The Guardian: British Officials Devised Torture Policy for Detainees

Bravo to Ian Cobain and Richard Norton-Taylor. Amidst the UK-US collusion to prevent documents on torture being seen by the British High Court and the attempt to prevent the story of the abuse of Guantanamo Bay detainee Binyam Mohamed (pictured) from emerging, they are explaining how Government officials established torture as a policy. This is the article that will appear in tomorrow's Guardian:

Whitehall devised torture policy for terror detainees

A policy governing the interrogation of terrorism suspects in Pakistan that led to British citizens and residents being tortured was devised by MI5 lawyers and figures in government, according to evidence heard in court.

A number of British terrorism suspects who have been detained without trial in Pakistan say they were tortured by Pakistani intelligence agents before being questioned by MI5. In some cases their accusations are supported by medical evidence.

The existence of an official interrogation policy emerged during cross-examination in the high court in London of an MI5 officer who had questioned one of the detainees, Binyam Mohamed, the British resident currently held in Guantánamo Bay. The officer, who can be identified only as Witness B, admitted that although Mohamed had been in Pakistani custody for five weeks, and he knew the country to have a poor human rights record, he did not ask whether he had been tortured or mistreated, did not inquire why he had lost weight, and did not consider whether his detention without trial was illegal.

Mohamed is expected to return to Britain soon after ending a five-week hunger strike at Guantánamo Bay, where he was being force-fed. After he was seen by British officials and a doctor over the weekend, the Foreign Office said he was medically fit to travel.

Cross-examined in the high court last year, Witness B acknowledged that Mohamed was in "an extremely vulnerable position" when he questioned him in Karachi in 2002. The MI5 officer admitted telling him that "he would get more lenient treatment if he cooperated", and said that he knew he was to be transferred to US custody.

Witness B was asked by Dinah Rose QC, for Mohamed: "Was it your understanding that it was lawful for Mr Mohamed to be transferred to the US authorities in this way?" Witness B replied: "I consider that to be a matter for the security service top management and for government."

Asked then whether the transfer concerned him, Witness B replied: "I was aware that the general question of interviewing detainees had been discussed at length by security service management legal advisers and government, and I acted in this case, as in others, under the strong impression that it was considered to be proper and lawful." He denied that he had threatened Mohamed and said the prisoner appeared well enough to be questioned.

Mohamed was eventually able to tell lawyers that before being questioned by MI5 he had been hung from leather straps, beaten and threatened with a firearm by Pakistani intelligence officers. After the meeting with MI5 he was "rendered" to Morocco where he endured 18 months of even more brutal torture, including having his genitals slashed with a scalpel. Some of the questions put to him under torture in Morocco were based on information passed by MI5 to the US.

The Guardian has learned from other sources that the interrogation policy was directed at a high level within Whitehall and that it has been further developed since Mohamed's detention in Pakistan. Evidence of this might emerge from 42 undisclosed US documents seen by the high court and sent to the MPs and peers on the intelligence and security committee (ISC).

Lawyers representing Mohamed went to the high court in an attempt to secure the disclosure of the documents, but the court reluctantly refused earlier this month after David Miliband, the foreign secretary, said such a move would damage national security and UK-US relations.

Miliband's position in the affair came under renewed attack yesterday after it emerged that his officials solicited a letter from the US state department to back up his claim that if the evidence was disclosed, Washington might stop sharing intelligence with Britain. The claim persuaded the high court judges to suppress what they called "powerful evidence" relating to Mohamed's ill-treatment.

Edward Davey, the Liberal Democrat foreign affairs spokesman, today described the move as possibly "one of the most outrageous deceptions of parliament, the judiciary and the British people. There must be an immediate investigation, with all related correspondence made public."

The FCO said it asked the US to make its position clear in writing "to inform both us and the court". It said it was "both perfectly sensible and the correct thing to do".

The high court said it was now up to the ISC to "hold those in charge of the secret intelligence service and security service and her majesty's government to account".

In a letter to the committee, Clive Stafford Smith, the director of Reprieve, says: "The ISC would want to know whether the intelligence services brought the issue of Mr Mohamed's abuse to the attention of the prime minister (then Mr Blair) – and, if not, why not." He said if the evidence had been brought to Blair's attention, "the ISC would want to know what, if anything, was done about it. If nothing was done, that would raise serious questions about the respect that the UK government has for its obligations under the convention against torture."

Evidence heard by the court in-camera – once the public and the media had been excluded – resulted in Jacqui Smith, the home secretary, asking the attorney general, Lady Scotland, to investigate "possible criminal wrongdoing" by both American and British security and intelligence officers.

Witness B's testimony is expected to be considered by MPs and peers on parliament's joint committee on human rights, which has begun an inquiry into allegations of British collusion in the torture of detainees in Pakistan, and is asking Miliband and Smith to give evidence.

A number of British terrorism suspects have been questioned by British intelligence officials, including MI5 officers, after periods of alleged torture by Pakistani interrogators. Last year Manchester crown court heard that MI5 and Greater Manchester police passed questions to Pakistani interrogators so they could be put to Rangzieb Ahmed, 35, from Rochdale. MI5 officers also interviewed him while he was in custody, although the head of the consular division at the British high commission was not informed about his detention for nine months. By the time Ahmed was deported to the UK 13 months later, and successfully prosecuted for terrorism offences, three of his fingernails had disappeared from his left hand. He says they were removed with pliers while he was being questioned about his associates in Pakistan, the July 2005 terrorist attacks in London, and an alleged plot against the United States.

While other detainees have also subsequently been prosecuted or deported to the UK and made subject to control orders, one vanished in bizarre circumstances and was subsequently said to have been killed in a US missile attack, although his family has not been given his body. A number have been released without charge.

A medical student from London who was held for almost two months in a building opposite the offices of the British deputy high commission in Karachi says he was tortured while being questioned about the 2005 London bombings before being questioned by British intelligence officers. He was released without charge and is now working at a hospital on the south coast of England, but is thought to remain deeply traumatised.

Updated: Pakistan - Can You Balance Sharia and Missiles?

Linking two items from our recent updates:

Pakistan agreed on Monday to restore strict Islamist law in the Swat valley to pacify a revolt by Taliban militants, and a suspected U.S. drone fired missiles in the region killing at least 26 people.

So does the political gesture of legal autonomy in northwestern Pakistan outweigh answer over the lack of autonomy when a missile hits your house?

The answer, at least for US envoy Richard Holbrooke, lies in the notion that "good locals" can easily be separated from and set against "bad extremists", be they the foreign or home-grown variety. He said in New Delhi today,

India, the U.S. and Pakistan all have a common threat now. I talked to people from Swat and they were frankly quite terrified. I attempted to discuss Swat a lot, Swat has really deeply affected the people of Pakistan not just in Peshawar but in Lahore and Islamabad.

Nice in principle, but does that mean that if sharia was the choice of "good locals" rather than "bad extremists", Washington will accept the decisions?

And equally important, how do US missiles distinguish between good and bad?

Mr Obama's World: Latest Alerts in US Foreign Policy (16 February)

Latest Post: Pakistan - Can You Balance Sharia and Missiles?
Latest Post: The Difficulties for Washington’s Diplomatic Engagement with Tehran
Latest Post: The Shock of Hypocrisy: US Operating From Within Pakistan

Current  Obamameter Reading: Fair, Possible Rumbles from South Later



9p.m. Missed this from earlier today: Italy has said it will not take any released detainees from Guantanamo Bay, further denting the Obama strategy of having "third countries" take the "hard cases" from the facility.

Evening update (6 p.m. GMT): White House spokesman Robert Gibbs has said President Obama will make a decision on US troop levels in Afghanistan "within days", not weeks.

1 p.m. Hillary Clinton has started his Asian tour in Tokyo with warm words for the "vitally important" US-Japan alliance: "Its foundation has been and always will be a commitment to our shared security and prosperity, but we also know that we have to work together to address the global financial crisis, which is affecting all of us."

12:25 p.m. A second fatal roadside bomb in Iraq today has killed four Shi'a pilgrims on a bus in eastern Baghdad. The first bomb killed four in Sadr City.

11:15 a.m. The Kyrgyzstan Government has followed up its declaration that it will close the US airbase in the country by sending the necessary documents to Parliament.

8:40 a.m. A witness says 20 more bodies from this morning's US airstrike in northwestern Pakistan have been found, bringing the death toll to at least 30. CNN is reporting at least 15 confirmed deaths.

8:15 a.m. A roadside bomb has killed four passengers on a bus in the Baghdad district of Sadr City.

In a barely-noticed incident on Sunday, a US soldier was killed by a roadside bomb in southern Iraq, the fifth American combat facility in the past week.

7:45 a.m. In another sign of the Obama Administration's move for co-operation with China, Chinese state media is reporting that high-level military talks will resume at the end of February. The two-day "informal" dialogue will be between a U.S. assistant secretary of defense and a deputy chief of the Chinese army.

6:50 a.m. Engaging Iran via Afghanistan. The New York Times usefully notes a Sunday statement on an Afghan TV station by US envoy Richard Holbrooke: “It is absolutely clear that Iran plays an important role in Afghanistan. They have a legitimate role to play in this region, as do all of Afghanistan’s neighbors.”

6:40 a.m. Updates on US airstrikes: At least 12 people killed in Pakistan's Kurram region; US and Afghan officials claim nine militants, including the prominent leader Mullah Dastagir, killed in a raid Sunday night.

Morning Update (6 a.m. GMT; 1 a.m. Washington): No major developments, but yesterday's announcement in Kabul of Afghanistan participation in local security discussions with the US and in the strategic review in Washington appears to be a masterful political move, at least for now.

For President Obama and his envoy Richard Holbrooke, the measures give them some freedom of manoeuvre against military pressure for an immediate surge in forces. For Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai (pictured), it relieves Washington's direct pressure upon him and gives him a domestic political boost, with US recognition of his assertion of Afghan sovereignty.

In Pakistan, the story of US missile strikes --- which we updated last night with the not-so-surprising revelation that the American drones were flying from US bases inside the country --- runs and runs. Two more missiles were fired at "militant targets" this morning. Up to 10 people are reported killed.

Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton enters the first day of substantive talks on her Asian tour, beginning in Japan.

In Venezuela, President Hugo Chavez has declared victory in a referendum which would enable to run for a third six-year term in 2013. With 94 percent of votes counted, the measure was favoured by more than 54 percent of voters. Chavez's victory will drive the "mainstream" US media such as The Washington Post crazy; the Obama Administration's reaction is likely to be more measured.

Mr Obama's World: Latest Alerts in US Foreign Policy (15 February)

Latest Post: The Shock of Hypocrisy: US Operating From Within Pakistan



5 p.m. Finally, movement from the Holbrooke-Karzai discussions in Afghanistan. At a joint news conference, they announced a declaration aimed at reducing civilian deaths from US and NATO military operations.

According to Al Jazeera, "Afghan security personnel will play a greater role in the planning and undertaking of night time attacks, searches and operations in populated areas, particularly in tribal regions." An Afghan delegation will join the strategic review, chaired by Holbrooke (pictured), in Washington.
Afternoon Update (4:30 p.m.): Militants in Pakistan's Swat Valley have called a 10-day cease-fire. Peace talks are underway that could establish sharia law throughout the area.

Pakistani officials say the US is "alarmed" by the possibility that sharia law will be accepted and is privately advocating large-scale deployment of Pakistani troops in the region.

Morning Update (6:25 a.m. GMT; 1:25 a.m. GMT): The lead item is a non-update. There is still no news out of the conversations yesterday between US envoy Richard Holbrooke and Afghan President Hamid Karzai, which come after a period of tension between Washington and the Afghan Government and amidst talk of an increased US military presence.

The only possible signal came from Admiral Mike Mullen, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who told The Washington Post:

We can send more troops. We can kill or capture all the Taliban and al-Qaeda leaders we can find - and we should. But until we prove capable, with the help of our allies and Afghan partners, of safeguarding the population, we will never know a peaceful, prosperous Afghanistan. Lose the people's trust, and we lose the war.

It is unclear whether Mullen's words were meant as a reassurance to Karzai or a wider appeal to other Afghan leaders, NATO allies, and opinion in Washington as the US military presses for a new strategic approach.

UPDATED: The Shock of Hypocrisy - US Operating From Within Pakistan

Update (16 Feb. --- 7:45 p.m. GMT): Yesterday we predicted a deluge of comment, after Senator Feinstein's revelation of US airbases inside Pakistan, on the lines of "None of these realities [of missile strikes] harm the US. Only appearances do."

Here you go. Thomas Ricks of The Washington Post is fussing, quoting military blogs: "Unfortunately for the US personnel at the Pakistani base, they have now been identified as targets for the militants. US access to Pakistan also became vastly more fragile today. Moreover, the elected government has been weakened, possibly fatally."

It doesn't occur to Ricks that, if you didn't want to expose US forces to insurgent assault and if you didn't want to undermine the Pakistani Government, then you shouldn't have set up the not-so-secret base in the first place. Anyone who wants a bit of history might think back to Cambodia 1970, when Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger played a similar disastrous game with "secret" US operations to blast away the sanctuary for the Vietnamese insurgency. The eventual outcome was public embarrassment when someone noticed big ol' American planes on the wrong side of the border, a coup and the emergence of the Khmer Rouge, and a failure to break the Vietnamese enemy.


Sometimes political theatre has to be acknowledged as farce, especially when it is attempting to obscure tragedy.

On Thursday Senator Dianne Feinstein caused a stir when she expressed surprise, in a Congressional hearing, at Pakistani Government objections to US missile strikes: "As I understand it, these are flown out of a Pakistani base." Greg Miller in the Chicago Tribune breathlessly exclaimed, "The basing of the pilotless aircraft in Pakistan suggests a much deeper relationship with the United States on counterterrorism matters than has been publicly acknowledged."


A much more practical response might have been, "No s***, Sherlock." The Tribune article might have even-more-breathlessly commented, "Many counterterrorism experts have assumed that the aircraft were operated from U.S. military installations in Afghanistan, and remotely piloted from locations in the United States," but my experience, reflected in analysis on Enduring America, is that US-run operations from within Pakistan were close to becoming an open secret.

No, the wringing of hands over Feinstein's statement had little to do with the rights or wrongs of the US conniving with someone in the Pakistan Government to run operations killing Pakistanis; it was consternation that the truth might be known. Witness the fluttering of The Weekly Standard: "The statement gives weight to the notion that the CIA is launching attacks on targets in the tribal areas from a base located on Pakistani territory. And that genie cannot be put back into the bottle, Pakistanis will believe this."

Guess what, boys? "Most Pakistanis", as the Tribune article noted, already believed this --- you know, it's kinda hard to hide the flight of a plane, even an unmanned one, from folks who live nearby. So the pretence of "if they know see it, it doesn't exist" is about two steps beyond ludicrous. As is The Weekly Standard's follow-up concern:

All this has done is harm the image of the United States, as we're portrayed as the big, bad bully that violates Pakistan's sovereignty without a care for the people.

Note, it's not the killing of Pakistani civilians that has harmed the US. It's not the dubious respect for another country's sovereignty that has harmed the US. It's not the effective expansion of a war-going-badly in Afghanistan that has harmed the US.

None of these realities harm the US. Only appearances do.

Right.