PETER OBORNE: Report into UK involvement in torture of terror suspects is betrayal of our identity

It has taken the best part of 15 years to produce an official report into British involvement in the torture and kidnap of terror suspects, and the murky aftermath of the 9/11 attack on the Twin Towers.

Much too long. It is disgracefully and shamefully overdue.

However, yesterday’s report from the Intelligence and Security Committee commands respect. It is detailed, forensic, and shocking.

The report found that agency chiefs and senior ministers of the day – who included then Prime Minister Tony Blair (pictured in Iraq with troops in 2003) and his Foreign Secretary Jack Straw – could have done more to to ‘influence US behaviour’

The Intelligence and Security Committee, chaired by Tory Dominic Grieve (pictured yesterday at the launch of the reports in Parliament today) found that Britain tolerated torture during the War on Terror

The Intelligence and Security Committee, chaired by Tory Dominic Grieve (pictured yesterday at the launch of the reports in Parliament today) found that Britain tolerated torture during the War on Terror

U.S. Military Police woman provides water to chained detainees as they arrive at Camp X-Ray at Guantanamo Bay Naval Base

U.S. Military Police woman provides water to chained detainees as they arrive at Camp X-Ray at Guantanamo Bay Naval Base

It shows that British involvement in George W Bush’s illegal and barbarous programme of kidnap for torture was far deeper and more extensive than we have previously been told.

The figures are stupefying: 13 incidents where British intelligence officers witnessed the mistreatment of suspects; 25 incidents where our intelligence personnel were told by the detainees they were being mistreated, and a further 128 incidents where intelligence officers were informed by foreign liaison services about instances of mistreatment.

Thanks to the ISC report, we at last learn for certain that there was direct ministerial involvement. The report contains the revelation that Jack Straw authorised, at least once, the payment of ‘a large share’ of the costs for a plane that was used for rendition purposes.

That is reprehensible.

The report doesn’t disclose the identities of the victims of that particular operation. It does, however, reveal they were taken to a location with a ‘real risk of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment’.

Mr Straw signed off this payment in September 2004, and yet just over a year later he made a remarkable statement in the House of Commons which bears repeating in full: ‘Unless we all start to believe in conspiracy theories and that officials are lying, that I am lying, that behind this is some kind of secret state which is in league with some dark forces, and let me also say, we believe that US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is lying, there simply is no truth in the claims that the United Kingdom has been involved in rendition.’

Mr Straw’s conspiracy theory, we now know, was true. This report lays that bare. Yet Mr Straw continues to maintain he didn’t know what was going on, insisting yesterday that he learned the truth of what had been happening for the first time from the ISC investigation.

This isn’t remotely good enough. The former Foreign Secretary was responsible for the British overseas intelligence service MI6 at a time when something went dreadfully wrong.

I don’t believe that his emphatic statement in the Commons when answering questions about extraordinary rendition 13 years ago is remotely compatible with his protestations of ignorance today. Mr Straw’s conduct was deplorable.

What are the findings of the ISC reviews into the UK’s role in War on Terror?

Two long-delayed but damning reviews of Britain’s role in the mistreatment of suspects in the US-led War on Terror have today been published.

Here are the main findings of the review carried out by Parliament’s Intelligence and Security Committee:

  • Britain ‘tolerated’ extraordinary rendition and torture during the US war on terror
  • No evidence British officers personally carried out torture 
  • In nine cases, British officers made verbal threats and in two cases they were party to mistreatment carried out by others. Only one has been investigated by the Metropolitan Police.
  • On 13 occasions UK personnel witness at first hand abuse of prisoners and in 25 cases were told by detainees of mistreatment.
  • There were 232 cases where questions or intelligence were supplied to foreign agents where Britain knew of it suspected mistreatment. Information was received by Britain in 198 further cases of mistreatment.
  • On three occasions MI6 or MI5 paid, or offered to pay, contributions to a rendition flight
  • In 28 cases, British spies suggested, plan we or agreed to rendition operations proposed by other nations. In 23 more cases, Britain failed to take action to intervene and stop a rendition.
  • The ISC found no evidence any American rendition flight came through the UK with a detainee on board. 
  • Two detainees passed through the British base in Diego Garcia but were not held there. 

So, unfortunately, was that of Sir Richard Dearlove, who was head of MI6 at the time when the US embarked, with British collusion, on its programme of extraordinary rendition and torture after the attack on the Twin Towers on September 11.

The ISC report highlights the fact that British intelligence knew very early on that the US had changed its policy on torture to be far more aggressive, and yet they did not react, or even apparently deign to tell ministers.

In fairness, it was a very difficult time. There were fears of a follow-up attack and intelligence officers felt a patriotic duty to protect their fellow citizens. Some argued that the use of torture was justified by the extreme urgency of the international crisis which followed 9/11. I would remind them that in the late summer of 1990, Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait. Back in those days, Margaret Thatcher was still British Prime Minister, and as war loomed she sent an instruction around Whitehall saying that under no circumstances should British officials make use of intelligence obtained under torture.

Something changed after 9/11, and not for the better.

It is essential to bear in mind that one of the most important pieces of information leading to the decision to go to war with Saddam Hussein in 2003 was obtained through the torture of Libyan terror suspect Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi.

He told his interrogators that Saddam had close links with al-Qaeda. This information was widely used to justify the invasion of Iraq by President Bush, Vice-President Dick Cheney, Secretary of State Colin Powell, and others.

It was also completely untrue. Shaykh al-Libi disclosed later that he had fabricated these claims in order to mitigate his suffering.

This is one example where the use of torture proved utterly counter-productive. There are many other cases we know where it was simply worthless. Some victims pulled off the street were innocent of any terror involvement. For years, British spooks and politicians lied about all of this.

It is important to remember that the first Intelligence and Security Committee inquiry into extraordinary rendition, which was carried out as long ago as 2007, concluded that nothing had been amiss.

MI6 withheld vital documents from the inquiry, causing the committee to reach a false verdict.

Sir John Scarlett, successor to Sir Richard at MI6, was head of the agency at the time. This is the same John Scarlett who, as the head of the Joint Intelligence Committee at the start of the century, oversaw the deeply misleading dodgy dossier on Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction. In effect, that was a propaganda weapon to sell the calamitous Iraq invasion to the British people.

Spy novelist John le Carré once remarked that the health of a nation can be measured by the health of its intelligence services. If he is right, then something went very badly wrong with British intelligence, and Britain itself, at the start of the century.

Tony Blair, the Prime Minister at the time, must bear the heaviest responsibility, even though the ISC has produced no smoking gun linking him to torture. But Sir Richard and Sir John bear much of the blame.

Many unanswered questions remain, partly because Theresa May refused permission for key officials to be interviewed by the inquiry.

How much did Mr Straw really know? Why did intelligence chiefs not tell ministers the truth? What we do know for sure is that the intelligence services betrayed the values that Britain stand for.

Yet so far there has been barely a squeak of contrition from anyone involved. That isn’t good enough because torture, and collusion with torture, are not just a betrayal of British values. They are against the law.

Action should follow. Dearlove and Scarlett should be stripped of their knighthoods. They have brought shame and disgrace not just on MI6 but also on Britain.

In less tolerant countries, intelligence chiefs who have made much less serious errors get shot at dawn. As for Straw, he should be stripped of his Privy Councillorship.

And the question of prosecution must be reopened.

For our intelligence services to be effective, they need to have the trust of the British people, something they enjoyed for many years.

The ISC investigation suggests they are worthy only of contempt after their cynical betrayal of all that we stand for as a proud, civilised and humane nation. That is a disaster for British intelligence, and a disaster for Britain.

  • Personnel from MI6, MI5 and military intelligence took part in up to 3,000 interrogations of individuals held by the US in Afghanistan, Iraq and Guantanamo Bay from 2002
  • In three individual cases, Britain paid or offered to pay costs of rendition 
  • In nine cases, British officers made verbal threats and in two cases they were party to mistreatment carried out by others. Only one of these has been investigated by the Metropolitan Police
  • On 13 occasions UK personnel witnessed at first hand abuse of prisoners and in 25 cases were told by detainees of mistreatment
  • In 232 cases, UK personnel continued to supply questions or intelligence to allies after they knew or suspected mistreatment, said the ISC
  • And in 198 cases, they received intelligence obtained from detainees who they knew or should have suspected had been mistreated
  • Written records suggest spy chiefs knew – or should have known – of systematic abuse in the aftermath of 9/11
  • But none of Tony Blair, Jack Straw or David Blunkett were officially told in their roles of PM, Foreign Secretary and Home Secretary before 2005
  • Chairman Dominic Grieve highlighted there were many press reports of US mistreatment before 2005
  • There is still no coherent policy for tracking whether Britain is complicit in unlawful rendition, more than a decade after it first came to light



Read more at DailyMail.co.uk