I hope media and courtroom flurries this week have reminded readers of a man the US government would rather they forget: my Guantanamo client and Algerian refugee Ahmed Belbacha.
As reported by the Washington Post, Ahmed and five other Algerians in Guantánamo Bay are deadlocked in a fight to stay there. Peter Finn reports that, while the Obama Administration would send these men home tomorrow, the prisoners are terrified to go, and are willing to wait in Guantánamo until a safe home can be found.
The issue is being fought out in the Supreme Court as I write this. If Ahmed and his fellow Algerians are sent back, it will be an historic low: the first forced prisoner transfers on President Obama's watch.
For Ahmed, formerly a resident of Bournemouth, England, this is just the latest twist in a long, sad saga. Seized in Pakistan in December 2001, he was interrogated by US agents for a fortnight, before being transferred to a US prison in Kandahar, Afghanistan, where he suffered weeks of grievous abuse before being shipped to Guantánamo. He remains there to this day, despite that the military cleared him for release in February 2007. Meanwhile, an Algerian court took the opportunity to sentence Ahmed in absentia to 20 years on mysterious charges.
The Supreme Court test case on whether Algerians may be forcibly repatriated involves Farhi Said bin Mohammed, who won his habeas case in late 2009. Now, having won the right to leave Gitmo, Farhi finds himself struggling to stay. Last Thursday, the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia overturned a previous ruling that had barred the government from forcibly repatriating him. The stakes could not be higher: as goes Farhi, so may go Ahmed and the rest of the Algerians.
From a constitutional point of view, the stage is set for a major clash on a key point of law: when a prisoner wins his case, and a US judge finds him held illegally, is it the government's prerogative to dump him wherever it sees fit? The government must file its response to Farhi's Supreme Court plea by the end of today. A WaPo editorial urges the US to think twice, and prods the Supreme Court to hear the case.
As for Ahmed, US officials have waxed Delphic in the press, saying only that "they will consider whether Belbacha, 40, should be resettled in a third country because of the conviction in absentia." But to 'consider' is not to work to resettle. We will keep fighting in the US Court of Appeals, but without meaningful effort by the US to find him a home, Ahmed remains at serious risk.
It bears adding a few words about Ahmed's sham absentia sentence. We have tried repeatedly to get a copy of the judgment and been rebuffed. Local lawyers report that, per usual practice, no evidence was produced at his "trial", and the process - with no lawyer appointed and no opportunity to defend himself - was barely worthy of the word. It looked far more like retaliation against Ahmed for having spoken out about Algeria's record of torture.
Meanwhile, communities on both sides of the Atlantic have offered Ahmed a home. Two New England towns have laid down the welcome mat. Old pals in Bournemouth, where he used to live, still ask us when he will be stopping by. Perhaps Great Britain is the answer? Surely the new Coalition government could renounce Labour's rather callous stance on this case, and treat Ahmed as the British resident he has always been.
With a new administration in the White House, it might seem easier simply to forget the injustices of the last one. Allowing Ahmed Belbacha to be swallowed up by the Algerian prison system, perhaps never to be heard from again, would certainly facilitate this process. We must not allow Ahmed to be swept under the carpet - we must stop his forced repatriation. Better still, we must ask Britain, at long last, to welcome him home.
To find out more visit www.reprieve.org.uk or follow us on Twitter.
