Tony Blair was accused last night by the Archbishop of York of helping the US to run “Idi Amin-style” tactics in the war on terror.
Mr Blair was challenged by Dr John Sentamu after refusing to condemn Guantanamo Bay beyond calling the prison camp run by the US in Cuba an “anomaly”.
 The Ugandan born Right Reverend Dr John Tucker Mugabi Sentamu is the 97th Archbishop of York. The Archbishop of York holds the church's second-highest position after Williams, leader of the worldwide Anglican Communion. |
At his monthly news conference, he said that too much time was spent examining the rights of suspects compared to the “human rights of the rest of us to live in safety”.
Mr Blair had been stung by criticism from the MPs’ Foreign Affairs Committee (FAC) that the monitoring of suspects returned to countries with questionable human rights records must not be a “fig leaf to disguise the real risk of torture”.
Mr Blair said: “When people say to me unless I can get absolute cast-iron guarantees and have all sorts of monitoring arrangements, we have got to keep people here who may be engaging actively in inciting terrorism in this country, I have to say I think we have got the world the wrong way round.”
His outburst may even cause a backlash at home. Cherie Booth, QC, his wife and a leading human rights barrister, is due to give a speech at an event partly organised by Human Rights Watch next week entitled Torture: Do the rules still matter?
Mr Blair spoke out after the FAC called on him to push more vociferously for the closure of Guantanamo Bay. Amnesty International also issued a report criticising many of Britain’s measures in the war in terror for undermining human rights.
They were joined last night in an attack by Dr Sentamu who compared President Bush’s human rights record with that of the Ugandan dictator Idi Amin.
Dr Sentamu, a former High Court judge who fled Uganda for Britain after it became clear that standing up to the dictator had placed his own life in jeopardy, also criticised Mr Blair for describing Guantanamo Bay as an “anomaly”.
Dr Sentamu said: “This is not an ‘anomaly’. By declaring ‘war on terror’ President Bush is perversely applying the rules of engagement that apply in a war situation. But the prisoners are not being regularly visited by the Red Cross or Red Crescent, which is required by the Geneva Convention. They were not even allowed to be interviewed by the UN human rights group.
“In Uganda President Amin did something similar: he did not imprison suspects because he knew that in prison, the law would apply to them so he created special places to keep them. If the Guantanamo Bay detainees were on American soil the law would apply. This is a breach of international law and a blight on the conscience of America.”
Mr Blair hinted that he had spoken more strongly about Guantanamo Bay in private with Mr Bush but would use no stronger word to describe it yesterday than “anomaly”.
But returning to the issue of suspects that Britain wants to deport, he said: “If I am right in saying that the reports both of the FAC and Amnesty International were talking about the deportation cases we have got here, I’ve just got to say I think we have just got the whole thing upside down.
“I do not see why we should not be able to deport people who are not nationals of this country but have come here to cause trouble.”
Mr Blair also denied that there was any evidence for claims that terror suspects were carried on up to 200 American flights through Britain under “extraordinary rendition”.
Kate Allen, UK director of Amnesty, said: “There is nothing ‘upside down’ about taking a principled stand against torture.”
RIGHTS REPORT
Amnesty International report on Britain’s human rights record:
On anti-terrorism powers since September 11, 2001:
“People suspected of involvement in terrorism who have been detained in the UK under the new laws have . . . been held for years in harsh conditions on the basis of secret accusations that they are not allowed to know and therefore cannot refute.”
On the Terrorism Bill before Parliament:
“Some of its most sweeping and vague provisions, if enacted, would undermine the rights to freedom of expression, association, liberty and fair trial.”
On the admissibility of evidence obtained by torture:
“Amnesty International is increasingly concerned that UK’s policies and actions at home and abroad are effectively sending a ‘green light’ to other governments to abuse human rights.”
On rendition flights:
“Amnesty International remains concerned about the allegations that the UK authorities played a role in the unlawful transfers of a number of individuals to US custody.”
On Guantanamo Bay:
“Amnesty International is concerned at the failure, to date, of the UK Government to oppose with any real vigour the human rights scandal that Guantanamo Bay represents.”
Commons Foreign Affairs Committee report on human rights:
On allegations of rendition by the US of terror suspects:
“The Government has a duty . . . to make clear to the USA that any extraordinary rendition to states where suspects may be tortured is completely unacceptable.”
On using information obtained by torture in third countries:
“We recommend that the Government clearly set out its policy on the use of information derived by other states through torture.”
On Guantanamo Bay:
“The continued use of Guantanamo Bay as a detention centre outside all legal regimes . . . is a hindrance to the effective pursuit of the war against terrorism.”
No comments:
Post a Comment