Commenting on today’s SIAC hearings, Shami Chakrabarti, director of Liberty, said:

‘I have two questions for the Home Office. If they are so convinced these men, held in jail for nearly two years, are involved in terrorism, why will they not put them on trial? Is it because they know that this so called evidence has been obtained from prisoners tortured by the secret police of countries regarded as friendly to Britain but with a proven record of human rights abuse?

The fact is that we are following the example of the USA and allowing our dirty work to be done in the torture chambers of foreign countries. We are told the ‘war on terrorism’ is being fought to protect freedom. What have torture and indefinite imprisonment without charge or the right to a trial, to do with freedom?’


The following is the response of the men interned under the anti-terrorist laws on hearing that they were be held indefinitely:

1. They expect now to remain locked up for the remainder of their lives. Each knows that he has been involved in no action in support of terrorism. Since the largest percentage of the hearings have been held in secret no-one knows what in particular has been said against him. A number have been said to be members of groups of which they have never heard.

2. All are certain that there neither is nor has been a national emergency, let alone one created or contributed to by their presence in this country.

3. The detainees believe that Parliament was misled. During the passage of this legislation it was never informed that reliance would be placed on evidence obtained by torture and ill treatment worldwide. The appellants express their astonishment that the onus has been placed on them to prove this.

4. Parliament was told that before any person was detained under this Act consideration would be given at the highest levels as to whether or not individuals could be prosecuted. The detainees only learned during the course of these appeal hearings that no such consideration was ever given.

5. The appellants consider it entirely wrong to accord the deference that has been accorded to the government and the security services. The same political agenda that created “weapons of mass destruction” and claimed there was an immediate threat to this country has created a wish to find danger from the presence in this country of these appellants.

6. Secrecy has been chosen over due process and is a dangerous precedent for the future, not just for these detainees.

Their arrest and continuing detention without due process marks the entry of this country into a new dark age of injustice.

7. Lastly, the appellants have been detained for now 2 years. They express their grief that it has been chosen to give these decisions at the beginning of Ramadan. The impact is not merely upon them but on their wives ands children also.