Defence Secretary John Reid yesterday called for more understanding of the pressure British troops face in Iraq. But, as Glen Reynolds argues, the British government should call for the immediate closure of Guantanamo Bay if it is to regain any moral credibility over the war.

IN years to come, people in positions of power and influence may well be asked what action they took over the scar on the conscience of any civilised nation that is Guantanamo Bay, or Camp Delta as it is called.

We do not know, of course, what horrors lie behind the walls of that little part of the United States, and our so-called 'special relationship' with our cousins across the Pond is surely tested as Uncle Sam is becoming more of a moral embarrassment in the international scene.

Last weekend saw a savage attack upon the Bush administration by the Archbishop of York, Dr John Sentamu. The Church of England's second in command likened the failure to close the camp following a recommendation of the United Nations, as reflecting a society that was heading towards something out of George Orwell's Animal Farm, where those in control dictate peace and justice on their own terms.

Dr Sentamu urged the UN Human Rights Commission to take legal action against the United States either through the US courts or the International Court of Justice at The Hague, if the Bush administration fails to act upon the recommendations of five UN inspectors that the camp be closed as it is a place of torture.

In essence, the Bush administration has lost all moral authority and will not be able to argue the moral high ground in future international discussions should it fail to implement those recommendations. As the closest ally of the US, Britain should test the special relationship and speak out openly to demand that the UN recommendation be adopted, and a failure to do so may leave Britain tarred with the dirty brush of the US which appears to disregard international law at a whim.

Dr Sentamu's views followed those of Archbishop Desmond Tutu, the UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, and Peter Hain, who, on BBC's Question Time, confirmed his view that the camp should be closed. There is now a tidal wave of international opinion calling for closure and Britain could be seen as increasingly isolated should we fail to speak out. Further, the British government should ask that a writ of habeas corpus be issued against the US, compelling the Bush administration to bring the prisoners at the camp to trial. The horrors of 9/11 should not mean that international law be broken.

Eight British residents are still held at the camp, with four having been released in March 2004. The US administration claimed that those four were 'enemy combatants', yet when interviewed by British officials, they were released without charge, which may lead us to conclude that the US system of justice as far as Camp Delta is concerned is far from satisfactory. Prime Minister Tony Blair has merely referred to the camp as 'an anomaly', yet this is an outrage that needs to be addressed if an allegation of complicity is to be avoided.

Guantanamo Bay is damaging the reputation of the US, but is also capable of damaging our own reputation, particularly in the Middle East. It is now not simply a matter of moral outrage, but of common sense. Yet it may well be that the camp is the tip of a very murky iceberg. We now know that there are 'ghost camps' operated by the CIA, where deals have been made with despotic regimes to enable suspected terrorists to be detained and probably tortured, outside of US jurisdiction and, for all purposes, beyond the reach of international justice. The extent to which Britain has played a role in such operations with access to airfields, etc, has yet to be fully established.

A recent report from Amnesty International has worryingly confirmed that Britain is getting its hands increasingly dirty when dealing with the issue of torture which is supposed to be banned globally. International law dictates that you do not deport foreign nationals to countries that use torture as a method of interrogation.

So Britain may be in a difficult position if we have helped the US transport suspects to dubious regimes. But what Britain does do, is enter into 'memorandums of understanding' with nations, which means that the nations will not torture the individuals when deported. Yet just how meaningful those understandings are is debatable, especially when those regimes may well disregard human rights and international law. The reality may well be that Britain will turn a blind eye to torture when and where it suits.

States that systematically torture or engage in other forms of ill-treatment also systematically deny that they carry out such practices. Additionally, it is not at all clear how these agreements are monitored or enforced.

One of the key points made in the Amnesty report is that once a powerful country with a history of diplomacy (such as Britain or the US) starts to circumvent international law and is complicit in torture, then other nations will follow.

The recent publication of images in Iraq of civilians being beaten up, and those from Abu Ghraib of prisoner abuse, illustrate just how easy it is for the perpetrator to become the evil they sought to destroy. The British government has a responsibility to protect British citizens from terrorist attacks and should do so in accordance with international law. The recent trial of Abu Hamza illustrated that this can be conducted properly. Making deals with human rights abusers, including the United States, is not the answer. Being tough on terrorism should not mean that you are soft on torture.

If the British government is going to try and recover from an appalling period of PR in terms of Iraq, then making a tough stand against the facilities at Guantanamo Bay will be the perfect example to employ. It has been said that George Bush will never admit to a mistake. It is now the time to admit that the four-year history of the camp has been a mistake which is turning into a huge liability: for the US and, in its complicity, for the British government.

I am probably not alone in saying that when the camp was first publicised, following 9/11, I was not too concerned. But I did not think it was going to be a permanent feature. We should not have to wait for a new, incoming President of the US, to close it. The justifications made for its operation by the US authorities, are becoming increasingly absurd.

Our own Attorney General, Lord Goldsmith, has stated that the system of justice, or rather the lack of it, employed by the US in relation to the detainees 'would not be regarded as acceptable' in any civilised country. This point is probably at the heart of what needs to be done with the liability that is Camp Delta. The United States is being perceived by western civilisation as increasingly uncivilised. If Britain is going to avoid a similar allegation, it needs to speak out, and soon.

* Dr Glen Reynolds is a Darlington councillor and a lawyer for the Campaign Against Arms Trade.