UK's secret policy on torture revealed

[Jan Klimkowski]

The detail of the game is fascinating.

Supposedly ethical controls are put in place which can be easily overridden, even when it is known that torture is likely to be the result.

So far, it's just a game of ensuring legal cover for the British state.

However, the spooks - presumably - then insist upon the power to "consult ministers" in difficult cases.

Thus the politicians are made complicit and cannot blame any torture "scandals" on a "rogue intelligence agent".

Ultimately, though, both spooks and politicians must remain committed to Omerta, otherwise they'll both end up in an International Human Rights or War Crimes court.

Milliband Major, the jilted elder brother and Blair Heir who was passed over, also reveals why the British deep state regards him as such an excellent candidate for PM:
"As foreign secretary, David Miliband told MPs the secret policy could never be made public as "nothing we publish must give succour to our enemies"."

Flexible morality: the hallmark of any political leader.

Intelligence officers were instructed not to carry out any action "which it is known" would result in torture. However, they could proceed when they foresaw "a real possibility their actions will result in an individual's mistreatment" as long as they first sought assurances from the overseas agency.

Even when such assurances were judged to be worthless, officers could be given permission to proceed despite the real possibility that they would committing a crime and that a prisoner or prisoners would be tortured.

"When, not withstanding any caveats or prior assurances, there is still considered to be a real possibility of mistreatment and therefore there is considered to be a risk that the agencies' actions could be judged to be unlawful, the actions may not be taken without authority at a senior level. In some cases, ministers may need to be consulted," the document said.

In deciding whether to give permission, senior MI5 and MI6 management "will balance the risk of mistreatment and the risk that the officer's actions could be judged to be unlawful against the need for the proposed action".

At this point, "the operational imperative for the proposed action, such as if the action involves passing or obtaining life-saving intelligence" would be weighed against "the level of mistreatment anticipated and how likely those consequences are".

Ministers may be consulted over "particularly difficult cases", with the process of consulting being "designed to ensure that appropriate visibility and consideration of the risk of unlawful actions takes place". All such operations must remain completely secret or they could put UK interests and British lives at risk.

Disclosure of the contents of the document appears to help explain the high degree of sensitivity shown by ministers and former ministers after the Guardian became aware of its existence two years ago.

Tony Blair evaded a series of questions over the role he played in authorising changes to the instructions in 2004, while the former home secretary David Blunkett maintained it was potentially libellous even to ask him questions about the matter.

As foreign secretary, David Miliband told MPs the secret policy could never be made public as "nothing we publish must give succour to our enemies".

Blair, Blunkett and the former foreign secretary Jack Straw also declined to say whether or not they were aware that the instructions had led to a number of people being tortured.