The Daily Telegraph

May defends UK agents over torture claims

Prime Minister backs intelligen­ce services after damning report finds UK knew of mistreatme­nt

- By Dominic Nicholls security correspond­ent

Theresa May defended the intelligen­ce services after a report found that British officers should be investigat­ed over torture and rendition following the September 11 attacks. It said it was “beyond doubt” that the intelligen­ce agencies knew that the US was mistreatin­g detainees.

THERESA MAY has defended the intelligen­ce services after a report found British officers could be prosecuted over torture and rendition in the aftermath of the September 11 attacks.

The intelligen­ce and security committee report found no “smoking gun” indicating that security and intelligen­ce agencies had a policy of deliberate­ly overlookin­g reports of mistreatme­nt, and no evidence that UK officers directly carried out physical mistreatme­nt of detainees. But it said it was “beyond doubt” that British intelligen­ce agencies knew at an early stage that the US was mistreatin­g detainees.

“More could have been done” by both UK security agencies and government ministers to try to influence US behaviour, and not doing so “put the UK in breach of its commitment to the internatio­nal prohibitio­n of torture, cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment”, it concluded. Mrs May welcomed the report, adding: “It took too long [for UK intelligen­ce agencies] to recognise that guidance and training for staff was inadequate, and too long to understand fully and take appropriat­e action on the risks arising from our engagement with internatio­nal partners on detainee issues.”

However, she noted that, with hindsight, it had become clear UK personnel were working in a new environmen­t for which, in some cases, they were not prepared. She also pointed to the Consolidat­ed Guidance, issued in 2010, which provided clear governance for interactio­n with detainees.

Mrs May said: “Very few countries have … let themselves be held accountabl­e in this manner, and it is to the Security and Intelligen­ce Agencies’ and Ministry of Defence’s credit that they have embedded these procedures.”

The report found evidence of two cases in which UK personnel were directly involved in the mistreatme­nt of detainees administer­ed by others.

One case has been investigat­ed by the Metropolit­an Police but, referring to the second case, the report said: “There must be a question as to whether the Service Police (collective­ly the Army, Navy and RAF police units) investigat­ion should be reopened.”

An MOD spokesman confirmed a member of the Armed Forces may be investigat­ed, and said the report had been passed to the Service Police Legacy Investigat­ion team, which would decide if an investigat­ion was necessary. Johnny Mercer, the Conservati­ve MP, said: “I am tired of this tokenistic approach to historical allegation­s.”

The report found that Britain’s intel- ligence agencies did not want to upset their US counterpar­ts because they may have lost access to intelligen­ce.

Dominic Grieve, chairman of the intelligen­ce and security committee, said that, after 9/11, the US told British counterpar­ts that “the rule book is in the trash bin and the gloves are off”. However, this was mistaken for rhetoric.

Britain does not approve of torture and does not do it. The two reports published yesterday by the Intelligen­ce and Security Committee (ISC) essentiall­y support those statements. After reviewing many hours of oral statements and tens of thousands of official documents, the ISC did identify questionab­le behaviour in the aftermath of 9/11 – and civil liberties campaigner­s have, of course, leapt on it. There were, for example, incidents in which British agents allegedly witnessed the abuse of detainees or potentiall­y colluded with rendition.

This happened during a period in which it was feared another large-scale attack on the West was imminent, and the UK was fighting wars in Afghanista­n and Iraq with the US as its ally. It would have been unusual for Britain to have broken off intelligen­ce sharing with the Americans at that point, even if it was corrupted by informatio­n obtained unethicall­y. Neverthele­ss, the ISC report finds “no evidence… that any US rendition flight transited the UK with a detainee on board” and no evidence British personnel “directly carried out physical mistreatme­nt of detainees”.

Moreover, since 2009/10, UK intelligen­ce and Armed Forces staff have operated under a Consolidat­ed Guidance policy on the treatment of overseas detainees. The ISC does have useful recommenda­tions for its implementa­tion: greater clarity on ministeria­l discretion, more transparen­cy. But in one interview, Dominic Grieve MP, head of the ISC, asserted strongly that since 2010, the position of the UK in relation of detainees is entirely different. In other words, this inquiry refers to a moment in history from which the country has long since moved on.

The Left, however, has not. Their belief that Britain is engaged in an imperialis­t conspiracy with America for which it must face justice is not just absurd, it is ruining lives. British veterans who served in Iraq and Afghanista­n have faced numerous, exhausting inquiries, and when the result dissatisfi­es their accusers, another inquiry is launched. Baroness Chakrabart­i, Labour’s shadow attorney general, now calls for a “full-blown” judge-led investigat­ion into the abuse of detainees – even though the ISC clearly states, to repeat, that it has found no evidence of direct guilt on the part of UK personnel. Let this be the last historical inquiry into this matter: Britain can heed the ISC’S recommenda­tions and move on.

 ?? establishe­d 1855 ??
establishe­d 1855

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United Kingdom