Four men deprived of their liberty for four years on suspicion of being international terrorists disclose today that they have not once been questioned by police or security services since being arrested.

The four, who were among 16 suspects detained without trial under post-11 September terror legislation, later overturned by the law lords, give harrowing accounts of the treatment they have suffered. All are now under virtual house arrest. Although three face deportation, The Independent has learnt that there is no prospect of the men ever being questioned over the offences they are alleged to have committed.

In interviews with Amnesty International, the four – three Algerians and a Palestinian – say their detentions have harmed their physical and mental health. They also complain that their treatment has had a devastating impact on their wives and families.

The men were interned in Belmarsh jail in south-east London – which has been called Britain’s Guantanamo Bay – and other high security prisons in conditions consistently condemned by human rights organisations. Their detentions were ruled illegal by the law lords a year ago and they have since been released on control orders with tough restrictions on leaving home.

Three were re-arrested in August under immigration powers pending deportation and released by the Special Immigration Appeals Commission Act (Siac) in October on very strict bail conditions amounting to house arrest. One of them told Amnesty: “We’ve been moving from one nightmare to another.”

Independent, 15 December 2005

Government proposals to close mosques suspected of having terrorist links would criminalise entire communities, Sir Iqbal Sacranie, secretary general of the Muslim Council of Britain, said yesterday. He described the anti-terror measure as “the single most dangerous piece of legislation” if it were put into place.

Under Home Office proposals issued in October, members of mosque committees would face criminal charges if they failed to act against extremists using their premises. The home secretary, Charles Clarke, would then be able to close the mosque.

Sir Iqbal, who was speaking at the Global Peace and Unity event in Canning Town, east London, told the Guardian that the proposal should not be translated into law. “It’s not only divisive, counterproductive and ill-conceived, but it will cause more harm than good and will play into the hands of our enemies. We don’t have a problem with applying the law to tackle the incitement of hatred, violence or terrorism. That law is needed. But a mosque is a place of worship. It brings together a community and promotes messages of peace and tolerance.”

He also rejected the idea that there was any kind of dialogue between the government and the Muslim community. He said: “They ignored us when we told them the war in Iraq was wrong. After 7/7 the communication links were breached. We have sent our representations to the the government.”

Guardian, 5 December 2005

The Association of Chief Police Officers (Acpo) privately opposed four of the government’s 14 main proposals announced after the July 7 London bombings. Other proposals could damage community relations, Acpo believes.

The confidential Acpo assessment of the 14 or so measures concludes that all risk alienating Muslims. Senior officers believe they must increase the levels of confidence British Muslims have in the police. According to a document seen by the Guardian, the four measures from which Acpo withheld support were:

• Amending human rights laws to get round obstacles to new deportation rules.
• Making the justification or glorification of terrorism anywhere an offence.
• Automatically refusing asylum to anyone linked to terrorism anywhere.
• Banning the alleged extremist group Hizb ut-Tahrir and successor groups to al-Muhajiroun. Acpo says it knows of no intelligence to justify a Hizb ut-Tahrir ban.

Guardian, 21 November 2005