Two men left to languish in Bagram, Afghanistan

Almost eight years ago, the British detained two men in Iraq. They were Yunus Rahmatullah and Amanatullah Ali, although their names would remain secret for a long time.

They were turned over to the Americans and, with full British knowledge, rendered to Bagram Air Force Base in Afghanistan. In transit and upon arrival, they were badly mistreated. They have remained there ever since.

Nothing came to light for several years as they languished in the Bagram black hole, sometimes described as Guantánamo's evil twin. Eventually on February 26th, 2009, John Hutton, then the Minister of Defence, was forced to make a statement in the Commons. Britain, he said, was under no obligation to do anything. He labelled them both members of the Sunni terrorist group Lashkar-e-Taiba (LET), assured the nation that they were very dangerous, and said it was right they were locked up. Since then, the men have remained detained without trial and Britain has apparently done nothing to clean up its own mess.

Reprieve, the London-based legal action charity, brought habeas corpus litigation on behalf of our client, Yunus, but the principle should apply equally to Amanatullah. Since when has the United Kingdom tried, convicted and condemned people by the word of a politician, protected even from a defamation suit by parliamentary privilege? Today, the Court of Appeals ruled in our favour, unanimously reminding everyone that this is not how Britain has operated for the past few hundred years (the first reported writ of habeas corpus was in 1305, during the reign of King Edward I). "It remains the fact," the Court said this morning, "that habeas corpus has .... been described as 'perhaps the most important writ known to the constitutional law of England..." Likewise, "it is a fundamental principle of English law that, when an individual has been detained against his will, it is for the detainer to show that the detention is lawful, not for the detainee to show that his detention is unlawful."

My purpose here is not to resolve the guilt or innocence of Yunus or Amanatullah. They have never been officially charged with anything and guilt may only be determined by a fair trial. Suffice it to say that Amanatullah is a Shia Muslim, meaning that it is highly unlikely that he would be a member of a Sunni terror group; and Yunus has specifically denied being a member of LET. Indeed, even without a fair trial, the US military determined on June 5th, 2010, that Yunus should be released from Bagram. The UK government apparently thinks it okay that he continues to rot there 18 months later.

But the real crime here is the wholesale forfeiture of our long-established principles by politicians who are all too keen to believe dubious intelligence, and tar someone as a terrorist without giving them a right of fair reply. The government conceded in court that the Fourth Geneva Convention applies to the men, since they are civilian detainees, not soldiers. The judges saved for another day whether the United States' failure to comply with these international obligations, combined with Britain's refusal to do anything about it, means that "the UK Government could be aiding or abetting a 'grave crime'" under international law. Suffice it to say, the Court held, that "the UK Government is under an international legal obligation to demand the return of [Yunus Rahmatullah] and the US is bound to accede to such a request."

Various politicians seem to think that judges and their irritating enforcement of human rights are a regrettable appendage to government. But thank goodness someone is there to remind everyone that our nation is built on decency and the rule of law.

This article originally appeared in The Times