Tag: Torture

REVEALED: ‎Britain’s secret policy on torture

Torture policy of MI5 and MI6 outlined in secret document – barrister’s opinion together with original article from The Guardian below:

No trade-off on torture

Now that the secret government policy on overseas torture is laid bare, it is even more imperative that the coalition clean house

Eric Metcalfe

Guantánamo military prison, where 'enhanced interrogation techniques' were used. Photograph: John Moore/Getty Images

Would you risk someone being waterboarded in a foreign country for a week if you thought it might save 10 British lives? What if you thought it might save only one life, but you were not really sure? What would that be worth? Waterboarding for a day? The secret government policy uncovered in Ian Cobain’s story on Thursday does not set things out in such crude terms, but it is the kind of grotesque utilitarian calculus that is invited by its bland references to “balancing the risk of mistreatment” against “operational imperatives”.

Torture, according to the policy, was something the previous government would never knowingly condone or be complicit in. But when it came to situations in which the government did not know for certain, or did not especially want to, all bets were, apparently, off.

The revelation of the policy, in force until 2010, does not so much shock as confirm what many people had guessed: that the previous government had been prepared to run the risk that its co-operation with foreign intelligence agencies might – in certain, unspecified circumstances – result in people overseas being tortured.

The policy restated, of course, the official position: MI5 and MI6 “do not participate in, solicit, encourage or condone the use of torture or inhuman or degrading treatment” and “will not carry out any action which it is known will result” in such ill-treatment. The more difficult question is what was happening before 2010 in the many cases that didn’t involve such perfect knowledge, ie the real world.

Some things we do know. We know, for instance, that our intelligence services have over the past decade co-operated with a great many countries known to use torture: Jordan, Pakistan and Algeria, to name but a few. The evidence that these countries use torture has long been a matter of public record, amply documented by reports from Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and the US state department.

But it turns out knowledge is a tricky thing. In 2005, the then head of MI5 gave a witness statement in support of the government’s case before the House of Lords, from which it was clear that MI5 did not care to ask its foreign partners if particular information it received had been obtained using torture. Apparently it feared giving offence and thereby depriving the UK of valuable intelligence. As Lord Bingham noted in his dissenting opinion, “the foreign torturer does not boast of his trade”, and MI5 was content to turn a blind eye in order to keep the information coming in.

The cases in which British officials have been implicated in torture abroad are not just those involving evidence received by fax, however, where knowledge of interrogation techniques is easy enough to deny. In several cases, agents of MI5 and MI6 went to detention centres in places such as Pakistan, stood face to face with the victim of torture, asking questions with the torturers presumably nearby. It beggars belief to suppose that trained intelligence officials were unaware of the circumstances in which suspects were detained.

No doubt there are many qualities that go into making a good MI5 agent but naivety is not one of them. In any event, the previous government’s policy reveals that ministers were prepared to run the risk that torture might be used if the gains to the UK were acceptable enough: in other words, a ghoulish, foolish trade-off between torture and intelligence.

Will the coalition clean house as it promised? Labour’s policy accepted that British officials overseas were bound by our criminal law but not, apparently, our human rights standards. Sadly, the coalition government seems as unwilling as Labour in this regard, something borne out by itsrefusal to comply with article 3 of the European convention on human rights when setting up the Detainee Inquiry. Worst of all, the coalition has given itself the final say on what can and cannot be made public by the inquiry. The irony here is that, but for Thursday’s leak, Labour’s ruinous policy might never have seen the light of day.

Eric Metcalfe is a barrister and the director of human rights policy at Justice

https://www.theguardian.com/law/2011/aug/05/no-trade-off-on-torture, 5 August 2011

Original article by Ian Cobain:

UK’s secret policy on torture revealed

Exclusive: Document shows intelligence officers instructed to weigh importance of information sought against pain inflicted

A number of men said they were questioned by MI5 and MI6 officers after being tortured at Guantánamo Bay. Photograph: Mark Wilson/Getty Images

A top-secret document revealing how MI6 and MI5 officers were allowed to extract information from prisoners being illegally tortured overseas has been seen by the Guardian.

The interrogation policy – details of which are believed to be too sensitive to be publicly released at the government inquiry into the UK’s role in torture and rendition – instructed senior intelligence officers toweigh the importance of the information being sought against the amount of pain they expected a prisoner to suffer. It was operated by the British government for almost a decade.

A copy of the secret policy showed senior intelligence officers and ministers feared the British public could be at greater risk of a terrorist attack if Islamists became aware of its existence.

One section states: “If the possibility exists that information will be or has been obtained through the mistreatment of detainees, the negative consequences may include any potential adverse effects on national security if the fact of the agency seeking or accepting information in those circumstances were to be publicly revealed.

“For instance, it is possible that in some circumstances such a revelation could result in further radicalisation, leading to an increase in the threat from terrorism.”

The policy adds that such a disclosure “could result in damage to the reputation of the agencies”, and that this could undermine their effectiveness.

The fact that the interrogation policy document and other similar papers may not be made public during the inquiry into British complicity in torture and rendition has led to human rights groups and lawyers refusing to give evidence or attend any meetings with the inquiry team because it does not have “credibility or transparency”.

The decision by 10 groups – including Liberty, Reprieve and Amnesty International – follows the publication of the inquiry’s protocols, which show the final decision on whether material uncovered by the inquiry, led by Sir Peter Gibson, can be made public will rest with the cabinet secretary.

The inquiry will begin after a police investigation into torture allegations has been completed.

Some have criticised the appointment of Gibson, a retired judge, to head the inquiry because he previously served as the intelligence services commissioner, overseeing government ministers’ use of a controversial power that permits them to “disapply” UK criminal and civil law in order to offer a degree of protection to British intelligence officers committing crimes overseas. The government denies there is a conflict of interest.

The protocols also stated that former detainees and their lawyers will not be able to question intelligence officials and that all evidence from current or former members of the security and intelligence agencies, below the level of head, will be heard in private.

The document seen by the Guardian shows how the secret interrogation policy operated until it was rewritten on the orders of the coalition government last July.

It also:

• Acknowledged that MI5 and MI6 officers could be in breach of both UK and international law by asking for information from prisoners held by overseas agencies known to use torture.

• Explained the need to obtain political cover for any potentially criminal act by consulting ministers beforehand.

The secret interrogation policy was first passed to MI5 and MI6 officers inAfghanistan in January 2002 to enable them to continue questioning prisoners whom they knew were being mistreated by members of the US military.

It was amended slightly later that year before being rewritten and expanded in 2004 after it became apparent that a significant number of British Muslims, radicalised by the invasion of Iraq, were planning attacks against the UK.

The policy was amended again in July 2006 during an investigation of a suspected plot to bring down airliners over the Atlantic.

Entitled “Agency policy on liaison with overseas security and intelligence services in relation to detainees who may be subject to mistreatment”, it was given to intelligence officers handing over questions to be put to detainees.

Separate policy documents were issued for related matters, including intelligence officers conducting face-to-face interrogations.

The document set out the international and domestic law on torture, and explained that MI5 and MI6 do not “participate in, encourage or condone” either torture or inhuman or degrading treatment.

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.

The head of MI5, Jonathan Evans, said that, in the post 9/11 world, his officers would be derelict in their duty if they did not work with intelligence agencies in countries with poor human rights records, while his opposite number at MI6, Sir John Sawers, spoke of the “real, constant, operational dilemmas” involved in such relationships.

Others, however, are questioning whether – in the words of Ken Macdonald, a former director of public prosecutions, “Tony Blair’s government was guilty of developing something close to a criminal policy”.

The Intelligence and Security Committee, the group of parliamentarians appointed by the prime minister to assist with the oversight of the UK’s intelligence agencies, is known to have examined the document while sitting in secret, but it is unclear what – if any – suggestions or complaints it made.

Paul Murphy, the Labour MP and former minister who chaired the committee in 2006, declined to answer questions about the matter.

A number of men, mostly British Muslims, have complained that they were questioned by MI5 and MI6 officers after being tortured by overseas intelligence officials in Pakistan, Bangladesh, Afghanistan andGuantánamo Bay. Some are known to have been detained at the suggestion of British intelligence officers.

Others say they were tortured in places such as Egypt, Dubai, Morocco and Syria, while being interrogated on the basis of information that could only have been supplied by the UK.

A number were subsequently convicted of serious terrorism offences or subjected to control orders. Others returned to the UK and, after treatment, resumed their lives.

One is a businessman in Yorkshire, another a software designer living in Berkshire, and a third is a doctor practising on the south coast of England.

Some have brought civil proceedings against the British government, and a number have received compensation in out-of-court settlements, but others remain too scared to take legal action.

Scotland Yard has examined the possibility that one officer from MI5 and a second from MI6 committed criminal offences while extracting information from detainees overseas, and detectives are now conducting what is described as a “wider investigation into other potential criminal conduct”.

A new set of instructions was drafted after last year’s election, published on the orders of David Cameron, on the grounds that the coalition was “determined to resolve the problems of the past” and wished to give “greater clarity about what is and what is not acceptable in the future”.

Human rights groups pointed to what they said were serious loopholes that could permit MI5 and MI6 officers to remain involved in the torture of prisoners overseas.

Last week, the high court heard a challenge to the legality of the new instructions, brought by the Equality and Human Rights Commission. Judgment is expected later in the year.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2011/aug/04/uk-allowed-interrogate-tortured-prisoners, 4 August 2011

The Daily Telegraph’s title for the same item:

“We covered up our involvement in torture. Now we must expose it”

August 6, 2011
UK overruled on Lebanon spy flights from Cyprus, WikiLeaks cables reveal

Americans dismissed ‘bureaucratic’ Foreign Office concern that Lebanese Hezbollah suspects might be tortured

Richard Norton-Taylor and David Leigh

RAF Akrotiri at Limassol, Cyprus. WikiLeaks cables claim the US brushed aside British objections about secret spy flights from the base Photograph: Matt Cardy/Getty Images

American officials swept aside British protests about secret US spy flights taking place from the UK’s Cyprus airbase, the leaked diplomatic cables reveal.

Labour ministers said they feared making the UK an unwitting accomplice to torture, and were upset about rendition flights going on behind their backs.

The use of RAF Akrotiri in Cyprus for American U2 spy plane missions over Hezbollah locations in Lebanon – missions that have never been disclosed until now – prompted an acrimonious series of exchanges between British officials and the US embassy in London, according to the cables released by WikiLeaks. The then foreign secretary David Miliband is quoted as saying, unavailingly, “policymakers needed to get control of the military“.

Ministers demanded a full “audit trail” of covert operations, codenamed Cedar Sweep, amid growing public concern in the UK about unacknowledged CIA rendition flights and alleged UK complicity in torture. The planes gathered intelligence that was then allegedly passed to the Lebanese authorities to help them track down Hezbollah militants. In the past, such flights have also been carried out on Israel’s behalf by the Americans.

As the 2008 row escalated, the US rejected the British concerns over torture in unequivocal terms, with one senior official at the embassy in London baldly stating in one cable: “We cannot take a risk-avoidance approach to CT [counter-terrorism] in which the fear of potentially violating human rights allows terrorism to proliferate in Lebanon.”

The cables disclose that as well as the Lebanon missions, U2s from Akrotiri were gathering intelligence over Turkey and northern Iraq. The information was secretly supplied to the Turkish authorities in an operation codenamed Highland Warrior. The British protested that “in both cases, intelligence product is intended to be passed to third-party governments”.

On 18 April 2008, Britain demanded the US embassy provide full details of all flights so ministers could tell whether they “put the UK at risk of being complicit in unlawful acts … This is a very important point for ministers”.

A US diplomat, Maura Connelly, cabled: “We understand that these additional precautionary measures stem from the February revelation that the US government transited renditioned persons through Diego Garcia without UK permission and HMG’s [her majesty’s government’s] resultant need to ensure it is not similarly blindsided in the future.”

She complained to Washington that the demands were “burdensome” and “an unnecessary layer of bureaucracy”.

Will Jessett, then director of counter-terrorism at the ministry of defence, had sent a letter warning that “the use of UK bases for covert or potentially controversial missions” on behalf of Lebanon or Turkey meant it was “important for us to be satisfied that HMG is not indirectly aiding the commission of unlawful acts by those governments”.

The letter warned that other states, particularly Cyprus, might well object should they find out. Ministers therefore wanted the US to submit each time “an assessment of any legal or human rights implications”.

On 24 April, the embassy sent a cable to Washington entitled: “Houston, we have a problem”. It stated: “HMG ministers are adamant.”

The embassy “pushed back hard” on demands for a full “audit trail” of spy flights. But in what appears to have been a heated dispute, the British responded by detailing other US “oversights”.

“Contacts cited instances in which operations Highland Warrior and Cedar Sweep had been conducted from the UK sovereign base areas of Akrotiri without the proper ministerial approvals … In addition, Highland Warrior had raised tensions with the Cypriots, jeopardising the UK’s hold on Akrotiri.”

There were “other lapses that proved embarrassing to HMG (ie renditions through Diego Garcia and improperly documented shipments of weaponry through Prestwick airport)”.

The US used Prestwick in 2006 as a staging post to ship laser-guided bombs to Israel, causing British protests. The Israelis wanted the munitions to attack Hezbollah bunkers in Lebanon.

The US embassy concluded: “A new element of distrust has crept into the US-UK mil-mil relationship.

“The renditions revelation proved highly embarrassing for the Brown government. The British proposal … may be disproportionate but is almost certainly an indication of the Brown government’s sensitivity … at a time Brown is facing increasing domestic political woes.”

A month later Britain was still, according to the US, “piling on concerns and conditions” about human rights, saying that although junior minister Kim Howells was making the decisions, Miliband was being kept informed.

British officials warned that ministerial concerns “could jeopardise future use of British territory”.

US patience finally snapped when a Foreign Office official, John Hillman, passed on the message that “even the [US] state department’s own human rights report had documented cases of torture and arbitrary arrest by the Lebanese armed forces”.

Hillman urged the US to ensure the welfare of prisoners in Lebanon “if there were any risk that detainees captured with the help of Cedar Sweep intel could be tortured”.

At this point Richard LeBaron, charges d’affaires at the London embassy, cabled Washington that human rights concerns could not be allowed to get in the way of counter-terrorism operations. Britain’s demands were “not only burdensome but unrealistic”, he said, proposing “high-level approaches” to call the British to heel.

“Excessive conditions such as described above will hinder, if not obstruct, our co-operative counter-terrorism efforts,” he said.

Senior Bush administration official John Rood stepped in and the Foreign Office’s director general for defence and intelligence, Mariot Leslie, hastened to placate him.

The clash was “unnecessarily confrontational”, she told him. “Leslie expressed annoyance at the additional conditions conveyed by the FCO working level,” the cable states. “She had not been aware beforehand that such a message would be conveyed. In fact she regretted the tenor of the discussions had turned prickly, and underscored HMG appreciation for US-UK military and intelligence co-operation.”

She reassured him that US was not actually expected to check on detained terrorists.

“Ministers had merely wanted to impress upon the US government that they take the human rights considerations seriously.

“She noted that HMG ‘desperately needs’ [Cyprus] for its own intelligence gathering and operations and was committed to keeping them available to the US (and France).

“However, the Cypriots are hypersensitive about the British presence there, she said, and could ‘turn off the utilities at any time’. That, combined with the ‘toxic mix’ of the rendition flights through Diego Garcia, has resulted in tremendous parliamentary, public and media pressure on HMG.”

Leslie stuck to her guns on one point, saying the US embassy would still have to put in full written applications for future spy missions because “Miliband believed that ‘policymakers needed to get control of the military’.” The cable stated: “Leslie … was very frank that HMG did object to some of what the US government does (eg renditions).”

British ministers loyally kept these objections about the US to themselves, however, despite coming uinder repeated attack from the UK media for alleged complicity in the dispatch of Islamist prisoners to places where they would be tortured.

US use of Cyprus has always been controversial. Relations between London and Washington were strained at the time of the attacks on Israel during the 1973 Yom Kippur war by Ted Heath’s decision to adopt a policy of strict neutrality. The then prime minister refused to allow the US to use Britain’s electronic intercept and air bases on Cyprus .

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/dec/01/wikileaks-cables-cyprus-rendition-torture, 2 December 2010

December 3, 2010
David Cameron: waterboarding does not save lives

Terrorism in the UK

David Cameron has flatly contradicted George W Bush and said he does not believe that waterboarding, the controversial interrogation technique, saves lives.

Protesters demonstrate the use of waterboarding in front of the Justice Department in Washington Photo: AP

By Andrew Porter in Seoul

The British prime minister, speaking at the G20 summit in South Korea, repeated the official British line that torture was wrong, and he went further, attacking policies pursued by the Bush administration on the detention and treatment of prisoners which he said had helped to radicalise people and made the West “less safe”.

Mr Bush memoirs, which were published this week, asserted strongly that the waterboarding of prisoners had averted huge terrorist attacks on key London targets. The former US president also said that he did not believe that waterboarding constituted torture.

In an interview on Thursday. Mr Cameron said he disagreed with Mr Bush, though he did not deal directly with the belief that specific attacks had been headed off. “Look, I think torture is wrong and I think we ought to be very clear about that,” Mr Cameron said. “And I think we should also be clear that if actually you’re getting information from torture, it’s very likely to be unreliable information.”

When pressed on whether torture saves lives, he added: “I think there is both a moral reason for being opposed to torture – and Britain doesn’t sanction torture – but secondly I think there’s also an effectiveness thing … if you look at the effect of Guantánamo Bay and other things like that, long-term that has actually helped to radicalise people and make our country and our world less safe. So I don’t agree.”

Mr Bush has claimed attacks on Canary Wharf and Heathrow airport were foiled as a result of the controversial interrogation technique. Speaking on the release of his book Decision Points, he said of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the supposed architect of 9/11: “We capture the guy, the chief operating officer of al-Qaeda, who kills 3,000 people. We felt he had the information about another attack. He says, ‘I’ll talk to you when I get my lawyer’. I say, ‘What options are available and legal?’”

Last month, Sir John Sawers, the head of the UK’s Secret Intelligence Service, said: “Torture is illegal and abhorrent under any circumstances and we have nothing whatsoever to do with it.” But the Foreign Office has accepted that information gained from waterboarding would be used if it could stop an imminent terrorist attack.

Mr Bush’s views have run into opposition from a number of experts in the UK. Lord Macdonald of River Glaven, the former Director of Public Prosecutions said: “These stories about waterboarding thwarting attacks on Canary Wharf and Heathrow – I’ve never seen anything to substantiate these claims. It’s an easy claim to make, it’s much more difficult to prove. These claims are to be treated with a great deal of scepticism.”

However US intelligence officials involved in the 9/11 investigation have said Mr Bush’s claim was supported by a welter of evidence, including a confession made by Mohammed to a military tribunal at Guantánamo Bay.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terrorism-in-the-uk/8126623/David-Cameron-waterboarding-does-not-save-lives.html, 11 Nov 2010

November 17, 2010
MoD may face hundreds of new torture claims
The inquiry into the death of Baha Mousa while held by the British Army begins tomorrow, with lawyers registering more claims of abuse

The Ministry of Defence faces the threat of hundreds of claims for alleged abuse and torture of Iraqi civilians by British soldiers. Lawyers say emerging evidence of abuses, including use of electric shocks, points to a systematic policy of sensory deprivation, sleep deprivation and beatings throughout the occupation of Basra, which must have been authorised by senior officers or politicians and known to hundreds of soldiers. Some 20 Iraqi civilians last week began a fresh round of legal cases claiming human rights abuses against the Ministry of Defence.

Sir William Gage will tomorrow begin his inquiry into the death of Baha Mousa, a recently widowed 26-year-old hotel worker and father of two small children, who was beaten to death by British soldiers while in custody in Iraq in 2003.

Mr Mousa’s family, including his father, Dawood Mousa, a former colonel in the Iraqi army, and other civilians who were arrested and beaten at the same time, will travel to London to attend the proceedings in September. Mr Mousa said yesterday: “The questions still remain: Who? And Why? I am eager for this inquiry… we want to know who killed Baha and whether what was going on was part of a wider policy.” He said he hoped “it will not be a whitewash” and that he was “speechless”
Related articles
- Robert Fisk: The story of Baha Mousa
when he was not allowed to take part in a military tribunal.

The MoD has already paid compensation for the death of Mr Mousa, who had 93 separate injuries on his body, although no soldier has been convicted for the killing. Seven soldiers did face court martial in 2006, but only one was convicted of inhumane treatment and sentenced to a year in prison. Corporal Donald Payne pleaded guilty after appearing in a one-minute video, shown at the court martial, in which internees could be seen forced to hold “stress positions” while wearing hoods.

Hooding was one of five techniques outlawed by the British government in 1972. The others were stress positions – where suspects are forced to squat in positions that become painful – sleep deprivation, constant noise and refusal of food and water. But it is emerging that the practices continued until last year; it is unclear when the ban was overturned, or by whom.

The latest cases – some of which are detailed below and which arose during five years of British military operations in Iraq – have similar complaints. They say homes were raided early in the morning by up to 60 British soldiers, men were beaten with rifle butts, plasticuffed and dragged to detention facilities where they were beaten, blindfolded, forced to wear ear muffs, hold stress positions, refused food and drink and not allowed to go to the toilet.

One man, Ali Nassih Mowannis, 24, claims wires were held to his tongue and feet and electric shocks administered. Another, Adil Abbas Fadhil Mohammad, says he was left hanging by handcuffs from a ceiling for an hour. Others say their wives or sisters were beaten, or they were stripped naked, while photographs were taken of them.

The MoD was forced last week to concede a further inquiry into allegations that Iraqis were tortured and killed by the British after what become known as the battle of Danny Boy in Maysan Province in May 2004. The MoD had claimed – in a case brought by nine survivors – that they had not complained at the time. But at the High Court last week government lawyers were forced to concede the case following the discovery of an email that the nine had in fact complained to the Red Cross and an investigation had been ordered. A draft letter outlining the complaints had been drawn up to be sent to Tony Blair. It is not clear if the investigation was ever carried out or the letter sent.

On Friday, Lord Justice Scott Baker condemned the MoD for its secrecy in the case and for making “partly false” statements in an effort to keep interrogation techniques secret under a public-interest immunity [PII] certificate. Until the MoD had demonstrated that “the whole content of such documents was scrupulously accurate” the courts should approach PII certificates from the MoD “with very considerable caution”, he said.

Yesterday, Phil Shiner of Public Interest Lawyers in Birmingham, which represents many of the Iraqis, including Baha Mousa’s family, as well as the nine Danny Boy claimants in court last week, said: “There are hundreds of cases of Iraqi torture and abuse at British detention facilities… The systemic reasons for this are completely under explored.”

Mazin Younis, of the London-based Iraqi League, which carries out initial interviews with claimants, said there were at least another 30 or 40 potential claims. If jurisdiction reached beyond British bases, that number would double, he added. “I absolutely believe there have been incidents from 2004 until 2008,” he said. “Thousands of soldiers have either witnessed abuse or co-operated in it. The stories are all very similar. The raid starts at home, they are kicked and beaten and hooded.”

The MoD, which denies all allegations in relation to Danny Boy, said other cases had yet to be proven. In a statement, the armed forces minister Bill Rammell said: “Over 120,000 British troops have served in Iraq and the vast majority have conducted themselves with the utmost professionalism. All allegations of abuse are investigated… and where proven, those responsible are punished and complainants compensated. Allegations must not be taken as fact, and formal investigations must be allowed to take their course.”

What the claimants say: ‘We were beaten… blindfolded… threatened with dogs… forced to strip’

These are the allegations made in statements to British lawyers by some of the Iraqis seeking legal redress from the Ministry of Defence.

Ali Nassih Mowannis, 24, arrested January 2006

Ali was arrested with Nassih Mowannis Abdul-Ali, 45, and his teenage brother, Anwar, by 60 or 70 soldiers who raided their home at 2.30am. Nassih’s wife was forced to strip her baby naked. Jewellery and £12,500 was taken and never returned. All were blindfolded and earmuffed and beaten. Ali had electric shocks administered to his tongue and feet.

Hussain Salman Muharib, 23, arrested April 2004

Claims he was beaten with rifle butts after going outside in his pyjamas to investigate gunfire. His father was shot in the arm and his brother in the neck. He was dragged back into the house by 30 soldiers who beat his family, including his mother, sister and children. He was taken to a detention centre, beaten for 19 hours, forced to strip and parade in front of six or seven soldiers who photographed him on mobiles. Released without charge after three weeks.

Mustafa Abdul Amir Haddada, 31, arrested March 2006

Mustafa was woken by the sound of his door being kicked. As he investigated, it was blown in with explosives. He was injured by shrapnel, including a serious wound to his eye. Soldiers kicked and beat him and his wife. He was handcuffed and blindfolded. He was denied medical care, which led to the loss of his eye. Released without charge after one year and four months.

Abbas Mowannis Abdul Ali, 34, arrested January 2006

Abbas was arrested during a night raid on his home. He was hooded in front of his children and pushed down the stairs. In detention he was hooded, earmuffed and beaten. Also claims he was urinated on and at one point shot in the leg at close range with a rubber bullet. Released in September 2007 without charge.

Badr Salman Muharib, 31, arrested twice, in April 2003 and April 2004

On both occasions Badr was hooded and beaten. On the first occasion he was released after 19 days with an apology. On the second he was repeatedly dragged across the ground, forced to strip and bend backwards and forwards while soldiers took photographs of him.

Adil Abbas Fadhil Mohammad, arrested March 2006

A night guard, Adil was approached by British troops, beaten and arrested while on duty. Repeatedly beaten and threatened with dogs. At one point he was forced to stand on a wobbly table, with cuffs tied to a hook on the ceiling. He could reach the table only on tiptoe. When it fell over he was left hanging from the ceiling for half an hour and beaten. He was later stripped and had his penis pulled. Tricked into believing he had been taken to Guantanamo Bay. Released without charge after 48 hours.

Tarek Hassan, 22, arrested April 2003

Detained by British forces during a raid on his family home. The soldiers were looking for Tarek’s brother, Khadim, a high-ranking Ba’ath party official, and said they would hold Tarek until Khadim turned himself in. Four months later Tarek’s body was found in the desert north of Baghdad. He had been shot eight times and his hands were tied with plasticuffs commonly used by British and US soldiers. Khadim is now seeking an inquiry at the European Court.

Kammash family, arrested April 2007

The family home was raided, and six men, including 70-year-old Jabbir Kammash, were arrested, hooded and handcuffed and beaten. Jabbir was released after a day with his son, and his other son four days later. The other three were held for several months, deprived of sleep, forced to go without clothes and sexually humiliated.

Muslim Abbod Mohammed and Najim Abbod Mohammed, arrested August 2006

The claimants were arrested at 2.30am by 20 soldiers and beaten so severely Najim’s arm was broken. More than once he was dragged by his broken arm. Muslim was forced to stand in the sun for two hours in a stress position and had stones thrown at him. Both were deprived of sleep through banging and by pornographic films played loudly. Both released without charge after almost a year.

Moayaad Jabbar Ibrahim, Imad Oraibi Abdulla Al-Iqabi, Ali Jabbar Hassan, arrested August 2003

The three were beaten for 30 minutes in their homes and in front of children so severely one lost consciousness. They say soldiers smelled of alcohol. Released the following day and received a letter of apology.

Andrew Johnson

The Independent
July 15, 2009
Security forces ‘running rampant’ in northern Iraq

Tuesday, 14 Apr 2009

Hundreds of people still detained without trial and beatings commonplace in Iraq's Kurdistan, Amnesty International says

Iraq’s northern autonomous Kurdistan region may have escaped the bloodshed that has blighted the rest of the country in recent years, but observers have warned of the desperate human rights situation.

Security forces that report directly to the region’s president and not the ministry are operating “beyond the rule of law” as detentions without trial and disappearances remain rife, a report out today claims.

Amnesty International, which conducted the report, said hundreds remain in long-term detention without trial, while electric shocks, beatings with wooden poles and beatings on the soles of the feet are routinely dished out as punishment for detainees.

“The Kurdistan region has been spared the bloodletting and violence that continues to wrack the rest of Iraq and the Kurdistan regional government has made some important human rights advances,” said Malcolm Smart, director of the human rights group’s Middle East and North Africa programme

“Yet real problems – arbitrary detention and torture, attacks on journalists and freedom of expression, and violence against women – remain, and urgently need to be addressed by the government.”

One case highlighted by the report is Walid Yunis Ahmad, a married father of three in his early 40s who worked at a radio and TV station linked to the Islamic Movement in Kurdistan. Originally detained in February 2000 by plain-clothed men believed to be from the Asayish security organisation, as of February this year he was still being held (reportedly in solitary confinement and in poor health) without charge or trial at the group’s headquarters in Erbil.

It took Mr Ahmad’s family three years to even discover that he was detained – after the Red Cross informed them of his detention, Amnesty International said.

Source: www.inthenews.co.uk, 14 Apr 2009

April 14, 2009