Pontius Pilate washes his hands
The UK unreservedly condemns the use of torture
In 2004 Theo van Boven, the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture, highlighted the link between the ‘war on terror’ and the increased use of torture for interrogation purposes(1). Of all the horror committed in this war, torture reigns. It is used to ‘obtain intelligence’, even though no useful information is ever gained that way. Torturers use it for three reasons: because they can, because they want to and because making the victims say what the torturer wants reinforces their own skewed views. The one thing torture does is to create terror. It has become the supreme terrorism and the United Kingdom is involved.
During the Northern Ireland Troubles, after complaints that the UK was using the ‘Five Techniques’ (wall standing, hooding, subjection to noise, sleep deprivation and food and drink deprivation), an inquiry ruled the techniques illegal under UK domestic law (March 1972). Prime Minister Edward Heath told Parliament: ‘the techniques will not be used in future as an aid to interrogation.’ Directives prohibiting their use were issued to all the security services. During proceedings at the European Court of Human Rights in 1977, the Attorney General on behalf of the UK government stated: ‘They now give this unqualified undertaking, that the ‘five techniques’ will not in any circumstances be reintroduced as an aid to interrogation.’
Two years before this unequivocal statement, the UN brought into being the Convention Against Torture, Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. These acts are illegal under international law. Britain signed and ratified this Convention(2). So what did we see when British troops went into Iraq in 2003? Photos of hooded Iraqi prisoners with all that implied. Since when the UK Government’s refrain has been ‘The UK unreservedly condemns the use of torture’. Who changed the rules?
In September 2003 an Iraqi civilian, Baha Mousa, was killed by British soldiers. Seven were tried. In April 2007 one was sentenced to a year in prison and kicked out of the Army(3). The rest were found not guilty. But already other cases were being brought before the Courts. In March 2008 Defence Secretary Des Browne admitted to ‘substantial breaches’ of the European Convention of Human Rights(4). In May the Government announced there would an inquiry into Mousa’s death and the use of ‘harsh techniques’ by the Army(5). In July the Ministry of Defence agreed to pay compensation to the family of Baha Mousa and nine other men, following an admission of ‘substantive breaches’ of articles 2 and 3 (right to life and prohibition of torture) of the ECHR by the British Army(6). Also in July the Human Rights Joint Committee (HRJC) warned that ‘the use of ‘coercive interrogation techniques’ may have been officially sanctioned, despite assurances that troops knew they were outlawed.’ And they said: ‘the use of hooding and stress positioning by 1 Queen's Lancashire Regiment in 2003 was based on legal advice received from brigade headquarters.’(7)
At the inquiry videos of violent abuse of Iraqi detainees were shown. Damning evidence, struggling to get over what was described as a wall of silence in the Army, was given. Then in March 2010 Army lawyer Lt Colonel Nicholas Mercer gave evidence(8). Witnessing the abuse in Iraq, he had repeatedly warned senior officers; had a ‘massive row’ with the commander of the Queens Dragoon Guards about the army's legal obligations under the Geneva conventions and the European Convention on Human Rights; had walked out of a meeting between British officials and the International Committee of the Red Cross after being told by a ‘political adviser’ to keep his mouth shut. His repeated protests about the unlawful treatment of Iraqis in British custody was so unwelcome within the Ministry of Defence that the head of its legal service threatened to report him to the Law Society. Two weeks later the UK’s most senior military intelligence office told the inquiry that the US had been concerned that British interrogation techniques were ineffective, and asked for harsher methods to be used, even though British soldiers were already acting illegally(9).
The sanctioning of such war crimes came from somewhere. And there is another side to this: Britain’s complicity in torture perpetrated by others. The ‘war on terror’ resulted in thousands being illegally detained and questioned under torture about links with Al Qaeda. Any country wanting US support rushed to supply useless ‘confessions’. Nowhere was this more prevalent than in Uzbekistan under President Karimov. In 2002 Craig Murray was appointed UK Ambassador. For two years he tried to get the British Government to stop accepting information obtained by torture. In 2003, in a meeting at the Foreign & Commonwealth Office (FCO) he was told the information was ‘operationally useful’(10). In other words, although people were dying in horrible circumstances, it helped reinforce the perceived ‘threat’ of terrorism.
Then came the problem of Binyam Mohamed. Arrested in Pakistan, rendered to Morocco where he was tortured, taken to Bagram and finally to Guantanamo where he suffered further abuse. In notes made public by his lawyer Clive Stafford Smith in 2005, Binyam asserted that he had been tortured(11). Asked about the allegations, the FCO said the UK ‘unreservedly condemns the use of torture’. In September 2007 Tarek Dergoul, who was also held in Guantanamo, started a civil action, suing MI5 and MI6(12). He claimed he had been tortured while held by the US, and that British agents knew. The FCO said the UK ‘unreservedly condemns the use of torture.’
In June 2008 the New York Times reported that the UK Government had sent a letter to Clive Stafford Smith, confirming that it had information about Binyam Mohamed's allegations of abuse(13). The following month his lawyers filed a petition in an UK court that the FCO should be compelled to turn over the evidence of Binyam Mohamed's abuse(14). The High Court ruled that the FCO should release the evidence, but Foreign Secretary David Miliband attempted six times to keep it from the public(15). In February 2009 Binyam’s military lawyer, Lt Colonel Yvonne Bradley, interviewed on Channel 4 News, said there was no doubt he had been tortured, and that the US and UK were complicit in that torture(16). On 23 February, after nearly 7 years of imprisonment, Binyam was released and returned to the UK, and the battle went on between the Courts and David Miliband, who fought all the way to prevent evidence of complicity from being made public, because it would spoil the ‘special relationship’ we had with the US. Despite Miliband’s efforts, in February 2010 the FCO released the evidence and the Appeal Court revealed its full judgement on Binyam Mohamed’s case(17).
Lady Manningham-Buller, ex-Director General of MI5, answering questions after a lecture in the House of Lords on 10 March, said that she only discovered alleged 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was waterboarded after retiring in 2007. But Britain knew about the US use of waterboarding. In July 2007, following the Foreign Affairs Select Committee’s report citing US use of water boarding, the BBC reported that David Miliband said it was torture(18) and ‘the UK unreservedly condemns the use of torture’. In February 2008 the US Director of National Intelligence Michael McConnell, told a Senate committee that waterboarding was ‘a legal technique used in a specific set of circumstances’(19). In April 2008 Mr Miliband told the House of Commons: ‘I consider that water-boarding amounts to torture. The UK unreservedly condemns the use of torture.’(20)
MI5 and MI6 have rooms of people trawling the internet, picking up every news report, article and comment. They cannot have missed the evidence of abuse in Abu Ghraib in 2004, the 2004 NY Times article(21) on a CIA review on torture techniques, including waterboarding; another NY Times article in 2005 citing a US Army report detailing two prisoner deaths at Bagram(22); or the Guardian on Binyam Mohamed. And surely they did not miss the 2005 ABC News report detailing the interrogation techniques used by the CIA(23). It is not known when MI5 learnt that the US had changed its rules on torture after the 9/11 attack but the ABC report says that the harsh interrogation techniques were first authorized in mid-March 2002, just before the invasion of Iraq. Nor can focussing on the waterboarding allow the UK Government to ignore other forms of abuse, although David Miliband, increasingly shrill during this period, tried hard to separate torture (which we ‘unreservedly condemn’) from inhuman treatment.
Lady Manningham-Buller also said that, once they knew about the US abuse, the UK had lodged protests with them about their treatment of detainees. But when questioned, the FCO said they could not, at this stage, find any details of protests lodged by the Government with the US over the treatment of detainees – protests about as visible as the rules given to MI5, MI6 and Military Intelligence officers when interrogating prisoners in foreign custody that the Government kept promising to publish.
The result - the frustration and anger displayed in the reports published by the HRJC. In Allegations of UK Complicity in Torture (August 2009) they noted that the Government appeared determined to avoid parliamentary scrutiny on the issue of complicity in torture, and recommended publishing all versions of the guidance given to intelligence and security service personnel about detaining and interviewing individuals overseas. It is not known what rules were in force following 9/11 (and revised in 2004), as the Government refuses to publish them, but the 2004 revision clearly did not pass muster with the UN Committee Against Torture.
Under the Convention Against Torture the UK is obliged to present regular reports. In November 2004, during the UK Examination, Jonathon Spencer spoke for the Government(24). He opened with ‘May I begin by saying that the UK unreservedly condemns the use of torture…’ followed by a series of justifications for UK behaviour. (This included a curious defence of the practice, following the 2001 Anti-terrorism Act, of locking people up without charge or trial. According to Mr Spencer, it was necessary to do this in order to protect the detainees from the torture they would have suffered if the UK had deported them.) In 2006 The Committee issued its response(25) which contained this:
‘Among the Committee's recommendations was for the State party to review, as a matter of urgency, the alternatives available to indefinite detention under the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 and to ensure that the conduct of its officials, including those attending interrogations at any overseas facility, was strictly in conformity with the requirements of the Convention.’ Obviously the UK was not conforming in this respect.
With Binyam Mohamed’s case making so much news, David Miliband and the Home Secretary Alan Johnson wrote to the press(26). ‘The allegation that our security and intelligence agencies have licence to collude in torture is disgraceful, untrue and one we vigorously deny. The Government's clear policy is not to participate in, solicit, encourage or condone the use of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment for any purpose.’ The letter added: ‘When the Intelligence and Security Committee (ISC) has completed its scrutiny of the guidance for agency officers, we will, for the first time, publish that guidance for the country to see.’
The ISC was also having trouble with the Government The Prime Minister had promised a year ago to publish the Draft Guidance on Handling Detainees. As the ISC oversees MI5 and MI6, it had repeatedly asked to be given a copy of the guidance. Having got one it was due to publish its findings on 18 March but the Government delayed again – after it emerged that the ISC had made significant criticisms of the guidelines(27).
Then the HRJC published their latest Counter-Terrorism Policy and Human Rights report(28). They queried the level of threat the Government says Britain is under from terrorism. They pointed out the Committee cannot properly do its work due to the Government’s constant refusal to disclose necessary information. They were politely angry about the current Director General of the Security Services, Jonathon Evans(29) for refusing to appear: ‘We have expressed our disappointment that the Director General is prepared to give interviews to the press and public lectures but is not prepared to give evidence to any parliamentary committee other than in private to the Intelligence and Security Committee.’
They reiterated the clear definitions of complicity in torture. They commented on the ‘evasive’ answers, when they received any, of Government and Security people. And they also said this:
It seems to us that the Minister (in his evidence to us), the Director General of MI5, and both the Home and Foreign Secretaries, in their recent public statements, come very close to saying that, at least in the wake of 9/11, the lesser of two evils was the receipt and use of intelligence which was known, or should have been known, to carry a risk that it might have been obtained under torture, in order to protect the UK public from possible terrorist attack. This is no defence to the charge of complicity in torture…. We cannot find any legal basis for the Government's narrow formulation of the meaning of complicity in its Response to our Report on Complicity in Torture…. The Government's formulation appears to us to be carefully designed to enable it to say that, although it knew or should have known that some intelligence it received was or might have been obtained through torture, this did not amount to complicity in torture because it did not know or believe that such receipt would encourage the use of torture by other States.
So that’s it. From unreservedly condemning the use of torture, the Government now judges itself only to be colluding in torture if it knows it is encouraging other States to torture. It is clear from the Government’s manoeuvrings and evasions that there is something to hide about this country’s complicity in torture. I said torture is the supreme terrorism. But I ask you –
Just who are the terrorists?
Lesley Docksey, Editor Abolish War
Posted on UN Observer http://www.unobserver.com/index.php?pagina=layout5.php&id=7485&blz=1 06/04/10
References:
1. The UN Special Rapporteur on Torture criticises the undermining of the non-refoulement principle and the use of
terrorism as a pretext to justify torture, Statewatch report, 01/09/04
http://www.statewatch.org/analyses/no-39-un-torture.pdf
2. The UN Convention on Torture was signed by the UK on 15 March 1985 and ratified on 8 December 1988
3. Britain's first war criminal jailed, Guardian, 30/04/07
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2007/apr/30/military.iraq
4. MoD admits human rights breaches over death of tortured Iraqi civilian, Independent, 28/03/08
5. Inquiry into Baha Mousa death, Channel 4 news, 14/05/08 http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/world/middle_east/inquiry+into+baha+mousa+death/2195152
6. UK Ministry of Defence agrees to compensate Iraqi torture victims, Amnesty International, 14/07/08
7. Army's torture of prisoners 'had official blessing', Independent, 27/07/08
8. Legal chief tells of killings and torture in early days of invasion, Guardian, 16/03/10
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/mar/16/baha-mousa-inquiry
9. Baha Mousa inquiry: US concerned about 'milder' British methods in Iraq, Guardian, 30/03/10
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/mar/30/baha-mousa-inquiry-interrogation-iraq
10. Murder in Samarkand, Craig Murray, Mainstream Publishing, 2006, pp. 162-164
11. Suspect's tale of travel and torture, Guardian, 02/08/05 http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2005/aug/02/guantanamo.humanrights
12. MI5 and MI6 to be sued for first time over torture, Guardian, 12/09/07 http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2007/sep/12/uk.humanrights
13. Britain Sends Information on Suspect to the U.S, New York Times, 21/06/08 http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/21/world/europe/21gitmo.html
14. Binyam Mohamed High Court case: hearing tomorrow 10am, Reprieve, 28/07/09 http://www.reprieve.org.uk/2009_07_28binyammohamedhighcourthearing
15. Binyam Mohamed case: David Miliband steps up bid to hide proof of torture, Reprieve, 15/12/09 http://www.reprieve.org.uk/2009_12_13binyam_miliband
16. US lawyer: 'Show us Binyam Mohamed torture papers now', Channel 4 News, 09/02/09 http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/politics/international_politics/us+lawyer+show+us+binyam+mohamed+torture+papers+now/2935472
17. Foreign Office releases Binyam Mohamed torture notes, Times, 10/02/10. Secret paragraph in Binyam Mohamed judgment published, Reprieve, 26/02/10 http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article7021530.ece
18. UK 'must check' US torture denial, BBC News, 19/07/08
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7515517.stm
19. Congress Renews Debate Over Waterboarding, PBS Newshour, 08/02/08
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/terrorism/jan-june08/waterboarding_02-08.html
20. 'US Torture Claims Unreliable', Sunday Express, 20/07/08
http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/53250
21. C.I.A. Expands Its Inquiry Into Interrogation Tactics, NY Times, 29/08/04
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/29/world/cia-expands-its-inquiry-into-interrogation-tactics.html?pagewanted=1
22. In U.S. Report, Brutal Details of 2 Afghan Inmates' Deaths, NY Times, 20/05/05 http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/20/international/asia/20abuse.html
23. CIA's Harsh Interrogation Techniques Described, Sources Say Agency's Tactics Lead to Questionable Confessions, Sometimes to Death, ABC News,
18/11/05 http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/Investigation/story?id=1322866
24. http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/cat/docs/UKopening.pdf
25. www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/0/.../$FILE/G0642534.pdf
26. Letters: Security and intelligence agencies Disgraceful claim that secret services collude in torture, Independent, 12/02/10 http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/letters/letters-security-and-intelligence-agencies-1896988.html
27. Row over delay on "torture guidelines" for MI5 and MI6, Telegraph, 18/03/10 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terrorism-in-the-uk/7472138/Row-over-delay-on-torture-guidelines-for-MI5-and-MI6.html
28. Counter-Terrorism Policy and Human Rights (Seventeenth Report): Bringing Human Rights Back In - Human Rights Joint Committee
http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/jt200910/jtselect/jtrights/86/8604.htm
29. The finger is now pointing at this man for changing the rules: Victims target MI5 chief over torture claims, Times, 14/02/10
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article7026296.ece