Torture appeal lost by UK government

[David Guyatt]

When pols speak, look for the necessary caveat that makes their lies true.

The work of MI5 has also been defended by the foreign secretary, David Miliband, and the home secretary, Alan Johnson.
In a joint letter to the Guardian, they said: "The allegation that the security and intelligence agencies have licence to collude in torture is disgraceful, untrue and one we vigorously deny."

The outright deceit of Milliband and Johnson is staggering. Of course the security and intell types don't have "license" - it's all done on a nod and a wink basis.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8511827.stm

MI5 denies Binyam case 'cover-up'


Jonathan Evans: Unprecedented rebuttal

The head of MI5 has denied officers withheld information over what it knew about the the torture of a UK resident.

In an unprecedented move, Jonathan Evans defended the security service against claims that it has misled an MPs' committee over Binyam Mohamed.

The Court of Appeal had ruled Mr Mohamed could learn what MI5 knew about his 2002 mistreatment at the behest of the US after his detention abroad.

The home secretary has attacked the media's "baseless" accusations.

Ethiopian-born Mr Mohamed, 31, alleges that UK authorities knew he was tortured after his detention in Pakistan in 2002.

On Wednesday, the Court of Appeal ruled that the government must publish a seven-paragraph summary of exactly what British intelligence officials were told about his treatment.

The summary revealed that his treatment was "cruel, inhuman and degrading" and included deliberate sleep deprivation.

'Culture of suppression'

It also emerged on Wednesday that a paragraph contained in the Court of Appeal's draft judgement was removed following complaints from a senior government lawyer.

“ The director-general has confirmed to us that no document concerning Binyam Mohamed has been withheld from us ”

Intelligence and Security Committee

Jonathan Sumption QC told the judges it would be "exceptionally damaging" if published because it would give the impression "that the Security Service does not in fact operate a culture that respects human rights or abjures participation in coercive interrogation techniques".

He said the paragraph would be read as meaning that "officials of the Service deliberately misled the Intelligence and Security Committee" in a way that "reflects a culture of suppression in its dealings with the committee, the foreign secretary and indirectly the court".

The words to which Mr Sumption objected did not appear in the version of the judgement that was eventually published.

But Channel 4 News reported on Thursday night that the redacted section related to US documents concerning Mr Mohamed's treatment which MI5 failed to disclose to the committee.

However in a joint statement, chairman of the committee Kim Howells and senior Conservative Michael Mates said: "The director-general has confirmed to us this evening that no document concerning Binyam Mohamed and his treatment by the US authorities has been withheld from us."

'Highly unusual'

BINYAM MOHAMED TIMELINE
April 2002: Mistreated by US and Pakistani interrogators - arrested in Pakistan over visa irregularities and handed to US authorities as suspected terrorist
May 2002: Washington gives British security officials details of treatment - interviewed by M15 officers sent from London
July 2002: Flown to Morocco and tortured for 18 months - says his interrogators received questions from London
January 2004: Transferred to Afghanistan and questioned by US agents
September 2004: Taken to Guantanamo Bay - lawyers demand British documents to prove confession extracted during abuse
October 2008: All charges against him dropped
February 2009: Returns to UK and continues fight for release of secret information
February 2010: UK Court of Appeal rules government must publish summary of what Washington told London about treatment in Pakistan - paragraph relating to M15 shown to have been removed after lobbying from government lawyer
The MPs said allegations that MI5 officers were "careless in their observance of their obligations towards the human rights of detainees" were very grave.

"These are extremely serious allegations which, if true, would call into question the trust that exists between between the committee and the intelligence services," they said.

Mr Evans said MI5 was protecting the country from "enemies" who would use "all the tools and their disposal", including propaganda.

He wrote in an article in the Telegraph: "We will do all that we can to keep the country safe from terrorist attack. We will use all the powers available to us under the law.

"For their part, our enemies will also seek to use all tools at their disposal to attack us. That means not just bombs, bullets and aircraft but also propaganda.

"Their freedom to voice extremist views is part of the price we pay for living in a democracy, and it is a price worth paying."

BBC home affairs correspondent Danny Shaw says it is a highly unusual intervention by the head of the security service that reflects deep concern at MI5 about the way the Appeal Court ruling has been reported and interpreted.

'Vigorously denied'

The work of MI5 has also been defended by the foreign secretary, David Miliband, and the home secretary, Alan Johnson.

In a joint letter to the Guardian, they said: "The allegation that the security and intelligence agencies have licence to collude in torture is disgraceful, untrue and one we vigorously deny."

Mr Mohamed, an Ethiopian granted refugee status in Britain in 1994, was initially arrested in Pakistan in 2002 over a visa irregularity and was handed over to US officials. He was secretly flown to Morocco in 2002.

There, he says, he was tortured while interrogators asked him about his life in London - questions, he says, that could have come only from British intelligence officers.

Mr Mohamed was sent to the Guantanamo Bay detention facility, run by the US in Cuba, in 2004, until being released without charge in February 2009.

This entire article looks to me to be a contrived damage limitation piece. It doesn't have anything to say that strikes me of being in any way significant - and is notable for that reason. The Judgement is clearly hurting the government and spooks very badly.