Tuesday, November 16, 2010 

A payout which leaves overall justice the loser.

In one way, the announcement of the engagement of two of our social betters and the compensation payouts to the former Guantanamo detainees is a happier coincidence than it first seems. Shoving the news way down the agenda as it does, far below where it should deservedly be, will also undoubtedly mean that the deal won't come in for the same crushing criticism as it almost certainly would have done from those who still continue to believe that either the security services did nothing wrong or that those who ended up in Guantanamo were "bad men" that had it coming to them.

This version of events will be encouraged by how at the pains the coalition government has been to point out that even while paying out millions of pounds to those it previously believed to be terrorists it has accepted no culpability whatsoever for what happened to them while in the custody of foreign governments. Such a detail is however just a part of the deal which has obviously been struck to protect both embarrassment and the possible prosecution of past ministers and intelligence assets. The government ensures that the files of MI5 and 6 stay firmly closed to anyone other than the very highly vetted establishment figures who are trusted to keep the criticism, if any, to the bare minimum, while the former detainees, remunerated somewhat for the mistreatment and illegality they were subjected to say no more, even if they don't withdraw their allegations, and can't boast of how much they were able to wrangle from those who may well still remain their ideological enemies.

This was the only way the case pursued by the former detainees was ever going to conclude following the ruling earlier in the year by the Court of Appeal which overturned a previous judgement that the government could use secret evidence in civil cases, with the plaintiffs represented by special advocates as in the Special Immigration Appeals Commission system. The terrifying implications of the ruling for any government and especially for the security services were laid bare just two months later when the contents of just a few of the possible 500,000 documents relating to the men were published, showing that both Tony Blair and Jack Straw had been personally involved in the process which resulted in detainees either being denied consular access or sent to Guantanamo, while the transcripts of the interrogations of Omar Deghayes by MI5 agents made clear the sort of contempt with which those suspected of involvement in terrorism were being treated at the time, regardless of their British residency or nationality. The washing of the security services' dirty laundry in public was never going to be acceptable to a government of any colour or political persuasion, especially of a nation which has long prized its draconian secrecy laws, often for very apparent reasons.

It is no exaggeration to state that some of the documents which could have been released as a result may have altered for a generation the relatively benign view most have of our intelligence agencies. Despite repeated and fierce attempts, lately by their newest and relatively untainted heads to make clear their revulsion for mistreatment and torture, the drip-drip effect of the allegations against them has as David Cameron himself said began to affect "[O]ur reputation as a country that believes in human rights, justice, fairness and the rule of law – indeed, much of what the services exist to protect". Add into this the cost and the potentially unending nature of the litigation which would have followed as ever more documents were declassified and the potentially lurid details piled up, with the corresponding damage to our reputation continuing to mount, and the shelling out of the millions now was all but inevitable.

The only real losers in all of this are then ourselves. It's impossible to begrudge or question the detainees for deciding to settle, not least as they deserve all that they've been paid out and without doubt far more besides. As the Guardian reports and Andy Worthington alludes to, while some have been able to return somewhat to normal life since their release, others are still unable to move beyond both the mental and physical affects their detention has had on them. Intriguingly, one of those who has settled is Shaker Aamer, the last British resident still to be held at Guantanamo, which is suggestive to say the least of the few remaining hurdles in the way of his release being surmounted. Aamer is not only one of the known "leaders" at the camp, having been involved in negotiations at the camp which were meant to lead to the effective recognising of the detainees' rights under the Geneva Convention, but has also made allegations that the 3 detainees who the US said committed suicide in 2006 in what was described at the time as an act of "asymmetric warfare" in fact died as a result of injuries inflicted whilst they were being interrogated.

No, we're the losers and justice also is because it's almost certain that now the full truth will never be known, or at least won't be for a very long time. While the long-awaited and long-called for judicial inquiry into allegations of collusion in torture and rendition is a step closer, it's also apparent that the terms of reference of that inquiry, unlikely to provide a narrative of how the situation came about where British residents and citizens considered to be "terrorist suspects" were either left without representation or to their fate, or in the very worst cases, actively handed over to their abusers will be relatively limited, especially if it is to deal only with the allegations made by those who have now settled with the government. We also know that most of it is likely to be held behind closed doors, and if the end report is anything like the ones produced by the Intelligence and Security Committee, heavily redacted. The fragments of documents released, even though they were also censored, allowed us to see into the dealings of the secret state as almost never before, and they showed us exactly why successive governments have fought to keep them locked away. They threatened to show the security services' dealings as they were, without even the slightest varnish, as only they, ministers and those given the special clearance are allowed to. That, simply, could never be allowed and will most likely never be repeated.

Labels: , , , , , , , , ,

Share |

Thursday, July 15, 2010 

Omar Deghayes and the torture files.

If nothing else, the latest documents revealed thanks to the lawsuit brought by six former Guantanamo detainees show conclusively why both MI5 and MI6 need "official" historians. Authorised academics like Christopher Andrew, despite having complete access to the archives, seem to discover relatively little that wasn't previously known and always manage to give them a clean bill of health when it comes to past allegations of misdeeds.

This seems especially strange when we look at the reports sent back after interviews conducted in 2002 and 2003 with Omar Deghayes. One of the obvious benefits of knowing that your dispatches are top secret, and highly unlikely to ever be released to anyone other than your superiors is the advantage, both that you can be completely honest, and also that you don't need to temper your complete contempt for the person you've gone half-way around the world to interrogate. This doesn't just extend to a complete lack of any care for the conditions in which Deghayes was being held, but also to an apparent disgust for him personally. The officers' minds also seem to have been conclusively made up before even speaking to him, presuming to know everything about him, and if he doesn't then corroborate their intelligence then they automatically assume him to be lying. Admittedly, this isn't helped by his initial pretending to be his brother, detailed in the penultimate but what should be first report in the file.

Probably most interesting is Deghayes admitted links to the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group. Deghayes' association with the group coincides with the alleged funding by MI6 of an attempt at assassinating Colonel Gadaffi, as alleged by David Shayler during his credible stage, before he started dressing as a woman and claiming that holograms crashed into the twin towers and not aeroplanes. This could well explain why they appear to know so much about him, or rather believe to. How wrong their information was is difficult to be completely certain about, but the insistence in the report after the first interview that he was lying about his "superficial" involvement, although "robustly" is hardly backed up by the dropping all around of any subsequent case against him. In any case, Deghayes had every reason to want Gadaffi overthrown - it is not disputed that his father was murdered while in custody in the country, with his family seeking asylum here as a result.

As with the other detainees, the ultimate aim of MI5 seems to have been, although unstated, to potentially recruit him. The first stage was for him to be completely "honest" with his interviewees, and if he didn't give the "right" answers, without having any way of knowing what they were, especially if they were based on the same fiction as the Americans, who had him in a Chechen training camp when he had never been near the country, then he would be instead left to the Americans, who could do whatever the hell they liked with him. Also instructive is the way the officers seem to sex up what he did tell them - he admits at one stage to having been in Bosnia, which correlates with his travels around Muslim countries, but denies having fought there. This is turned in the summary into "having been a Bosnian vet". This was also the interview when he was brought into the interview room "manacled and hooded", conditions which should have immediately under the new code resulted in it being terminated.

It's in the next, penultimate interview where the real contempt, almost imperial arrogance and disregard for his condition becomes truly apparent. Despite being told beforehand that he doesn't have malaria or TB, Deghayes continues to "expectorate rather disgustingly", which according to the officer usually "coincided with when he was being most evasive". Deghayes then next dared to condemn his treatment and how he was being held (Deghayes has since commented that the treatment at Bagram where he was being held at the time, was far worse than at Guantanamo itself. This is despite him being blinded while at Guantanamo), which the officers seemingly just about managed to listen to without cracking up laughing, making "no comment", even though Deghayes challenged them directly on how he could feign "internal bleeding". Again, the guidelines at the time, wrongly, suggested that the "law does not require you to intervene to prevent" ill-treatment. In fact, our responsibilities under the UN Convention Against Torture require exactly that, but all involved seemed to conveniently forget about that at the time. If detainees now complain about being mistreated officers are supposedly meant to not return, which also helpfully leaves them in the complete clutches of those doing the torturing.

Not that it would have made any difference when MI5 were so obviously hand in glove with those operating at Bagram at the time. In the final interview, "Andrew" called in a "senior officer" at the facility, telling him in his hearing that he didn't believe Deghayes was cooperating. It's not clear whether the next page is directly connected, so much is redacted and disjointed in the files, and the date seems to be almost 9 months ahead, but this is the page where it's clear they're abandoning him to his fate unless he gives the "full truth". He didn't, whether he could or not, and the next relevant piece has him in Guantanamo, where he "begins the interview with a hostile attitude ... [H]e riled for some time against the system which detained him and the US legal basis for it ... [H]e stated that the UK government should be working for UK nationals rather than bothering with him". That Deghayes was right in absolutely everything he said, having been "arrested" in Pakistan and most likely sold on to the Americans, having any rights whatsoever denied to him and left to rot by the nation he was a resident of didn't cut any ice with them, it goes without saying.

Whether Deghayes was directly offered with the chance to work for MI5/6 at any point is difficult to know. It would however fit with the pattern of those who subsequently found themselves in Guantanamo. Martin Mubanga it seems was offered a similar deal, and we know for a fact this what was offered to Jamil el-Banna, who was rendered to Guantanamo with the direct connivance of the security services after he declined.

As shocking as the revelations are that Downing Street directly intervened to prevent Mubanga being giving consular access, a right offered as a matter of course to any British citizen/resident, and as perhaps indicative of Jack Straw as a man that he was wholly complicit in the rendition of all the detainees to Guantanamo, writing in January of 2002 "that we accept the transfer of UK nationals held by US forces ... to the US base in Guantanamo as the best way to meet our counter-terrorism objective by ensuring they are securely held", it's the human story behind Deghayes' case which rankles the most. Abandoned by officers who decided he wasn't telling the truth, on the basis of intelligence which was almost certainly inaccurate, he was blinded in one eye while resisting at Guantanamo, and only by a miracle was not in the other as well. Any case against him was dropped in Spain on the grounds that he was suffering from "post-traumatic stress syndrome, severe depression and suicidal tendencies". He was one of the first, but by no means the last to discover what the collusion of the security services with torturers and human rights abusers during the first stages of the "war on terror" amounted to.

Labels: , , , , , , , ,

Share |

Tuesday, July 06, 2010 

An inquiry without a beginning or an end.

Welcome as the announcement of a judicial inquiry into allegations of collusion in torture and rendition by the security services is, it's also difficult not to be discouraged by the rather thin details so far given, even if the full picture is yet to emerge.

First off is the judge who will be in overall charge. Although obviously a judge with some knowledge already of the intelligence services would be preferable, for the one who is overall commissioner of MI5, MI6 and GCHQ to lead it suggests we shouldn't get our hopes up. If there's anything you learn about how the security services in this country are handled and reviewed, it's that those unlikely to rock the boat are always given the role of supposed watchdog. The parliamentary Intelligence and Security Committee is packed with ex-ministers and "elder" statesmen, having previously been chaired by both Paul Murphy and Margaret Beckett and latterly by Kim Howells, none of whom have had almost anything critical to say about those they monitor. Indeed, the ISC has already produced a report on the role of security services in rendition, the most spectacular whitewash and moving of the goalposts you're ever likely to read. The same has been the case with Lord Carlile, the reviewer of terrorism legislation who equally has found little to criticise the services over. That Sir Peter Gibson has not just been appointed commissioner, but is serving his second term is not the greatest of signs. I might of course be doing him a great disservice, and it's true, as Craig Murray points out, that the other two on the inquiry are of a more independent bent who will have just as great an input and will no doubt complain vigorously if their interpretation of the same evidence put before them is depreciated.

Of even more concern is that the inquiry will essentially look into just the allegations of those who claim to have been mistreated either directly or indirectly by the British state, rather than attempting to present a narrative of how security service policy changed and developed after September the 11th, the sort of overview which is needed to be able to learn the lessons of what happened when the attitude of our main ally changed essentially overnight. The fact the inquiry won't begin until the cases currently being brought by those British citizens and residents formerly held at Guantanamo Bay have been settled, and not before it's decided whether an MI5 and MI6 officer are to be charged over their personal roles in the commission or collusion of mistreatment suggest that this could just be a mopping up exercise, setting out what happened to them, adding to the compensation they are likely to receive without explaining why they were allowed to be treated in that way to begin with.

While as David Cameron said, it was never going to be possible to hold the entirety of the inquiry in public when it is investigating something meant to be completely secret, as much as can be should be heard in an open setting. Even more crucial though is that the end result, the report, ought to be free from redaction, and not the equivalent of a joke as the ISC's yearly round-ups are.

An insight however into how minor any real changes in policy are likely to be from the previous government is presented by the announced at the same time green paper into intelligence sharing, apparently designed to stop embarrassments like the "seven paragraphs" ever being released again. Whether this is being directly prompted by the Americans or not is unclear - it could equally be a ruse by the security services themselves to never have to reveal anything so incriminating again. After all, the seven paragraphs were released essentially because the Americans had already put into the public domain information far worse than the details they had given to MI5 surrounding the treatment of Binyam Mohamed, such as the Bybee memo, not to mention also the ruling which essentially agreed with Mohamed that he had been tortured. It in any case should be the courts that decide what should and should not be released when it concerns potential breaches of the law - not politicians who will themselves be culpable for the decisions which lead to those breaches.

We are then not really any further along in getting to the very bottom of the rabbit hole of collusion in rendition and torture. An inquiry, but one without terms of reference, and without a date on when it will start, led by a judge with hardly a spotless record. Perhaps the best course of action is to be pessimistic and end up surprised later; or equally, to have our worst suspicions confirmed.

Labels: , , , , , , ,

Share |

About

  • This is septicisle
profile

Archives

Powered by Blogger
and Blogger Templates