Sat, Aug 06, 2011 page6

• British policy on torture revealed

  • The Guardian, LONDON
  • • 
    • 
    • 

  A top-secret document revealing how MI6 (the Secret Intelligence Service) and MI5 (the Security Service) officers were allowed to extract information from prisoners being illegally tortured overseas has been seen by Guardian.

  The interrogation policy — details of which are believed to be too sensitive to be publicly released at the government inquiry into the UK’s role in torture and rendition — instructed senior intelligence officers to weigh the importance of the information being sought against the amount of pain they expected a prisoner to suffer. It was operated by the British government for almost a decade.

  A copy of the secret policy showed that senior intelligence officers and ministers feared the British public could be at greater risk of a terrorist attack if Islamists became aware of its existence.

  One section states: “If the possibility exists that information will be or has been obtained through the mistreatment of detainees, the negative consequences may include any potential adverse effects on national security if the fact of the agency seeking or accepting information in those circumstances were to be publicly revealed ... For instance, it is possible that in some circumstances such a revelation could result in further radicalisation, leading to an increase in the threat from terrorism.”

  The policy adds that such a disclosure “could result in damage to the reputation of the agencies,” and that this could undermine their effectiveness.

  The fact that the interrogation policy document and other similar papers may not be made public during the inquiry into British complicity in torture and rendition has led to human rights groups and lawyers refusing to give evidence or attend any meetings with the inquiry team because it does not have “credibility or transparency.”

  The decision by 10 groups — including Liberty, Reprieve and Amnesty International — follows the publication of the inquiry’s protocols, which show the final decision on whether material uncovered by the inquiry, led by retired judge Sir Peter Gibson, can be made public will rest with the Cabinet secretary.

  The inquiry will begin after a police investigation into torture allegations has been completed.

  CONTROVERSIAL CHOICE

  Some have criticized the appointment of Gibson to head the inquiry because he previously served as the intelligence services commissioner, overseeing British government ministers’ use of a controversial power that permits them to “disapply” UK criminal and civil law in order to offer a degree of protection to British intelligence officers committing crimes overseas. The government denies there is a conflict of interest.

  The protocols also state that former detainees and their lawyers will not be able to question intelligence officials and that all evidence from current or former members of the security and intelligence agencies, below the level of head, will be heard in private.

  The document seen by the Guardian shows how the secret interrogation policy operated until it was rewritten on the orders of the coalition government in July last year.

  It also acknowledged that MI5 and MI6 officers could be in breach of both UK and international law by asking for information from prisoners held by overseas agencies known to use torture.

  Additionally, it explained the need to obtain political cover for any potentially criminal act by consulting ministers beforehand.

  The secret interrogation policy was first passed to MI5 and MI6 officers in Afghanistan in January 2002 to enable them to continue questioning prisoners whom they knew were being mistreated by members of the US military. It was amended slightly later that year before being rewritten and expanded in 2004. The policy was amended again in July 2006 and given to intelligence officers handing over questions to be put to detainees.

  The document set out the international and domestic law on torture, and explained that MI5 and MI6 do not “participate in, encourage or condone” either torture or inhuman or degrading treatment.

  Intelligence officers were instructed not to carry out any action “which it is known” would result in torture. However, they could proceed when they foresaw “a real possibility their actions will result in an individual’s mistreatment” as long as they first sought assurances from the overseas agency.

  Even when such assurances were judged to be worthless, officers could be given permission to proceed despite the real possibility that they would committing a crime and that a prisoner or prisoners would be tortured.

  Disclosure of the contents of the document appears to help explain the high degree of sensitivity shown by ministers and former ministers after the Guardian became aware of its existence two years ago.

  AUTHORIZATION

  Former British prime minister Tony Blair evaded a series of questions over the role he played in authorizing changes to the instructions in 2004, while former British home secretary David Blunkett said it was potentially libelous even to ask him questions about the matter.

  British Foreign Secretary David Miliband told lawmakers the secret policy could never be made public as “nothing we publish must give succor to our enemies.”

  Blair, Blunkett and former British foreign secretary Jack Straw also declined to say whether or not they were aware that the instructions had led to a number of people being tortured.

  Others, however, are questioning whether in the words of Ken Macdonald, a former director of public prosecutions for England and Wales, “Tony Blair’s government was guilty of developing something close to a criminal policy.”
• Most Popular

  • 1

    Chinese carrier group entered Japanese waters

  • 2

    Magnitude 6.4 earthquake hits Hualien County

  • 3

    Think tank hosts war games in Taipei

  • 4

    Taiwan in Time: Snapshots of early Japanese-era Taipei

  • 5

    Students rescued from Cambodia