Binyam Mohammed is a UK resident recently released, due to the UK Government’s insistence, from Guantanamo Bay. He alleges that he was tortured in Morocco with the knowledge, if not the permission, of UK Authorities. The evidence that Mr Mohammed suffered severe torture while held in Morocco to where he was flown by US Authorities is strong.
This is a tricky case. First and foremost torture is against national and international law. The UK is party to the UN Convention against Torture and as such is obliged to ensure that torture does not take place anywhere within its territory and/or with the implication of any of its officials. This is an absolute duty. Therefore if UK officials were even remotely involved in the extraordinary rendition and torture of Binyam Mohamed there is no doubt that a crime has been committed.
The Government has in the past repeatedly denied any involvement whatsoever in the vile practice of extraordinary rendition despite my and others’ several attempts to introduce amendments to bills that would have pre-empted the possibility. This is quite a technical area but basically concerns the obligation on the part of pilots to reveal the passenger lists, and destinations of ALL aircraft landing in UK commercial, military and private airfields; at present due to a World War II agreement US aircraft can choose to conceal this information thus allowing the possibility that UK facilities were in fact used to render suspects to countries where torture can be, and was, carried out.
Mr Mohamed may or may not have been previously involved in terrorist activities directed at the UK – the point is that his detention without charge and his torture are illegal. What is exercising opposition politicians in both Houses is whether this took place with the tacit agreement of the UK Authorities. The case is under intense investigation by the Attorney-General’s Office which will report once the investigation is complete. However the outcome is likely to be unsatisfactory due to the question of the Official Secrets Act and intelligence information.
For example, supposing it was the case that the UK authorities were entirely unaware of what was happening (or was likely to happen), to Mr Mohamed while he was being held in Morocco? How could this be demonstrated in the absence of documents withheld for quite proper reasons of security? Suppose on the other hand that individual intelligence service officers were aware that Mr Mohammed was in Morocco and actually, or likely to be, tortured? How could this be demonstrated by those who have no access to intelligence information?
So it is indeed a tricky case which comes together at the confluence of human rights, international relations, the security services, legal and political interests.
“Therefore if UK officials were even remotely involved in the extraordinary rendition and torture of Binyam Mohamed there is no doubt that a crime has been committed.” Section 7 of the Intelligence Services Act 1994 – http://www.opsi.gov.uk/ACTS/acts1994/ukpga_19940013_en_1#pb3-l1g7 – says that an authorisation given by the Secretary of State can stop a person being liable under the criminal or civil law of any part of the United Kingdom for any crime committed outside the British Islands.
I’m bound to say that that he is in the UK at all is questionable. Whatever the merits of his original asylum claim – he left the country voluntarily for a third country. As such I don’t see we have any duty to take on his care (after he left the UK) as he is not a British Citizen.
The issue of flights is crucial; it’s long been claimed rendition flights have operated from UK bases and various human rights organisations have tracked these flights despite the best efforts of the UK governments to cloak the whole matter. I’m sure we must expect this is a matter on which absolutely no movement is possible as both main parties (I’m not clear on the Lib Dem position – Lord Tyler?) have any intention of removing US immunity from UK law. The shameful recent extradition treaty says all that is necessary about political will.
To what extent is the Attorney-General’s Office acting with an obvious conflict of interest? We’ve been here before with the AG in government but investigating the same – Quis custodiet ipsos custodes. I haven’t seen a statement that the AG is stepping aside in making any recommendations though perhaps I have missed it?
For the obvious security reasons you give I can’t see the UK government can/will do anything but ‘obstruct’ the conventional evidential trial route. While secret judicial hearings of sorts are possible as long as the evidence is not made public any conclusions reached will probably fail to satisfy anyone. No doubt those supporting the public release of the information will soon be beginning a probably long, largely fruitless but doubtless highly expensive, for the taxpayer, series of ECHR/Judicial review claims to last for years.
> The issue of flights is crucial;
They are the easier part, but I think the geographic connection is less relevant than direct or indirect involvement. Who knew about it, who contributed to it? Personally I think that security has to take second place – after all what are we safeguarding, if we have lost humanity?
I can very well see this going to the ECHR. Of course they are not going to find all the fact either, but at least they are going to be honest about the findings for a change.
Croft – if the UK has been involved in this man’s abuse, I think our duty extends beyond legal grey areas and into quite definite moral ones.
The man had his penis slashed with a razor. Quite frankly, whether we had anything to do with it or not his asylum claim is valid.
McDuff: His asylum claim was prior to his detention by the US when he first came to Britain. See http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7870387.stm.
‘If’ is the key word in your statement. The US has to face up to gitmo and release the prisoners – and grant them asylum if they cannot return home and compensation if they were tortured. The UK by taking their prisoners is allowing the US to duck facing up to its actions and accepting the consequences.
Re: Baroness D’Souzas’ statement above, perhaps it would have made more sense if she had emphasised that most of what she states is as answer to supposition, and not the acceptance of these accusations and claims as fact. (Hence the use of ‘IF’ as a noun and not as a conjunction.)
As to the ‘Issue’ i would think that it should be impossible to judge a ‘Reaction’ without paying some heed or acceptance as to the ‘Action’ that preceded it, so for those calling for an ‘Inquiry’ assume, this information is not relevant, so i ask that they understand that any investigation or Inquiry, must be as thourough and far reaching as possible, if only to assertain a judgement. This would mean all government departments including the Home office, the Foreign office and indeed any publically funded entity be they representatives of law and order or serve as social assistance. It would not however have use of materials deemed ‘Secret’ and rightly so, as this information has to be considered as ‘Relevant to an ongoing operation’ and would include names and current situations of intelligence sources both ‘Local’ and ‘Own’ and be seen as endangering those assets.
As you comments show, this is a contentious and tricky case.
Anonymous – you’re right but it would be utterly outrageous if the Sec. of State invoked this section and thus condoned torture. Furthermore such an action in that it would conflict with the European Convention rights could be taken to the European Court of Human Rights.
Croft (and Thomas, McDuff and Sleepy)- Mr Mohamed should not be penalised for having been detained (and therefore unable to return legally to to the UK within the specified period) and now released without any charge ever having been brought against him.
There is increasing pressure for a proper enquiry so it is possible that there may be some movement. Also a Private Member’s Bill on Torture is working its way through both Houses of Parliament. I will summarise this in a separate blog.
I entirely agree that the extradition treaty should be re-negotiated if only to make it reciprocal – the agreement during the Bush Administration was never debated or approved by Parliament.
The Attorney General and her office has been advising the Government of all matters to do with extraordinary renditon and I tend to agree that what is now needed is a public and independent enquiry to achieve objectivity.
The question as to whether the UK Government has or has not been involved (however tangentially) in torture is a crucial one and actually a test for the current state of democracy.If the only way to get at the truth is via a series of Judicial Review claims – then that is what has to happen.
I feel it cannot be beyond the wit of the courts and the intelligence services to answer the key question without revealing sensitive information. We should always remember that one of the most common reasons governments cite for withholding information is for ‘reasons of national security!’
This case is one of the reasons that I feel depressed about the future of this country and the world.
The same questions you ask go through my head but I have some more:
Why do we have a system whereby a member of the Government decides legal matters? Doesn’t that put her in a conflict of interest situation?
If the Attorney General decides not to investigate, would we ever learn the truth?
IF torture has occurred with British then doesn’t that mean we’ve lost some freedom and the right to be considered a free country? IF torture has occurred with British involvement (and we’re still one of the better countries), where does that mean the world is heading? Are we really one of the better countries? Or did the torture not occur or there was no British involvement?
If US aircraft are free from revealing passenger lists to the British Government, why is the UK (and the EU) so willing to break Data Protection Laws to provide that information and more to the US?
To Croft: Wherever Mr Mohammed was, doesn’t matter. If he was tortured and the UK was involved with that then legally and morally we were in the wrong. Furthermore, if that doesn’t convince you think of this: If a country today is willing to break laws and treaties against foreigners today, then they would be willing to do the same to their own citizens tomorrow.