Blunkett Accused over Anti-Terror Detentions (U.K. Home Secretary may quit Amnesty International)

Home Secretary David Blunkett threatened to quit as a member of Amnesty International tonight after the human rights group criticised his anti-terror policies.

Amnesty said the Government’s emergency measures to combat terrorism had created a “Guantanamo Bay in our own backyard”.

But Mr Blunkett, who said he has been a member of Amnesty for 20 years, rejected the criticisms, adding that he was considering resigning from the organisation.

Amnesty said Mr Blunkett’s emergency measures – brought in shortly after the September 11 atrocities – had created a “shadow” criminal justice system for foreigners.

By allowing them to be locked up indefinitely without charge or trial ministers had failed to meet international standards, the group argued.

The report, entitled UK: Justice Perverted under the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001, looked at laws which have led to 14 people being detained as suspected international terrorists at high security jails.

Six of these will have been in detention for two years on December 19.

Amnesty International’s Kate Allen said the Act was “discriminatory” with one set of rules for British citizens and another for nationals of other countries.

“It effectively allows non-nationals to be treated as if they have been charged with a criminal offence, convicted without a trial and sentenced to an open-ended term of imprisonment.

“In no respect can this be considered just.

“This legislation has created a Guantanamo Bay in our own backyard.”

But speaking after addressing the Scarman Trust Citizens’ Convention in west London, the Home Secretary rejected the charity’s conclusions.

“It’s a very sad day for Amnesty International and a very sad day for me as a patron,” he said.

“When I became a patron and supporter of Amnesty many years ago I did so to support them in tackling death and torture, the threat of people having their lives taken away and their well-being destroyed.

“I didn’t join Amnesty in order to see them support those who, through every part of the system that we have set up, have been accorded and recognised as being correctly certificated as being a threat to us.”

Asked if he was going to resign his membership of Amnesty, he replied: “I’m weighing this up, as to what is the most good in life. I’m a great believer in positive engagement.”

An Amnesty spokesman said the group was “saddened” about the reports that Mr Blunkett was considering resigning.

“We hope he will not conclude that it is incompatible to be Home Secretary and a member of an organisation that champions human rights, fair trials and international standards of justice,” he said.

“We have a very important job to do in holding the Government to account when we believe that human rights are under threat.”

In its report, Amnesty said the part of the Act which allowed people to be interned amounted to a “perversion of justice”.

The group criticised the workings of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission (SIAC) which was set up to allow the men to appeal against their detention.

Neither the men nor their lawyers are allowed access to all the evidence against them.

The proceedings “did not guarantee even basic minimum fair trial safeguards” to detainees.

Amnesty was also concerned that SIAC appeared to have accepted evidence obtained by torture of suspected terrorists detained by the US at Bagram airbase in Afghanistan and at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba.

“The use of evidence obtained under torture undermines the rule of law and makes a mockery of justice,” said the document.

Stephen Jakobi, of Fair Trials Abroad, voiced fears that British citizens currently in Guantanamo Bay could end up being interned in Britain instead.

The Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act does not apply to British citizens.

But he said the British public may be offered a “devil’s alternative” in which detainees from Guantanamo Bay are returned under similar terms to a high security prison such as Belmarsh.

“Tony Blair has put his reputation on the line and, one way or another, he must get everyone back – but read the small print on how he gets everybody back,” he said.