Posts tagged Torture

What and when MI5 knew about torture

What the former MI5 chief Dame Eliza Manningham-Buller and her colleagues knew




What and when MI5 knew about torture

What the former MI5 chief Dame Eliza Manningham-Buller and her colleagues knew




Our secret service agents deserve better | Andrew Tyrie

Dame Eliza was right to speak up for the security services, but only an inquiry will raise morale

The comments by former MI5 head Dame Eliza Manningham-Buller, that the US hid from Britain’s security services the torture they were meting out to detainees, at first blush appear extraordinary. They add to the growing mass of confusing and often contradictory information about Britain’s knowledge of the US’s mistreatment of prisoners. But she has done the right thing by speaking up, even if her remarks pose as many questions as they answer. Only an inquiry can sort this out.

Dame Manningham-Buller’s revelations are bizarre on several counts. First, she said she had expressed surprise in 2002-3 to her staff that the US was able to gain so much information from Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, but accepted as an explanation for his loquacity that he was proudly describing his achievements. Second, when she and the security services finally recognised that the US was, after all, torturing detainees, she said: “We did lodge a protest.”

On the first, it seems odd that it did not occur to the security services that Sheikh Mohammed might have been tortured. By the time of his detention, the Bush administration’s coercive interrogation techniques were already the subject of press comment in the US.

As for the protest, the Foreign Office – the BBC has reported – claims it cannot find any details of it. This is consonant with the shoddy record-keeping over the whole rendition issue. We need to know, once the security services did realise the US was using new interrogation tactics, under what guidelines they were operating. The prime minister promised in March 2009 that these would be published. We’ve still not seen them. Furthermore, it is very unsatisfactory that, having known about mistreatment of detainees and having lodged a protest about such treatment, the government still continues to rely on American assurances about rendition.

We can’t carry on like this. The intelligence and security committee does not seem to have fulfilled its parliamentary role. Did the ISC know about the protest to the US? If it did, it has not told parliament. The revelations reinforce concerns about the ISC’s ability to do its job properly. Reform of the way the committee’s chairman is appointed is essential. A string of appointees has come out of government to chair the committee – only to return to the front bench afterwards. This revolving door should be blocked. The Wright committee’s recommendation that the ISC chairman be elected by MPs, subject to a prime ministerial veto, would bolster accountability.

Whether Britain was complicit or merely ignorant about what was going on is not something that can or should be sorted out as a result of a drip-drip of revelations. Our security services, in particular, deserve better.

As Dame Manningham-Buller said herself, revelations like this will imperil morale; after all, the security services don’t want to be involved in these practices. They are widely held to be counterproductive for obtaining information. The services also want the public to have confidence in them. Accountability is to their benefit. That is why we do them a disservice if we fail to get to the bottom of this. We can then draw a line under this episode and move on. Reading between the lines, I have the impression that this is what Dame Manningham-Buller wants too.

The quickest and most effective way to do this is in a brief, judge-led inquiry. With David Cameron, Nick Clegg, the government’s own independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, Lord Carlile, and many MPs all supporting an inquiry, and Lord Goldsmith also calling for an investigation, only ministers are resisting. Let us hope they soon relent.


guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds



What and when MI5 knew about torture

Timeline of what the former MI5 chief Dame Eliza Manningham-Buller and her colleagues knew

Dame Eliza Manningham-Buller, the head of MI5 throughout most of the years of the so-called war on terror, insisted yesterday that she had not known that Khalid Shiekh Mohammed was being waterboarded.

In a response to the appeal court’s judgment that MI5 officers had a “dubious record” on torture, she sought to blame the US and maintained that only after she retired in 2007 did she discover that the alleged mastermind of the 9/11 attacks had been waterboarded 160 times.

“The Americans were very keen that people like us did not discover what they were doing,” she said. Critics, though, said the former head of the security service was stretching credulity by claiming the matter had come as such a surprise.

10 January 2002 An MI6 officer, carrying out one of the first British interrogations in Afghanistan after 9/11, reports back to London that the individual was mistreated by Americans before the questioning began. The incident is reported by the Intelligence and Security committee (ISC) , the group of MPs and peers that is supposed to provide oversight of MI5 and MI6.

11 January 2002 Every MI6 and MI5 officer in Afghanistan is issued with legal advice stating that they are under no obligation to intervene to prevent torture, as long as the victim is not in UK “custody or control”, but that British intelligence officers “cannot be party to such ill treatment nor can we be seen to condone it”. Critics of MI5 say this advice failed to meet its obligations under international law, and was subsequently used to facilitate torture. Later in the month, the Pentagon releases pictures taken by US navy photographers, showing hooded and shackled detainees being dragged across the ground at the newly opened detention centre at Guantánamo Bay.

April 2002 The CIA hands MI5 more than 50 classified documents that detail the mistreatment of Binyam Mohamed, a British resident detained at Karachi airport in Pakistan on 10 April. A judicial summary of those documents – released by the court of appeal last month after an 18-month battle by the government to conceal it from the public – shows that MI5 knew Mohamed was being “continuously deprived of sleep”, threatened with being “disappeared”, and that this was “having a marked effect upon him and causing him significant mental stress and suffering”.

Manningham-Buller was deputy director general of MI5 at the time the agency received these CIA documents. Having learned the details of Mohamed’s mistreatment, MI5 sends one of its officers, a man known as Witness B, to Karachi to question Mohamed. The high court later concludes: “The probability is that Witness B read the reports either before he left for Karachi or before he conducted the interview … a briefing document was prepared for sending to him.” Witness B is now the subject of a Scotland Yard investigation.

September 2002 MI5 knows that Binyam Mohamed is no longer in Pakistan, having been “rendered” elsewhere, but, the high court later concludes, continues to supply “information as well as questions which they knew were to be used in interview of [Mohamed] from the time of his arrest whilst he was held incommunicado and without access to a lawyer or review by a court or tribunal”.

October 2002 Eliza Manningham-Buller is appointed director general of the Security Service.

4 April 2004 Salahuddin Amin, a terrorism suspect from Luton, is questioned by MI5 officers 11 times after surrendering to a Pakistani intelligence agency whose use of torture is widely documented. An Old Bailey judge later says Amin’s treatment in Pakistan was “physically oppressive” and unlawful, but fell short of torture. Pakistani intelligence officers told Human Rights Watch last year that Amin’s account of being tortured before being questioned by MI5 was “essentially accurate”, and that both British and American officials were “perfectly aware that we were using all means possible to extract information from him and were grateful that we were doing so”.

27 April 2004 Pictures of US troops abusing inmates at Abu Ghraib prison in Baghdad are broadcast on the US television news programme 60 Minutes.

13 May 2004 The New York Times reports that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was subjected to waterboarding by the CIA. The newspaper says it learned this from current and former counter-terrorism officials, and says the FBI has warned its officers not to become involved in interrogations during which waterboarding was employed, after the bureau’s director, Robert Mueller, was warned they could face prosecution. The newspaper adds: “These techniques were authorised by a set of secret rules for the interrogation of high-level Qaeda prisoners, none known to be housed in Iraq, that were endorsed by the Justice Department and the CIA.”

24 May 2004 In an apparent response to the release of the Abu Ghraib pictures, Tony Blair writes to the ISC to tell the committee of changes to the UK interrogation policy that was passed to MI5 officers and MI6 officers in January 2002. One change is that MI5 and MI6 officers are told to inform London whenever they see US counterparts mistreating inmates. They are also told they must not return to question detainees who complain they are being tortured. In practice, according to several torture victims, UK intelligence officers hand over to US interrogators after hearing such a complaint. Other changes to the interrogation policy remain secret. The government refuses to publish the policy, with David Miliband, the foreign secretary, saying that to do so could “give succour” to the UK’s enemies.

22 June 2004 The White House counsel Alberto Gonzalez and the Pentagon general counsel, Jim Haynes, hold a press conference at which they release a series of documents setting out the legal advice justifying the use of abusive interrogation techniques employed at Guantánamo.

15 May 2005 Zeeshan Siddiqui, a terrorism suspect from west London, is arrested in Pakistan, tortured, and then questioned by British intelligence officers. Pakistani intelligence officer later tell Human Rights Watch that these were MI6 officers, who were aware at all times that Siddiqui was being “processed in the traditional way”, and that the British were “effectively” interrogating Siddiqui. When Siddiqui is brought before court, the magistrate orders his immediate hospitalisation. He is eventually deported to the UK and subjected to a control order.

20 August 2005 A medical student from west London is held in a building opposite the British deputy high commission offices in Karachi and tortured, for two months, before being questioned by British intelligence officers. Pakistani agents later tell Human Rights Watch that British officials across the road knew the student was being mistreated and were “breathing down our necks for information”. The student is later released without charge.

7 August 2006 Rashid Rauf, from Birmingham, is arrested in Pakistan for questioning over an alleged plot to blow up several airliners over the Atlantic. He later tells his lawyer he was tortured before being questioned by men with both British and American accents. Human Rights Watch says that both British and Pakistani intelligence officers have told them that he was mistreated.

20 August 2006 An MI6 officer suggests to Pakistani intelligence officers that they might want to detain a British terrorism suspect, Rangzieb Ahmed, after police in Manchester decide to let him leave the UK on a flight to Islamabad. According to statements made in the Commons, Manchester crown court – sitting in secret – learned that UK intelligence officers knew that those Pakistani officials tortured terrorism suspects. MI5 and Greater Manchester police draw up questions to be put to Ahmed, who is beaten, deprived of sleep, and has three of his fingernails removed with pliers.

When Ahmed is deported to the UK to be put on trial, on the basis of evidence largely gathered before he flew to Pakistan, prosecutors attempt to claim that his fingernails were removed before he went to Pakistan. The crown’s own pathologist says the injuries show this is impossible. The judge rules that UK complicity in Ahmed’s torture is not so great that his trial cannot go ahead. The judge’s full ruling on Ahmed’s torture is being kept secret, at the request of the Crown Prosecution Service, following representations by MI5 and Greater Manchester police. Ahmed is now launching an appeal, on the basis of what the judge said in his secret ruling.

23 November 2006 Manningham-Buller tells the ISC that she regrets not asking the CIA for more information about the whereabouts of Binyam Mohamed after he was rendered from Pakistan to Morocco in July 2002. It is a case “where, with hindsight, we would regret not seeking proper full assurances,” she says. In a report published in July 2007, the committee concludes: “Whilst no assurances were sought, this is understandable given the lack of knowledge, at the time, of any possible consequences of US custody of detainees.”

However, almost five years before Manningham-Buller gave evidence to the ISC, MI5 had given its officers legal advice that facilitated the questioning of people being tortured. This was done after the service had been made aware, by an MI6 officer, that detainees were being mistreated. The ISC had been told about this legal advice – and the reasons it was issued – in September 2004, almost three years before it reported that a lack of knowledge of the mistreatment of detainees by the US authorities was understandable.

27 October 2006 The US vice-president, Dick Cheney, confirms that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was subjected to waterboarding, telling an interviewer that the use of the technique was a “no-brainer”, and that “our ability to interrogate high-value detainees like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed – that’s been a very important tool that we’ve had to be able to secure the nation.” This is widely reported on both sides of the Atlantic.

21 April 2007 Manningham-Buller steps down as director-general of the Security Service.

15 October 2009 Manningham-Buller’s successor, Jonathan Evans, defends MI5’s co-operation with intelligence agencies known to use torture, saying that it thwarted many terrorist attacks after 9/11 and saved British lives. “In my view we would have been derelict in our duty if we had not worked, circumspectly, with overseas liaisons who were in a position to provide intelligence that could safeguard this country from attack,” he says.


guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds



Tortured logic of intelligence chief | Vikram Dodd

Former MI5 head Eliza Manningham-Buller says she did not know about mistreatment of terror suspects. Wasn’t she reading the papers?

To be fair to Britain’s security services, the gathering of intelligence can be the most difficult of jobs.

The claim on Wednesday from the former head of MI5, Eliza Manningham-Buller, that the US hid from the UK security services the torture they were meting out to the Muslim men they had labelled terrorists, comes as a bit of surprise. In a lecture given in the Palace of Westminster, she related:

“I said to my staff, ‘Why is he [Khalid Sheikh Mohammed] talking?’ because our experience of Irish prisoners and terrorists was that they never said anything …
“They said the Americans say he is very proud of his achievements when questioned about it. It wasn’t actually until after I retired that I read that, in fact, he had been waterboarded 160 times.”

She went on to claim that “The Americans were very keen that people like us did not discover what they were doing.”

It did not require a high degree of James Bond-style espionage for MI5 to realise – much earlier than she says it did – that Guantánamo and other US sites were places where torture was practised.

Before her retirement in 2007, then, all that Ms Manningham-Buller needed to have been doing was read a decent newspaper or use a web search, either of which would have produced headlines and articles that would have pricked the curiosity of even the dullest of minds. Never mind those who see themselves as among the sharpest and brightest.

So, for the benefit of the former intelligence chief, the list of reporting of disturbing allegations and evidence of torture employed by the US and its allies in the war on terror starts here – but please add your own in the thread below:

Guardian: Father fears for son held by US in Afghanistan, 10 February 2003

Guardian: Briton held as terror suspect says CIA threatened torture, 4 October 2003

Guardian: Officials ‘knew of beatings at Guantánamo’, 15 May 2004

Observer: US guards ‘filmed beatings’ at terror camp, 16 May 2004

New York Times: Threats and responses: The interrogations; Account of plot sets off debate over credibility, 17 June 2004

Guardian: US abuse could be war crime, 5 August 2004

Times: Britons accuse US Government of ‘torture’ at Guantánamo Bay, 28 October 2004

Times: Guantánamo report reveals ‘torture’, 1 December 2004

Guardian: Guantánamo Briton ‘in handcuff torture’, 2 January 2005

Independent: My nightmare of torture and assault, by Briton held in Guantánamo, 30 January 2005

Washington Post: Va. terror suspect testifies to torture, 20 October 2005

Guardian: Hunger strikers allege ‘force feed torture’ at Guantánamo, 21 October 2005

Guardian: Torture claims ‘forced US to cut terror charges’, 25 November 2005

ABC News: History of an interrogation technique: Waterboarding, 29 November 2005

Telegraph: Torture law victory for terror suspects, 9 December 2005

Guardian: US accused of using gangster tactics over terror suspects, 25 January 2006

Washington Post: Guantánamo force-feeding tactics are called torture, 1 March 2006

Guardian: Evidence against terror suspect extracted by torture, hearing told, 10 May 2006

Times: Bush admits that terrorist suspects were held in secret prison network, 7 September 2006

Guardian: Cheney condemned for backing water torture, 28 October 2006


guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds



Torture and the crimes of history: not too much masochism please | Michael White

Openness and transparency exact a price in terms of public confidence in institutions, a price that may eventually lead to a reaction

What caught my eye in today’s papers was not ex-M15 head Eliza Manningham-Buller’s admission that she was ignorant of the Bush administration’s 9/11 torture policy, welcome though that was. No, it was Lizzy Davies’s report that light is finally being shown on a far more shameful chapter in French history.

You probably know a little about it, as most French people do – and will now know more because of the acclaimed new film, La Rafle du Vel d’Hiv – The Winter Velodrome Raid. Jacques Chirac apologised for what happened in 1995, but it has always been murky.

The film tells the story of the 1942 round-up by French police of 13,000 French Jews and their dispatch to their deaths, most of them, in German concentration camps. They were held initially at the sports site in the Paris suburbs; hence the film’s name.

There’s no point in being smug about this. The story of the German occupation of France is complex, full of heroism as well as shades of villainy and complicity – as director Rose Bosch shows in her film.

No, the question is one of transparency, of confronting our own uncomfortable past, collective and personal. It’s never easy. France buried the occupation after the liberation of 1944, as Spain did its own civil war horrors – until very recently.

Marcel Ophüls’s The Sorrow and the Pity attempted to address crucial issues, including collaboration and antisemitism (“better Hitler than [the French Jewish politician Léon] Blum” was a slogan of the 30s), in 1969. It was banned on French TV until 1981.

Would the British have done any better if occupied? Do we sufficiently confront our own past? Tricky questions, as last night’s Manningham-Buller speech to a meeting in the House of Lords underlines.

“We did lodge a protest,” she said without further elaboration.

The Americans are our allies and we were facing a terrorist threat whose scope and power we could not easily judge. The Bush White House opted for the doubtful expediency of waterboarding and other practices, many of which must be regarded as torture.

What did we know and when did we know it, are questions the Guardian and others have been asking.

Similar dilemmas were agonised over the western alliance with Stalin in 1941-45. By then enough was known about the Great Terror and other horrors to make the partnership an act of uneasy expediency.

Ah yes, but what about our own crimes? 20th century dictators sometimes claimed only to be taking the racist and imperialist fantasies of the “liberal democracies” to a more robust conclusion because they were in a hurry to catch up. Alas, there is some truth in it.

Did we not learn during the Haiti earthquake that vicious reparations (for the loss of slave property and land) imposed by republican France helped cripple the island state for most of its history? What about British troops conduct during the Mau Mau emergency in Kenya? And in the bloody retreat from Aden, now South Yemen, in 1968, about which the Times has been reporting lately?

By coincidence this week has seen two stabs at important revisionism come to my attention. On Radio 4’s Today programme an Indian politician and historian called Jaswant Singh discussed his book on Muhammed Ali Jinnah with expat British writer William Dalrymple. The founder of Pakistan has been “horrifyingly caricatured” by history, according to Dalrymple.

I don’t know the truth of the matter, but had always gone along with the consensus that made Gandhi and Nehru the heroes of Indian independence in 1947, and the intractable Jinnah the bad guy who insisted on a separate Muslim state, now two, where federalism would have been a better solution.

Singh, who must be a Sikh (millions were forced to flee Pakistani Punjab), says otherwise, that the usual mixture of miscalculation, impatience (not least bankrupt Britain’s to quit India), and personalities all played their part. Needless to say his book has been attacked in Hindu India and its author ostracised.

Our version comes from Freedom at Midnight, with which Lord Mountbatten, the last viceroy, cooperated, Dalrymple explained. It is also the basis for Richard Attenborough’s Oscar-winning biopic Gandhi, where General Reginald Dyer (Edward Fox) gets a kicking for his role in the 1919 Amritsar massacre.

There was a lot of trouble at home and in India about that. The official inquiry said 379 demonstrators were shot by British troops, 200 injured. Indians put the figure at 1,000 dead, 500 injured. The issue is unresolved except in the sense that it contributed to the loss of authority which was fast destroying the Raj.

The second controversy worth checking out is far vaster in scale: the Turkish massacres of Armenians within the tottering Ottoman empire in 1915 that Norman Stone, brilliant and provocative as ever, asserts it was not genocide. Readers take him to task on the need to confront the past today.

Brilliant he may be, but I suspect that Stone, an ex-Oxford history professor now teaching in Ankara, is overstating his case for the defence for an ethnic cleansing policy in which an alleged 1.5 million people died.

But the issue reverberates today because the US Congress and the EU are threatening a major rift with the key Nato ally in the region by pressing genocidal guilt on the Middle East’s only successful, secular Muslim state – just as it totters between east and west, Islam and modernity.

Just so Muhammed Ali Jinnah’s reputation. India heads for 10% annual growth and superpower status while Pakistan is – to quote an Anglo-Asian playwright – “sodomised by religion” and other problems. Divided Kashmir, part of the legacy of 1947, remains a focus of profound tensions expressed in last year’s Bombay bombs.

And little old us? My working assumption is that Britain has confronted its imperial demons better than France, partly because history was kinder, partly because the Anglo-Saxons have a stronger instinct for what we now call openness and transparency.

So it is hard to imagine Pontecorvo’s great 1966 film The Battle of Algiers doing as well at the Cannes film festival so close to the Algerian war it brutally depicts (torture and all) as the Oscar-winning Hurt Locker and films like it have done so close to the Iraq war. Indeed, it was banned for five years.

But openness and transparency exact a price in terms of public confidence in institutions, a price that may eventually lead to a reaction. So my other hunch is that in Britain we have reached a stage where we may just be overdoing the masochism strategy, the self-flagellation, in our dissection of this and many aspects of public policy. The destruction of trust is corrosive.

In matters of knowledge, complicity and cover-ups involving sexual abuse of children, popes, past and present, have a great deal more to account for than Manningham-Buller, the current pope’s brother too judging by today’s reports from that Catholic boarding school in Bavaria.

But the Catholic church knows how to take the long view, keep things in perspective and play hardball when it has to. That must be why it’s still standing.


guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds



UK complained to US about terror suspect torture, says ex-MI5 boss

• Waterboarding of 9/11 suspect was ‘concealed’
• Manningham-Buller criticises Bush staff

The government protested to the US over the torture of terror suspects, the former head of MI5, Dame Eliza Manningham-Buller revealed last night.

She also said the Americans concealed from Britain the waterboarding of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the alleged mastermind of the September 2001 attacks.

“The Americans were very keen that people like us did not discover what they were doing,” Lady Manningham-Buller told a meeting at the House of Lords.

She also admitted MI5 were slow to recognise that the US was torturing detainees. Asked if Britain protested, she replied: “We did lodge a protest.” She declined to elaborate but it is believed that the protests were made at ministerial level.

Manningham-Buller was answering questions after delivering a lecture in parliament sponsored by the Mile End study group set up by Queen Mary, University of London.

She said that in 2002 or 2003 she questioned how the US was able to supply Britain with intelligence gleaned from Sheikh Mohammed.

“I said to my staff, ‘Why is he talking?’ because our experience of Irish prisoners and terrorists was that they never said anything,” she said.

“They said the Americans say he is very proud of his achievements when questioned about it. It wasn’t actually until after I retired that I read that, in fact, he had been waterboarded 160 times,” Manningham-Buller said.

She criticised senior figures in the Bush administration, including the president himself, Dick Cheney, the vice-president, and Donald Rumsfeld, the defence secretary for their attitude towards the treatment of terror suspects. She added: “Nothing, even saving lives, justifies torture.”

Referring to criticism of MI5, and notably evidence in the mistreatment of the UK resident Binyam Mohamed, she said in her speech: “The allegations of collusion in torture and lack of respect for human rights will wound [MI5 officers] personally and collectively and, in some respects, whether proven or not, will make it harder for them to do their job.”

Last month, Lord Neuberger, the master of the rolls, said MI5’s insistence in a court case that it was unaware of the harsh treatment of some detainees held overseas in CIA custody was unreliable.

Manningham-Buller confirmed that Britain was aware of mistreatment cases before she left office.

In an original draft of a ruling, Neuberger also criticised MI5’s supposed lax attitude toward the mistreatment of detainees. Manningham-Buller’s successor as MI5 director, Jonathan Evans, has rejected the claims, and warned that the courts risk being exploited by those seeking to undermine British counterterrorism work.

But Manningham-Buller said she believes the allegations of complicity in torture could disrupt the future work of MI5 staff.

She spent 33 years in British intelligence, and was head of MI5 between 2002 and 2007. She said British spies are proud to be quietly effective, unlike the “gung-ho UK” intelligence officers portrayed in TV dramas.

“One of the sad things is Cheney, Rumsfeld and Bush all watched 24.” Manningham-Buller said, referring to the popular TV show about a counterterrorist agent. She said future terrorist attacks would involve chemical, biological and radioactive weapons. “After the next terrorist attack, there will be cause for fresh legislation, which should be resisted. The criminal law as it stands is enough. We have masses of legislation that deals with terrorism.”

She predicted the parliamentary intelligence and security committee, which was heavily criticised recently for its failure to hold MI5 to account, would be turned into a fully-fledged committee in the House of Commons.


guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds



Troops face tougher training to deter abuse of civilian detainees

• Abuse ‘not only wrong but self-defeating’, says Rammell
• MoD to set up special unit to investigate Iraq allegations

Training of British soldiers is to be improved to avoid abuse of civilian detainees and better reflect the demands of future warfare, the government disclosed today.

In a related development, the Ministry of Defence is setting up a special unit to investigate all allegations of abuse of Iraqis by UK troops. The Iraq historic allegations team is a response to the MoD’s failure to deal with a string of complaints from lawyers representing former detainees.

The moves were announced today by Bill Rammell, the armed forces minister, on the eve of the opening of a new public inquiry into claims that British soldiers murdered and mistreated Iraqi prisoners.

“Fighting amongst the people and under judgment of the people in very difficult circumstances has become the norm, and it is increasingly likely to be that way,” Rammell told the Royal United Services Institute. “How our forces opereate in a cluttered and confusing environment will impact on support from civilians in theatre and support at home.”

He added: “More than ever before, the abuse of detainees, mistreatment of civilians and the unnecessary destruction of property or livelihood an tragic loss of civilian life – these are not only wrong but self-defeating.”

The armed forces “do not always recruit angels”, Rammell said, stressing the need for robust training for recruits who would need “to display aggression and single-mindedness in battle, coupled with self-control, judgment and sensitivity to situation and context”.

The MoD has hired a former senior police officer of the Inspectorate of Constabulary, Mark Lewindon, to monitor its training policy. It will also draw up a new report updating a study by Brigadier Robert Aitken, the army’s director of army personnel strategy, two years ago.

His report identified serious failings in army training and planning for the invasion of Iraq and its aftermath – failings since highlighted by the Chilcot inquiry. It was ordered after a number of cases alleging ill-treatment by British troops, notably the death of Baha Mousa, a Basra hotel receptionist, in September 2003.

He suffered 93 injuries while in British custody. Eight other Iraqi civilians were abused.

The Mousa case is the subject of a public inquiry which has heard evidence that British troops and their officers ignored, misunderstood, or were simply unaware of “five techniques” – wall-standing, hooding, subjection to noise, sleep deprivation, and deprivation of food and drink.

Though these were banned by the British government in 1972 following their use in Northern Ireland, Aitken found they were still not proscribed in the army’s military doctrine.

Rammell referred today to these “proscribed technques”. However, he added that “no one should jump to the conclusion that every allegation is true”, and that there was “no evidence whatsoever of a culture of widespread abuse of detainees by British service personnel”.

He said if allegations that British troops murdered and mutiliated up to 20 Iraqis after a fierce fight, known as the “battle for Danny Boy“, near the town of Majar-al-Kabir in Maysan province, north of Basra, in May 2004, were true, they must have been involved in a “massive conspiracy”.

Ministers and defence officials have always insisted that the allegations are false. However, the government was pressed by the courts to set up a public inquiry as it had failed to meet Human Rights Act obligations for a timely and independent investigation for alleged wrongdoing by agents of the state, including soldiers.

The inquiry into allegations made by six Iraqis including Khuder al-Sweady, uncle of teenager Hamid al-Sweady, one of the 20 who died during the Danny Boy incident, opens in London tomorrow.

The MoD belatedly disclosed crucial documents about the case to the high court. Contrary to evidence in court from MoD officials, the Iraqis had complained to the Red Cross about their treatment shortly after the incident, and that was known by ministers, the high court heard in pre-inquiry hearings last year.

“My greatest fear is that uncertainty created by these unproven allegations risks unfairly undermining the reputation and achievements of our armed forces,” Rammell said today.


guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds



Letter: Threat to what is left of legal aid

Eleven years ago you published a letter from me alongside a letter from Derry Irvine, the then lord chancellor, about the proposals for legal aid in the Access to Justice Act 1999. I said the Labour party was bringing in a false internal market. Lord Irvine said his act would result in more legal aid spending and increased access to justice.

As a result of the act, the Legal Services Commission was set up to replace the Legal Aid Board. Ten years of massively decreasing access to justice for poor and vulnerable people followed, with many legal-aid firms closing. This was not simple cost-cutting, since it was accompanied by irritating rebranding (“public funding” instead of “legal aid”), constant changes, pilot projects, failed proposals about “best value competitive tendering” and endless bureaucracy. My firm stopped doing areas of work such as immigration and welfare law because we could not afford to go on doing them. Now you report (3 March) that the current lord chancellor, Jack Straw, has decided to abolish the Legal Services Commission and hand it over to an executive agency of the government.

One of the positive aspects of the commission has been its willingness to stand up to government. For example, it has funded the cases against the government brought by ex-Guantánamo detainees alleging complicity in torture (I am acting for one of them, Martin Mubanga). The government would desperately like to see an end to this. If Jack Straw rushes through parliament proposals to put legal aid decisions in the hands of government, the Labour party will finally be destroying what is left of the best legal aid system in the world.

Louise Christian

Christian Khan


guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds



Man claiming torture believes British agent was present, court hears

Mohammed Madni’s lawyers say he heard an English accent during his rendition and imprisonment by the US

A man allegedly sent for torture in Egypt via a British territory believes he was interrogated by a UK intelligence officer during his ordeal, the high court heard today.

In a case with parallels to that of Binyam Mohamed, the court heard that Mohammed Madni, another former detainee at Guantánamo Bay, had described being questioned at the US base in Cuba by a man claiming to be from an American intelligence organisation.

“He said he was from the National Security Council, but [Madni] said he spoke with an English accent,” Lord Justice Toulson told the court during a summary of the evidence.

The government suffered embarrassment last month when senior judges cast doubt on claims that MI5 officers knew nothing about the mistreatment of UK resident Mohamed while he was in American custody.

In a further echo of the case Madni’s lawyers alleged that the government had been extremely obstructive.

Nathalie Lieven QC, for Madni, said that after weeks of insisting they could locate no files relevant to the case, government lawyers emailed at 5.20pm yesterday – less than 18 hours before the hearing – to say they did possess “documents which have a bearing (to use a neutral phrase) on whether any British or American authorities were mixed up in wrongdoing against the claimant”.

This was “entirely new and highly significant”, Lieven said, and it was extraordinary for the government to change its view so late.

David Perry QC, for the government, rejected this: “I do not accept that there is any suggestion that there has been the withholding of any material that should have been disclosed to the claimant.”

Madni, who has joint Pakistani-Egyptian nationality, was arrested in Indonesia in 2002 and sent to Egypt where, he alleges, he was tortured during three months of detention, including with psychiatric drugs and electric shocks.

The rendition flight to Egypt on a private jet – Madni says he was shackled, hooded and placed lying down inside a wooden box throughout, bleeding from his mouth, nose and ears – stopped to refuel midway. The charity Reprieve, which represents Madni, says the stopover was at Diego Garcia, the British Indian Ocean territory where the US has a military airbase.

In 2008 the foreign secretary, David Miliband, admitted that two US rendition flights had stopped off on the island, without identifying the suspects involved.

After further detention in Aghanistan and Guantánamo, during which he attempted suicide, Madni was released without charge to Pakistan last year. He says he has no terrorist connections and was “in the wrong place at the wrong time”.

His lawyers asked the high court to rule on whether the foreign secretary should order the release of government documents that could help Madni identify those involved in his rendition and torture.

Toulson, sitting with Mr Justice Owen, ruled that Madni’s lawyers must first argue the grounds for their case before it can be made formally.

There is now no real possibility of the case being completed before a general election. In a statement, Reprieve said there had nonetheless been significant progress. “After months of denials the government has finally conceded that it has discovered documents relevant to the rendition to torture of Mr Madni.”

The group welcomed the court’s decision to allow a so-called special advocate, a security-cleared lawyer permitted to view secret government documents, to represent Madni. “We hope that this will help clarify the many mysteries that remain in his case,” a spokeswoman said.

A Foreign Office spokesman said: “Far from being a cover-up, our approach shows the importance we attach both to ensuring the court has the material it needs, but also to ensuring that classified material remains classified.” The government had not given permission for the two US rendition flights through Diego Garcia in 2002 and had very little information about them, the spokesman said.


guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds