England Gave Us Habeas Corpus Once Before…

Can they do it again?

The British human rights organization today won a habeas corpus petition for their client, Yunus Rahmatullah, who has been detained at Bagram for 7 years, in the English Court of Appeal.

The Master of the Rolls, Lord Neuberger, Lord Justice Maurice Kay, and Lord Justice Sullivan, said the case raised important principles of law. Their court ruling is the latest in a series relating to the treatment of detainees in Iraq and Afghanistan that have been highly critical of the Foreign Office and Ministry of Defence.

The judges rejected a claim by a senior MoD official, Damian Parmenter, that granting a writ for habeas corpus would be “futile”.

Kay said: “On the face of it [Rahmatullah] is being unlawfully detained and [British ministers] have procedures at their disposal … to enable them to take steps which could bring the unlawful detention to an end.”

[snip]

Though Rahmatullah is in US custody, the UK is the “detaining authority pursuant to the memorandum of understanding struck between the UK and US” during the Iraq invasion, Leigh Day said. British ministers remained “responsible” for Rahmatullah under the Geneva conventions.

The decision relies on the Memorada of Understanding regarding detainees signed between the Brits and the US. The Iraqi one signed in 2003 notes, among other things, that,

Any prisoners of war, civilian internees, and civilian detainees transferred by a Detaining Power [the UK on the present facts] will be returned by the Accepting Power [the US on the present facts] to the Detaining Power without delay upon request by the Detaining Power. [brackets original]

And while the British government claims that MOU is no longer in effect, the judges aren’t buying it.

It is true that Mr Parmenter says that the Ministry of Defense believes that the first MoU is spent. However, in the light of the terms of the two MoUs, that expression of opinion is not enough to dissuade me that it is inarguable that, if the first MoU applied to a person when he was handed over, it was not intended to be disapplied simply because the second MoU was entered into or because hostilities ceased.

And after rehearsing the requirements of the Geneva Conventions (and emphasizing that the Brits had to sign these MOUs in the first place because George Bush said the Conventions didn’t apply with al Qaeda), the ruling includes this implicit threat.

It is unnecessary (and would be inappropriate) to address the question whether, by not taking that course [of demanding the US release Rahmatullah], it might, conceivably, be said that as a result of the combination of section 1 of the 1957 Act and Article 130 of Geneva IV, the UK Government could be aiding or abetting a “grave crime”.

That may not make the British request that we release Rahmatullah sufficiently persuasive to make it happen. But it sure does clarify the issues at hand, doesn’t it?

Update: English v. British corrected per chetnolian.

Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Reddit0Share on Facebook0Google+0Email to someone

24 Responses to England Gave Us Habeas Corpus Once Before…

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
  • 13
  • 14
  • 15
  • 16
  • 17
  • 18
  • 19
  • 20
  • 21
  • 22
  • 23
  • 24
Emptywheel Twitterverse
emptywheel @nickmanes1 Had said if Kitties kept penalties low and Stafford avoided picks they might have a chance. Forgot to say, "catch the ball."
2mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel Stafford fucked up the slide.
7mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @matthewstoller Gonna write a post on this.
13mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @barrettmarson @CBS5AZSPORTS Ya think? If only maybe local affiliates could do more than tweet about it.
22mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz RT @barrettmarson: NFL needs a little scrutiny about their TV rights. @bmaz @CBS5AZSPORTS
22mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @Ali_Gharib The Israelis aren't patient. But then they didn't have to be patient to develop their nukes.
26mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @barrettmarson @CBS5AZSPORTS ..are home host for Lions, that is within the CBS purview. Yet we get this Cinci/Texans bullshit. Inexcusable.
47mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @barrettmarson @CBS5AZSPORTS My understanding is the home team determines the jurisdiction of network broadcast rights. Since the Patriots..
48mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz Happiness is finding your Who Live At Leeds album that'd been drunkenly misplaced in the stacks so you can kill the pain of shitty football.
1hreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @barrettmarson @CBS5AZSPORTS So, I am hitting up the best PR man I know.
1hreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @barrettmarson @CBS5AZSPORTS Is that not enough? I want to start a consumer PR revolt. If these are the "rules" they need to be changed!
1hreplyretweetfavorite
December 2011
S M T W T F S
« Nov   Jan »
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
25262728293031