I would like to thank R Metson for replying to my correspondence (Letters, April 4) about why Omar Deghayes has not yet been released from Guantanamo Bay and for his interest in Omar's case.

However, while Mr Metson has obviously followed the coverage in The Argus, he has managed to misconstrue a number of key facts and in so doing has cast suspicion upon a man who, because he is incarcerated in a prison thousands of miles away, is not able to answer these accusations for himself.

I will try to put the record straight in this letter but this is, of course, a far cry from the fair trial or public hearing that anyone held in jail for more than four years really deserves.

Mr Metson states that Omar is:

  • "Required for questioning in connection with the Madrid bombings".
  • He has "twice refused to have a British passport".
  • Is "not a British resident nor Brighton his home".
  • For clarity, I'll respond to these points in turn: First, the bombing of the suburban commuter train into Madrid, a shocking event which killed 191 people and is widely regarded as a reaction to Spanish involvement in the Iraq war, occurred on March 11, 2004.

Omar had already been in Guantanamo for the best part of two years and he was imprisoned in Bagram before the Iraq war had even begun.

Furthermore, it should be noted that none of the British residents in Guantanamo are regarded by British security forces as having links with any terrorist groups that would warrant their surveillance should they be returned to Britain.

Put simply, Omar is not considered by British officials to be a terrorist.

Second, rather than refusing a British passport, Omar's application for full citizenship was being processed and was, indeed, all paid for at the time he was kidnapped fleeing Afghanistan in 2001 by bounty hunters making money off the back of US paranoia.

Finally, Omar is a British resident.

This is the technical term for someone who has residency status but not full nationality.

It is the description accepted and used by House of Lords, which is now looking at the case for compelling the British Government to intervene to bring Omar back home to Britain.

It has already been accepted in the High Court that there are strong "moral, if not legal, arguments that the home of a refugee is the place that once offered them refuge" - which is to say that "home" for Omar is Britain and Brighton.

I hope this clears up any of Mr Metson's misunderstandings.

All these details are important but not more than the point I wanted to make in my initial letter: there is no good reason why Omar is still in Guantanamo Bay.

  • Louise Purbrick, Luther Street, Brighton