Yesterday, the UK parliament’s Joint Committee on Human Rights published its report into its investigation of the use of information obtained by torture by UK security and intelligence organisations. Its results were not good news for either the UK government who came under criticism for its lack of cooperation with the committee’s investigation or for the UK security and intelligence organisations. The committee also raised the lack of democratic accountability of UK security and intelligence committee and called for the establishment of an independent inquiry.
I searched to see if this was reported on the dailykos, but found no results. If this has already been discussed, I will be happy to delete the diary.
The Joint Committee on Human Rights Report on Torture:
While not formally accusing UK intelligence and security organisations of complicity in torture, the report called for a further investigation into its finding to determine whether or not these organisations are formally complicit in torture and therefore in breach of international humanitarian law.
According to the Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/...), the report defined complicity as:
For the purposes of state responsibility for complicity in torture ... 'complicity' means simply one state giving assistance to another state in the commission of torture, or acquiescing in such torture, in the knowledge ... of the circumstances of the torture which is or has been taking place.
Given clear allegations of serious questionable (to say the least) actions, such as accusations of the "systematic" use of information obtained from torture and the presentation of questions to those conducting torture to be asked of victims, the question of UK government complicity in torture is something that needs to examined and addressed in an independent inquiry.
According to the Guardian, the report formally asked that the government "provide instruction on the detention and interrogation of suspects abroad for use by MI5 and MI6" (http://www.guardian.co.uk/...).
Additionally, the report formally accused the UK government of lack of cooperation with the investigation and stated that its denials of the cooperation of intelligence committees with countries and foreign organisations that were known to engage in torture were just not longer acceptable in the face of evidence and testimony verifying that this had occurred.
According to the Guardian, the report stated that (http://www.guardian.co.uk/...):
[...] foreign and home secretaries had refused three times to give evidence to the committee and that ministers must immediately publish instructions given to MI5 and MI6 officers on the detention and interrogation of suspects abroad.
While the foreign and home office secretaries refused to give evidence, this did not stop the continued denials that nothing had been done that was illegal and a Foreign office minister actually said that British continuing to work with countries and organisations known to conduct torture was legitimate due to national interests and security interests:
The Foreign Office minister Ivan Lewis insisted the UK did not have anything to hide and repeated that Britain did not "engage in, collude with or condone" torture, which he described as "abhorrent".
He said other countries did not always have the same standards as the UK: "We can't possibly stop working with those countries in terms of our national interest or the security interests of British citizens, but we also make it clear in every debate in the international community about acceptable standards that torture can never be justified.
In a wonderful moment of cynical opportunism, William Hague (the shadow foreign secretary of the Tories) stated that if the Tories win the next election an independent inquiry may be held (http://www.guardian.co.uk/...).
More evidence on UK complicity in the torture of Binyam Mohammed:
The Guardian has done an excellent job in helping to keep this discussion and investigation at the forefront of the discussion.
Evidence passed by the Guardian (yes, happily some newspapers still conduct investigative journalism) to the committee indicates that UK Security and Intelligence agencies were aware of (and colluded in) torture and mistreatment of some of those who were initially detained in Pakistan:
The Guardian passed to the committee the names of seven out of 11 British or dual nationals detained in Pakistan where British agencies, it says, colluded in, or knew about, their torture or mistreatment. The newspaper also alerted the committee to the case of Binyam Mohamed, a UK resident who, the high court has heard, was held incommunicado in Pakistan before being tortured in Morocco, Afghanistan, and Guantánamo Bay.
Moreover the Guardian also raised the case of Binyam Mohamed (http://www.guardian.co.uk/...) and only recently revealed that an MI5 agent had actually visited Morocco when Binyam Mohamed was being held and tortured there irrespective of their denials that they had no idea that he was there (http://www.guardian.co.uk/...):
Lawyers acting for MI5 have repeatedly told the high court in London the agency had no idea Mohamed was in Morocco in 2002-03. But documents passed to the court show an MI5 officer, known as Witness B, visited Morocco during that time.
However, according to the Guardian, the MI5 agent had actually interrogated Mohamed when he was being held in Pakistan. It has been speculated by Reprieve (the UK legal charity defending Binyam Mohamed) that he was in Morocco to debrief an informant who had met Mohammed at the secret prison in Morocco:
According to the Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/...),
The judges also revealed that documents show in August 2002 MI5 was "aware that BM was being held in a covert location where he was being debriefed". At that time, the judges add, "direct access was not possible but [MI5] were able to send questions to the US authorities to be put to him.
Later, in April 2003, MI5 requested from the US that Witness B should be allowed to "interview" Mohamed again. It sent a list of 70 questions he should be asked, the documents show. They reveal that the US responded by passing MI5 with answers Mohamed had provided under interrogation.
The judges also revealed that documents show in August 2002 MI5 was ‘aware that BM was being held in a covert location where he was being debriefed’. At that time, the judges add, ‘direct access was not possible but [MI5] were able to send questions to the US authorities to be put to him’.
Later, in April 2003, MI5 requested from the US that Witness B should be allowed to "interview" Mohamed again. It sent a list of 70 questions he should be asked, the documents show. They reveal that the US responded by passing MI5 with answers Mohamed had provided under interrogation.
Conclusion:
Evidence and allegations are mounting and British government denials are just not working anymore. Clearly there is evidence that British nationals were tortured abroad by foreign intelligence agents with information obtained by torture received by UK security and intelligence agents and accusations of UK intelligence agents actually supplying questions for the tortured to be asked. An independent inquiry will enable further investigation of these allegations, determine whether or not there was complicity with torture and hold accountable not only those that passed information and supplied questions, but the government that has enabled these violations of international humanitarian and British law. The time for denial has passed, the information is literally pouring out through the cracks in the wall.