Hampshire MEP Backs 'Amicus' Brief in Case to insist on Fair Trials for Guantanamo Detainees

1.00.35pm UTC (GMT +0000) Tue 17th Aug 2004

A local Euro-MP has pledged his support in a key United States legal case that will challenge the system of military commissions set up by President George Bush to try Guantanamo Bay detainees.

Hampshire MEP Chris Huhne will support an 'amicus curiae' brief that will be filed in the US courts next month. The idea of such an amicus brief is to highlight to the Court the policy implications or wider legal ramifications of the case and the views of people having a clear interest in the development of the law.

'The military commission system is an affront to basic civil rights' said Mr Huhne 'and I am happy to lend my support to the petition of Lieutenant Commander Charles Swift of the US Navy, who has had the courage to challenge these procedures'.

Lt Cmndr Swift represents Salim Ahmed Hamdan, a 34 year old Yemeni national who has been in captivity without charge at Guantanamo Bay since November 2001. The case will have important implications for two UK nationals - Feroz Abbasi and Moazzem Begg - also detained.

Mr Huhne said that he was not taking a view on the particular merits of Mr Hamdan's case, but merely on the lack of a fair procedure. 'The military commission procedure is an outrage against every norm of justice and fairness that British and American soldiers died to protect in the second world war' said Mr Huhne. 'I am as appalled as many of my American friends at the Bush administration's cavalier jettisoning of fair trials for detainees. The rule of law must be upheld'.

Amicus briefs played an important part in the litigation leading to the US Supreme Court decision of 28 June 2004 in Rasul versus Bush which determined that the US Courts had jurisdiction to hear detainees' challenges to their detention. Until then, the Bush administration had maintained that the detainees could not appeal to US courts because they were held outside the United States. More than 170 British parliamentarians signed amicus briefs in the case.

The amicus brief in Swift versus Rumsfeld et al will examine features of the military commission system such as:

a) the current absence of charges against which defendants can prepare themselves

b) the fact that detainees have no right to see prosecution evidence

c) that they have a limited right to call witnesses,

d) that a lower standard of evidence (including evidence obtained by torture and coercion) may be admissible against them,

e) the lack of any right of appeal other than to the US executive,

f) the question of whether the commissions are independent of those bringing charges,

g) the discriminatory nature of the tribunals, which apply to non-US citizens only,

h) the fact that the detainees' defence counsel have been advised that the scope of their instructions is limited to assisting the detainee to plead guilty,

i) the withholding of a speedy trial.

The brief will analyse whether these features are in breach of the Geneva conventions or internationally recognised standards of human rights law, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights that was ratified by the USA on 8 September 1992.

The case is Lt Cmdr Charles Swift, as next friend for Salim Ahmed Hamdan, versus Donald Rumsfeld, John Altenburg, Thomas Hemingway, Jay Hood, George W. Bush, Case no CV04-07777L. The amicus brief is being prepared by Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer working on a pro bono basis.