torture

Craig Murray, the former British ambassador to Uzbekistan, has given evidence to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights. It was something he had been struggling to do so actually being able to sit in front of a Parliamentary committee and demonstrate that the UK government regularly received intelligence obtained by torture was something of an achievement. Craig Murray was sacked from his job as a UK ambassador for raising the alarm about our government's complicity with torture. He has been smeared by New Labour and attempts have been made to censor his writing.

Mr Murray's appearance before the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights is now available to watch on YouTube.

The Iraqi government is set to execute 128 prisoners, in batches of 20. The death penalty was brought in because of the very high level of disorder, and it clearly hasn't solved anthing. How exactly is the threat of the death penalty supposed to deter a suicide bomber, for example?

The government isn't releasing the names of the prisoners or any details of their trials, just like the old regime.

The IHT has a fasciniating article about the interrogation of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed. It decribes how torture was used 'In a makeshift prison in the north of Poland'... 'A paramilitary team put on the pressure, using cold temperatures, sleeplessness, pain and fear to force a prisoner to talk. When the prisoner signaled assent, the tormenters stepped aside.'

'the agency made the momentous decision to use harsh methods the United States had long condemned. With little research or reflection, it borrowed its techniques from an American military training program modeled on the torture repertories of the Soviet Union and other cold-war adversaries, a lineage that would come to haunt the agency.'

"Poland is the 51st state," one former CIA official recalls James Pavitt, then director of the agency's clandestine service, declaring. "Americans have no idea."

 I saw this sign outside the EU Charlemagne building, the slogan reads "Torture is unacceptable", "Fighting Torture Together"

No mention of the several European states involved in secret rendition flights, or the secret prisons in some European countries where suspects were tortured. Berlaymonster should make something of this.

Once again the British government responds to allegations of torture - This time by a former SAS soldier by a serious investigation issuing a gagging order against him.

In this move we turn from being a modern state and debase ourselves down to the standards of a tinpot dictator.

This is not the action of a govenrment with nothing to hide.

*UPDATE* Full Statement

This statement was prepared and read by Ben Griffin, ex-SAS soldier, at a press conference on Monday 25 February 2008.

Our government would have us believe that our involvement in the process known as Extraordinary Rendition is limited to two occasions on which planes carrying detainees landed to refuel on the British Indian Ocean Territory, Diego Garcia. David Miliband has stated that the British Government expects the Government of the United States to “seek permission to render detainees via UK territory and airspace, including Overseas Territories; that we will grant that permission only if we are satisfied that the rendition would accord with UK law and our international obligations; and how we understand our obligations under the UN Convention Against Torture¹.” (Taken from a statement given to the House of Commons by the Foreign Secretary David Miliband on Thursday 21 February 2008)

The use of British Territory and airspace pales into insignificance in light of the fact that it has been British soldiers detaining the victims of Extraordinary Rendition in the first place. Since the invasion of Afghanistan in the autumn of 2001 UKSF has operated within a joint US/UK Task Force. This Task Force has been responsible for the detention of hundreds if not thousands of individuals in Afghanistan and Iraq. Individuals detained by British soldiers within this Task force have ended up in Guantanamo Bay Detention Camp, Bagram Theatre Internment Facility, Balad Special Forces Base, Camp Nama BIAP and Abu Ghraib Prison.

Whilst the government has stated its desire that the Guantanamo Bay detention camp be closed, it has remained silent over these other secretive prisons in Iraq and Afghanistan. These secretive prisons are part of a global network in which individuals face torture and are held indefinately without charge. All of this is in direct contravention of the Geneva Conventions, International Law and the UN Convention Against Torture.

Early involvement of UKSF in the process of Extraordinary Rendition centres around operations carried out in Afghanistan in late 2001. Of note is an incident at the Qalai Janghi fortress, near Mazar-i-Sharif. UKSF fought alongside their US counterparts to put down a bloody revolt by captured Taliban fighters. The surviving Taliban fighters were then rendered to Guantanamo Bay.

After the invasion of Iraq in 2003 this joint US/UK task force appeared. Its primary mission was to kill or capture high value targets. Individuals detained by this Task Force often included non-combatants caught up in the search for high value targets. The use of secret detention centres within Iraq has negated the need to use Guantanamo Bay whilst allowing similar practice to go unnoticed.

I have here an account taken from an interpreter interviewed by the organisation Human Rights Watch (http://hrw.org/reports/2006/us0706/2.htm). He was based at the detention and interrogation facility within Camp Nama at Baghdad International Airport during 2004. This facility was used to interrogate individuals captured by the joint US/UK Task Force. In it are the details of numerous breaches of the Geneva Convention and accounts of torture. These breaches were not the actions of rogue elements the abuse was systematic and sanctioned through the chain of command. This account is corroborated by an investigation carried out by NYT reporters into Camp Nama and the US/UK Task Force, which appeared in the New York Times on March 19 2006. Throughout my time in Iraq I was in no doubt that individuals detained by UKSF and handed over to our American colleagues would be tortured. During my time as member of the US/UK Task Force, three soldiers recounted to me an incident in which they had witnessed the brutal interrogation of two detainees. Partial drowning and an electric cattle prod were used during this interrogation and this amounted to torture. It was the widely held assumption that this would be the fate of any individuals handed over to our America colleagues. My commanding officer at the time expressed his concern to the whole squadron that we were becoming “the secret police of Baghdad”.

As UK soldiers within this Task Force a policy that we would detain individuals but not arrest them was continually enforced. Since it was commonly assumed by my colleagues that anyone we detained would subsequently be tortured this policy of detention and not arrest was regarded as a clumsy legal tool used to distance British soldiers from the whole process.

During the many operations conducted to apprehend high value targets numerous non-combatants were detained and interrogated in direct contravention of the Geneva Convention regarding the treatment of civilians in occupied territories. I have no doubt in my mind that non-combatants I personally detained were handed over to the Americans and subsequently tortured.

The joint US/UK Task Force has broken International Law, contravened The Geneva Conventions and disregarded the UN Convention Against Torture. British soldiers are intimately involved in the actions of this Task Force. Jack Straw, Margaret Beckett David Miliband, Geoff Hoon, Des Browne, Tony Blair, Gordon Brown. In their respective positions over the last five years they must know that British soldiers have been operating within this joint US/UK task force. They must have been briefed on the actions of this unit.

As the occupiers of Iraq we have a duty to uphold the law, to abide by the Geneva Conventions and the UN Convention Against Torture. We are also responsible for securing the borders of Iraq on all counts we have failed. The British Army once had a reputation for playing by the rules. That reputation has been tarnished over the last seven years. We have accepted illegality as the norm. I have no doubt that over the coming months and years increasing amounts of information concerning the actions of British soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan will be become public.

Whilst the majority of British Forces have been withdrawn from Iraq, UKSF remain within the US/UK Task Force.

¹Torture, according to the United Nations Convention Against Torture, is "any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession.”

Ben Griffin
25 February 2008

Oh dear. After Jack Straw gave us all the details about rendition, it seems Condi has dropeed him and Milliband in it again.

A British overseas base was used for American "torture" flights the Government has been forced to admit, despite categorical denials of British involvement from both Tony Blair and Jack Straw.

More worryingly, the story continues:

Mr Miliband made clear that the Government expected the US to seek permission if it wanted to render terrorist suspects through UK territory and airspace.

He said that permission would only be granted if the Government was satisfied that it was in accord with British law and the UK's international obligations, including those under the United Nations Convention Against Torture.

Translation: Rendition will continue.

It has just been discovered that the CIA has quietly destroyed all it's tapes of torture (or enhanced interrogation with water sports if you're on message) including the use of waterboarding.

I'm willing to wager that someone in the organisation has copied a couple for their own private enjoyment. But it is yet another reminder of the moral black hole New Labour has sucked us into.

Meanwhile we're going for 42 days imprisonment without charge. apparently we must do this right away because there may be a case at some point in the future that may require it.

This makes no sense whatsoever. Why not 40? 45? 100?

No, all this has started because Gordon wants to look big and tough after being outed as a dithering wimp with too many people around him grabbing illicit cash from brown paper bags. Thus is terrorism and security policy written.

In the meantime an article, from a Russian dissident on the effect torture has on the practicing institution is worth reading.

Could it be that Kim Howells actually got something right when he spoke of the UK's and Saudi Arabia's "shared values"? No, I don't think so either but bear with me.

On the face of it, it would seem not, and this is yet another asinine statement from the Foreign Office minister who has few equals when it comes to talking utter crap. What could we possibly have in common with a despotic regime like Saudi Arabia that beheads its subjects and even forbids women from driving? But when you add New Labour into the equation, one can't help wondering if he doesn't have a point. With New Labour in power there are indeed some values that are shared by the two kingdoms. State corruption is one; unaccountable government is another and supporting America's wars is yet another. And let's not forget the shared enthusiasm for torture and the erosion of civil liberties (not that Saudi Arabia has any civil liberties to erode). So perhaps Howells' statement would have been more accurate if he had emphasised the shared values of New Labour and the House of Saud because I doubt that the people of the UK really do have the same values as that despotic regime.

There's another part of Howells' statement that doesn't stand up to scrutiny and that's the bit about "The case for working together to safeguard our security". We were told that the reason why the police investigation into BAE corruption with Saudi Arabia had to be halted was because of the co-operation and intelligence we were getting from the regime in The War Against Terror (TWAT).

Now we are hearing that the Saudi government did indeed supply the UK with information which might have prevented the attacks of July 7 2005.

Well, until we get a proper inquiry into 7/7, we won't know if that's true. Britain is of course denying that any such information was received (in which case we may as well re open the BAE corruption investigation) and the ill-advised state visit is now looking like a bit of a shambles with even David Miliband finding he has more pressing engagements than talking to the Saudis. King Abdullah has now hilariously accused Britain of not taking the War on Terror seriously, this from the country that spawned Bin Laden and 15 of the 9/11 hijackers.

So in the light of all this, it would seem then that Kim Howells is yet again talking crap.

Excellent news from across the pond - Bush's personal smokescreen, Alberto Gonzales, a man for whom the list of offences to be taken into consideration extends into treble figures, has resigned.  It seems that the old rule about the cover up being more damaging than the crime still holds true.  You'd think an Administration that started on its life of crime at the knee of Tricky Dicky would know that, but apparently not.  Trebles all round!  Personally, I think this is more significant than Rove, as Gonzales was effectively
stuffed by the Senate justice committee and Patrick Leahy in particular.  Some of the footage of Alberto's performance under examination is quite laughably crass.  The vultures are circling in force.

Welcome news, and a bit more weight on the good side of the ledger when we try to work out if Gordon Brown's any different.  Watch the hands, we said, watch what he does, not what he says.  Well, here's another policy reversal:

The next thing to watch is the response to the response, which will tell us whether this was spin or substance.  If it's spin, the question is who it was aimed at, since the British press isn't exactly full of people ready to lay out the welcome mat for non-British Muslims with a suspicion of terrorism hanging over them.  The Sun won't like it, but the Mail might, it's been anti-Guantanamo for a while.  Could it be that Daily Mail Island is an *improvement* over Blair's Britain?  World Turns Upside Down Shock - See Page 4 For Full Story.  Mind you, they haven't changed that much - from today's Mail:

Oh dear.

While the Council of Europe's investigation into Extraordinary Rendition and CIA 'black sites' didn't get much in the way of co-operation from the British or other European Governments, the investigators have found that a few CIA officers have been more helpful and less evasive than, say, Buff Hoon. It seems that some of these intelligence officers have been spilling the beans.

The Independent lists some of the rights that Tony is desperate not to afford us. These include:
No one should be subject to torture
No one can be removed to a state where there is a serious risk of torture - I think we can work out why Tony is soft on torture, soft on the causes of torture. Oh Tony, how you've changed the political landscape. I remember the good old days when being against torture was uncontroversial.

Trafficking in human beings is prohibited.
It is beyond shameful that the UK is refusing to ratify the Council of Europe's Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings. In the good old days, slavery was considered to be a terrible wrong. Thanks to Tony this is no longer the case.

Craig Murray writes:

It should also be noted that Mohammed Sheikh Khalid is a man of some repute amongst CIA torturers, and not for reasons you might expect...

And the British view of such interrogation methods, and the results they yield?

Apologies for recycling articles, the following clip is reposted from December 2005.

But bearing in mind what is emerging this week on the subject of Extraordinary Rendition, I think this, taken from Blairs Press Conference of December 21st 2005 is worth mentioning again in it's own post...

Our recent coverage of  government duplicity over the subject of Rendition is archived here.

Britain's collusion with the CIA rendition and black sites program has been well documented. However, what seems to be emerging now is not so much a story of collusion but full involvement.

That sounds like more than just turning a blind eye and allowing CIA torture flights to use British airspace and territory. If this is true then it looks like Tony Blair will have more questions to evade. It would be interesting to hear his response to this:

Hmm! So much for Tony's enthusiasm for open government. Not only does he mislead the British Government but he's telling leaders of other countries to behave as badly. And this news comes just weeks after the European Parliament voted to approve the report conducted by MEPs (.pdf) into the collusion of EU states in rendition and black sites. In that report, the UK was slammed for its lack of co-operation with the investigation as well as being second in the list of the ten countries accused of allowing stopovers (Germany came first). Back in January Margaret Beckett was forced to admit that the Government knew about the secret prisons used by the CIA.

So can we now expect another admission from Margaret Beckett, in which she tells us that Britain along with the USA, actively encouraged the Polish Prime Minister to use a Soviet-era compound and intelligence centre as a gulag for the CIA and to keep it secret from the Polish government? I doubt it somehow, but the question still needs to be asked. And whoever answers will have to be a bit more convincing than in previous responses because the Americans don't seem to be denying the story apart from protesting (a little too much I think) about how it does not conduct or condone torture.

Despite denials by the Polish authorities that the country is involved with the rendition program, the former head of Polish intelligence, Zbigniew Siemiatkowski, has gone on record as saying that the CIA had access to two internal zones at the Stare Kiejkuty training school. When the EU delegation went to Poland as part of their investigation, they reported that key government officials refused to meet with them after having previously agreed to do so. The delegation wanted to investigate both Szymany airport and the facility at Stare Kiejstuty. Mariola Przewlocka, the then airport manager at Szymany revealed that:

Sounds like a really legitimate operation doesn't it? And if Blair not only knew but also requested this, it begs the question: how much further was he involved in this program? Presumably he intends to obfuscate until he is out of Downing Street, but the questions are not going away and details continue to emerge. If the operation was as innocent as the Americans are insisting, why did they try to silence the EU over rendition flights? And why would the Bush administration seek to prevent suspected terrorists who have been abducted and 'interrogated' from revealing details of the "alternative interrogation methods" that were used on them?