Fahad Ansari

The Return to Darkness: 2000 Days of Guantanamo

moderator@openmindsblogspot.com — Thu, 05 Jul 2007 07:47:00 GMT

Every year on July 4 Americans celebrate the US Declaration of Independence. This date is portrayed by the West as the beginning of civilisation, the move from darkness into light, the dawn of a new era of rights and freedoms. The now-infamous lines of the preamble to that historic document read: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed, by their Creator, with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.”

This year, July 4 marks another historic occasion: a day on which the US and the West returned to darkness. July 4, 2007 is the 2,000th day since the opening of the detention centre in Guantanamo Bay. It has been 2,000 days of illegal imprisonment; 2,000 days of captivity; 2,000 days of torture; 2,000 days of humiliation; 2,000 days of injustice. It has been 2,000 days in which “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”, those “inalienable rights” endowed upon man by their Creator, have been denied to hundreds of men who are held without charge in cages on an island off the coast of Cuba where they are subjected to physical and psychological torture daily.

While the US is guilty of establishing and operating of this facility, other countries are stained with the blood of the four men who have died there in these 2,000 days; that this detention-camp has been tolerated and facilitated by the rest of the world allows the injustices and abuses to continue unabated. As Carmen de Monteflores put it, “Oppression can only survive through silence”.

Anyone familiar with American foreign policy and the US's history of intervention around the world will realise that it actually returned to the darkness long ago, long before the opening of Guantanamo Bay; indeed it is true to say that the US was even made in darkness and has been in it since. But despite its numerous unlawful covert operations around the world and its use of a forked tongue in its role as an “honest peace-broker”, the US had nevertheless portrayed itself as a bastion of freedom, of human rights, and as an upholder of international law. What little was true of that changed on 11 January 2002.

On that day, the US made a deliberate decision that not only would it no longer be bound by international laws and conventions protecting human rights, but that it would defy them openly and unashamedly. The myth which it has propounded to justify its arrogant behaviour has been that these laws are not adequate, nor designed to protect mankind from the unprecedented threat it faces today from “jihadi terrorism”. By opening the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay and allowing the world's press to photograph detainees in orange jumpsuits, hooded, shackled and gagged, on their knees in wire-mesh cages, the US was sending a message out to the watching world that, as Tony Blair put it so eloquently after the London bombings, “the rules of the game have changed.” These images have become the shameful antithesis of what the Declaration of Independence symbolised to the world.

The problem does not end there. Guantanamo Bay is only one symptom of a much greater problem: that more than 14,000 people are being held in ‘ghost prisons' (not officially admitted to exist) around the world. One can only speculate about the abuses they endure, but former Guantanamo detainees Moazzam Begg has testified that the worst place he was held in was Bagram airbase, where he saw two detainees killed in custody.

The torture, ill-treatment and inhuman punishment being meted out to Muslim detainees in American custody have also increased within prisons on US soil. Take the case of John “Humza” Walker Lindh, for example. Despite no evidence having been procured of his ever taking up arms against American troops in Afghanistan, this American revert to Islam is currently serving a sentence of twenty years' imprisonment after pleading guilty of providing aid to the Taliban between May and November 2001 (in May 2001 the Bush administration itself provided $43 million in aid to the Taliban). Lindh was initially held in a medium-security prison in Victorville, where he was prohibited from speaking Arabic, in which he had become fluent in Yemen. The prohibition was so severe that Lindh could not exchange the greeting of salaam with other Muslim inmates; nor could he recite Qur'an or pray aloud. Following each incident of terrorism around the world, and whenever he breached rules (which seemed only to apply to him), Lindh was thrown into solitary confinement or “the hole.” After years of petitioning by his lawyers, the restrictions were lifted. Before he had a chance to open his mouth to say shukran, Lindh was whisked away to his new home at ADMAX in Florence, Colorado, the federal Supermax facility, where he is kept in a private cell 23 hours a day, with just one hour daily alone in a prison yard.

Even more disturbing, and indicative of an element of institutional Islamophobia and anti-Muslim persecution, has been the opening of what some have described as a “Muslim-only prison” in Terre Haute, Indiana. On 11 December 2006, 17 federal prisoners across the US were taken out of their cells, held in isolation for two days, and then taken by bus to the Federal Correctional Institution (FCI) in Terre Haute, Indiana. US-based journalist Katherine Hughes is one of the few journalists who has had the courage to report on a new unit at the institution, the Communications Management Unit (CMU): a completely self-contained unit housing almost exclusively Arab and/or Muslim inmates, many of whom have never been convicted of ‘terrorism' but are merely active political dissidents.

Among other things, severe restrictions have been placed on prisoner communication within the CMU. Instead of 300 minutes of phone-time a month, prisoners may receive only one 15-minute call a week, which the warden has the power to reduce to just three minutes a month. In stark contrast to the usual weekly all-day contact-visits in other prisons, visits in the CMU are for two hours, twice a month, and are restricted to non-contact only. All conversations must be conducted in English unless otherwise negotiated. In addition, Islamophobic policies are slowly being implemented whereby detainees are prevented from praying five times a day and from calling the adhaan. Most worrying has been the lack of adequate healthcare, which recently lead to the death of one inmate. The lack of access to medical care seems to be part of a pattern set in Guantanamo Bay, where ex-detainees have testified that medical care was directly linked to cooperation with interrogators.

The CMU currently holds only Muslim prisoners leading to accusations of “religious profiling”. The unit was set up in secret, with no public notice of its formation, although such notice is required under Federal law. Furthermore, there is a severe lack of clarity about how it is decided who will be sent there. It is very worrying that the US has taken it upon itself to establish a unit specially for Muslims considered a threat to national security. It is even more worrying that the American and global press and media have refused to cover this story (except for one article in the Washington Post). We all know the tragic consequences that history has shown can flow from such discriminatory policies.

Thomas Jefferson and the other founding fathers of the US would shudder today at the thought of the existence of institutions such as Guantanamo Bay and the CMU. The kidnapping, rendition, indefinite detention without charge and brutal torture of men, women and even children cannot have been what they imagined the US would be notorious for more than 200 years after their dawn of civilisation. It could be argued that they would, if alive today, even argue for the replacement of the current US government with another. For it was they who said in their Declaration that “when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”

Liberating the hundreds of prisoners in Guantanamo Bay and the thousands of prisoners in American custody around the world would be more in line with the spirit and sentiment of July 4: not only because it is the official American Independence Day, but also because on that day in 1187 the great Muslim general Salahuddeen Ayubi defeated the armies of the Crusaders at Hittin and liberated the people and the land of Jerusalem.

First Published in Crescent International (July 2007)

Absorption or Exodus: The Future Legacy of British Anti-Terror Laws

moderator@openmindsblogspot.com — Tue, 08 May 2007 13:05:00 GMT

“We will kill every f***ing one of you Muslims”. One could be forgiven for believing this to be an excerpt from a BNP Party Political Broadcast. It is not. In fact, it is the horrifying taunt hurled by armed police officers with guns drawn at 34-year old London Underground worker ‘Abdul Rahman’ as he knelt before them cringing in fear for his life. Moments earlier, ‘Abdul Rahman’ had been pushed to the ground by 3 armed officers who subjected him to physical and verbal abuse, having intercepted him on his journey home from work. It was about half past four on a bright summer afternoon in full view of on-lookers.

After thirty minutes of questioning, ‘Abdul Rahman’ was finally released and allowed to continue his journey home … to Bangladesh. One month after the incident, ‘Abdul Rahman’ had immigrated with his family to settle in the land of his parents. Despite the fact that he, his wife and three children were all born in Britain and had lived here their whole lives, this experience was enough for them to return “home” because, as he told me, “at least we are treated with some respect there.” In spite of his Britishness and his good citizenship, ‘Abdul Rahman’ did not receive the respect he deserved in Britain. For he was a Muslim; he was a terror suspect.

‘Abdul Rahman’ was not the first British Muslim to leave Britain to settle in the Muslim world in recent years. Nor will he be the last. Since the events of 11 September 2001, there has been a systematic persecution of Muslim communities throughout the world, leading to a growing exodus of Muslims from the West. Britain is no exception.

According to the latest statistics published by the Home Office, over 1166 terrorism arrests have been made since 9-11. Of these only 211 have been charged with a terrorism related offence with less than 3.5% of those arrested being convicted (these convictions include individuals prosecuted for wearing badges bearing the logo of proscribed organisations such as the UVF). This means that over 1100 innocent people have been falsely accused of belonging to the most despised and loathed category of individuals in society today. These are not just hollow statistics but each arrest represents a harrowing tale of pain, anger, and humiliation. Pre-dawn raids, broken down doors, barking dogs, verbal taunts, physical abuse, fathers dragged away before their traumatized children, wives left abandoned, a media circus and an irremovable stigma are just some of the more hidden aspects of these statistics.

Some Muslims are even punished despite never having been charged with a single offence, being subject to life-restricting control orders, designed to make life so unbearable that internment appears attractive. Curfews, house arrest, electronic tagging and severe restrictions on use of telephones and computers, have made these terror suspects prisoners in their own homes. That their children’s friends must apply to the Home Office to seek permission to visit them in their homes is indicative of the widespread and stigmatizing effects of these laws.

Further, the numerous arrests carried out against Muslims for innocuous actions such as tourist photography, the study of chemistry, frequent visits to the gym and paintballing, point at the inherent discrimination in the implementation of such laws. This has left Muslims confused and bewildered as to what recreational and educational activities they can engage in without falling under the scrutiny of the security services. Many Muslims no longer attend public demonstrations or engage in political lobbying fro similar reasons. Others are even fearful of their choice of reading material on public transport in case it attracts the attention of passengers who may deem it “suspicious”. Essentially, British Muslims, despite not being physically incarcerated, have become prisoners of their fear.

Proponents of more draconian legislation and wider police powers often suggest that the grave nature of the threat we all face, including Muslims, necessitates such actions to be taken, the idea being that erring on the side of caution is better than falling victim to another terrorist attack. There are many inherent flaws with such an argument.

Firstly, it contradicts the bedrock upon which our justice system is built. Fundamental principles such as the right to a fair trial and the presumption of innocence gave rise to Blackstone’s ratio "Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer." Unfortunately, we have now taken the road of authoritarian governments who prefer to err on the side of punishment lest any guilty man escape, irrespective of the impact upon the innocent masses.

Secondly, on a simple point of practicality and efficiency, it has been proven that this method of counter-terrorism has failed miserably. Heavy-handed fishing expeditions into a community of 1.6 million have only increased alienation, frustration and polarization. Casting the net so wide as to encompass all forms of political dissent has allowed those that may really threaten our safety to escape untouched. Rather that reduce the risk of terrorism, such tactics have paradoxically made Britain a far more dangerous place to live in than before.

Finally, the implementation of these laws has effectively resulted in the terrorisation of a substantial sector of British society, the British Muslims. Whereas the majority of the population may believe these laws to be justifiable, this is only because it does not directly impact upon them. On the other hand, innocent Muslim victims of the anti-terror legislation are treated as terrorists irrespective of whether they have been convicted, charged or released.

Ultimately, they are ostracised and alienated from society. Their community, friendships and political associations become stigmatised as “suspected” terrorist networks. Their mere arrest undermines their reputations, livelihoods and freedom to travel. Moreover, police harassment and threats instil fear and terror among Muslims pressured into rooting out invisible extremists from their communities. Muslims across Britain, both practising and non-practising, feel that they are under constant surveillance. Many Muslims fear that rumours that they are involved in terrorism will be passed around among international intelligence agencies, especially those in their countries in origin. This leads them to remain in constant fear for the safety of any family members who may still be at risk in such countries.

There is a feeling that every statement they utter will be manipulated and exploited to further raise the terror threat. People feel that they live in a state of siege, as populist prejudice is whipped up against them with the public being encouraged to fear foreigners, especially those from the Muslim world. In addition, there is an almost daily barrage of news items and articles in the mass media denigrating Muslims and Islamic beliefs and customs. Orchestrated attacks on the Qur’an, niqab, halal food, mosques, Muslim schools, Muslim parenting, Muslim lifestyle, Muslim police officers, and general Muslim practices have not only left British Muslims wondering about their future in the West but have also had a devastating impact upon relations with the wider society.

Just two years ago, a Home Affairs Select Committee report concluded that relations between British Muslims and the wider community had “deteriorated” since 9-11 and the resultant war on terror. In the same month, research presented at the annual conference of the British Psychological Society in Manchester revealed that children as young as 13 were displaying signs of Islamophobia and were voicing their support for extreme far-right groups such as the British National Party.In the study of 1500 students between the ages of 13 and 24, over 43% stated that their attitudes towards Muslims had got worse or much worse since the 9-11 attacks. A quarter said they had worsened still further following the invasion of Iraq. One can only speculate what effect the 7-7 bombings and the continuation of the war on terror has had on inter-community relations in the next generation.

This public demonisation and humiliation is leading a growing number of British Muslims to question what future they and their children have in the UK. With senior politicians from all political parties now singing the BNP tune equating politically active Muslims with Neo-Nazis, a growing feeling at the grassroots is emerging that Muslims are being offered a simple choice. Either stay silent and submissive and reform Islam to make it more palatable to Western norms (i.e. “integrate”) or be hunted down and persecuted as extremists who “hate our way of life”. History bears witness to the fact such attempts to blame the victim for her persecution have had catastrophic results. In 1937, only a year after Mosley's blackshirts had clashed with Jews and other locals on Cable Street in east London and just months after Jews in Germany were banned from holding many professional occupations, Winston Churchill penned a paper ‘How The Jews Can Combat Persecution’, in which he expressed his belief that Jewish people were "partly responsible for the antagonism for which they suffer". The reason: their refusal ‘to be absorbed”.

With almost identical comments being made openly about British Muslims today, many, such as Abdul Rahman, have chosen to flee this persecution and return “home”.

First Published in Socialist Lawyer (April 2007)

A day few are aware of and yet none should forget

moderator@openmindsblogspot.com — Thu, 22 Feb 2007 13:42:00 GMT

The year was 1944. The date was 23 February. Traditionally celebrated in Russia as Red Army Day, in Chechnya it is remembered as a day of mourning.

Big Brother: A mirror of Britain’s reality

moderator@openmindsblogspot.com — Fri, 19 Jan 2007 11:25:00 GMT

Britain’s prejudices are all too clear to see – whereas it is just beginning to grasp (with great disgust) its treatment of those of another skin colour like Shilpa Shetty, Muslims and Islam have become so repulsive to the British psyche that they are still fair game right now.