Secret CIA Prisons In Europe

In Eastern Europe, people thought they became free when the German Wall and the iron Curtain fell. Freedom was the buzzword. After 9/11, however, the American based CIA began planting secret prisons in Poland and Lithuania. 

The Russian-based RT channel investigates two claims of the existence of these prisons and cam with a remarkable documentary as a result which the Babylon Observer presents to you with permission.

It's called "rendition": a nice little word which hides the true meaning. People are being kidnapped and brought to secret prisons all over the world, including several European countries. 

In Lithuania and Poland, for example. Government leaders fall over it, parliaments do not get the right information, and journalists trying to uncover the facts often engage people who are unwilling to speak about it. 

In this documentary, a crew from the Russian based RT station tries to unravel just what's been going on in the two mentioned countries.

US Spies Resorted To Torture

The head of the Secret Intelligence Service also admitted that some of the activity of British agents when questioning alleged terrorists was “close to the line”.

Sir John's comments come at a sensitive time for Britain’s intelligence service, which is being investigated by the Metropolitan Police over the alleged rendition of two Libyans. Sir John described the cases as "chilling".

The Daily Telegraph understands that ministers have now received a copy of the evidence about any alleged British complicity in torture gathered by high court judge Sir Peter Gibson.

Ministers will tell MPs next week that they are combing through the evidence to ensure that its publication will not damage national security.

Sir John, who is known in Whitehall as “C”, described his agents as “secret squirrels” and said that there was “always a danger” that agents could go too far when questioning suspects.

“The Americans have done that over their interrogation techniques after 9/11. They got so obsessed with getting a right answer that they drifted into an area that kind of amounted to torture.

“We’ve never been there, we’ve never been involved in that, and I think our accountability, our disciplines, have helped us keep on the right side of these lines.

“It’s not always been easy. There are investigations gong on about things which are close to the line.”

In January, Justice Secretary Ken Clarke said Scotland Yard detectives had taken three years to decide there was insufficient evidence to bring charges in relation to claims by Guantánamo Bay detainees.

“There are one or two chilling cases that are involved in a criminal investigation. We have to front up and say ‘yeah okay the police think this is sufficiently serious for them to investigate it and we have to co-operate 100 per cent’.”

Via: "The Telegraph"

UK's Secret Policy On Torture Revealed

A number of men said they were questioned by MI5 and MI6 officers after being tortured at Guantánamo Bay. Photograph: Mark Wilson/Getty Images


Exclusive: Document Shows Intelligence Officers Instructed To Weigh Importance Of Information Sought Against Pain Inflicted

By Ian Cobain
Thursday 4 August 2011 12.42 BST
Courtesy Of "The Guardian"

A top-secret document revealing how MI6 and MI5 officers were allowed to extract information from prisoners being illegally tortured overseas has been seen by the 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 toweigh 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 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 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.

Some have criticised the appointment of Gibson, a retired judge, to head the inquiry because he previously served as the intelligence services commissioner, overseeing 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 stated 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 last July.

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.

• 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 inAfghanistan 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 after it became apparent that a significant number of British Muslims, radicalised by the invasion of Iraq, were planning attacks against the UK.

The policy was amended again in July 2006 during an investigation of a suspected plot to bring down airliners over the Atlantic.

Entitled "Agency policy on liaison with overseas security and intelligence services in relation to detainees who may be subject to mistreatment", it was given to intelligence officers handing over questions to be put to detainees.

Separate policy documents were issued for related matters, including intelligence officers conducting face-to-face interrogations.

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.

"When, not withstanding any caveats or prior assurances, there is still considered to be a real possibility of mistreatment and therefore there is considered to be a risk that the agencies' actions could be judged to be unlawful, the actions may not be taken without authority at a senior level. In some cases, ministers may need to be consulted," the document said.

In deciding whether to give permission, senior MI5 and MI6 management "will balance the risk of mistreatment and the risk that the officer's actions could be judged to be unlawful against the need for the proposed action".

At this point, "the operational imperative for the proposed action, such as if the action involves passing or obtaining life-saving intelligence" would be weighed against "the level of mistreatment anticipated and how likely those consequences are".

Ministers may be consulted over "particularly difficult cases", with the process of consulting being "designed to ensure that appropriate visibility and consideration of the risk of unlawful actions takes place". All such operations must remain completely secret or they could put UK interests and British lives at risk.

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.

Tony Blair evaded a series of questions over the role he played in authorising changes to the instructions in 2004, while the former home secretary David Blunkett maintained it was potentially libellous even to ask him questions about the matter.

As foreign secretary, David Miliband told MPs the secret policy could never be made public as "nothing we publish must give succour to our enemies".

Blair, Blunkett and the former 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.

The head of MI5, Jonathan Evans, said that, in the post 9/11 world, his officers would be derelict in their duty if they did not work with intelligence agencies in countries with poor human rights records, while his opposite number at MI6, Sir John Sawers, spoke of the "real, constant, operational dilemmas" involved in such relationships.

Others, however, are questioning whether – in the words of Ken Macdonald, a former director of public prosecutions, "Tony Blair's government was guilty of developing something close to a criminal policy".

The Intelligence and Security Committee, the group of parliamentarians appointed by the prime minister to assist with the oversight of the UK's intelligence agencies, is known to have examined the document while sitting in secret, but it is unclear what – if any – suggestions or complaints it made.

Paul Murphy, the Labour MP and former minister who chaired the committee in 2006, declined to answer questions about the matter.

A number of men, mostly British Muslims, have complained that they were questioned by MI5 and MI6 officers after being tortured by overseas intelligence officials in Pakistan, Bangladesh, Afghanistan andGuantánamo Bay. Some are known to have been detained at the suggestion of British intelligence officers.

Others say they were tortured in places such as Egypt, Dubai, Morocco and Syria, while being interrogated on the basis of information that could only have been supplied by the UK.

A number were subsequently convicted of serious terrorism offences or subjected to control orders. Others returned to the UK and, after treatment, resumed their lives.

One is a businessman in Yorkshire, another a software designer living in Berkshire, and a third is a doctor practising on the south coast of England.

Some have brought civil proceedings against the British government, and a number have received compensation in out-of-court settlements, but others remain too scared to take legal action.

Scotland Yard has examined the possibility that one officer from MI5 and a second from MI6 committed criminal offences while extracting information from detainees overseas, and detectives are now conducting what is described as a "wider investigation into other potential criminal conduct".

A new set of instructions was drafted after last year's election, published on the orders of David Cameron, on the grounds that the coalition was "determined to resolve the problems of the past" and wished to give "greater clarity about what is and what is not acceptable in the future".

Human rights groups pointed to what they said were serious loopholes that could permit MI5 and MI6 officers to remain involved in the torture of prisoners overseas.

Last week, the high court heard a challenge to the legality of the new instructions, brought by the Equality and Human Rights Commission. Judgment is expected later in the year.

UK Linked To Notorious Bangladesh Torture Centre

Exclusive British authorities pressed for information while men were held at secret interrogation centre where inmates are known to have died under torture, Guardian investigation reveals

By Ian Cobain, and Fariha Karim in Dhaka
Monday 17 January 2011 21.47 GMT
Courtesy Of "The Guardian"

The headquarters of the Rapid Action Battalion in Uttara. Photograph: Shahidul Alam for the Guardian

UK authorities passed information about British nationals to notorious Bangladeshi intelligence agencies and police units, then pressed for information while the men were being held at a secret interrogation centre where inmates are known to have died under torture.

A Guardian investigation into counter-terrorism co-operation between the UK and Bangladesh has revealed a detailed picture of the last Labour government's reliance on overseas intelligence agencies that were known to use torture.

Meetings and exchanges of information took place between British and Bangladeshi officials in an effort to protect the UK from attacks that might be fomented in Bangladesh, according to sources in both countries.

The likelihood that a number of suspects would be tortured as a result of the meetings went unmentioned, according to the sources. Subsequently, more than a dozen men of dual British-Bangladeshi nationality were placed under investigation, and at least some suffered horrific abuse from the Bangladeshi authorities.

At one point Jacqui Smith, then home secretary, flew to Dhaka for face-to-face meetings with senior officials from one agency, the Directorate-General of Forces Intelligence (DGFI), whose use of torture had been the subject of a detailed report by Human Rights Watch, the New York-based NGO, less than eight weeks earlier. Seven months before the visit, a report prepared by Smith's own department had documented the widespread concern about the routine use of torture in Bangladesh. Smith spoke publicly during the visit about the dangers that could be posed by dual nationals; privately, according to a senior DGFI counter-terrorism officer, she urged that the agency investigate a number of individuals about whom the British were suspicious.

In September it emerged that in recent years MI5 and MI6 have always asked the home secretary or foreign secretary for permission before conducting any information exchange where there was a risk of an individual being tortured. Smith, her successor Alan Johnson and David Miliband, the foreign secretary during the period of the joint UK-Bangladeshi counter-terrorism campaign, have declined to answer questions about the matter.

A number of the British suspects were taken to the secret interrogation centre, known as the Task Force for Interrogation cell (TFI). The location of the TFI and the methods employed by those who work there became clear during the Guardian investigation, with both former inmates and intelligence officials speaking out about its operations.

Faisal Mostafa, from Manchester, was taken to the TFI after Smith's visit to Dhaka and is alleged to have been forced to stand upright for the first six days of his incarceration, with his wrists shackled to bars above his head. He is then alleged to have then been beaten and subjected to electric shocks while being questioned about Bangladeshi associates. At the point at which he was to be questioned about his associates and activities in the UK, he is said to have been blindfolded and strapped to a chair while a drill was slowly driven into his right shoulder and hip.

This abuse during questioning about the UK is said to have been repeated on a number of occasions. The Guardian has seen evidence that supports the allegation that he was tortured in this manner. The report prepared by Smith's own department povides warning that the paramilitary police unit that seized this man used precisely this method of torture.

Matiur Rahman, deputy chief of operations at the Rapid Action Battalion (RAB), the police unit that detained the man, said: "The British were interested in him for some time. There was an assumption he was part of an international network. They gave information to us, and we gave information to them."

After being tortured for several weeks the man spent almost a year in jail before being freed on bail and allowed to return to the UK.

A second man, Gulam Mustafa, from Birmingham, was being held in Bangladesh during Smith's visit, and was released before being held a second time last April. He says he was tortured on both occasions while being questioned about associates in the UK, with his interrogators beating him, subjecting him to electric shocks and crushing his knees. He was eventually transferred to a prison hospital, where he was treated for injuries suffered he suffered during interrogation.Bangladeshi police officers who arrested him the second time say his first arrest had been at the request of MI6. "When we received the file from his first arrest from RAB, it was marked 'MI6 File'," said one senior detective. He added that when this man was arrested for the second time, officials from the British high commission in Dhaka contacted police and asked to be debriefed on the results of his interrogation. "They wanted maximum information." he said.

A third man, Jamil Rahman, from Swansea, is suing the Home Office, alleging that MI5 was complicit in his torture after he was arrested in 2005 and allegedly tortured in between interrogation by two British intelligence officers.

Smith said she would not answer questions "about the timings of any specific authorisations she may or may not have given the security service". She declined to say whether she accepted that individuals would be at risk of torture when she asked the Bangladeshi authorities to investigate them. Johnson refused to answer any questions about the matter.

Miliband failed to answer a series of questions about dual nationals investigated in Bangladesh, and about any role he played in granting permission for MI6 to be involved in their cases. A spokeswoman issued a statement on his behalf which said that there were no Foreign Office papers showing that ministers were asked to sanction the arrest of Faisal Mostafa or Gulam Mustafa. She added: "David would never ever sanction torture and it is completely wrong to suggest, imply, or leave a shadow of a doubt otherwise. The UK has detailed procedures that uphold the moral and legal conduct of the intelligence agencies and those responsible for them. When David was Foreign Secretary he followed them scrupulously."

The Foreign Office said both Mostafa and Mustafa had been offered consular assistance, and reiterated the government's position on torture. "The government have made absolutely clear in the Coalition's Programme for Government that we will never condone the use of torture," a spokesman said. "We take all allegations of torture and mistreatment very seriously, and - where we have permission to do so from the individual concerned - raise them with the relevant authorities. Our security cooperation with other countries is consistent with our laws and values."

• More on this story

• 
  Bangladeshi torture centre mapped by former inmate
  Hand-drawn map shows nine cells, corridors where some inmates were kept chained and two interrogation rooms
•  Hand-drawn plan of the Task Force for Interrogation Cell
•  Interactive map of Bangladesh torture centre
• Bangladesh interrogation centre where Britons were taken to be tortured
• Government torture inquiry can examine Bangladesh allegations
• Bangladesh torture investigation: questions need to be answered

Related

• 18 Jan 2011
  Bangladesh torture centre: an interactive guide
• 18 Jan 2011
  Hand-drawn plan of the Task Force for Interrogation Cell
• 18 Jan 2011
  Bangladeshi torture centre mapped by former inmate
• 17 Jan 2011
  Bangladesh interrogation centre where Britons were taken to be tortured

Britain's Secret Rendition Programme Uncovered

Until now, this country has been guilty only by association in the illegal transfer of prisoners. But the covert rendition of a Moroccan man by MI5 agents suggests that the practice was central to Britain's 'war on terror'

By Robert Verkaik,

Home Affairs Editor

Friday, 23 July 2010

Courtesy Of "The Independent"

MI5 was directly involved in the rendition of a Moroccan national, illegally taken from a Belgian prison to work for Britain's Security Services in London, an investigation by The Independent has discovered.

The man, now aged 29 and who cannot be named for his own safety, was secretly transferred from a Brussels jail in April 2004 and then further held and interrogated by senior MI5 officers at a secret base near London.

Documents seen by The Independent show that in September 2003 a Belgian court sentenced the man to four years in prison for the use of false documents and association with terror suspects. Yet less than a year later Home Office papers reveal that the Moroccan, who was born in Rabat, was in Britain and had been granted leave to remain in the UK by the British Government.

The Home Office document, dated 4 November 2004, says: "It has been decided that the Secretary of State's discretion should be exercised in your favour and you have been granted limited leave to remain in the United Kingdom for a reason not covered by the Immigration Rules."

The case is the first evidence of a UK-based rendition recruitment programme operated by the Security Service after the 11 September attacks on America. Until now, Britain's involvement in the practice appeared to be limited to providing assistance to American renditions.

In an interview with The Independent, the man's Belgian lawyer, Christophe Marchand, said that the rendition took place while the suspect was waiting to appear before the central criminal court in Brussels in relation to his appeal.

Mr Marchand, Belgium's foremost defence attorney and author of the book European Trends on the War on Human Rights, said his client, then 23 years old, had been questioned by MI5 agents in Forest Prison in Brussels where he had been detained without trial and held in solitary confinement for more than two years. During his later interrogation and detention at an MI5 safe house 40 minutes from central London, the man did not have access to a lawyer.

Last night MPs and human rights groups said the case illustrated the extent of Britain's illegal role in the war on terror. Andrew Tyrie MP, chairman of the All Party Parliamentary Group on Extraordinary Rendition, said: "If it were to turn out that this man had been transferred to the UK against his will and against due legal process, we should well be concerned. Stories such as this underline the need for an inquiry to get to the bottom of what happened after 11 September."

Clive Stafford Smith, director of the legal charity Reprieve, said: "We simply cannot be in the business of snatching people from foreign countries without any legal process. Why have we fought for the rule of law for all these decades if it is simply to be ignored when the Security Services decide it is not convenient to let judges into the debate?"

Mr Marchand suspects that the deal must have been approved by Belgium's security services and the state prosecutor. A year after his mysterious disappearance from prison, the Moroccan national contacted Mr Marchand. "We met in central London. He told me the whole story about how MI5 had arranged for his release and secret flight to London on a specially chartered British Airways aircraft. He told me he felt vulnerable in prison and didn't think he would ever be released. He feared being returned to Morocco even more because he felt sure that he would be tortured.

"They told him that if he agreed to work for MI5 he would have a new life in the UK. But he was very vulnerable at this time, he was young and held in solitary confinement where he was psychologically weak. He believed he had no choice. Once he arrived in the UK he was told that if he ever told anyone who he was working for his life would be in danger from al-Qa'ida. He told me that he thought this was an explicit threat that MI5 would make sure al-Qa'ida knew his identity if he ever broke his agreement with the Security Service."

Mr Marchand, an international expert in human rights law, accused Britain of being directly involved in rendition. "Of course it is rendition – it is the illegal transfer of someone from one country to another. He was transferred from Belgium without any legal safeguards. It is a very clear violation of the rule of law. Pressure was huge on him because he knew he was condemned to years in prison."

A spokeswoman for the Belgian embassy in London said she was aware of the case and the "disappearance" but could give no further details.

Lieve Pellens, of the Belgian Federal Prosecutors Office in Brussels, said she was sure the Prosecutors Office was "not implicated" in such an arrangement. "If a foreign authority wants to question someone held in the Forest Prison then they have to make a special request and we have to ensure that a Belgian officer is present," said Ms Pellens.

A spokeswoman for the Security Service said: "We do not comment on individuals. We do not comment on operational security matters."

Rendition: Explained

* Countries wishing to transfer a suspect from one state to another for arrest, detention or interrogation must operate through the judicial process, usually by making an extradition request.

* Where such transfers occur outside a legal framework, such as in the Brussels case which we have reported today, they are referred to as renditions.

* America's extraordinary rendition programme involves the further element of torture, usually by a third-party proxy state. In the Brussels case the Moroccan suspect faced the prospect of torture in his homeland and could not freely give consent for his transfer to Britain.

* Upon his transfer to the UK he was held in an MI5 safe-house, where he was interrogated without legal representation. All the time he knew he was at risk of deportation.

Related Articles

• The background: A man called David and an irresistible offer
• Tim Cooke-Hurle: When the secret state crosses the line
• Leading article: Only a proper investigation will suffice
• Search the news archive for more stories

'He Was Brought In Manacled & Hooded'

Omar Deghayes

Libyan-born British resident held in Afghanistan was warned he faced a long period of incarceration in US hands

By Ian Cobain

Wednesday 14 July 2010 20.43 BST

Courtesy Of "The Guardian"

In an MI5 report on the interrogation of Omar Deghayes, a Libyan-born British resident held by the Americans at Bagram airbase north of Kabul, an officer wrote to his superiors in London: "Deghayes was brought to the interview room manacled and hooded. When the hood was removed, Deghayes looked pale and shaky."

After offering water and asking Deghayes whether he felt well enough to continue, the officers introduced themselves as Paul and Martin, "and explained the role of MI5".

They warned Deghayes that he was facing a long period of incarceration in US hands and that they would not consider helping him unless he told them everything they wanted to know. Deghayes was mumbling and incoherent at times but the officers told him they knew he was lying when he answered questions about links with jihadist organisations in Libya.

After another interrogation a week later, an MI5 officer reported back to London that Deghayes was thinner but mentally alert. "Throughout the interview Deghayes expectorated rather disgustingly into a tissue as if he were still tubercular. These moments usually coincided with those answers where he was most evasive."

Deghayes told the officers that he was suffering internal bleeding and complained that no evidence had been presented against him. "He was also being treated badly, with head-braces and lock-down positions being the order of the day," wrote the officer. "He was treated better by the Pakistanis; what kind of world was it where the Americans were more barbaric than the Pakistanis? We listened but did not comment."

MI5 interrogated Deghayes again and told a senior American officer in Deghayes' presence, that the detainee had not been co-operating. "If he sticks to his story and just gives a few more details, we propose disengaging and allowing events here to take their course," the officer wrote.

In the autumn Deghayes was flown to Guantánamo Bay, where he stayed for more than five years. At one point he was so severely beaten that he was blinded in one eye.

The Torture Files: The Interrogations

These documents detail for the first time the experiences of a detainee under interrogation. Omar Deghayes records his complaints about his treatment in the Bagram detention centre in Afghanistan in July 2002 and the willingness of MI5 officers to let him be removed to Guantanamo Bay

Wednesday 14 July 2010 20.44 BST

Courtesy Of "The Guardian"

UK's Role In Abuse Of Its Own Citizens

Previously secret papers show true extent of involvement in abduction and torture following al-Qaida attacks of 2001

By Ian Cobain and Owen Bowcott

Wednesday 14 July 2010 20.43 BST

Courtesy Of "The Guardian"

The true extent of the Labour government's involvement in the illegal abduction and torture of its own citizens after the al-Qaida attacks of September 2001 has been spelled out in stark detail with the disclosure during high court proceedings of a mass of highly classified documents.

Previously secret papers that have been disclosed include a number implicating Tony Blair's office in many of the events that are to be the subject of the judicial inquiry that David Cameron announced last week.

Among the most damning documents are a series of interrogation reports from MI5 officers that betray their disregard for the suffering of a British resident whom they were questioning at a US airbase in Afghanistan. The documents also show that the officers were content to see the mistreatment continue.

One of the most startling documents is chapter 32 of MI6's general procedural manual, entitled "Detainees and Detention Operations", which advises officers that among the "particular sensitivities" they need to consider before becoming directly involved in an operation to detain a terrorism suspect is the question of whether "detention, rather than killing, is the objective of the operation".

Other disclosed documents show how:

• The Foreign Office decided in January 2002 that the transfer of British citizens from Afghanistan to Guantánamo was its "preferred option".

• Jack Straw asked for that rendition to be delayed until MI5 had been able to interrogate those citizens.

• Downing Street was said to have overruled FO attempts to provide a British citizen detained in Zambia with consular support in an attempt to prevent his return to the UK, with the result that he too was "rendered" to Guantánamo.

The papers have been disclosed as a result of civil proceedings brought by six former Guantánamo inmates against MI5 and MI6, the Home Office, the Foreign Office, and the Attorney General's Office, which they allege were complicit in their illegal detention and torture.

The government has been responding to disclosure requests by maintaining that it has identified up to 500,000 documents that may be relevant, and says it has deployed 60 lawyers to scrutinise them, a process that it suggests could take until the end of the decade. It has failed to hand over many of the documents that the men's lawyers have asked for, and on Friday failed to meet a deadline imposed by the high court for the disclosure of the secret interrogation policy that governed MI5 and MI6 officers between 2004 and earlier this year.

So far just 900 papers have been disclosed, and these have included batches of press cuttings and copies of government reports that were published several years ago. However, a number of highly revealing documents are among the released papers, as well as fragments of heavily censored emails, memos and policy documents.

Some are difficult to decipher, but together they paint a picture of a government that was determined not only to stand shoulder to shoulder with the United States as it embarked upon its programme of "extraordinary rendition" and torture of terrorism suspects in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, but to actively participate in that programme.

In May, after the appeal court dismissed attempts to suppress evidence of complicity in their mistreatment, the government indicated that it would attempt to settle out of court.

Today the government failed in an attempt to bring a temporary halt to the proceedings that have resulted in the disclosure of the documents. Its lawyers argued that the case should be delayed while attempts were made to mediate with the six men, in the hope that their claims could be withdrawn in advance of the judicial inquiry. Lawyers for the former Guantánamo inmates said it was far from certain that mediation would succeed, and insisted the disclosure process continue.

In rejecting the government's application, the court said it had considered the need for its lawyers to press ahead with the task of processing the 500,000 documents in any event, as the cases of the six men are among those that will be considered by the inquiry headed by Sir Peter Gibson. Last week, in announcing the inquiry, Cameron told MPs: "This inquiry will be able to look at all the information relevant to its work, including secret information. It will have access to all relevant government papers – including those held by the intelligence services."

Cameron also made clear that the sort of material that has so far been made public with the limited disclosure in the Guantánamo cases would be kept firmly under wraps during the inquiry. "Let's be frank, it is not possible to have a full public inquiry into something that is meant to be secret," he said. "So any intelligence material provided to the inquiry panel will not be made public and nor will intelligence officers be asked to give evidence in public."

The coalition government is anxious to draw a line under what is currently described in Whitehall as "detainee legacy issues". It hopes that mediation, followed by the inquiry, will lift the burden of litigation that it is currently facing while restoring public confidence in MI5 and MI6.

It also wishes to preserve what it calls "liaison relationships" – operational links with overseas intelligence agencies, including those known to use torture – on the grounds that they are a vital part of the country's counterterrorism strategy.

• Read the torture documents in full

Britain's Abu Ghraib

The Allegations Of Torture By British Soldiers In Iraq Bear Chilling Comparison With America's Worst Excesses

By Phil Shiner and Tessa Gregory

Saturday 3 July 2010

Courtesy Of "The Guardian"

The inquiry into the death of Baha Mousa is due to report by the end of the year. It will detail how Mousa died in Iraq in September 2003, allegedly brutalised by British soldiers in a "free for all"; and how it was that he and nine other men in the same incident were allegedly hooded, forced into painful stress positions, and deprived of sleep, food and water.

The Guardian article this week, which reported that many more civilians died in army custody than previously thought, should shock the conscience of the nation. The evidence of Lieutenant Colonel Mercer to the inquiry reveals that as early as May 2003 – four months before Mousa's death – there were "a number of deaths in custody" with "various units". It appears there were, by then, at least nine deaths. The Ministry of Defence refuses to answer questions from us or the Guardian as to where, how or why these Iraqis died, and refuses to confirm or deny whether any of these deaths were ever investigated and if so with what outcome.

Although we are acting for one family referred to in the article, we have no idea about the other cases. And the story could be a lot worse: an ex-Royal Military Police (RMP) major told BBC radio last October that there were "hundreds" of similar cases.

Further, there are thousands of torture allegations being made by more than 100 Iraqi clients in new cases. We applaud the efforts of those who have succeeded in obtaining an inquiry into alleged British complicity in torture by various overseas regimes. But the public and the government also need to face up to our history of actual torture. The evidence from the Mousa inquiry and the allegations in these other cases may allow a chilling comparison to be made with the worst excesses of the US at Guantánamo Bay or Abu Ghraib, with the Stasi in the cold war, or the British in post-colonial wars.

Apart from the techniques banned by the Heath government in 1972 (hooding, stressing, food and water deprivation, sleep deprivation, the use of noise), which returned as standard operating procedure in Iraq, the array of allegations is staggering: mock executions; the use of tiny refrigerated spaces; electric shocks; forced nudity; threats of rape to female relatives; prolonged solitary confinement; loud, hardcore pornography played incessantly; disorientation by various means; simulated drowning; dog attacks; masturbation and other sexual acts; urinating on detainees; giving urine not water to drink; as well as systematic abuse through rifle-butting, kicks, punches, forced exertion and prolonged shouting at detainees.

The MoD insists our brave soldiers behaved impeccably save for a few rotten apples and that there is no evidence of coercive interrogation techniques. Now the Iraq historic allegation team, comprising of RMP investigators and others, will investigate whether anyone should be prosecuted by a military court martial.
However, these other deaths in custody are not being investigated; the thousands of allegations of the use of coercive interrogation make it difficult to see how much more evidence of systemic issues is needed; and the RMP is a discredited and failed organisation that is incapable of dealing with these cases, and in any event its soldiers are the subject of some of the allegations.

The damage caused to the French in Algeria by its use of torture is well known. The same damage may have been caused to the British battle for Iraqi hearts and minds. To perpetuate that damage by this alleged cover-up would be immeasurably stupid: as we now know from Bloody Sunday, when the state is involved in wrongdoing the nation requires not a Widgery but a Saville.

MI-5: "Torture Saved Lives"

MI5 chief defends links with foreign agencies accused of torture

MI5 had a duty to work with overseas agencies to counter 'imminent' al-Qaida threat, says Jonathan Evans

By Ian Cobain
Friday 16 October 2009 12.17 BST
Courtesy Of The Guardian

The head of MI5 has issued a vigorous defence of the organisation's co-operation with intelligence agencies known to use torture, saying that it thwarted many terrorist attacks after 9/11 and saved British lives.

Speaking publicly for the first time about the mounting concern over British involvement in the torture of terrorism suspects overseas, Jonathan Evans, the director-general of the security service, said the country had quickly needed help to understand the nature of the threat from al-Qaida at a time when another attack could have been imminent.

"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 said.

Speaking at his old university, Bristol, last night, Evans said he did not defend "the abuses that have recently come to light within the US system since 9/11". He said working with the intelligence agencies of other countries that he did not identify had posed "a real dilemma" for MI5 officers working in difficult and at times dangerous circumstances.

"Given the pressing need to understand and uncover al-Qaida's plans, were we to deal, however circumspectly, with those security services who had experience of working against al-Qaida on their own territory? Or were we to refuse to deal with them, accepting that in so doing we would be cutting off a potentially vital source of information that would prevent attacks in the west?"

Evans defended the current system of oversight of MI5 and the other main intelligence agencies, MI6 and GCHQ, by ministers, retired judges and a committee of MPs and peers, the intelligence and security committee (ISC).

This year, parliament's joint committee on human rights (JCHR) condemned the current arrangements, saying MI5 was "woefully" unaccountable and there needed to be an independent inquiry into allegations of complicity in torture.

Evans insisted: "It would be self-defeating to have such onerous and detailed scrutiny that the operational effectiveness and responsiveness of the service was seriously impaired. Equally, accountability must be sufficiently robust to ensure that any inappropriate action on the part of the service comes to light."

He pledged that MI5 would not conceal any relevant information from the courts that are due to consider claims being brought against the security service and the Home Office by a number of victims of alleged torture.

His speech did not address charges that once a policy had been devised that allowed MI5 and MI6 officers to interrogate detainees whom they knew were being tortured by others, that same policy was used to facilitate torture.

In January 2002, according to a report by the ISC, MI5 and MI6 officers interrogating detainees in Afghanistan were told they did not need to intervene to prevent those prisoners from being abused by the US military.

"Given that they are not within our custody or control, the law does not require you to intervene to prevent this," the officers were told. A number of international law experts have since questioned the legality of this advice.

This policy was then employed in other countries. In May 2002 in Pakistan, for example, an MI5 officer interrogated Binyam Mohamed, a British resident, despite knowing he was being tortured.

That matter is now the subject of a Scotland Yard investigation. According to the authorised history of MI5 published earlier this month, "this appears to be the first time in the history of the Security Service that its actions have been the subject of a criminal investigation". The actions of an MI6 officer are also being investigated by police.

By 2004, MI5 was asking a notorious Pakistani intelligence agency to detain British terrorism suspects, and then providing lists of questions – a practice that the JCHR and a United Nations special rapporteur on human rights have since denounced as amounting to complicity in torture.

Two years later, police in Manchester decided against arresting Rangzieb Ahmed, a terrorist who was about to leave the country for Pakistan, despite having gathered evidence against him that was later used in court. Instead, they tipped off the Pakistani authorities that Ahmed was on his way. MI6 then suggested that Pakistani intelligence officers detain him, and MI5 and Greater Manchester police drew up a list of questions they wanted him to be asked. By the time Ahmed was deported to the UK 13 months later, three of his fingernails were missing.

When Ahmed appeared in court, attempts were made to conceal what had happened through the use of in-camera evidence, and a Guardian reporter covering the hearing was threatened with arrest for contempt of court.

Details were eventually made public by David Davis, the former shadow home secretary, under the protection of parliamentary privilege. Davis told the Commons: "I cannot imagine a more obvious case of the outsourcing of torture."

The Guardian has established that Tony Blair, when prime minister in 2004, was aware of the existence of the guidance given to intelligence officers two years earlier.

What he knew of its consequences is less clear. The Guardian has repeatedly asked him about any role he played in approving the policy, whether he knew that it led to people being tortured, whether he personally authorised interrogations that took place in Guantánamo Bay and Afghanistan as well as Pakistan, and whether he made any effort to change the policy. Blair's spokesman responded by saying: "It is completely untrue that Mr Blair has ever authorised the use of torture. He is opposed to it in all circumstances. Neither has he ever been complicit in the use of torture."

When the Guardian pointed out to Blair that it had not suggested that he had authorised the use of torture – as opposed to asking him whether he had authorised a policy that led to people being tortured – and that his spokesman had not answered the questions that were asked, his spokesman replied: "Tony Blair does not condone torture, has never authorised it nor colluded in it. He continues to think our security services have done and continue to do a crucial and very good job."

In March, Gordon Brown announced that the policy was to be rewritten and then made public. It remains unclear when this might happen.