|
The War Profiteers - War Crimes,
Kidnappings & Torture |
|
July 14th,
2010 - Court Rules Torture Lawsuits Against UK Continue News article from the Associated
Press 1st news article
from the Guardian |
|
Court Rules Torture Lawsuits
Against UK Continue By David Stringer Associated Press July 14, 2010 London - Former Guantanamo
detainees can proceed with lawsuits accusing Britain of complicity in torture
overseas, a High Court judge ruled Wednesday, rejecting a government request
to suspend the action. Britain had asked a judge to
direct the six men, and six others who plan to launch similar cases, to halt
their lawsuits and focus on reaching out of court settlements, allowing an
independent inquiry into the accusations to begin. But High Court judge Stephen
Silber ruled that the men can press ahead with their cases, even if their
lawyers decide to take part in mediation talks aimed at reaching a deal
outside the courts. Some documents giving a taste of what might be released
in the inquiry also were released, showing an often-confused government position
under former Prime Minister Tony Blair. Prime Minister David Cameron
said last week that a retired judge will lead an independent inquiry into how
much the government knew about claims that some detainees were badly treated
or tortured by allies, including the United States. Cameron's government says
the judge-led inquiry can't begin until the lawsuits are settled, and that
mediation would dramatically speed up the process. Officials claim the court
cases could last five years and cost tens of millions of pounds (dollars),
they also insist that intelligence agency staff have been taken off
anti-terrorism duties to review up to 500,000 documents to be disclosed in
the cases. Britain's Cabinet Office
said the government believes the inquiry is the most effective way to
"review all the issues before the courts," and said it would have
access to uncensored material. Cameron said that two police
inquiries into alleged criminal wrongdoing by British spies must also be
completed before the inquiry can begin. In the most prominent case,
ex-Guantanamo Bay detainee Binyam Mohamed alleges Britain was aware he was
beaten, subjected to sleep deprivation and had his genitals sliced with a
scalpel while he was held in Pakistan in 2002. So far about 50,000
documents have been prepared for hearings and around 900 documents have been
released to lawyers representing the men, though many are heavily censored. Lawyers for the ex-detainees
say they need to see more documents before they can decide whether to enter
into mediation - but claim those disclosed so far show government policy was
in disarray over detainees. The documents hint at the
type of revelations expected when the judge-led inquiry examines how Britain
handled security threats in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks. A series of the documents handed
to lawyers were made public for the first time Wednesday after they were
discussed in a court hearing. One set of memos discloses
how Britain declined to raise objections over the transfer of British
citizens to the U.S. prison camp in Guantanamo Bay, in Cuba. A January 2002 Foreign
Office telegram tells ambassadors and officials that London had "no
objection to American plans to transfer U.K. detainees from Afghanistan to
Guantanamo Bay," and that the transfer of U.K. nationals was the
"best way to meet our counterterrorism objectives by ensuring they are
securely held." Britain later secured the
release of nine British citizens, and four men who were previously British
residents - including Mohamed - from Guantanamo Bay and called for the prison
camp to be closed down. In another disclosed
document, a note of advice between Britain's overseas MI6 intelligence agency
and a member of staff conducting interviews of al-Qaida suspects, the agency
says "it appears from your description that they may not be being
treated in accordance with the appropriate standards." It is "important that
the Americans understand that we cannot be party to such ill treatment,"
the note states. Britain's intelligence
oversight committee reported in 2005 that an MI6 officer reported concerns
about the treatment of a detainee held in U.S. custody in Afghanistan to his
superiors. The case was regarded as likely an isolated incident and ministers
were not told until 2004, the committee said. Copyright © 2010 The
Associated Press. External link: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jFL180sgT0Tc4CKGXoo6U3U59w_gD9GV31OG1 Classified
documents reveal 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 & Owen Bowcott The Guardian July 14, 2010 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. External link: http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2010/jul/14/torture-classified-documents-disclosed Covert words that paint a
vivid picture of complicity in torture By Ian Cobain & Owen Bowcott The Guardian July 14, 2010 Early January 2002. The
Taliban regime in Kabul had been toppled, Nato forces were spreading out
across Afghanistan, and the initial military response to the events of
September 11 appeared to be running smoothly. But in Whitehall - and particularly
at the Foreign Office - there were the first signs of nervousness over the
proposed manner of dealing with one problem that had arisen in the country: a
small number of British citizens and residents, all Muslims, had been
detained by US forces. A mass of documents
disclosed during high court proceedings show how rapidly the government
became involved in the abduction and torture of these individuals in its
attempts to secure the UK against attack by al-Qaida. They also appear to show how
little regard was given within the government to the illegality of its own
actions. On 4 January 2002, a memo
circulated to the secretaries of the junior Foreign Office ministers Ben
Bradshaw and Lady Amos, as well as to the Foreign Office press office and the
department's senior legal adviser, Sir Michael Wood, notes: "Public
opinion has on the whole shown little concern about the welfare of the
British detainees, or the legal terms of their detention. But the issue is
clearly of sensitivity to Muslim opinion in the UK and abroad." It adds that the FCO should
be "seen as applying our normal standards of consular assistance as far
as possible". Consular officials had not seen these detainees, however,
and "our holding line, that we are first seeking to establish identity
details, is wearing thin", not least because extensive reports about one
individual had already appeared in the press. At this time, the fact that
"rendition" - abducting an individual and moving them against their
will from one country to another - was illegal appears not to have been a
concern. A document disclosed by the Foreign Office, dated 10 January 2002
and entitled Afghanistan UK Detainees, expresses the government's
"preferred options". It states: "Transfer of United Kingdom
nationals held by US forces in Afghanistan to a United States base in Guantánamo
is the best way to meet our counter-terrorism objectives, to ensure they are
securely held." The "only alternative", the document adds,
would be to place these individuals in the custody of British forces in
Afghanistan, or to return them to the UK. At around the same time Jack
Straw, then foreign secretary, was sending a telegram to several British
diplomatic missions around the world in which he signalled his agreement with
this policy, but made clear that he did not wish to see the British nationals
moved from Afghanistan before they could be interrogated. "A specialist team is
currently in Afghanistan seeking to interview any detainees with a UK
connection to obtain information on their terrorist activities and
connections," Straw wrote. "We therefore hope that
all those detainees they wish to interview will remain in Afghanistan and
will not be among the first groups to be transferred to Guantánamo. A week's
delay should suffice. UK nationals should be transferred as soon as possible
thereafter." In the event, the
"interview" process in Afghanistan took considerably longer. The
manner in which some were conducted is revealed within the reports that an
MI5 officer sent to London after each of his encounters with Omar Deghayes, a
Libyan-born British resident who was being held at the US air base at Bagram,
north of Kabul, in June and July that year. Deghayes is one of the men
currently suing the government. The MI5 interrogators were
clearly aware of the manner in which Deghayes was being mistreated. Their
only emotional reaction to his plight appears to have been disgust at his
physical condition. Considering him to be insufficiently forthcoming, they
decided to abandon him to further treatment at US hands. Some of the disclosed
documents are fragmentary and partially intelligible. Much to the anger of lawyers
representing those men suing the government, a number have been blacked out
completely, leaving only a date. A page of one document bears
the MI5 letter head and logo, but has been so heavily redacted that only one
word, "conclusion", remains visible. Among the papers is a
handwritten note, headed "Warriors 14/1", that appears to relate to
the state of a detainee in Afghanistan. It states: "Interview conditions:
cold beaten up." According to one of the claimants' lawyers it dates
from a period when MI5 officers were interviewing detainees in Kabul. The
note appears to end with a list of options which includes "collusive
deportation extradition". There is a clear account of
the fate of Martin Mubanga, another of the men suing the government, despite
the large amounts of black ink that were used to conceal parts of the
documents relating to his case before they were handed over. A joint Zambian-British
citizen, Mubanga travelled after 9/11 from Afghanistan to Zambia, where he
was detained in March 2002 by Zambian officials accompanied by Americans. A
number of messages between the British high commission in Lusaka and the
Foreign Office in London show that Blair's office had decided that
"under no circumstances should Mubanga be allowed to return to the
UK". Should consular officials obtain access, however, there was a
danger that the Zambians would hand Mubanga over to the British. The exchanges become
increasingly irate, with one official complaining about "the
schizophrenic way in which policy on this whole case was handled in
London": one half of the Foreign Office was insisting that Mubanga was
entitled to consular assistance, and the other half was saying it should not take
responsibility for him. It had put the British high
commission in Lusaka "in an impossible position", and there was a
need for "co-ordinated thinking" to avoid such problems arising in
future. The documents show that
there had been a proposal to put Mubanga on trial in the UK, but as a
consequence of the British decision to wash their hands of him he was flown
to Guantánamo, where he spent the next 33 months. It was not the only time the
prime minister's office intervened to thwart attempts by Foreign Office officials
to obtain a degree of protection for British citizens, according to the
documents. Minutes prepared for the
Home Office terrorism and protection unit after a meeting in April 2002 of
officials including John Gieve, the Home Office permanent under-secretary,
state that the American authorities had been informed that the British
government might begin making public requests for legal access to British men
held at Guantánamo. "FCO had wanted to do this (and wanted to be seen to
be doing it) but had been overruled by No 10," the minutes say. The same minutes show that
while consideration was being given to the prosecution in the UK of some
individuals in Afghanistan, David Blunkett, home secretary, warned there
would be questions about the public interest in prosecuting "young and
ill-informed individuals who may have been manipulated by others". Missing from the documents
so far disclosed is a copy of the secret policy that governed MI5 and MI6
officers interrogating detainees held overseas between mid-2004 and earlier
this month, when it was revised on the orders of the coalition government. The court had ordered that
it be handed over by last Friday, but it failed to materialise. Instead,
lawyers for the six men were given the chapter from MI6's manual that deals
with detainee operations. This explains that MI6 officers are involved in
detaining suspects or helping others do so; interviewing; and preparing
reports based on details passed by overseas agencies. When detaining suspects
themselves, officers should consult superiors and consider where the detainee
will be held and how they will be treated. There is another consideration.
"Is it clear that detention, rather than killing, is the object of the
operation?" the manual asks. This document was handed
over instead of one that is known to be extraordinarily sensitive. Ministers
of the last government repeatedly insisted that the secret interrogation
policy of recent years should never be made public. The former foreign secretary
David Miliband even indicated to a Commons select committee that to do so
would "give succour" to the nation's enemies. Redactions The black ink that obscures
parts of Security Service and Foreign Office papers has frustrated lawyers
for the six claimants. Known as redactions, the boxes hide information deemed
too sensitive to release on national security grounds. Sapna Malik,
representing Binyam Mohamed, complains that they make it hard to reach a
settlement and avoid protracted litigation. Any assessment is made "very
difficult by the limited nature of the disclosure provided to date, the heavy
redaction of the handful of potentially relevant documents … and the refusal
of the [government] to provide meaningful answers to the claimants' requests
for further information". Nonetheless, despite so much
being withheld, the release of security service reports of interviews with
detainees in Guantánamo Bay and other overseas detention centres is almost
unprecedented. External link: http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2010/jul/14/torture-documents-foreign-office-government |