Detentions as a result of the Gulf war
Detentions as a result of the Gulf war
artdoc June=1991
The arrests and detentions of over 100 Arabs as a result of the
Gulf war has led to a debate in some sections of the press
about how to strike the correct balance between civil liberties
and national security at a time of war. Amnesty International
accused Britain, Turkey, Israel and Egypt of carrying out
arbitrary arrests during the course of the war and argued that
British detainees could be considered `prisoners of conscience'
because they had been detained `without a fair hearing and in
breach of international law'. (Independent 13.2.91, 21.2.91)
The only redress the detainees had was to argue their case
before a special appeals panel, described as the `Three Wise
Men'. Liberty and the Joint Council for the Welfare of
Immigrants (JCWI), criticised this system and called for the
1971 Immigration Act to be amended to ensure detainees were
brought before a court and given proper rights of appeal.
(Guardian 3.3.91) But when lawyers for one of the detainees,
Abbas Shiblak, brought his case to the Court of Appeal, and
applied for a writ of habeas corpus, the court ruled that they
had no power to intervene, unless the Home Secretary had acted
in bad faith. This closed the courts to the detainees as a
source of redress.
The `Three Wise Men'
In presenting their case before the Special Appeals Panel, the
detainees were denied the right to know details of the charges
or evidence against them; nor were they allowed legal
representation.
As the `Three Wise Men' convened, lawyers complained of
the injustice of the appeals system. Lawyer Alison Stanley
said that the hearings were a `complete shambles'. Lawyers
were prevented from having the necessary time to prepare their
cases; they were not allowed to speak to the panel on the
detainees' behalf, or see their clients before the hearings.
(Independent 6.2.91) Friends of one of the detainees eventually
released said that he was only allowed 30 minutes to put his
case before the judges. (Independent 27.2.91)
Furthermore, there seemed to be no consistency as to the
rules regarding procedure at the Appeal. When Abbas Shiblak
appeared, he was allowed 6 witnesses (each of whom was allowed
to speak for 2 minutes each), but soon after his release the
rules were changed to permit just one witness - and then
changed yet again to allow two witnesses. At the initial
hearing, no advisers were permitted, but later this was changed
to permit a non-legal adviser. The manner in which rules
seemed to change from day to day led Anne Owers of the JCWI to
describe the procedures as `bizarre'. And the civil rights
group Liberty launched the `Civil Liberties in a Time of War
campaign', endorsed by Paddy Ashdown, demanding the right to a
fair trial for those detained on security grounds. (Guardian
27.2.91)
The nature of intelligence
Throughout the course of the detentions some papers, but
particularly the Independent, highlighted the dubious nature of
the intelligence that had led to the arrests.
According to the Independent (9.3.91), which cited unnamed
sources in the Foreign Office, the arrests were based neither
on surveillance or hard evidence. Senior Whitehall sources
said that a list of 91 Arabs had been drawn up by 3
middle-ranking MI5 officers, working from out-dated files.
Senior Foreign Office officials suggested that the information
which led to the arrests dated back to the `60s. And, in some
cases, orders were issued on the basis of as little as three
paragraphs of information on the suspect's personal file.
(Independent 13.2-91)
Some of those detained, but later released, also voiced
criticisms about the nature of state intelligence. Palestinian
writer Abbas Shiblak said that the official order for his
deportation carried a mistake both in the spelling of his name
and the spelling of the street in which he lived. (Guardian
11