War on Terror Watch: British Officials "Colluded with Torture" of Detainees

The Observer of London has seen an advance copy of a report by Human Rights Watch, to be released next month, which finds that the British domestic intelligence service MI5 had a "systemic" modus operandi in which different agents were deployed to Pakistan to interview different British suspects, many of whom alleged that before interrogation by MI5 they were tortured by the Pakistanis.

At least 10 Britons are identified in the report, which is based on sources within Pakistan's intelligence bureaus. Human Rights Watch outlined its concerns last October to the Foreign Office but has not received a response.

In a separate article in The Observer, lawyers for Binyam Mohamed (pictured), the British resident still held at Guantanamo Bay, revealed the extent of the "dozens" of beatings he has received at the US detention facility.

UK agents 'colluded with torture in Pakistan'
MARK TOWNSEND

A shocking new report alleges widespread complicity between British security agents and their Pakistani counterparts who have routinely engaged in the torture of suspects.

In the study, which will be published next month by the civil liberties group Human Rights Watch, at least 10 Britons are identified who have been allegedly tortured in Pakistan and subsequently questioned by UK intelligence officials. It warns that more British cases may surface and that the issue of Pakistani terrorism suspects interrogated by British agents is likely to "run much deeper".

The report will further embarrass the foreign secretary, David Miliband, who has repeatedly said the UK does not condone torture. He has been under fire for refusing to disclose US documents relating to the treatment of Guantánamo detainee and former British resident Binyam Mohamed. The documents are believed to contain evidence about the torture of Mohamed and British complicity in his maltreatment. Mohamed will return to Britain this week. Doctors who examined him in Guantánamo found evidence of prolonged physical and mental mistreatment.

Ali Dayan Hasan, who led the Pakistan-based inquiry, said sources within the country's Inter-Services Intelligence agency (ISI), the Intelligence Bureau and the military security services had provided "confirmation and information" relating to British collusion in the interrogation of terrorism suspects.

Hasan said the Human Rights Watch (HRW) evidence collated from Pakistan intelligence officials indicated a "systemic" modus operandi among British security services, involving a significant number of UK agents from MI5 rather than maverick elements. Different agents were deployed to interview different suspects, many of whom alleged that prior to interrogation by British officials they were tortured by Pakistani agents.

Among the 10 identified cases of British citizens and residents mentioned in the report is Rangzieb Ahmed, 33, from Rochdale, who claims he was tortured by Pakistani intelligence agents before being questioned by two MI5 officers. Ahmed was convicted of being a member of al-Qaida at Manchester crown court, yet the jury was not told that three of the fingernails of his left hand had been removed. The response from MI5 to the allegations that it had colluded in Ahmed's torture were heard in camera, however, after the press and the public were excluded from the proceedings. Ahmed's description of the cell in which he claims he was tortured closely matches that where Salahuddin Amin, 33, from Luton, says he was tortured by ISI officers between interviews with MI5 officers.

Zeeshan Siddiqui, 25, from London, who was detained in Pakistan in 2005, also claims he was interviewed by British intelligence agents during a period in which he was tortured.

Other cases include that of a London medical student who was detained in Karachi and tortured after the July 2005 attacks in London. Another case involving Britons allegedly tortured in Pakistan and questioned by UK agents involves a British Hizb ut-Tahrir supporter.

Rashid Rauf, from Birmingham, was detained in Pakistan and questioned over suspected terrorist activity in 2006. He was reportedly killed after a US drone attack in Pakistan's tribal regions, though his body has never been found.

Hasan said: "What the research suggests is that these are not incidents involving one particular rogue officer or two, but rather an array of individuals involved over a period of several years.

"The issue is not just British complicity in the torture of British citizens, it is the issue of British complicity in the torture period. We know of at least 10 cases, but the complicity probably runs much deeper because it involves a series of terrorism suspects who are Pakistani. This is the heart of the matter.

"They are not the same individuals [MI5 officers] all the time. I know that the people who have gone to see Siddiqui in Peshawar are not the same people who have seen Ahmed in Rawalpindi."

Last night the government faced calls to clarify precisely its relationship with Pakistan's intelligence agencies, which are known to routinely use torture.

A Foreign Office spokesman said that an investigation by the British security services had revealed "there is nothing to suggest they have engaged in torture in Pakistan". He added: "Our policy is not to participate in, solicit, encourage or condone the use of torture, or inhumane or degrading treatment, for any purpose."

But former shadow home secretary David Davis said the claims from Pakistan served to "reinforce" allegations that UK authorities, at the very least, ignored Pakistani torture techniques.

"The British agencies can no longer pretend that 'Hear no evil, see no evil' is applicable in the modern world," he added.

Last week HRW submitted evidence to parliament's Joint Committee on Human Rights. The committee is to question Miliband and Jacqui Smith, the home secretary, over a legal loophole which appears to offer British intelligence officers immunity in the UK for any crimes committed overseas.

It has also emerged that New York-based HRW detailed its concerns in a letter to the UK government last October but has yet to receive a response.

The letter arrived at the same time that the Attorney General was tasked with deciding if Scotland Yard should begin a criminal investigation into British security agents' treatment of Binyam Mohamed. Crown prosecutors are currently weighing up the evidence.

Hasan said that evidence indicated a considerable number of UK officers were involved in interviewing terrorism suspects after they were allegedly tortured. He told the Observer: "We don't know who the individuals [British intelligence officers] were, but when you have different personnel coming in and behaving in a similar fashion it implies some level of systemic approach to the situation, rather than one eager beaver deciding it is absolutely fine for someone to be beaten or hung upside down."

He accused British intelligence officers of turning a blind eye as UK citizens endured torture at the hands of Pakistan's intelligence agencies.

"They [the British] have met the suspect ... and have conspicuously failed to notice that someone is in a state of high physical distress, showing signs of injury. If you are a secret service agent and fail to notice that their fingernails are missing, you ought to be fired."

Britain's former chief legal adviser, Lord Goldsmith, said that the Foreign Office would want to examine any British involvement in torture allegations very carefully and, if necessary, bring individuals "to book" to ensure such behaviour was "eradicated".

Mr Obama's World: The Latest in US Foreign Policy (19 February)

Latest Post: Engagement with Iran? An Additional View of Professor Gary Sick’s Analysis
Latest Post: Muntazar al-Zaidi - Shoe-Throwing Trial Starts Today in Iraq

Evening Update (8:30 p.m.): Al Jazeera has a useful summary of the challenge facing the US military "surge", not from the enemy but from its allies. A two-day meeting of NATO defence ministers in Poland is highlighting that few, if any, members are eager to raise their troop levels beyond token commitments. Even John Hutton, the blowhard British Minister of Defence who talked about "a struggle against fanatics that...challenges our way of life in the same way the Nazis did", is saying it is up to other NATO countries to take the first step.

As Damascus makes a major play for leadership in Middle Eastern politics, the United Nations may revive an inconvenient incident. It is reporting additional nuclear particles from a Syrian facility bombed by Israel in September 2007 and noting that the particles cannot have come from Israeli missiles.

The Pentagon is playing for time after this morning's Parliamentary vote in Kyrgyzstan closing the US airbase within six months: "We continue to consider what we might be able to offer the (Kyrgyzstan) government but we're not prepared to stay at any price and we continue to look at other options that are available to us."



Afternoon Update (1:15 p.m.): The Afghanistan Foreign Ministry has tried to take advantage of President Obama's inclusion of Kabul in the US strategic review by claiming a lead role on issues of security, development, and reconstruction: "Since a new page has been opened with America and we have had the opportunity as an ally to raise our points, we are repeating them for we believe they are essential in bringing security."

Afghanistan will also be pressing the US to extend its operation against "sanctuaries" in Pakistan.

A series of roadside and car bombs have killed seven Iraqi soldiers and policemen and wounded more than 20 people.

North Korean military spokesmen welcome Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's forthcoming visit with the declaration: "[South Korea's] group of traitors should never forget that the Korean People's Army is fully ready for an all-out confrontation."

Morning Update (6 a.m. GMT; 1 a.m. Washington): A Surge is Not a Surge. Now that President Obama has approved an additional 21,000 troops for Afghanistan this year, bringing the US force close to 60,000, the military are putting out the line that this is a long-term commitment. General David McKiernan, the commander of US and NATO forces in the country, emphasized, "This is not a temporary force uplift. It will need to be sustained for some period of time, for the next three to four to five years." While some units would be in place, especially in southern Afghanistan, by the summer, "Even with these additional forces,...2009 is going to be a tough year."

McKiernan then added a statement which, if anyone is watching carefully, exposes the difficulties of the surge which is more than a surge. The general cited the causes of turmoil as "three decades of low literacy rates and rampant poverty and violence". These would seem to require more than a show of US force, but McKiernan pressed on, "We do see, with these additional forces, an opportunity to break this stalemate, at least in terms of security conditions in the south."

Meanwhile, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates has set up another test of the US strategy, calling on NATO allies to increase their military presence: "The [US] administration is prepared... to make additional commitments to Afghanistan, but there clearly will be expectations that the allies must do more as well." The call to arms may be met with less-than-enthusiastic responses: Italy said yesterday that it would send more 500 troops, and Georgia, angling to join NATO, has announced it will despatch 200. However, British Foreign Minister David Miliband stalled with the claim that there had been request for more UK forces. With Barack Obama in Canada today, it will be interesting to see how Ottawa, which has been on the front-line of the Afghan effort, responds.

The Kyrgyzstan Parliament is likely to deal another blow to US plans today when it approves the Government proposal to close the US Manas airbase, a key supply line for the military in Afghanistan.

Egypt has released the opposition leader Ayman Nour from detention because "health concerns". Nour was sentenced to five years on forgery charges in 2005, months after he finished second to Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak in elections. His case has been a prominent symbol for activists pressing for democratic reform and human rights.

Exclusive: How Iran is Taking Over America

Once it was Reds under the Bed. Now it's the Mullahs Hiding behind the Curtains.

Human Events sounds the warning, exposing all the pseudo-Americans who are actually working for Tehran. Our only qualm with this article is that --- as it outed Trita Parsi, Juan Cole, and Gary Sick, all of whom we have featured on this website --- somehow it forgot to mention Enduring America amongst the threats to Mr and Mrs USA.

Why U.S. Policy Leans Too Close to Terrorist Appeasement
Clare M. Lopez

The Obama administration has lost no time extending an outstretched hand to Iran’s terrorist regime, just as promised during the election campaign. The president assured the mullahs of his pacific intentions in a January 2009 interview on al-Arabiya TV, asking nothing more than that Iran unclench its fist.

Secretary of State Clinton echoed Obama after an early February 2009 meeting with British Foreign Secretary David Miliband. Absent from either of their comments was any mention of Tehran’s obligations before the world community to comply with United Nations resolutions to immediately and verifiably suspend all nuclear enrichment activity. Also missing was any criticism of Iran’s massive support for terrorist organizations such as Hamas, Hizballah, and Palestinian Islamic Jihad -- not to mention its long-standing affiliation with al-Qa’eda.

As for introduction of a U.N. resolution to condemn Iran for repeated incitement to genocide of a fellow U.N. member state -- the State of Israel -- somehow that didn’t come up either. Holding to account a regime that stones girls to death for being raped, hangs gays from construction cranes, and executes juveniles also doesn’t seem central to the new agenda. Perhaps we missed it and the United States actually signed on to the Cairo Declaration. For those who don’t remember that ignominious piece of paper, it is the 1990 opt-out by Muslim states from the U.N. Declaration on Human Rights.

An 8 February 2009 speech by Vice President Joe Biden (in Munich, of all places) did note U.S. readiness to take pre-emptive action against Iran if it does not abandon its nuclear ambitions and support for terrorism, but also repeated that the U.S. is open to talks. This is what your mother always warned you against: mixed signals.

Under the Bush administration we had no Iran policy. Now, our policy leans too close to appeasement. How did it get this way?

America’s foreign policy toward Iran did not reach this level of malleability overnight or by accident. A well-organized plan to infiltrate and influence U.S. policymakers at the highest levels has been operating on American soil for well over a decade. Conceived in Tehran under the direct authority of the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the plan set out to create a network of top U.S. academics, diplomats, journalists, NGOs, and think tanks that would advocate a policy of appeasement towards Iran. Iran’s top strategic objective has always been to buy time for its nuclear weapons program, which now is well along in developing the three critical components: enriched uranium, warhead weaponization, and a credible missile delivery system.

Beginning in the late 1990s, a de facto alliance between Muslim Brotherhood fronts in the U.S. (such as CAIR -- the Council on Islamic American Relations) and frank Tehran regime advocates like the American-Iranian Council (AIC) openly began to promote public support for a U.S. foreign policy based on the favored positions of the Islamic Republic. In 2002, a new pro-Iran group was formed by a young Swedish-Iranian immigrant named Trita Parsi. That group, the National Iranian-American Council (NIAC) quickly established itself as the nexus of a growing network of individuals and organizations that openly lobby for a U.S. policy of acquiescence, diplomacy, incentives, and negotiations with the Tehran regime -- while strongly opposing coercive diplomacy, sanctions, or threat of military action. Part and parcel of this advocacy on behalf of Tehran is a pattern of antipathy towards Israel that minimizes its security concerns and dismisses its legitimate defense needs.

Under Parsi, who is closely connected to the Tehran regime, the NIAC network has expanded to include a growing number of new groups. Some of them -- such as The Campaign Against Sanctions and Military Intervention in Iran (CASMII) -- are NIAC clones. CASMII was founded in December 2005 to oppose all forms of pressure on Iran. Others, such as the Center for a New American Security (CNAS, founded in February 2007) play the role of useful idiots. CNAS had Dr. Susan Rice, the Obama administration’s appointee as Ambassador to the UN, on its Board of Directors.

Dr. Vali Nasr, who has been named senior advisor to U.S. Afghanistan/Pakistan envoy Ambassador Richard Holbrooke, was one of the authors of a September 2008 CNAS publication called Iran: Assessing U.S. Strategic Options. Nasr’s chapter, "The Implications of Military Confrontation with Iran," urged the U.S. to take the military option for dealing with Iran off the table and instead focus on how best to accommodate Tehran’s rising power in the Middle East region. The Campaign for a New American Policy on Iran (CNAPI) launched its pro-Iran activities with a cross-country event called The Folly of Attacking Iran Tour, which crisscrossed the U.S. in February and March 2008.

The American Foreign Policy Project (AFPP) was founded in December 2008 with an “experts list” that reads like a remix of other CAIR and NIAC affiliates, including former Ambassadors Thomas Pickering, James Dobbins, and William Miller plus well-known academic figures such as Professors Gary G. Sick of Columbia University and Juan R. Cole of the University of Michigan. These groups’ interlocking Boards of Advisors, Directors, and Experts include many other nationally-known figures from public policy and international business arenas, including some big oil companies.

All are associated in one way or another with Trita Parsi and NIAC and all advocate a policy of accommodation with Iran.

The Iranian regime makes no attempt to disguise its links to this network. NIAC, for instance, was openly mentioned in the 7 December 2007 issue of the government-controlled Aftab News, where the NIAC network was called the regime’s “Iran lobby in the U.S.” In March 2007, the Fars News daily described NIAC as ‘a non-profit’ organization with headquarters in Washington, D.C. that was established to counter the influence of AIPAC [the American-Israeli Political Action Committee, a legal lobby group] and to enlist the support of Iranian expatriates living in the U.S. in order to ‘penetrate U.S. politics.’

Maneuvering behind Washington, D.C. policymaking scenes to exert influence on U.S. decision makers is pretty standard for a host of legitimate interest groups, including many foreign countries. Concern is indicated, however, when the guiding influence behind such maneuvering emanates from the top levels of a regime like Iran’s that holds top spot on the Department of State’s state sponsors of terror list, makes no secret of its hatred and enmity for the U.S. and our ally Israel, and acts in myriad ways to support those who have assassinated, held, kidnapped, killed, and tortured American civilians and military over a 30-year period. The expanding influence of this pro-Iran lobby on U.S. foreign policy attests to a determined and sophisticated operation that serves only the interests of regime implacably hostile to America’s own national security interests.

Ms. Lopez is the Vice President of the Intelligence Summit and a professor at the Centre for Counterintelligence and Security Studies.

Binyam Mohamed: Guantanamo Torture Evidence Hidden from Obama

From The Guardian:

Binyam Mohamed, the UK resident detained in Guantánamo Bay, is to be visited by British officials and could be returned to Britain shortly, the foreign secretary, David Miliband, signalled today. The US authorities have agreed to treat Mohamed's case as "a priority", the minister said, enabling Britain to work with Washington for "a swift resolution".

London and Washington may want to act quickly, because yet more embarrassing detail on the case has emerged today.

Clive Stafford-Smith, Mohamed's lawyer, claims the US Department of Defense is preventing President Obama from seeing evidence of Mohamed's alleged mistreatment and torture. He has written to Obama:

You, as commander in chief, are being denied access to material that would help prove that crimes have been committed by US personnel. This decision is being made by the very people who you command.

US Threatens UK to Keep Gitmo Torture Secret

(thanks to Ali Yenidunya for co-writing this entry)

The British High Court ruled this afternoon that evidence of the torture of a Britain resident at the Guantanamo Bay detention facility, and the British intelligence services' knowledge of that torture, must remain secret because of US threats to stop sharing intelligence with Britain.



The judges unhappily and reluctantly issued their decision in the case of Binyam Mohamed, who has been held in Guantanamo since 2002. British Foreign Secretary David Miliband had claim that the disclosure of evidence, originally contained in documents given to him by the US government, would threaten British national security.

The judges made clear that they had been told the US threat remained in place under the Obama Administration. This outweighed their assessment that there was "no disclosure of sensitive intelligence matters" in the American documents:

Indeed, we did not consider that a democracy governed by the rule of law would expect a court in another democracy to suppress a summary of the evidence contained in reports by its own officials ... relevant to allegations of torture and cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment, politically embarrassing though it might be.

David Davis, Conservative Member of Parliament and former Shadow Home Minister, has taken the issue to the House of Commons. He wants to investigate whether the UK was threatened by the US officials and whether Britain had taken part in tortures: “David Miliband, the UK Foreign Minister, should explain what degree of complicity we have in this.”