Leader: The government must allow the truth about torture to be heard
Britain will not be seen as a force for good until it has atoned for its past sins.
By Staff blogger Published 09 September 2011If Britain felt pride at the end of last month at its role in the dethronement of Colonel Gaddafi, this past week it felt shame. A cache of documents unearthed by Human Rights Watch at an abandoned government building in Tripoli revealed that the UK had arranged the "rendition" of terror suspects to Libya, where they were then allegedly tortured by Gaddafi's henchmen. One of the reported victims was Abdel Hakim Belhadj, who was, in his own words, "hung from a wall" and "put in a container surrounded by ice". Belhadj is now a military commander of the Libyan rebels. The country that allegedly enabled his torture was bombing his enemies a few years later. Little wonder that the west in general and Britain in particular is so mistrusted in parts of the Arab and Muslim worlds.
Evidence of the UK's complicity in torture - the darkest legacy of its participation in the "war on terror" - has accumulated over the past decade. A special investigation, published in the 29 August issue of the New Statesman, showed how British troops regularly hand over suspected insurgents to the Afghan authorities with little guarantee that they will not be tortured. In February 2010, the Court of Appeal forced the then Labour government to publish CIA-based evidence showing that MI5 knew Binyam Mohamed was subjected to "at the very least cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment" in Pakistan. Finally, last November, the current government paid out £10m in compensation to 16 former Guantanamo Bay detainees, seen by some as a tacit admission that the UK had connived in their torture.
The latest allegations are the gravest yet, however. For the first time, there is reason to believe that Britain, independent of the US, organised the "rendition" of a terror suspect, along with his wife and children. Ten years on from the 11 September 2001 attacks and the west's disastrous
response, the full extent of the UK's disregard for human rights is only beginning to emerge.
As the Tripoli files suggest, such abuses flowed from a sordid alliance between the New Labour government and the Gaddafi regime. The former MI6 agent Sir Mark Allen fawned over Mousa Kousa, then Libya's head of external security and later Gaddafi's foreign minister, thanking him for a gift of "delicious" dates, and remarking that "this was the least we could do for you" after rendering Mr Belhadj to Libya. It is one thing to maintain diplomatic relations with dictatorships; it is another to collaborate actively with them.
The coalition government has responded by emphasising that the "allegations relate to a period under the previous government", and by pledging that the disclosures will be looked at by the Gibson inquiry, set up to investigate claims of British collusion with torture. Yet it should not be so
sanguine. Tempting as it may be, it is unwise for the government to make this a party political issue. The British establishment, including the Conservative Party, was collectively guilty of wilful blindness.
Furthermore, though the government was rightly praised for establishing the Gibson inquiry, it is independent in name only. The Cabinet Secretary and the Prime Minister will have the final say over what can be made public and torture victims will not be able to question MI5 or MI6 officers, not even through lawyers. As Shami Chakrabarti, the director of Liberty, has said, this is “effectively an internal Cabinet Office" inquiry. It is for this reason that it has been boycotted by the detainees' lawyers and by ten human rights groups. But there is still time for the government to change course. The Gibson inquiry will not begin until a police investigation into previous claims against MI5 and MI6 has concluded. It is not too late for ministers to establish the credible and transparent investigation that the severity of the allegations demands.
As the Arab spring erupted, Mr Cameron rightly declared that "denying people their basic rights does not preserve stability, rather the reverse". Britain will not be seen as a force for good, however, until it has atoned for its past sins. After years of obfuscation and denial, the truth must be heard.
Latest tweets
More from New Statesman
- Tools and services:
- Polls
- Predictions
- Jobs
- Archive
- Magazine
- PDF edition
- RSS feeds
- Subscribe
- Special supplements
- Stockists

6 comments
writeon
erm, what can i say. One scenario is hypothetical, but your example requires KNOWLEDGE of the future and then becomes hypothetical. If u have ab known terrorist in a cell, that's different to imagining a baby WILL grow up to be a mass murderer, surely?
The difference is one has already commited crimes, and is telling u he's about to commit another. his ACTIONS are what are being debated, not potential actions...
If you cannot torture a suspect how on earth do you get any infomation out of him?
The breakdown in disipline at school is because no one has any power to threaten with physical punishment. I laughed at a detention and simply did not turn up.
Threatening prison to a man who has nothing to lose will acheive nothing but a smile on his face.
To all you Liberal do gooders, a man has your wife and child strapped to a bomb in a hidden location. All attempts to reason with this man fail, police interrogation only brings laughter from the kidnapper he does not want any money. What do you do? Please I would like a to know what you would do to find your familys location that did not involve violence? Violence which of course, would be classed as torture.
Two can play at this game. Hypothetical questions are "fun" precisely because they are... hypothetical. Often the more ridiculous they are the more "fun" they are. But one shouldn't make too much out of them. Like the ticking bomb one. It's got more logical, moral, and practical holes than a Swiss cheese.
Here's another one. Suppose, which is a less fancy word than hypothetical; suppose one knew for sure, like with the terrorist and the ticking bomb, that a newly born baby in one's town was going to grow up to be a vicious dictator, like Adolf Hitler, or Stalin, and cause the unecessary deaths of millions of innocent men, women, and children. Only one didn't know which of the babies was the right one, only that one of them was. Would one be justified in killing them all, like King Herod, just to make sure? Is taking so many innocent lives in oder to stop a far greater evil, justified, in order to save the lives of untold millions?
sometimes it's torture listening to the economists on this site...
writeon
are u married and do u have children? thought not...
Well, I'll accept the "challenge" in this hypothetical scenario, though I'm hardly qualified as a Liberal, or a do-gooder.
First, how do I know that the man, the terrorist, is telling the truth about having my wife and child tied to a bomb? Do I just believe him, or do I ask for proof?
How do I know the man really knows where my family is being held? How do I know they haven't been moved in the meantime? Why would anyone tie my family to a bomb? Isn't the bomb in itself enough of an outrage?
Was this guy working alone? What about his terrorist commrades? Do we assume they are totally unaware that he's gone missing? How will they react?
This scenario is flippin' ridiculous and absurd, nonsense.
I'd pull out my syringe filled with the world's most powerful, and top-secret, super-truth drug, inject him with it and then as if by magic he'd tell me everything I wanted to know. I'd then, because time is running out, call on Batman and Robin, to rush to their rescue. Problem solved, without recourse to violence!
Post new comment