In the months since the New Statesman first broke the Case of the Contraband Underpants, there have been significant developments in the story. Readers may recall that intrepid US military investigators in Guantanamo Bay thought they had uncovered a plot going to the heart of the war on terror – it was alleged that Reprieve lawyers had smuggled in a pair of Under Armour underpants and some Speedo swimming trunks to a prisoner, Shaker Aamer. Shaker is a British resident from south London who has now endured six years in Guantanamo, denied the fundamental right to microfibre, moisture-wicking undergarments (in addition to the right to be charged, to a trial, to see his family, and so forth).
Heated exchanges followed. The US military (by now renamed the Pantygon around here) levelled the initial allegation. At Reprieve, we insisted the charge was below the belt, noting that Speedos were rather surplus to requirements when the only water that Shaker had access to was in a steel toilet bowl. But it was clear the military deemed underpants to be a major concern in the war on terror. Perhaps they were right. Indeed, underpants have been creeping to the top of the national agenda on other fronts. Recently, Newsnight‘s Jeremy Paxman found that offerings from Marks & Spencer were no longer up to the job, a subject he described as one of “great concern to the men of Britain”.
Content from our partners
