British officer accused of torture
The head of a Ministry of Defence interrogation unit may face a criminal investigation after the publication of a report detailing Britain’s complicity in torture after the September 11 attacks.
The intelligence and security committee (ISC) yesterday revealed that the official, accused of approving the hooding and torture of suspects at a US site in Iraq, has never been fully investigated.
Military police said that they were considering the report’s call for a fresh inquiry into the official’s alleged role in the maltreatment of detainees. The case is one of two in which British intelligence personnel are suspected to have been party to the torture of detainees.
The ISC found that British spies witnessed maltreatment first hand in 13 incidents and continued to supply questions and intelligence in 232 cases after they knew of or suspected torture. Security officials said yesterday that the agencies were under tremendous pressure to protect the UK in the wake of the 9/11 attacks on the US as they grappled with unprecedented events. They said that lessons had been learnt after years of review and that training and guidance had been vastly improved.
The parliamentary watchdog concluded, however, that Britain’s intelligence agencies knew at an ‘‘early point’’ after the start of the war on terror that the US was torturing detainees but continued to tolerate ‘‘inexcusable’’ mistreatment. Its chairman, Dominic Grieve, said that it had reluctantly drawn a line under its investigation after the government refused access to individuals directly involved. Prime Minister Theresa May is now under pressure to appoint an independent inquiry to honour the promise made by her predecessor, David Cameron, to expose the full truth of British involvement.
May’s official spokeswoman refused to say whether she considered the issue closed, saying only that the government would consider the ISC report. The MoD said that the service police legacy investigations unit, an independent body operating within the ministry, would decide whether a further inquiry should take place into the member of the armed forces identified as ‘‘Faraday’’.
The report said that two officers from MI6, the foreign intelligence service, had visited the US facility and spoken with the head of MoD interrogation, given the pseudonym Faraday, who described to them techniques including hooding, use of stress positions including kneeling on a bed with their hands behind their back, and giving detainees meals at irregular intervals to confuse them.
An MoD investigation into whether Faraday ‘‘may have misunderstood the provisions of the Geneva convention’’ was dropped because MI6 said that it was unable to disclose information.
The committee said: ‘‘We consider this to be a case of direct involvement in detainee mistreatment – seemingly administered by others – not just in relation to assurances given about the treatment of [the detainee] – which was contrary to the Geneva conventions – but potentially more broadly by the armed forces officer.’’
The Metropolitan Police have investigated the second case in which British personnel were party to torture.
Operation Iden, which began in 2009, involved allegations of involvement in mistreatment of a detainee by an MI6 officer at the US-run Bagram prison in Afghanistan. Prosecutors concluded that there was insufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of a conviction but the ‘‘consent’’ given by the officer indicated a ‘‘degree of direct involvement in the detainee’s mistreatment’’, the report said.
The MI6 officer reported that the detainee had been denied sleep for three days and was held in a series of stress positions by US officials with the consent of British officials: ‘‘He shook violently from cold, fatigue and fear but in consultation with Centcom [US Central Command] we agreed to maintain pressure for the next 24 hours.’’
A Westminster security official said: ‘‘Post 9/11 the instinct of the British people and our government was to act in solidarity with the United States. Our staff were under pressure to deliver intelligence on the threat. We had few sources. Potential value of detainee information was obvious. The immediate demand, to deliver intelligence to defend against the terrorist threat, became the overriding priority. Our officers found themselves in unfamiliar, exceptionally challenging environments, undertaking interviews of a different nature to those they were used to and trained for.’’ – The Times