Draft EU Council conclusions on accepting Guantanamo Bay detainees, outlines information sharing mechanism

The Presidency considers that these conclusions should be adopted at the JHA Council meeting in June 2009.

(…)
Reaffirming that the primary responsibility for closing Guantanamo and finding residence for the former detainees rests with the United States,

Taking note that the United States recognize their responsibility in accepting certain former detainees who indicate a desire to be admitted to the United States.

Wishing to lend its support in this process against the background of a thorough review of US counter-terrorism policies consistent with the rule of law and international law in the expectation that the underlying policy issues would be addressed,

(…)

Recognizing that as a result of the abolition of controls at internal borders within the Schengen area, a decision to accept a former detainee by one Member State would be relevant for other Member States and Schengen associated countries. Therefore, consultation and information sharing is important both before and after decisions to receive former detainees are taken, in order to give all Member States and Schengen associated countries the opportunity to take appropriate measures if necessary,

(…)

Wishing to create conditions which may help the Member States to cooperate with the United States Government in finding residence for those former detainees who will not be prosecuted for any offence, who are “cleared for release” by the US administration, and who for compelling reasons [due to a serious risk that they would be subjected to torture or other inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment] cannot return to their home countries of origin and who want to be transferred to a Member State or Schengen associated country,

Call upon the Member States to consider accepting only those former detainees, who fall into the category defined above,

Call upon the receiving Member States to promote integration of the persons concerned through appropriate measures and also to take into account the public order and security concerns of other Member States so as to avoid that former detainees compromise the public order or internal security of the Member States and Schengen associated countries, while fully respecting their human rights and fundamental freedoms,

Agree that information sharing through existing channels among all Member States both before and after decisions to receive former detainees are taken is important,

Agree herewith on the mechanism for the exchange of information concerning former detainees of Guantanamo as described in the annex to these Conclusions.

The mechanism on exchange of information concerning Guantanamo former detainees is

1. Any Member State or Schengen associated country considering the acceptance of a former detainee will inform all other Member States and Schengen associated countries before taking a final decision to that effect and provide the other Member States and Schengen associated countries with all information necessary to make their own determination of the possible security risk implied by the reception.

2. Without prejudice to the existing channels for the sharing of information and intelligence, additionally the “Friends of the Presidency Group” could provide an extra forum to allow at EU Council level for sharing of information/experiences about the good practices for integrating former detainees into the society, media communication, and possible general security aspects related to accepted persons.

Obama administration pushing Libya to clarify Al Libi’s death

Newsweek reports that the Obama Administration is pressing the Libyan government to explain the reported prison death of Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi.

“We want answers,” said an administration official familiar with the case, who asked not to be identified discussing a sensitive matter. “We want to know what really happened here.”The U.S. official said, “It’s not in the U.S. interest to send people back to countries where they’re going to be abused or end up dead.”

Newsweek reveals in passing in the article that the CIA apparently monitors diplomatic assurances for rendered persons.

A CIA spokesman said “it is American policy to seek assurances” from foreign governments that suspects will be well treated. But current and former U.S. counterterrorism officials say such assurances are often perfunctory and rarely put in writing. The CIA has tightened its procedures, directing stations to visit rendered prisoners and personally verify that they have not been mistreated. But it’s unknown how many such visits have been made. A spokesman at Libya’s U.S. embassy said he had “no information.

CCTV has only modest impact on crime prevention

(Panopticon)A Home Office funded review on the effectiveness of CCTV cameras in the fight against crime has found that it has only a ‘modest impact on crime’.

The review, undertaken by the Campbell Collaboration found that the use of CCTV was not effective in cutting vehicle crime in car parks, especially when used alongside improved lighting and the introduction of security guards.

The review’s conclusions are likely to prompt further debate not only on the cost effectiveness of using CCTV as a weapon to cut crime (CCTV is now the single most heavily funded crime prevention measure operating outside the criminal justice system) but also on whether the pervasive use of CCTV within our society can be justified, particularly given its potential to interfere with the right to privacy.  Notably, The Home Office cited the review in the context of its response to the House of Lords Comittee on the Constitution Inquiry into ‘Surveillance: Citizens and the State’ (and see my earlier post on the Committee’s report). In its response, the Home Office stated that:

‘In reviewing existing policies and processes, the Government will seek to ensure that due consideration is given to the following key principles: Are robust safeguards in place to protect the information and indiviudal liberties? Are our plans and actions proportionate to the damage and the threat they are seeking to prevent? Are we being as transparent as possible? Are citizens being given the right amount of choice?‘

The Home Office’s response should be read in conjunction with the Information Commissioner’s response to the Committee’s report which was published in 15 April 2009.