An Interview with Corin Redgrave of the GHRC

An Interview with Corin Redgrave of the Guantanamo Human Rights Commission

CAGEPRISONERS.COM: Actor Corin Redgrave is the co-founder of the Guantanamo Human Rights Commission, an organisation recently launched to campaign for justice for the thousands interned in Guantanamo and elsewhere.

Mr. Redgrave, thank you for agreeing to speak to us. Could you tell us a little about the aims and objectives of the Guantanamo Bay Human Rights Commission?

CORIN REDGRAVE: Our aim is firstly justice and human rights for all the detainees whatever country they are from. I believe there are 41 or 42 different countries whose nationals are held in Guantanamo Bay. Three children have been released but other children are still held there. Indeed, we have another objective which is to put an end to internment without trial, not just in Guantanamo Bay, but elsewhere, and to restore human rights which are enshrined in various conventions. In particular, we have a short term aim which is to awaken the American People to what is being done in their name by their government because we believe that the American people are just as concerned with human rights as other people. There is an act of Congress which has obliged the American government to end its aid to Uzbekistan, because Uzbekistan holds more than a thousand prisoners. without trial, and for that reason because Congress stipulates that foreign aid cannot be given to governments which disregard human rights. When the American people realise that their government is doing the same to more than 1000 people - 660 in Guantanamo Bay and many others held under the Patriot Act which allows them to intern aliens and U.S citizens without trial on issues relating to 'security'. There is no accurate number as to how many are held but it is generally reckoned that it involves hundreds.

CP: Who does the Commission consist of?

CR: It consists of all those people who support change. There is no formal structure or membership at present, although it will probably acquire a minimal structure to allow it to do the work it does.

CP: Why did you personally decide to get involved?

CR: I must have read about Guantanamo Bay sometime in early 2003, by which time it had been in existence for several months. I was shocked to discover that something so drastic could occur without my knowledge, as I feel I am someone who is quite well informed as to current events. I then got to talk to some members of the families whose members are being held at Guantanamo and this spurred me on to doing something. There was nothing at that stage being done on their behalf. Scores of MPs had signed an Early Day Motion protesting about internment without trial. Other organisations such as Free Trials Abroad were agitating in that field as best as they could on behalf of the detained, but it seemed that other things could be done. For example, to create an organisation to bring together the interests of all the families in this county and Europe - a platform for them, and a means to co-ordinate activities on behalf of their family members held in Guantanamo Bay.

CP: How would you respond to those critics who accuse you of defending terrorists and traitors?

CR: By simply saying that no such charge has been made to those people in Guantanamo Bay. They are there as victims of the war on terrorism but no one can say they are terrorist because have not been charged as such. Assuming that they are to be charged, what is right and proper, if charges should be made against them, is that they should have right to a proper defence. If they do not, then we are living in a world
beyond “1984".

CP: What is your reaction to the news that some of the detainees will be shortly released?

CR: Well I am delighted on the one hand for those who are to be released, although I have reason to doubt they know it. I also have reason to fear what will happen to them on their return. However, I am delighted for them and their families who must be celebrating. I am also fearful as to the fate of the rest of the detainees. To have released some, but not all, may suggest a hardening determination on the part of the USA to put the remainder of the detainees before a military tribunal or to hold them indefinitely.

CP: You have alluded to the fact that you do not believe Britain has done enough to secure the release of the detainees. Why do you think this is?

CR: This is a complex question. The first answer is that, despite some statements about the unsatisfactory nature of the military tribunal and the disagreement the Government has about the latter, the Government, in principle, is not opposed to internment without trial. In fact, it practises this itself in Belmarsh and Woodhill.

The legislation which allows it to do this makes use of the same loopholes as the USA. The USA used dubious principles such as claiming its courts have no jurisdiction over Guantanamo Bay. Britain, however, side-steps the whole issue of judicial oversight. Its detainees are detaineed under immigration and asylum law. They are allowed to be held without trial or judicial review.

Secondly, there is considerable embarrasment in the Government as to what will happen when the detainees eventually return home. It will become clear that most were kidnapped miles from the battlefield - with no intention of going near the battlefield anyway - innocent victims of arbitrary arrest. When it happens, it will be an embarrassing day for the Government. People will ask how could it be that they were kept in such vile conditions for so long with nothing done for them. Far from being quasi-terrorists, it will be clear that they were cruel victims of circumstances over which they had no control.

We also might be allowed to wonder that these men might claim compensation. Therefore, there are grounds for believing that it is not that the Government has not done enough for its citizens detained at Guantanamo Bay; rather, it has actually obstructed their release.

CP: What do you think is the government's responsibility to the detainees who are not citizens, but were residents, of the U.K.?

CR: I believe there are five men that fit into this category. The responsibility of the government is total, in the sense that, if a person resided in the UK, it is because life was intolerable in their country of origin. Britain, for one reason or another, provided them with shelter. Then they are as responsible to them as to their own citizens.

CP: Have you met with the families of any of the detainees? What has been their response to the campaign? Can you share some of your experiences with them, with us?

CR: Yes, I have met the families of British and French detainees. We have many things in sympathy with one another. I have been privileged to visit their homes and seen them in a family environment and realise the pain suffered by the loss of their family member. They welcome the campaign. There is a fellow feeling amongst them of caring and responsibility to each other, regardless of nationality. It is a common bond of suffering. They welcome the campaign because it is not exclusive - we argue the case for all the detainees.

CP: What next for the GHRC? How do you plan, in the long term, to secure the release of the non-European detainees?

CR: We will watch, with interest, all legal attempts to secure their release. These proceedings will occur independently of us, and of anyone. What we can do is to raise awareness of the condition and plight of the detainees and to heighten public consciousness and anger over this issue. This is extremely effective. We must alert the larger public to what happens when the Government sets itself outside the rule of the law.

CP: What do you suggest people in Britain should be doing to help the detainees?

CR: Firstly, people can address letters of protest to the Foreign Office and to Downing Street. They should question their MP as to what extent they are involved in the campaign. They can build local branches of Guantanamo Human Rights Commission and, through that, organise meetings, fund raising and social events. There is a great deal they can do. They can inform newspapers. The media have concluded that the general public is apathetic about this issue, that they suffer from fatigue. And of course the Government are making the most of this fatigue. One way of preventing this is to send letters to media outlets. As a matter of fact, recently, some of the media have been very responsible - not all, but some. By and large, in recent months, the media have been questioning the official version of events.

CP: Mr. Redgrave, thank you for speaking to us.