Coalition So Far

Though I've been following the Con-Lib coalition progress to date, I've been reluctant to post on it so far, as they're just words being said and promises being made. Parliament isn't up and running yet. That for me is the real test of this government, will they use parliament effectively or will they use it like the conveyor belt it became under the previous government.

I've been impressed so far by Hague setting up an inquiry into whether Britain has been complicit in torture. Also by the fact that even though he is a rabid Eurosceptic, the government are taking a pragmatic approach to the EU. Just how Eurosceptic they would be was a concern, as regardless of your views on the EU, a lot of jobs depend on it and it's never a good idea to bait your neighbours.

I really enjoyed Nick Clegg's speech on political reform earlier in the week.

I'm a liberal. My starting point is always optimism about people.The view that most people, most of the time, will make the right decisions for themselves and their families. That you know better than I do about how to run your life, your community, the services you use. So this government is going to trust people.

Wonderful, wouldn't that be nice? One piece of reform that has got peoples back's up is the 55% rule. This is with regard to introducing fixed term parliaments, it gives parliament the ability to dissolve before that time. I'm not sure myself why that would be a problem, given a vote of confidence still stands and it makes sense to have an emergency stop button for the coalition. Most of the debate I've seen with regard to this, has centred around not changing something just because it's always been done that way. Could be just Conservatives being conservative?

I'm looking forward to hearing what the Queens speech says this Tuesday and I'll be watching with interest this new parliament starting.

David Davies Calls Government on Torture

David Davis in a statement to the House of Commons last night said that the intelligence services had been "outsourcing torture". He stated information that previously had been suppressed through the process of secret court hearings, putting it into the public domain in the way this government have constantly tried to stop. His statement was about the case of Rangzieb Ahmed:

Rangzieb Ahmed should have been arrested by the UK in 2006, but he was not. The authorities knew that he intended to travel to Pakistan, so they should have prevented that; instead, they suggested that the ISI arrest him. They knew that he would be tortured, and they arranged to construct a list of questions and supply it to the ISI.

Rangzieb Ahmed is a convicted terrorist, I in no way, shape or form defend that. Yet the dismissive rhetorical surrounding this that he deserved to be tortured is disgraceful. It's not about revenge, tic for tac or who's better at torture, it's about doing what's right. It was right to convict him using the law, it was not right to outsource torture and jeopardize the prosecution in doing so. No evidence gained under torture is admissible in a British court, in fact in any court who's country signed the Geneva Convention.

It's easy to be reactionary about terrorists, but I rather Britain didn't become no better than them. I don't want to live in a bomb scared waste land any more than an idealogical equivalent of that. I welcome Davies calls for an inquiry as we need to address this, it has a huge effect on how we use intelligence, address terrorism and our foreign policy. Pretending otherwise helps no one.


The Guardian have over viewed what is know about Britain's role to date, for those unfamiliar with the story.

Brown Signalling U-Turning on Iraq Inquiry

Only three days after saying the inquiry into Iraq would be held behind closed doors. Brown is opening the doors slightly, while pretending he never said anything as awful as it would be held in private. Quietly passing the buck to Sir John Chilcot heading the inquiry, by saying it was up to Chilcot to consider how the precise format of the inquiry should be structured.

It does make you wonder if Brown or Labour think anything through before making statements. All of this could have been avoided by talking to a broader range of people. Having an inner circle may protect you, but when you're only talking to each other it limits your greater understanding.

There is still however no mention that the Iraq inquiry will cover the torture allegations surrounding the government. Philipe Sands QC has written an article that outlines what is known against international law. It concerns me that this government not only may have been complicit in torture, but they may still be. As Churchill succinctly said:

the use of instruments of torture can never be regarded by any decent person as synonymous with justice.

Surely if "lessons are to be learnt" how intelligence is obtained, given not only it's legal ramification, both in ability to prosecute and our obligations under international law. But also wider influence on foreign policy and moral standing, shouldn't just be swept under the carpet.

Brown to Announce Iraq War Inquiry

At long last Labour are to announce an Iraq war inquiry. It's thought that it will examine the circumstances leading up to joining the US-led invasion in March 2003 and its aftermath. I hope in light of all the torture allegations, it will also focus on Britain's involvement in them, the thought that the government had no idea people were being tortured for 6 years is ridiculous.

An inquiry wasn't going to be announced until August after all British soldiers left Iraq, yet Brown in an attempt to improve relations with rebel backbenchers and those that opposed the Iraq war has bought it forward. The other factor here is by starting it off Labour get some control over it, if the Tories win the election and start an inquiry they have no need not to be completely open and honest. As it won't be them that revelations will be a problem for.

The inquiry itself is expected to be based on the Franks inquiry. This consisted of six senior privy ­councillors who had full access to government papers but who met in secret.

Two things about that are concerning firstly, who will be the six senior privy ­councillors? Secondly if it's to be held in secret, then what's the point? No one wants more secrets and lies from this government. So I hope the announcement expected this week, will reflect the transparency and reform Labour keep banging on about.

Met Police Accused of Waterboarding

Six Metropolitan Police officers have been suspended over allegations of subjecting suspects to "waterboarding" – the CIA interrogation technique that simulates the experience of drowning – during a drugs raid in north London last November. (read article)

What the hell? I don't know who to be more worried about any more. What are the Met doing just letting any nut in, only psychopaths need apply, thank god they don't carry guns.

Think I'd prefer to take a risk with a knife wielding hoodie, over the Met police these days.

Jacqui Smith Faces Torture Legal Action

Unbelievable, more allegations that our government are out sourcing and being complicit in torture, several cases now and not one of these cowardly politicians will launch an independent investigation.

The home secretary Jacqui Smith faces legal action over allegations that MI5 agents colluded in the torture of a British former civil servant by Bangladeshi intelligence officers.

Lawyers for the British man, Jamil Rahman, are to file a damages claim alleging that Smith was complicit in assault, unlawful arrest, false imprisonment and breaches of human rights legislation over his alleged ill-treatment while detained in Bangladesh. (read article)

I really don't know what's worst the Bush administration or this disgusting government. Leaving the room when someone is being tortured doesn't make it legal or right, it's just averting your eyes when they're being beaten. If MI5 were acting outside the law they need a green light from a MP. If Jacqui Smith signed this off she is complicit in torture, she should face prosecution. Disgusting, how the hell do they sleep at night.

Update: A bit more information on Politics.co.uk:

Jamil Rahman, a former civil servant, gave a false confession during the torture, in which he said he masterminded the 2005 London bombings.

Torture Trail USA

Rachel Maddow an US news reporter, has been following the torture revelations in the US. In the video below she overviews what's known to date against the time frame.

The article referred to in the video can be read here.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

I don't know what's worst our government turning a blind eye to this like cowards, or Bush and co actions.

Torture Parliamentary Committee

Craig Murray* has given evidence to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights. He's enforced what we already know, the UK government regularly received intelligence obtained by torture. Both Murray and Philippe Sands who spoke said, the time of which Britain knew about torture is at the heart of whether they were complicit, also brought into question is whether Britain out sourced torture. Murray's statement echoes the information being released in America, disagreement on policy was repressed, and he felt there was "an appetite for false information".

An interesting article by Frank Rich joins the dots of the torture time line, to focus on the British side though. A piece of information to put in context now, is the July 2002 Downing Street Memo, worth noting that July 2002 is the earliest time we know that torture started in America, and "C" is an agent that's briefing Tony Blair:

C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action.

The Committee are questioning if there should be a bigger investigation, I think it's clear from just what's in the public domain, it's not a case of "if", but there should be an investigation. There were many lies taking place, and we have a right to know what the truth is.

*H/T Blairwatch

Obama Torture Memos Tony Blair

Obama releasing the CIA torture memos has been like lighting a fuse. The information being released is staggering in it's implications, torture by the Bush administration had generally been dismissed as "a few bad apples", yet the information now shows the Bush officials set-up "interrogation methods" as early as July 2002. Which is before the memos that reviewed and created their legal frame work. That approval has been linked to Condoleezza Rice, Cheney and Rumsfeld, with a lot of talk of prosecuting how far will they go?

What makes the information particularly relevant is, they created a torture programme from the start. Worst still the torture that started before invading Iraq was being used to get an Iraq - al Qaeda link. They didn't just lie to invade Iraq, but they used torture to enforce that lie, then lied about the torture. They even prosecuted people for what happen at Abu Ghraib prison, when they authorised the abuse, knowing the "few bad apples" were them.

What about the effect here in Britain, can our government really keep saying they just didn't get the memo or not know anything for over 7 years? The memos being released has had it's first effect, Guantánamo torture evidence that was suppressed is being bought into question for release. Secondly the 7 men who were at Guantánamo bay in their case have accused 17 members of MI5 and MI6 of 'collusion in torture, unlawful rendition and unlawful detention'. Their cases are certainly stronger off the back of this.

Yet should the agents be prosecuted? They're accountable to the government, not us. So why isn't the government's investigation pressing ahead to address this, rather than former prisoners and us having to use the courts to get answers, and how far can we go with prosecution? As who were the MI5 and MI6 agents asking the questions for, who moved them to countries that out source torture, and who else needed a reason to invaded Iraq. Tony Blair himself said in his "give war a chance" speech:

I still believe that those who oppress and brutalise their citizens are better put out of power than kept in it.

It is not for our politicians to pick and choose who should get human rights, that's what laws are for, nor is it right for our politicians not to be subject law themselves. Particularly since their actions can not be justified as a consequence of war, they didn't act under fire, they acted in a clear and premeditated way.

Spanish Case Against USA on Torture

The Daily Beast* is reporting that:

Spanish prosecutors will seek criminal charges against Alberto Gonzales and five high-ranking Bush administration officials for sanctioning torture at Guantánamo.

Other US officials incriminated are Justice Department officials John Yoo and Jay Bybee, Pentagon official Douglas Feith, Dick Cheney’s former chief of staff David Addington, and Pentagon lawyer William Haynes.

The Spanish legal system allows criminal complaints to be filed by individual civilians, screened by an investigating magistrate, and then referred to a prosecutor's office for preliminary assessment. After the prosecutors make their recommendation, an ultimate decision on pursuing or not pursuing criminal charges follows. This case is at the prosecutor's stage.

It's worth noting that the case against the US officials does not focus on the suggestion that any of them ordered torture. Rather, it accuses them of creating a framework to protect the people that gave the orders, it's a case against the lawyers. This makes it far more likely to result in pursuing criminal charges and if that happens, leaves the door wide open to other charges and other people being incriminated.

However there is a wild card, the article states that:

The Spanish prosecutors advised the Americans that they would suspend their investigation if at any point the United States were to undertake an investigation of its own into these matters. They pressed to know whether any such investigation was pending. These inquiries met with no answer from the U.S. side.

The Spanish courts can dismiss this case if the US open an investigation, though due to Spanish citizens being held in Guantánamo Bay the court is in a very difficult position not to go forward under Spanish law otherwise. Additionally Baltasar Garzon is involved in the case and he's not a man that will back down, his most high profile case was against Augusto Pinochet.

If criminal charges do come from this, it could really set the cat among the pigeons.

*Hat tip to The Spectators Alex Massie

Torture Cases Increase

I wrote a post on torture a little while ago, and have been following the announced investigation into Britain's role. The more they investigate the more shameful and worrying it gets. I want to be clear about this, as there are straw men arguments that surround these cases.

This is not about Binyam Mohammed, his nationality, guilt, innocence or even if he has legal right to remain in the UK. It's about whether our government has encouraged, participated or been complicit in torture.

Why is that important? The rule of law in this country is like the bottom row of a house of cards, everything else depends upon it. If we start moving these cards it's all going to come crashing down, and it's swaying enough already. Unless we can trust our government to be objective, honest and competent. This law should be set in stone, not left to our governments discretion.

I don't want to end up living in a country that is a bomb damaged waste land, any more than I want to live in a country that is the ideological equivalent of that. Yet how many of our values do we sacrifice out of a fear driven response, where do we draw the line and if we don't draw one, what are we going to be left with?

Can Torture Ever Be Justified?

I was reading 'have your say' on the BBC, the question posed was; Can torture ever be justified? This question was raised in relation to Binyam Mohamed, who spent six years in Guantanamo Bay. The top comment recommended by 478 people as of writing this was:

My heart bleeds for him - not. He should be put back on a plane and sent "home". Why on earth the taxpayer is paying for this "resident" is beyond me. He can sue if he likes from where he comes from at his countrys expense - NOT OURS.
If he seeks "true Islam" then what is he doing here? Cashing in as usual...

I read four pages of comments and they were all in a similar vein. Putting aside his citizenship status as that is a separate issue. It shocks me that people can be so complacent about torture, comments like:

Oh yes. We're playing a dirty game against dirty players. If we have to win by using their own rules against them, so be it.

I dont know what he's complaining about. He should be thankful that he is still alive and he has still got a head and limbs.

Those men in Guantanamo Bay and other prisons, may or may not be guilty of any crime, but the moment they were tortured the ability to prosecute them was forfeited. As information or testimonies gained through torture isn't admissible in our courts.

So what about the credibly of the information. Is it a way to secure accurate and actionable information. Granted there is not a clear cut answer to that question, just searching for information on the web, examples can be found to support both sides of the argument. All studies agree though that people can confess or say anything in order to get the physical or mental torture to stop. That can easily lend to false information.

It's instinctive to get angry and want to retaliate, but where does this end if you say it's OK to torture someone under these circumstances, or we start to justify it in our own minds. It lessen the value of peoples lives, it's divisive, it is shameful, and what's point in it when we can't prosecute any one, does that really reflect the values of the West? I truly hope not, particularly when this looks so similar to the terrorist videos we see on our own screens.