon, are among six "enemy combatants" facing prosecution at the US naval base in Guantanamo Bay. Lawyers, MPs and human rights groups condemned President Bush for authorising the first such tribunal for more than half a century, but the Government accepted that it could do nothing to stop them. It would "vigorously" ask the Americans to be fair. The decision to try them in America is, however, a defeat for Jack Straw, who has said that he wants Britons to be tried here. The six, who include an Australian, will be tried in camera by a team of commissioned officers, whose names will not be revealed. Secrecy is such that the suspects may be excluded from their own hearings. The Pentagon has not disclosed the rules of procedure, drafted after President Bush signed an executive order allowing military tribunals for non-Americans in the aftermath of September 11. However, it is known that -- as with German and Japanese combatants prosecuted by America after the Second World War -- there will be no legal review of the trials. And even if acquitted, the men may continue to be held because their categorisation as "enemy combatants" is separate from their guilt or innocence of any charges. Pentagon officials indicated, however, that the six had been chosen as "low- level" defendants because they were thought likely to plead guilty and co- operate in exhcange for a lighter sentence or even release. The officials said there was evidence that they had attended "terrorist training camps" and may have been involved in financing al-Qaeda. * * * BBC: 4 July, 2003 -- 17:14 GMT BRITAIN CONDEMNS US TERROR TRIALS The UK Government has expressed its concern at the possibility that British citizens held in Guantanamo Bay may have to face trial by military tribunals. There are at least 680 suspected al-Qaeda and Taleban members at the US naval base in Cuba. US President George W Bush decided on Thursday that six of them, including Britons Moazzam Begg and Feroz Abbasi and Australian David Hicks, should face trial in a military tribunal rather than in a regular court. The announcement sparked a wave of protest from human rights groups who said the tribunals would be a "legal black hole". The UK's Foreign Office Minister Baroness Symons said the government was concerned about the men's access to lawyers, the standards of evidence and their rights to appeal in the case of any guilty verdicts. "America has decided that they want to be the detaining power and that they want to hold the trials there. "It is now up to us to have a very vigorous discussion with the US about securing a fair trial for the individuals involved," she told BBC Radio 4's The World at One programme. "It now behoves on the government to vigorously pursue the issues about access to lawyers, about standards of evidence and about any appeals procedure. There are a number of important differences between military tribunals and civilian courts: Many safeguards given to defendants in civilian courts - such as protection against self-incrimination, right to the defence of one's choice and to be told of the prosecution's charges and evidence - do not necessarily apply. Convictions in civilian courts must be unanimous, while military tribunals could convict by a two-thirds majority. Different rules of evidence apply, with lower standards for admission. Defendants are not guaranteed the right to appeal against convictions in military tribunals. Civilian trials must be open to the public, military tribunals can be held in secret. Roger Godsiff, the Labour MP who represents Moazzam Begg said any military tribunal would be "totally unacceptable". "It would be very wrong of us not to put these people on trial in a proper court of law," he told the BBC. "We are upholders of civilised values and we can't devalue those by not allowing people access to a proper legal system which is one of the building blocks of democracy. Human rights groups have also expressed outrage at the planned use of military tribunals to try the terror suspects. Neil Durkin, a spokesman for the human rights organisation Amnesty International said the detainees would not have a fair trial. "It is being done outside the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court without the protection of the US constitution," he told BBC News Online. "They will have no entitlement to lawyers unless they, or their governments can afford them. It's irregular, improper and concerning." However Colonel Will Gunn, the chief defence lawyer in military trials, said he would push for the proceedings to be as open as possible, saying the US would be judged on the fairness of the process. Defenders of military tribunals argue that the US is at war with terrorists, and that in times of war, enemy aliens are never afforded the protections of the US legal system. But Mr Durkin rejected that argument, as many of the Guantanamo Bay inmates had not been caught on the battlefields. "Moazzam Begg is one example of the men who were taken from all around the world, he was swept up in a US sweep in Pakistan." * * * The Mirror (UK): July 4, 2003 BRITONS FACE DEATH PENALTY AT CAMP X-RAY TRIALS By Naveed Raja British prisoners at Camp X-Ray will be tried by "fixed" secretive military tribunals where senior US soldiers will be judge and jury, it was revealed today. Detainees face the death penalty if they are found guilty and human rights campaigners have expressed outrage that an execution chamber is going to be built at the brutal prison camp. The planning of the death facility is a direct blow to the British government whose appeals to their American counterparts have fallen on deaf ears. Last month, Foreign Office Minister Mike O'Brien told MPs there was a "fundamental disagreement" with the US over the use of the death penalty and that they would strongly oppose its use. Of six prisoners named in the initial list to face the courts, branded illegal by international legal experts, two are from the UK. Moazzam Begg, 35, Sparkbrook, Birmingham and, Feroz Abbasi, 23, from south London are the two Britons sources say are due to face trial behind closed doors. Begg's father Azmat said the trial would not be fair on his son, father to four young children. Mr Begg, 63 said: "The trial will be military, the judge will be military and yet my son is a civilian. This is just not right. "If the Government or military are appointing people in the court, that is absolutely wrong. It should be an independent person. My son was never involved in Al Qaeda. He is a proper, family man." Neil Durkin, of Amnesty International, added: "Mr Begg's circumstances are particularly worrying as he was picked up by special forces in Pakistan, taken to Afghanistan and held there, and then taken to Guantanamo Bay, so there have been double irregularities." Human right campaigners said America was making up the rules of the trials that were merely formalities to find the men guilty. Stephen Jakobi, director of the British pressure group Fair Trials Abroad said: "The US Department of Defence will appoint the judges and prosecutors, control the defence and make up the rules of the trial. "It appears to have only one objective - to secure a conviction. "If they were prepared to take these people to American soil and try them under normal US prosecution, the evidence wouldn't stand up." He added: "The whole Cuban exercise has become a failed and cynical public relations stunt." American legal experts have also rounded on their own government, accusing them of police-state tactics. Neal Sonnett of the American Bar Association said: "The State Department issues a report every year in which it criticises those nations that conduct trials before secret military tribunals. "What I am hearing sounds alarmingly like something similar. "If they are going to be charged by military tribunals, then they have a right to full due process and the public has a right to know who is being tried and what the charges are and the government has an obligation to run these tribunals in a fair and transparent way." What goes on in military tribunals will be subject to a news blackout. Even if the suspects are found not guilty by the military tribunal the Pentagon says it may still continue to hold the men - despite the illegal detention of the men in the first place. Only foreign nationals can be tried by the military tribunals, after an order by President George Bush. The treatment of prisoners at Camp X-ray is markedly different to that received by "American Taliban" John Walker Lindh. He was afforded a trial held in open judicial court session on the US mainland, in a state that did not have the death penalty. More than 600 men are being held by the US at Guantanamo Bay, nine of whom are British. * * * LA Times: July 4, 2003 BUSH DECIDES 6 DETAINEES CAN BE TRIED BY MILITARY By Richard A. Serrano, LA Times Staff Writer WASHINGTON -- President Bush has determined that six people detained in the war on terrorism can be tried in military commissions, Pentagon officials announced Thursday, moving a step closer to the first such tribunals since World War II. The names of the detainees were not released, but officials said they have strong indications that the six were involved in terrorist plots. It also was not clear where the six were being held. "There is evidence that the individuals designated by the president may have attended terrorist training camps and may have been involved in such activities as financing Al Qaeda, providing protection for Osama bin Laden, and recruiting future terrorists," the Pentagon said in a statement. Once the first commission is held it would mark a historic turn in the war on terrorism. At the end of World War II the United States used military commissions to try enemy combatants. The system appears heavily weighted to the government's advantage. The judge and jury would be U.S. military personnel. Unlike traditional criminal trials, the proceedings of military tribunals can be kept secret. The accused would be provided a military lawyer, could not be tried twice by a military commission for the same offense, could refuse to testify and could enter a plea agreement. The U.S. courts provide many layers of appeals, but in military commissions, findings and sentences are final once approved by the president or the secretary of Defense. A conviction, which in civilian criminal court would require a unanimous jury verdict, could be handed down on a two-thirds vote by the military jury. A death sentence, however, would have to be unanimous. Bush reached his determination after considering several "relevant factors" in each case, authorities said. Those factors include "the quality of evidence" and how far along the intelligence-gathering process has come since the detainees were captured. Also, authorities said, there is the matter of "our desire to bring closure to individual cases." About 680 detainees allegedly linked to Al Qaeda or the Taliban are incarcerated at the U.S. Naval Base on Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. In addition, more high-profile captives, including a number of suspects reportedly linked to the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, are confined at undisclosed locations. In November 2001, two months after terrorists commandeered commercial airplanes and crashed them into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, Bush issued a White House directive creating the military commissions system. Under that system, the Pentagon was to report to him when it believed detainees met the criteria of being non-U.S. citizens who also were enemy combatants, members of the Al Qaeda terrorist network or "otherwise involved in terrorism directed against the United States." In the announcement Thursday, officials said Bush has decided that, so far, six detainees meet those characteristics. Now the commission organization has the authority to study the six cases and determine whether charges should be filed against any of the detainees. "The prosecution would look at the cases, determine if there were appropriate charges" and then order an individual to stand trial, a senior Defense Department official said. "These are people among others who have been evaluated" already, the official said, and "we've determined that we have sufficient action" to name them as defendants in a military trial. How soon any commissions might convene is uncertain. "We've been proceeding very methodically and deliberately and carefully and I think that that will continue to guide the military commission process," the senior Defense official said. "In that regard it probably wouldn't be prudent to set any kind of a timeline because the criminal justice system should not be driven by timelines. They should be driven by the facts of the case. "That's what the next step is, for the chief prosecutor to look at the facts of the case and see if there are appropriate charges." If a detainee goes to trial and is found not guilty, he could remain in custody anyway. As an enemy combatant, he could be detained for the duration of the war on terrorism. And, said the Defense official, "the war on terrorism is open-ended." Unless charges are announced against any of the six detainees, their names will not be released, officials said. Even then, the senior official added, the names could be kept secret if the government determined national security was at stake. If any of the detainees at Guantanamo Bay are charged, it is likely they would stand trial there. Officials at the U.S. base in Cuba said preparations are being made for courtrooms there, as well as an execution chamber should one be needed. Detainees held elsewhere could be brought to Cuba, or tried in military commissions at other locations. Eugene R. Fidell, head of the National Institute of Military Justice, expressed doubts Thursday that any of the major captives would be included in the first round of military commissions. The interrogation of those high-level terrorist operatives is likely continuing, officials have said, and the U.S. would want to hold them for as long as possible -- especially as new information is developed about other planned attacks. Also still in doubt is the fate of Zacarias Moussaoui, once dubbed the "20th hijacker." Moussaoui's case is in federal court in Alexandria, Va., where he has been successfully pursuing his request to meet with other captives and have them testify in his behalf at his trial. Federal prosecutors strongly oppose that request. The Department of Justice ultimately could hand off the case to the Pentagon and send Moussaoui to trial by military commission. Whether other high-profile terrorism suspects will be subject to trial by military commission is uncertain. One such suspect is Jose Padilla, an American citizen arrested in Chicago after he allegedly returned to this country to scout out a target for a radioactive "dirty bomb." Padilla has not been charged and remains in a Navy brig. Another possible case involves a Qatari man whose status changed last week when the Bush administration dropped criminal visa violation charges against him and instead declared him an "enemy combatant" who allegedly led an effort to settle Al Qaeda "sleeper" operatives in this country. It was the first time such a change in status has occurred. * * * * * * * * *