A look at Indefinite Detention

As a teenager, I often find it difficult to recognise our current rights, more often than not met with a barricade of unintelligible information I can’t begin to get my head around. As I begin to read more and delve deeper into issues that encompass our basic civil liberties, I have come to understand the law is not the static, black and white, straightforward rule book that most believe it to be, but more of a nuanced, ever-evolving creature.

 

I have always thought that in the UK our rights are completely safeguarded, and our autonomy sheltered from the infringement of prying eyes. Unfortunately, this is not the case.

 

Although atrocities, namely Belmarsh Prison, are now in the past, it feels to me greatly dystopic. The concept of a so-called civilised democracy running alongside detaining someone without them understanding what placed them in such a position, are simply incompatible. A society that preaches liberty and equality for everyone, simply cannot decide a group of people are exceptions to mainstream law. Controversially in 2004, Belmarsh Prison indefinitely detained without trial under section 23 of the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act of 2001 foreign nationals. Our Government felt a prosecution involving court procedure would be unwise due to the involvement of intelligence sources. Although the interests of the majority were placed over a small suspected minority, the subjects were detained regardless of the Human Rights Act of 1998, which protects our Right to Liberty (Article 5.) From my understanding, this is due to the UK’s unwritten constitution, whereby all our laws are regarded as equal; meaning our human rights are on par with other legislation and can be overseen. In other countries such as the US who have a written constitution, anything that conflicts with those laws would be seen as invalid. However, in the UK, our Parliament has sovereignty, having the power to adapt the law at any time, meaning the courts are powerless to intervene. The case was eventually taken to the House of Lords (cases would now be taken to the supreme court) who deemed it incompatible with the European Convention of Human Rights due to the interference with liberty and the fact that lesser measures could have been taken, such as electronic tags to monitor the defendants.

 

Indefinite detention is degrading can impacts the mental health of detainees. To not know a release date takes its toll in the form of depression or self-harm and many inmates are fleeing state oppression and violence, and thus, these centres exacerbate the already pressing issues that face migrants. In my opinion, we should be reducing the period that we can legally indefinitely detain people. Although NGOs such as Liberty have pressed for a 28 day limit it seems the Home Office has still not been moved. There have been countless stories of pregnant women, torture survivors and children being locked up, at the mercy of the Home Office. The fact that people have also died in detention centres simply highlights the emotional and physical trauma of the Government’s schemes. Further, it must also be noticed, the centres are a hub for economic waste. More importantly however, our right to never be subject to degrading treatment is being complacently walked over.

 

Moreover, the UK played a role in the running of the barbaric Guantanamo Bay. Set up by the Bush administration in 2002 as a result of the War on Terror, suspected terrorists were sent to the off-shore camp without a fair trial and were indefinitely detained. On first hearing about Guantanamo, my reaction was that it seemed fair – that those who have committed such atrocities have no right to be treated with dignity. I now realise the problems that that kind of attitude entails. Despite any crime, it is integral all are given a trial, especially since detainees at Guantanamo have now been proven innocent, having suffered decades of abuse and torture. Moreover, surely if we are saying that terrorists have no rights and can equally be indefinitely detained, it seems odd to me that the vast population of Guantanamo were those connected to ‘Islamic’ extremism. White supremacy and violence is of equal concern and is a current epidemic in the US and UK today; some perpetrators being passed off as mentally ill. 

 

 Without the protection of the Geneva Convention and without the protection of Prisoner of War rights, the detainees at Guantanamo are subject to torture such as solitary confinement for over 30 days, exploitation of their phobias, feelings of suffocation, sleep deprivation and water boarding. Mohamedou Ould Slahi after being released without charge after nearly 14 years described being shackled, being made to stand for long periods and subject to loud noises. Many detainees alleged that the UK had facilitated rendition to the camp, with the Foreign Secretary at the time, David Milliband, refusing to release information that would prove torture was used in Guantanamo for fear the US would distrust them. With help from the High Court, this information was released, and the British Government ended up paying compensation to many to avoid future litigation.

 

It seems insane that these criminal movements continue in the 21st century and I feel as though in order to combat them, our generation really needs to try to understand the complexity of the issues that have plagued recent times.