The British press is reporting that ten major human rights and anti-torture organizations have announced they will not be cooperating or participating in the United Kingdom Torture Inquiry, headed by Sir Peter Gibson. The organizations, who sent a letter on August 3 to Sara Carnegie, Solicitor to the Detainee Inquiry, cited a lack of transparency and credibility in the proposed investigation, noting, “Plainly an Inquiry conducted in the way that you describe and in accordance with the Protocol would not comply with Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights.”
Other serious problems cited included the fact that any information released would be subject to governmental approval, i.e., censorship. Additionally, there wasn’t going to be any “meaningful participation” by former torture victims or “interested third parties.” The letter concluded, “we do not intend to submit any evidence or attend any further meetings with the Inquiry team.”
The letter was signed by The AIRE Centre, Amnesty International, British Irish Rights Watch, Cageprisoners, Freedom from Torture, Human Rights Watch, Justice, Liberty, Redress, Reprieve.
A separate press release by Reprieve summarized the problems with the inquiry:
First, the definition of evidence that will remain classified forever is hopelessly overbroad….
Second, there is no meaningful, independent (preferably judicial) review of what should be kept secret….
Third, the Inquiry is left toothless due to a lack of powers to compel the attendance of witnesses or the provision of evidence or information from any party or organisation. Notably, the inquiry has refused to consider evidence against UK based corporations with alleged links to the US rendition program.
The reference to the US rendition program reminds us that much of what the British government wants hidden has to do with collaboration with the US rendition and torture program. Indeed, just yesterday, the UK Guardian released a heretofore secret document describing how the British intelligence agencies should address US torture when they encounter it.
Or we might wish to recall how Secretary of State Hillary Clinton warned the UK government there would be serious repercussions to the US/UK security relationship if UK courts released any secret information in the Binyam Mohamed case. This British inquiry has certainly been constructed with the distant, all-seeing eye of the U.S. intelligence agencies and Pentagon.
Andy Worthington reports, there was a second letter written by attorneys for some of the detainees:
A second letter, written jointly by Imran Khan and other prominent human rights lawyers who have represented Guantánamo prisoners — including Gareth Peirce, Louise Christian, Irene Nembhard and Tayab Ali — reinforced the criticism of the government.
“We consider it impossible to advise those whom we represent that the structure and protocols now confirmed for the Gibson inquiry can achieve what are essential ingredients for a public inquiry into grave state crimes,” the letter stated, noting that the former prisoners would not even know “if the individuals being questioned are the right ones,” and adding that the lack of input “simply serves to demonstrate that there is no comprehension on the part of the government of the gravity of the crimes which representatives of the state may have committed.”
The letter continued, “We had hoped as lawyers to assist in a transparent exercise of vital importance. It is a matter of profound regret that our assessment is that the inquiry does not provide the means by which this can be realised. In the absence of there being any alteration to the protocols, our advice is compelled to be that it is inappropriate for our clients to submit evidence.”
As Andy reports, the British government is maintaining a brave face, and states the inquiry will go forward. Malcolm Rifkind, the chair of the Intelligence and Security Committee, stated:
The inquiry will go ahead. It will examine the relevant documentation held by government. It will hear the key government witnesses. The inquiry offers the detainees and anyone else with evidence relevant to its terms of reference the only opportunity for them to give evidence to an independent inquiry. The detainees and the NGOs have alleged the involvement or awareness of the UK government and its security and intelligence services in relation to the mistreatment and rendition of detainees held by other countries. The inquiry would welcome such evidence.
It took less than a month from my prediction of the collapse of the UK torture inquiry, due to the British government’s bad faith in constructing a real torture investigation, for the end to essentially come. While the inquiry is still officially on, the pull-out of all the major human rights NGO’s in England involved in detainee affairs and torture means the government investigation will have no credibility in the eyes of the British public, or the world. What we see now in the UK is a simulacrum of an investigation, a farce only, without hope for resuscitation, not in this form.
However, instead of the issue being relegated to the back pages, or slinking away into obscurity, the struggle over accountability in Britain will enter a new and sharper phase, and the spill-over to the fight for justice and against torture in the United States will inevitably be affected.



12 Comments

Thanks, Jeff. I made some comments at the end of your last thread on this topic, including this info:
Craig Murray has responed to the revelations today.
Thanks, for the coverage of the Murray comments on the other blog. His story and the revelations from the Guardian release of the secret instructions, which confirm everything Murray said, deserves its own blog posting.
I wasn’t aware until I read that, that Sir Peter Gibson who is appointed to head the Inquiry, was previously the Commissioner for the Intelligence Services [and so may have already known about the document].
I wonder if Murray will also end up boycotting. I guess that depends on what kind of answers he gets to his questions.
But, I think you’re right that the Inquiry has shown itself to be a farce.
New from Andy Worthington:
Britain’s Secret Post-9/11 Torture Policy Revealed: Was Tony Blair’s Government Guilty of “Developing Something Close to a Criminal Policy”?; Andy Worthington; 8/5/11
Thanks, harpie. Yes, this is a much more comprehensive and extensive treatment of the issues around the Guardian revelations (about which I wrote yesterday). I highly recommend all read Andy’s article, as it is relevant not only to the British situation, but of course to the issue of torture by America as well.
(I almost wrote “Amerika”, as an atavistic response from having come of age in the 1960s.)
Worth reposting here, h/t harpie, in relation to the release of the UK secret doc on intel agencies policy when confronted with torture by the US and other “allies”:
Thanks for this, Jeff. This action by the human rights groups is our last chance to pry the lid off this can of worms. Being “read in” does strange things to politicians. Only continuing relentless pressure and exposure will help those few politicians who want to do the right thing to be able to do it.
Yep. They can stay home to whitewash something, why go somewhere to watch somebody else doing it?
Thank you, harpie, in the link you include, Eric Metcalfe is raising the Brit Government’s clear willingness to go to the “greater good” argument, beloved by those who wish to dispense with necessary moral principle in favor of what is simply “expediency”, and very often politically “inspired” expediency masquerading as some dire compelling need, “exigent, in the circumstances”.
My thanks, also, to Jeff Kaye for all of his increasingly successful efforts to raise awarness about and the possibility of consequence for those who implemented torture as official (and brutally unapologetic) American policy.
DW
Kaye, what is the next step for anti-torture organizations? Are any collective efforts being planned, like convening to hold their own inquiry?
“and the spill-over to the fight for justice and against torture in the United States will inevitably be affected.”
How so? What are possible outcomes?
Yes, as DW and harpie imply, everyone should be following Andy Worthington’s blog for most up to date info on these issues. The Guardian is also staying on top of it, and I’d peek in at Reprieve, too.
As to ottogrendel’s question, I can’t say exactly what collective efforts are being planned. Certainly there are joint lawsuits, and actions, when the groups get together, as they did in Britain to publicly lambast the UK torture inquiry. As of now, there is no centralized group that organizes all the anti-torture orgs. Central groups include Center for Constitutional Rights, ACLU, Reprieve, Human Rights Watch, Human Rights First, Amnesty, and others. Physicians for Human Rights was working a lot on this, but they appear to have slowed or withdrawn resources from that endeavor.
I’d check in frequently with the website of the group you most identify with, or contact them directly to know “what’s next.”
My comment about the affect of the situation in Britain on the struggle in the US refers to revelations still coming out and I expect will continue to come out, as the range and extent of British collaboration with US rendition and torture becomes more amply documented. Along those lines, see the link harpie gives above to the recent article by Andy Worthington, coming off the UK Guardian’s revelations about the secret document for MI5/MI6 re rendition and torture. I wrote on that too a few days ago.
And, of course, keep checking in at The Dissenter. I promise there are some further startling revelations in the works.
Thanks, Kaye!