Scott Horton: Lingering Questions About Renditions Plague the U.S.-U.K. Relationship

[Hissyspit]

http://www.harpers.org/archive/2009/02/hbc-90004475

Lingering Questions About Renditions Plague the U.S.–U.K. Relationship

By Scott Horton

In the last week it has become increasingly clear that the British Government and British intelligence community were full-fledged participants with their American counterparts in the torture-by-proxy system that Bush crafted. A U.K. minister was already forced to acknowledge that denials made with respect to a notorious case were simply untruthful. And now this:

(Foreign Minister) David Miliband and (Home Secretary) Jacqui Smith have both refused to appear before Parliament’s human rights committee to answer questions about allegations of British collusion in the torture of British citizens and residents detained during counter-terrorism operations in Pakistan. In a move that dismayed members of the Joint Committee on Human Rights (JCHR), a joint letter from the foreign secretary and home secretary is also said to have failed to answer any of the eight questions that the committee asked about legal provisions offering MI5 officers immunity in the UK for crimes committed overseas. The JCHR is now asking Jonathan Evans, the director-general of MI5, to appear before it to be questioned about the agency’s policy and the conduct of his officers.

MPs and peers on the committee are also expected to demand again that Miliband and Smith answer their questions, while its chairman, Andrew Dismore, says the ministers’ refusal may trigger demands for an independent inquiry into the allegations. Dismore said it was “deeply disappointing” that neither minister had agreed to appear before the committee, but added: “This inquiry isn’t over yet.”

- snip -

This sounds like a brush-off. Is this the case that led to a special request for an opinion of counsel from the Department of Justice, and in turn produced the Jack Goldsmith memorandum of March 19, 2004—which aligns with the facts of the case as reported in the U.K. media? That seems possible, and if so, the facts and circumstances of the case would have been carefully scrutinized by the Justice Department before it rendered a formal legal opinion. And that means that the odds that this was a simple “error” were almost nil.

As it happens, this would also suggest yet another reason why the infamous Goldsmith renditions memo was incorrect. That memo was plainly crafted to authorize the transfer of these prisoners to a black site in Afghanistan, and it was solicited because those involved with the operation fully understood that the rendition would be illegal. Once more, an Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) memorandum was being sought to provide a “golden shield” to those scheming to commit a crime.

Throughout this period, the OLC had a bizarre special relationship with the Neoconservative clique inside the Office of the Secretary of Defense. Goldsmith was a prime link. A leading legal writer in the Neoconservative movement, Goldsmith served as a close advisor to William J. Haynes II, Rumsfeld’s lawyer (now a lawyer at Chevron). Goldsmith departed from that position to become head of the OLC. He was therefore well acquainted with the extraordinary renditions program. He authored a memo turning the law on its head and stating that the detainees could be removed from Iraq and held elsewhere “for a brief but not indefinite period.” Decoding this a bit, that meant that they could be taken to a CIA black site in Afghanistan where they would be tortured. And the “brief but not indefinite period”? It’s already run five years. Only a Bush lawyer would call that “brief.”

- snip -

The rendition of these prisoners was a grave breach of the Geneva Convention. Their treatment at the black site probably raises still graver questions. And now it appears that breach is on-going–and no effort has been undertaken to cure it. The Obama Administration needs to show that it is serious about upholding its obligations under international law.

MORE

[Solly Mack]

1. K&R

[Solly Mack]

2. UN attacks Britain over torture claims - from today

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/mar/01/united-nations-britain-torture-mi5

"It is the first time the UN's senior torture investigator has directly criticised a British government. Human rights groups said it was highly significant. Clare Algar, executive director of legal charity Reprieve, said: "This is a further significant embarrassment for the British government and reinforces the fact that we really need an independent review into what has been going on."

Nowak appeared to criticise the foreign secretary, David Miliband, for blocking the release of US files allegedly confirming MI5 involvement in the torture of British resident Binyam Mohamed. Miliband said releasing the documents could do "real and significant damage" to British national security.

Nowak, who reports to the UN's human rights council and the general assembly, said: "I am very concerned about the fact that allegations of torture actually cannot be really investigated because of the state secrecy privilege.

"We must get away from the use of the state secrecy privilege as a way of quashing court cases and litigation from victims of torture being heard in public."

[Solly Mack]

3. let me kick this