tag:theconversation.com,2011:/us/topics/rendition-10351/articlesRendition – The Conversation2021-09-23T12:30:01Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1684222021-09-23T12:30:01Z2021-09-23T12:30:01Z20 years after 9/11, the men charged with responsibility are still waiting for trial – here’s why<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/422743/original/file-20210922-24-1gbobmy.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=26%2C0%2C3000%2C1976&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and co-defendants return to court in November.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://newsroom.ap.org/detail/Sept11WhereAreTheyNow/6c9f5ca01f284537ab17763897a37847/photo?Query=trial%20AND%20guantanamo&mediaType=photo&sortBy=arrivaldatetime:desc&dateRange=Anytime&totalCount=170&currentItemNo=0">AP Photo/Janet Hamlin</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>As the <a href="https://www.911memorial.org/connect/commemoration/20th-anniversary-commemoration">20th anniversary of 9/11</a> passed, the five men accused of responsibility for the attacks were <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/article/september-11-trial-guantanamo-bay.html">still awaiting trial</a> in the Guantanamo <a href="https://www.mc.mil/">military commission</a>.</p>
<p>This case is the largest criminal prosecution in U.S. history in terms of number of victims. The charge sheet <a href="https://www.mc.mil/Portals/0/pdfs/KSM2/KSM%20II%20(Sworn%20Charges).pdf">lists the names of 2,976 people </a> who were direct casualties of two hijacked commercial airliners that crashed into the World Trade Center and caused the twin towers to collapse, another that crashed into the Pentagon and a fourth, probably aiming for the U.S. Capitol building, that was brought down in a field in western Pennsylvania when several passengers overpowered their hijackers. </p>
<p>Yet two decades after the U.S.’s worst terrorist attack, the 9/11 case remains mired in the pretrial phase with no start date for the trial. The hearings, which <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/sep/07/911-attacks-khalid-sheikh-mohammed-pre-trial-resumes">resumed September 7, 2021</a> after a 17-month COVID-19 related suspension, were the first for the case’s new judge – the fourth officer to fill that role.</p>
<p>As someone who has visited Guantanamo on 11 occasions since 2013 to observe legal proceedings in the 9/11 case, I have come to understand that the delays are the inevitable result of an irreconcilable conflict: The U.S. government’s objective is to convict and <a href="https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/8/31/death-penalty-trial-date-set-for-alleged-september-11-attackers">execute the accused men</a> as a way to provide justice for the thousands of victims. But those goals are stymied by the fact that the defendants are also <a href="https://law.unc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/extraordinaryrenditionandNC.pdf">victims of CIA torture</a>.</p>
<h2>No martyrdom-by-military commission</h2>
<p>The 9/11 case involves five defendants. </p>
<p><a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/cia-torture-report/rectal-hydration-inside-cias-interrogation-khalid-sheikh-mohammed-n265016">Khalid Sheikh Mohammad</a>, whom the government refers to as KSM, is accused of being the “mastermind” behind the attacks. </p>
<p><a href="https://www.hrw.org/legacy/photos/2008/guantanamo/Mubarek-Bin-Attash.html">Walid bin Attash</a> is accused of training two of the hijackers how to fight in close quarters using box cutters to take over the planes. </p>
<p><a href="https://www.hrw.org/legacy/photos/2008/guantanamo/Ramzi-Binakshibh.html">Ramzi bin al-Shibh</a> is accused of recruiting some of the hijackers who formed a cell in Hamburg, Germany, and serving as an intermediary between lead hijacker Mohammed Atta and al-Qaeda leaders. </p>
<p><a href="https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/Newsroom/Press%20Releases/2006%20Press%20Releases/DetaineeBiographies.pdf">Ammar al-Baluchi</a>, whom the government refers to as Ali Abd al-Aziz Ali, and <a href="https://www.hrw.org/legacy/photos/2008/guantanamo/Mustafa-Al-Hawsawi.html">Mustafa al-Hawsawi</a> are accused of making money transfers to some of the hijackers.</p>
<p>The men were charged in 2007 and arraigned in June 2008. The Bush administration hoped that the trial could be concluded before President George W. Bush left office. But that hope was dashed in December 2008 when Mohammad and the other defendants <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/09/us/09gitmo.html">offered to plead guilty</a> on the condition that they would be executed immediately. This <a href="https://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/world/americas/guantanamo/article1929229.html">attempt to martyr themselves</a> was not an option – the Military Commission Act does not have a provision for executions without trials.</p>
<p>The Obama administration, after <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/05/us/05gitmo.html">abandoning its plan to try the men in federal court</a> in New York, recharged them in the military commissions on April 4, 2012. In official filings, the abbreviated name for the case is KSM II to denote that this is a second attempt to pull this trial off.</p>
<h2>Demands for full disclosure</h2>
<p>For most of the 9/11 hearings I have attended, there have been fewer than 10 journalists in the media delegations. Procedural battles over complex and arcane points of law are seemingly not the stuff of headline news. </p>
<p>But as a <a href="https://soc.ucsb.edu/people/lisa-hajjar">scholar of law and torture</a>, they are fascinating to me. In trying to understand how torture does or should matter to the legal process in a case in which the defendants face the death penalty, I realized that the 9/11 case is caught between conflicting interests that play out in battles between defense teams and prosecutors over the <a href="https://www.americanbar.org/groups/public_education/resources/law_related_education_network/how_courts_work/discovery/#:%7E:text=This%20is%20the%20formal%20process,what%20evidence%20may%20be%20presented.&text=Depositions%20enable%20a%20party%20to,will%20say%20at%20the%20trial.">discovery of information</a> about what happened to the defendants during the years they were detained at CIA “black sites” – secret overseas prisons in which U.S. agents interrogated suspects.</p>
<p>The defense lawyers want access to all information the government possesses about their clients’ abusive treatment by the CIA, including granular details about their torture. They insist it is necessary to provide effective legal counsel.</p>
<p>The demand is especially pertinent in a capital case, but information about a defendant’s treatment in pretrial custody is legally relevant in any criminal case. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="Chairs line an empty courtoom." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/422749/original/file-20210922-23-11tu9gu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/422749/original/file-20210922-23-11tu9gu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=392&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/422749/original/file-20210922-23-11tu9gu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=392&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/422749/original/file-20210922-23-11tu9gu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=392&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/422749/original/file-20210922-23-11tu9gu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=492&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/422749/original/file-20210922-23-11tu9gu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=492&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/422749/original/file-20210922-23-11tu9gu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=492&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Long spells of inactivity inside the U.S. military courtroom at Guantanamo Bay.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/the-united-states-military-courtroom-is-seen-at-camp-news-photo/171665926?adppopup=true">Joe Raedle/Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The prosecution argues that documents containing the full details about the CIA’s now-defunct Rendition, Detention and Interrogation (RDI) program are too sensitive to share, even with lawyers with top-secret security clearances. The CIA’s secrets, as <a href="https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/government-secrecy-torture-stymied-9-11-terror-prosecution/">one prosecutor explained</a>, are “the most highly classified information that the government has … It’s extremely important that we protect that information.” </p>
<p>Instead of original CIA materials, prosecutors have provided about 21,000 pages of summaries and substitutions that obscure specific dates and locations and mask the identities of agents and contractors. </p>
<p>The CIA, which controls information about its operations and dictates what prosecutors can provide to the defense in discovery, has <a href="https://www.justsecurity.org/77835/nuremberg-prosecutor-says-guantanamo-military-commissions-dont-measure-up/">no institutional interest in due process or fair trials</a>, only in maintaining its secrets. </p>
<p>The prosecution, meanwhile, counters defense demands for more information by insisting that this trial is about the defendants’ roles in the crime of 9/11, and what happened to them afterward is unrelated to their involvement in these events.</p>
<p>“The CIA is not on trial,” said <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/05/us/politics/guantanamo-trials-torture.html">prosecutor Jeffrey Groharing</a>.</p>
<h2>No ‘after torture’</h2>
<p>Since September 2019, many of the hearings have been devoted to defense efforts to persuade the judge to exclude evidence the government wants to use at trial, namely statements the defendants gave to FBI agents who interrogated them in 2007, five months after they were transferred from the black sites. The government referred to the agents as “clean teams” because they had no hand in the CIA’s torture program.</p>
<p>The prosecution maintains that because the FBI interrogators used lawful methods rather than coercion when questioning the defendants, these statements should be admissible in court. The defense has called witnesses, including the two architects of the CIA torture program, <a href="https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/08/17/544183178/psychologists-behind-cia-enhanced-interrogation-program-settle-detainees-lawsuit">James Mitchell and Bruce Jessen</a>, who <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/20/us/politics/911-trial-psychologists.html">testified in January 2020</a>. The Defense teams are making the case that there is no “after torture” for victims, and therefore the FBI statements are tainted by their past torture and should be dismissed – in legal terms – as “fruit of the poisonous tree.” </p>
<p>From my perspective, the pretrial logjam could largely be resolved if the government made a choice: If the priority is to protect
the CIA’s secrets, the death penalty should be taken off the table and plea bargain negotiations for life sentences should begin. If the death penalty remains a priority, the defense should be given access to all the information they seek, including, for example, the full <a href="https://www.jadaliyya.com/Details/43339/Connections-Episode-15-The-Lasting-Legacies-of-US-Torture">Senate Select Committee on Intelligence’s report about the CIA’s rendition program</a>.</p>
<p>Although this case garners sporadic media attention, it deserves greater public interest because the stakes are so high. No one can predict when the 9/11 trial will finally begin, let alone how this case will end, but one thing should be clear: an important chapter in the history of the U.S. in the 21st century is being written in the high-security courtroom in Guantanamo.</p>
<p>[<em>Over 110,000 readers rely on The Conversation’s newsletter to understand the world.</em> <a href="https://theconversation.com/us/newsletters/the-daily-3?utm_source=TCUS&utm_medium=inline-link&utm_campaign=newsletter-text&utm_content=100Ksignup">Sign up today</a>.]</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/168422/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Lisa Hajjar does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>A scholar who has visited Guantanamo 11 times to observe legal proceedings in the 9/11 terrorism case explains why the conflict continues to delay the case going to trial.Lisa Hajjar, Professor of Sociology, University of California, Santa BarbaraLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1552572021-02-22T13:17:14Z2021-02-22T13:17:14ZPublic trust in the media is at a new low: a radical rethink of journalism is needed<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/384988/original/file-20210218-14-fsnk9n.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=24%2C0%2C5307%2C3234&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">EFE-EPA/Kim Ludbrook</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>A recent <a href="https://sanef.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/SANEF-ethics-report-OK.pdf">report</a> by an independent panel on the ethics and credibility of South Africa’s news media makes for worrying reading. The panel, headed by retired judge <a href="https://www.ru.ac.za/communicationsandadvancement/alumnirelations/theorunion/distinguishedalumniawards/2019recipients/kathysatchwell.html">Kathy Satchwell</a>, was commissioned by the South African National Editors’ Forum following a <a href="https://theconversation.com/journalism-makes-blunders-but-still-feeds-democracy-an-insiders-view-146364">series of ethical lapses</a> by the <a href="https://www.timeslive.co.za/sunday-times/">Sunday Times</a>. The paper dominated the country’s media landscape for <a href="https://www.newsbank.com/libraries/colleges-universities/solutions/resources-location/sunday-times-archive-1906-today">over 100 years</a>. As the largest by circulation it was also considered the most powerful newspaper.</p>
<p>The lapses included factual inaccuracies in reports on allegations of <a href="https://www.politicsweb.co.za/documents/sunday-times-taco-kuiper-runnerup-award-revoked--a">police killings</a> as well as reports on <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-30597414">alleged illegal deportations of Zimbabweans</a>. Another major story was about an alleged <a href="https://www.timeslive.co.za/sunday-times/lifestyle/2014-12-06-sars-suspends-rogue-unit-men-after-expos/">‘rogue unit’</a> within the South African Revenue Service. </p>
<p>The panel <a href="https://sanef.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/SANEF-ethics-report-OK.pdf">found</a> that the newspaper had ‘failed in the most basic tenets of journalistic practice’.</p>
<p>These failures included not giving any – or adequate –opportunity to affected parties to respond to the stories pre-publication. Others included failing to seek credible and sourced validation of the allegations made against individuals.</p>
<p>The panel concluded that the failures had caused great emotional and financial harm to the people concerned, their families and their careers.</p>
<p>The newspaper has since <a href="https://www.timeslive.co.za/sunday-times/news/2018-10-13-we-got-it-wrong-and-for-that-we-apologise/">apologised</a> for the reports, and retracted them. </p>
<p>Having ethical lapses on such a major scale can only further erode the public’s trust in the media. More recently, investigative journalist Jacques Pauw’s admission that allegations he had previously made in a <em>Daily Maverick</em> <a href="https://www.dailymaverick.co.za/opinionista/2021-02-17-editors-note-on-retracted-jacques-pauw-column-about-his-arrest-at-the-va-waterfront-and-an-apology-to-our-readers/">column</a> were based on distorted facts led to a widespread outcry. It was <a href="https://mediamonitoringafrica.org/2021/02/17/media-release-jacques-pauw-didnt-merely-ruin-his-reputation-he-dealt-another-blow-to-media-credibility/">pointed out</a> that Pauw not only undermined his own credibility, but also further eroded trust in journalism. </p>
<p>It is clear that South African journalism has much work to do to rebuild this lost trust. Not only for their own sake, but in view of the growing crisis of disinformation. The panel’s report refers to the <a href="https://disinformationindex.org/">Global Disinformation Index</a> which suggests that 41% of South Africans distrust the media. And a worrying 70% have problems distinguishing news from “fake” news. </p>
<p>So, how should this rebuilding of trust be done? Clearly not by merely superficially papering over ethical cracks, nor overhauling the well-functioning <a href="https://journals.ufs.ac.za/index.php/com/article/view/3726">media regulatory system</a>. While apologies for and corrections of mistakes are important to show public accountability, journalists should also recommit to the principles underlying these processes. </p>
<p>The country’s <a href="https://www.presscouncil.org.za/ContentPage?code=PRESSCODE">press code</a> highlights the public interest as the central guideline. This entails, aside from striving for truth, avoiding harm and acting independently, the reflection of a multiplicity of voices in the coverage of events, showing a special concern for children and other vulnerable groups, and being sensitive to the cultural customs of readers and the subjects of reportage.</p>
<p>This emphasis on diversity of voices and awareness of social context should be the starting point for any attempt to regain the public’s trust. As the code states at the outset: </p>
<blockquote>
<p><a href="https://www.presscouncil.org.za/ContentPage?code=PRESSCODE">The media exist to serve society</a>.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>One way of doing this is to adopt an <a href="https://www.americanpressinstitute.org/publications/how-a-culture-of-listening-strengthens-reporting-and-relationships/">“ethics of listening”</a>. I explore this in my new book <a href="https://global.oup.com/academic/product/the-ethics-of-engagement-9780190917333?cc=us&lang=en&#">The Ethics of Engagement</a>.</p>
<p>The central theme of my argument is that journalists must reach beyond their usual audiences to include those that normally appear only on the margins of media coverage. And they must review how those voices are reported, and how they appear in the media. </p>
<p>This approach will result in a more genuine dialogue and an approach that’s more participatory. This could, in turn, contribute to a thorough reassessment of the media’s relationship with the public in a way that could rebuild trust.</p>
<h2>Public journalism</h2>
<p>There are some examples of how this could be done. For instance Heather Robertson, former editor of <em>The Herald</em> newspaper in South Africa’s Eastern Cape Province, conducted a series of <a href="https://www.academia.edu/37070536/When_an_editor_listens_to_a_city">listening exercises</a> attended by community members, opinion leaders and journalists. Some interesting case studies can also be found in Australia, where community media journalists, media scholars and activists teamed up to design a <a href="https://tanjadreher.net/current-research/">“listening programme”</a>. </p>
<p>To some extent these projects are similar to the much older tradition of <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/02500167.2020.1862966">“public journalism”</a>. It provides that the media should address citizens not merely as spectators or victims, but empower them to solve their problems. One way this was done was to host public discussions and facilitate meetings to support deliberative democracy. More recently, the potential for<a href="https://digitalpublicsquare.org/"> digital media platforms</a> to connect journalists to audiences has also been explored. </p>
<p>Applying this approach in South Africa would have major benefits. The country is socially polarised and highly unequal. Making the extra effort to actively listen to voices outside the journalists’ normal target audiences, especially marginal voices, would transform the narratives being shared. </p>
<p>This would help journalists gain wider social legitimacy among those who may feel the media is disconnected from their everyday lives. </p>
<p>But ethical listening doesn’t merely accommodate voices from marginalised communities, only to treat them as victims or as objects of pity.</p>
<p>Instead, it requires a fundamental revision of the relationship between journalists and their various audiences, one in which power relations are radically revised or overturned. A more reciprocal relationship with their divergent audiences would require journalists to let go of their desire to control the narrative, or tendency to listen only to obtain answers to questions already formulated. </p>
<p>Of course this does not mean that journalists no longer have any say over their reporting. Nor that they don’t have to take any ethical responsibility for the questions they ask. The difference in this kind of listening is that it creates a true dialogue, in the sense that the responses are allowed to alter, shift and speak back to the original agenda rather than made to fit into it.</p>
<p>Listening can, therefore, be seen as fundamental to democratic politics because it constitutes a public sphere premised on participation, tolerance and inclusion. </p>
<h2>What next</h2>
<p>The panel’s report identified much larger, systemic problems in the wider South African media landscape. These include revenue challenges to media outlets, shrinking resources for training and for the effective exercise of editorial checks and balances. It also listed the pressure, fuelled by social media, to break stories ever faster amid competing misinformation and disinformation narratives as well as societal pressures.</p>
<p>Linked to the rebuilding of trust should be a strong commitment to support community media and the public broadcaster to add to the diversity of voices.</p>
<p>There can be little doubt that ethical lapses have added significant dents to the public’s trust in the media. </p>
<p>An appropriate response to the ethical problems plaguing the South African media requires thinking about the question of ethics as a more radical project – one which requires a reaffirmation of journalism’s central values, a recommitment to media diversity, and exploration of new practices that can reconnect journalists to citizens. </p>
<p>These are the tasks that journalists need to take seriously if they are to restore relationships of trust with the public.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/155257/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Herman Wasserman does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>To rebuild lost trust in the media will require more commitment and effort than just papering over ethical cracks.Herman Wasserman, Professor of Media Studies in the Centre for Film and Media Studies, University of Cape TownLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1335902020-03-19T12:04:46Z2020-03-19T12:04:46ZDid the US commit crimes in Afghanistan? International prosecutors want to find out<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/321037/original/file-20200317-60894-ypyd1g.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C4%2C2991%2C2173&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">War crime allegations cast a shadow over Afghanistan's future.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/the-shadow-of-a-u-s-army-soldier-from-the-82nd-airborne-news-photo/1641717?adppopup=true">Scott Nelson/Getty Images</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>International prosecutors tasked with looking into alleged war crimes in Afghanistan have no shortage of potential targets.</p>
<p>Afghan soldiers and warlords have been <a href="https://www.hrw.org/report/2003/07/28/killing-you-very-easy-thing-us/human-rights-abuses-southeast-afghanistan">accused of rape, murder and kidnap</a> almost since fighting began in late 2001. The deliberate targeting of civilians by the Taliban and other groups <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/02/afghanistasn-bomb-attack-taliban-us-deal">continues to this day</a>.</p>
<p>Meanwhile, U.S. forces and the CIA are alleged to have carried out unlawful killings and torture, both <a href="https://www.hrw.org/report/2004/03/07/enduring-freedom/abuses-us-forces-afghanistan">in Afghanistan</a> and through the secret “rendition” of terrorist suspects to <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-rights-cia-prisons/romania-and-lithuania-knowingly-hosted-secret-cia-jails-european-court-rules-idUSKCN1IW1PF">a number of European countries</a>.</p>
<h2>A Hague invasion?</h2>
<p>Most perpetrators have to date gone unpunished. But on March 5, judges at the International Criminal Court, or ICC, <a href="https://www.icc-cpi.int/Afghanistan">gave the ICC prosecutor authority</a> to begin an investigation into possible war crimes and crimes against humanity committed in Afghanistan. The probe will look into the alleged murder, imprisonment, torture and intentional targeting of civilians committed by Afghan government, Taliban and U.S. forces.</p>
<p>The ICC’s jurisdiction is based on the <a href="https://www.icc-cpi.int/resource-library#coreICCtexts">Rome Statute</a> that created the court in 2002 and has since been ratified by 123 countries. Afghanistan ratified the treaty in 2003, so prosecutors will investigate only acts that occurred after the treaty took effect in May 2003.</p>
<p>The United States never ratified the treaty, and Washington has <a href="https://www.state.gov/u-s-policy-on-the-international-criminal-court-remains-unchanged/">consistently maintained</a> that U.S. citizens cannot be subject to the ICC’s jurisdiction without its consent. </p>
<p>International law disagrees. <a href="https://www.icc-cpi.int/resource-library/Documents/RS-Eng.pdf#page=15">Article 12 of the Rome Statute</a> makes clear that the ICC’s jurisdiction includes acts committed within the territory of any state that has accepted its jurisdiction, no matter what the nationality of the alleged perpetrators.</p>
<p>Nonetheless, the U.S. has taken measures to frustrate any prosecution of its troops. The <a href="https://legcounsel.house.gov/Comps/American%20Servicemembers'%20Protection%20Act%20Of%202002.pdf">American Service Members Protection Act of 2002</a> – only half-jokingly referred to as <a href="https://www.csmonitor.com/World/Europe/2009/0213/p05s01-woeu.html">The Hague Invasion Act</a>, a reference to the ICC headquarters in the Netherlands – authorizes the president “to use all means necessary,” including force, to release American soldiers detained or imprisoned by the ICC.</p>
<p>While it is difficult to imagine the U.S. invading the Netherlands, <a href="https://www.state.gov/icc-decision-on-afghanistan/">Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s reaction</a> to the new investigation suggests that the spirit of the law is very much alive: “This is a truly breathtaking action by an unaccountable political institution, masquerading as a legal body … we will take all necessary measures to protect our citizens from this renegade, so-called court.” He even appeared to <a href="https://www.state.gov/secretary-michael-r-pompeo-remarks-to-the-press-6/#.XnEy9j9FwmM.twitter">threaten ICC staff and their families</a> should the ICC pursue the investigation.</p>
<h2>Barriers to justice</h2>
<p>Even if the ICC does have the right to investigate the alleged crimes, there are other hurdles to bringing a successful prosecution. Crimes against humanity are limited to acts that are “committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population, with knowledge of the attack.” War crimes fall under the court’s jurisdiction “in particular when committed as part of a plan or policy or as part of a large-scale commission of such crimes.”</p>
<p>There was certainly a “plan or policy” by the U.S. government to commit <a href="https://www.cambridge.org/us/academic/subjects/law/us-law/torture-papers-road-abu-ghraib?format=HB">what most consider to be torture</a> during the early years of the war. Although the <a href="https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/ensuring-lawful-interrogations">bulk of these illegal practices were discontinued</a> when Barack Obama took office in 2009, <a href="https://www.cbsnews.com/news/aide-obama-wont-prosecute-bush-officials/">he subsequently announced</a> that there would be no further investigation into the alleged crimes.</p>
<p>And that is not the only limitation. The ICC cannot hear a case that is being investigated or prosecuted by a country that has jurisdiction over it. The international court <a href="https://www.ictj.org/sites/default/files/subsites/complementarity-icc/">can step in only</a> when nations are unwilling or unable to carry out a genuine investigation themselves.</p>
<p>Obama’s refusal to prosecute anyone for pursuing the policies of torture, as well as the potential complicity of the U.S. in crimes committed by Afghan warlords and the Afghan military, undermines any argument that Washington might now make that the ICC should simply let the allegations against U.S. forces be investigated through American courts. President Trump shows no desire to hold U.S. forces accountable, as evidenced by his November 2019 decision to <a href="https://www.rferl.org/a/trump-pardons-army-officer-war-crimes-charges-afghanistan/30274971.html">pardon two U.S. soldiers</a> convicted by U.S. courts of war crimes in Afghanistan.</p>
<p>Still, the U.S. has no legal obligation to cooperate with any ICC investigation, since it is not a party to the Rome Statute. The Afghan government does have an obligation to cooperate, but it has given no indication that it will do so. It is also fair to assume that the Taliban has no intention of complying with prosecutors’ requests.</p>
<p>Does this mean that the investigation is simply an exercise in futility?</p>
<p>In part, the answer must be yes. Although it is conceivable that individual Afghans or Americans might be subject to arrest, the ICC investigation would first need to find sufficient evidence against specific perpetrators without the cooperation of key parties. Even then, apprehension of any accused American could occur only outside the U.S. Defendants would be then be tried by the ICC in The Hague, a process that would likely take years.</p>
<h2>The price of peace</h2>
<p>Nonetheless, the attempt to bring a judicial focus to atrocities committed by every side in the nearly two-decades-long Afghan war should be welcomed. <a href="https://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/costs/human/civilians/afghan">Over 40,000 civilians</a> have suffered violent deaths in the conflict. To date, the number of perpetrators held accountable for the many crimes suffered by the civilian population has been small.</p>
<p>Criminal accountability is not a simple matter, and things may be further complicated by <a href="https://time.com/5792957/u-s-taliban-sign-deal-afghanistan/">negotiations to end the conflict</a> – immunity for accused perpetrators may be demanded in exchange for peace. But even if peace and justice are not fully compatible under these circumstances, ignoring justice entirely is likely to leave victims feeling abandoned and criminals on the loose, undermining the viability of any peace agreement. Whatever the ultimate outcome, the ICC’s investigation and possible prosecutions may play a role in helping partial justice to be done.</p>
<p>[<em>Deep knowledge, daily.</em> <a href="https://theconversation.com/us/newsletters?utm_source=TCUS&utm_medium=inline-link&utm_campaign=newsletter-text&utm_content=deepknowledge">Sign up for The Conversation’s newsletter</a>.]</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/133590/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Hurst Hannum does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>There are many hurdles to a successful prosecution of individuals accused of war crimes and crimes against humanity. But trying to seek justice is not a futile exercise.Hurst Hannum, Professor of International Law, Fletcher School of Law & Diplomacy, Tufts UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/991162018-06-29T11:24:49Z2018-06-29T11:24:49ZThe stain of Britain’s part in torture and rendition will never wash away<p>The <a href="http://isc.independent.gov.uk/committee-reports/special-reports">long-awaited reports</a> of the investigation by the UK Parliament’s Intelligence and Security Committee (ISC) into Detainee Mistreatment and Rendition between 2001 and 2010 have finally been published. We ourselves have been researching the UK’s part in rendition and torture for years and gave evidence to the committee – and these reports are much harder hitting than we had expected.</p>
<p>Chaired by MP and QC Dominic Grieve, the ISC’s investigation has revealed that the extent of UK involvement in prisoner abuse was even greater than <a href="http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1354066116653455">we had previously documented</a>. The reports also highlight serious weaknesses relating to the training of security personnel, and governance and oversight of their conduct. Many of the ISC’s conclusions corroborate our own research findings, and we were pleased to see a number of issues we raised when we gave evidence to the ISC in January 2017.</p>
<p>As we have argued for years now – and as we told the ISC – British complicity in torture was <a href="http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1354066116653455">deep, wide and sustained</a>. Government ministers have always denied this – the former foreign secretary, Jack Straw <a href="https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmselect/cmfaff/uc768-i/uc76802.htm">famously stated</a> that only conspiracy theorists should believe the UK was involved in rendition. That position is now more untenable than ever. It is clear from the ISC reports that UK officials knew about the US programme immediately after 9/11 and worked to support their allies in ways which enabled continued “plausible deniability”.</p>
<p>The report’s findings are unambiguous. In more than 70 cases – far more than have ever been identified before now – British intelligence knew of, suggested, planned, agreed to, or paid for others to conduct rendition operations. Some of the details are excruciating – one MI6 officer was present while a prisoner was transferred in a coffin-sized box. In literally hundreds of further cases, UK officials were aware of detainees being mistreated by their allies, continued to supply questions to be asked of detainees under torture, and received intelligence from those who had been tortured.</p>
<p>While names and locations have been redacted in these reports, our own <a href="https://www.therenditionproject.org.uk/">years of investigation</a> enable us to fit new facts into our broader picture of post-9/11 torture. It is likely that we will be able to identify some of the important detail left out by the reports. In many cases, these omissions resulted from the government refusing to allow the ISC to interview intelligence officers with knowledge of British involvement. In the absence of a full judge-led inquiry, our fact-finding work remains crucial, and we are committed to doing what we can.</p>
<p>We also know enough from the victims themselves, in their own words, about the human toll of this form of state violence. If you are being beaten up, electrocuted, <a href="https://theconversation.com/rectal-feeding-is-rape-but-dont-expect-the-cia-to-admit-it-35437">raped</a>, or subjected to mock execution, you tend to say whatever it takes to make it stop. Small wonder that intelligence received under torture is notoriously of <a href="https://theconversation.com/donald-trump-claims-torture-works-but-what-does-the-science-say-70236">limited value</a>.</p>
<p>The fact that the UK attempted to keep its hands clean by involvement from afar makes the situation no better. When the reports were released, <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/pm-written-statement-isc-detainee-reports">Theresa May</a> stated that “intelligence and Armed Forces personnel are now much better placed” to deal with detainee-related work and that the necessary lessons have been learned. But in our evidence to the ISC, we also raised a number of concerns about the adequacy of today’s training and the strength of current guidance, which ostensibly prevents a return to the early years of the “War on Terror” – and we are not convinced.</p>
<h2>No stone unturned</h2>
<p>In our testimony to the ISC, we pointed to flaws in the so-called “<a href="https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/62632/Consolidated_Guidance_November_2011.pdf">Consolidated Guidance</a>” issued to all security agencies and the military from 2010. The ISC has taken this seriously. In their conclusions, it concludes that the guidance is by no means “consolidated”, and that “it is misleading to present it as such”. The ISC points to “dangerous ambiguities in the guidance”, noting that “individual ministers have entirely different understandings of what they can and cannot, and would and would not, authorise”.</p>
<p>We encouraged the ISC to examine how frequently agency or Ministry of Defence personnel had followed the guidance, and to establish how frequently concerns about prisoner abuse were reported up the chain of command. This the ISC has done. Frustratingly, corresponding data is redacted from the final release. Nevertheless, the ISC’s conclusions indicate that record keeping on these matters is weak, and that there are considerable risks that cases which should be reported upwards are not. </p>
<p>This is exacerbated by the fact that “there is no clear policy and not even agreement as to who has responsibility for preventing UK complicity in unlawful rendition”. And as the ISC reports, the government “has failed to introduce any policy or process that will ensure that allies will not use UK territory for rendition purposes”.</p>
<p>We have long argued that the Consolidated Guidance does little more than provide a rhetorical, legal and policy scaffold, enabling the UK government to demonstrate a minimum procedural adherence to human rights commitments. As the ISC quite rightly concludes, there is an urgent need for review and fundamental reform of the Consolidated Guidance. The government must also establish much more robust oversight, training and accountability mechanisms.</p>
<p>We would also argue, in the strongest possible terms, that only a judge-led inquiry with full powers of subpoena will enable the public to know what was done in their name. Without this it will be even harder to achieve full accountability and to identify current forms of UK complicity in human rights abuses. With the anti-torture norm being eroded at the very top of the US government once again, these risks are very present and real.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/99116/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Sam Raphael received funding from the Economic and Social Research Council for his work on secret detention, rendition and torture in the 'war on terror'</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Ruth Blakeley received funding from the UK's Economic and Social Research Council for her work on the CIA's rendition, detention and interrogation programme. She gave evidence to the UK Parliament's Intelligence and Security Committee in closed session in January 2017, alongside Dr Sam Raphael. </span></em></p>Twin reports from a UK Parliament committee go further than ever in condemning Britain’s complicity in the worst of the War on Terror.Sam Raphael, Senior Lecturer in International Relations, University of WestminsterRuth Blakeley, Professor of Politics and International Relations, University of SheffieldLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/964382018-05-11T13:38:11Z2018-05-11T13:38:11ZBritain, MI6 and the Belhaj case: the outstanding questions<p>Attorney General Jeremy Wright has issued <a href="https://news.sky.com/story/government-apology-for-gaddafi-torture-victims-allegedly-betrayed-by-british-spies-11366002">a statement apologising</a> for the UK’s role in the illegal rendition of Libyan dissident <a href="https://theconversation.com/supreme-court-rulings-open-door-to-future-war-on-terror-litigation-in-britain-71396">Abdel Hakim Belhaj</a> and his wife, Fatima Boudchar, in 2004.</p>
<p>The attorney general, watched by Boudchar and her son from the Houses of Commons public gallery, read out a letter from UK Prime Minister Theresa May in which she apologised unreservedly for the “harrowing experiences” suffered. </p>
<p>Belhaj had been part of the anti-Gaddafi Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG) and had <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-14786753">fled to Afghanistan in the 1990s</a>, leaving shortly after the US-led invasion in 2001. </p>
<p>He was eventually tracked down by the CIA to Kuala Kumpur, following a tip-off from Britain’s Secret Intelligence Service (SIS or MI6) and picked up while en route to the UK before being transferred to a CIA “black site”. Both he and his wife were rendered to Libya, where Belhaj was tortured and sentenced to death. He was only released by the Gaddafi regime in 2010 under a “de-radicalisation” initiative. Boudchar was four-and-a-half months pregnant when she was abducted and released shortly before giving birth. </p>
<p><a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-44066091">Secret documents</a> found in the ruins of the Libyan capital Tripoli in 2011 gave evidence of SIS’s involvement in the rendition, leading to legal action being taken against the British government, former Labour foreign secretary Jack Straw and SIS’s Mark Allen.</p>
<p>The prime minister’s statement read:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>It is clear that you were both subjected to appalling treatment and that you suffered greatly … The UK government believes your accounts. Neither of you should have been treated in this way. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>The attorney general revealed that Boudchar received £500,000 in compensation. Belhaj has so far not received (and not asked for) a financial settlement. This “full and final” statement included no “admission of liability”. But in a statement, <a href="https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/uk-government-apology-libya-torture-mi6-gaddafi-prison-abdel-hakim-belhaj-fatima-boudchar-a8344746.html">Belhaj said</a>: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>I welcome and accept the prime minister’s apology, and I extend to her and the attorney general my thanks and sincere goodwill. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>Previously, Belhaj said that he would settle the case if he received a token payment of £1 as long as he received an apology from the British government. </p>
<p>The human rights group Reprieve called the statement “<a href="https://reprieve.org.uk/update/breaking-prime-minister-apologises-for-uk-role-in-abduction-torture-and-rendition-of-abdul-hakim-belhaj-and-fatima-boudchar/">unprecedented</a>” and a “victory for everyone who opposes injustice, secret detention, and torture”, while <a href="https://twitter.com/LeighDay_Law/status/994557825446809601">Sapna Malik</a> from solicitors Leigh Day, who represented Belhaj and Boudchar, said the “candid apology from the government helps restore the humanity and dignity so brutally denied to my clients during their ordeal and is warmly welcomed”.</p>
<p>The British government will hope that this is the end of a long-running dispute over its role in Belhaj and Boudchar’s rendition which surfaced in 2011. The documents found in Tripoli showed that, in March 2004, SIS’s then director of counter-terrorism, Mark Allen, wrote to the head of Libya’s national intelligence agency, Mukhabarat el-Jamahiriya, congratulating him on Belhaj’s arrival, saying: “This was the least we could do for you and for Libya to demonstrate the remarkable relationship we have built over the years”. <a href="https://www.therenditionproject.org.uk/pdf/PDF%20176%20%5BBelhadj%20Letter%20of%20Claim%20against%20Sir%20Mark%20Allen,%2026%20Jan%202012%5D.pdf">Allen continued</a>: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>The intelligence on Abu Abd Allah (Belhaj’s alias) was British. I know I did not pay for the air cargo. But I feel I have the right to deal with you direct on this and am very grateful for the help you are giving us.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The statement marks the end of a long legal battle against the British government, Mark Allen and Jack Straw. Straw continues to deny wrongdoing. </p>
<p>This is not the first time that the UK government has paid out to victims of rendition. In 2012, <a href="https://www.channel4.com/news/libya-rendition-claim-uk-2m-payout">the UK government offered £2m</a> to the family of another Libyan dissident, Sami al-Saadi, after he was forced to board a plane in Hong Kong and fly to Tripoli with his wife and four children. </p>
<p>The British government also paid out to former detainees at the <a href="https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/guantanamo-inmates-set-to-receive-payouts-of-up-to-1631m-2135132.html">US Guantanamo Bay facility</a> in Cuba, including Binyam Mohamed, who had been mistreated while being held in Pakistan. Britain’s Security Service (MI5) was “complicit” in his torture, the Court of Appeal <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/blog/2010/feb/26/binyam-mohamed-torture">ruled in 2010</a>. </p>
<h2>Unanswered questions</h2>
<p>There remain significant questions about the UK’s role in supporting rendition and complicity in torture. In July 2010, the then UK prime minister, David Cameron, announced a “<a href="https://www.theguardian.com/law/2010/jul/06/cameron-torture-inquiry">short and sharp</a>” official inquiry into claims of abuse under retired appeal judge, Sir Peter Gibson. The inquiry was subsequently shelved after UK police announced an investigation into claims of <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/jan/12/libya-rendition-torture-abduction-mi6">ill-treatment by Belhaj and Sami al-Saadi</a>. </p>
<p>The legal case was also subsequently dropped due to “<a href="http://www.middleeasteye.net/news/former-mi6-chiefs-role-torture-belhaj-set-be-revealed-2005298389">insufficient evidence</a>” despite a large amount of material being passed to the Crown Prosecution Service. </p>
<p>An interim report of Gibson’s “<a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/report-of-the-detainee-inquiry">Detainee Inquiry</a>”, based on a mass of material examined (around 20,000 documents), was published in 2013. Shortly afterwards, the government announced that claims of ill-treatment would be dealt with by <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/dec/18/judge-led-inquiry-rendition-intelligence-security-committee-cameron">Parliament’s Intelligence and Security Committee (ISC)</a> – rather than the original judge-led inquiry. But the ISC’s scrutiny of the case remains a long way off. </p>
<p>In her letter to Belhaj and his wife, the prime minister said: “The UK government has learned many lessons from this period. We should have understood much sooner the unacceptable practices of some of our international partners and we sincerely regret our failures.”</p>
<p>But the important issues raised by Gibson’s interim report remain. It listed 27 questions Gibson was unable to answer ranging from intelligence liaison to interrogation policy, ministerial guidance to the use of the UK’s overseas territories for CIA rendition flights, and the disclosure of information. </p>
<p>Did the UK’s spies take sufficient interest in the welfare of detainees rendered thanks to UK intelligence? What policies did the UK intelligence community have in place when supporting US extraordinary renditions? Were Britain’s spies willing to support US renditions despite public statements that they were not complicit in torture? What did government ministers and senior officials know?</p>
<p>These are just some of the questions that need to be answered. In the US, the Senate’s Select Committee on Intelligence completed a major investigation into the CIA’s detention and interrogation programme and use of “enhanced interrogation techniques”. The over 500-page summary (out of a total of 6,700 pages) was released in December 2014 with a damning critique of agency practices. </p>
<p>In the UK, letters of apology are welcome but where is the official inquiry into claims of ill-treatment and rendition by Britain’s spies?</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/96438/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Dan Lomas does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Letters of apology are welcome but where is the official inquiry into claims of ill-treatment and rendition by Britain’s spies?Dan Lomas, Programme Leader, MA Intelligence and Security Studies, University of SalfordLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/893422018-04-13T10:41:40Z2018-04-13T10:41:40ZHow the CIA’s secret torture program sparked a citizen-led public reckoning in North Carolina<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/210663/original/file-20180315-104673-kdcj33.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">North Carolina Stop Torture Now advocacy group.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://flic.kr/p/GdPSJ">djbiesack</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/">CC BY-NC-SA</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>President Donald Trump’s nominee for CIA director, Gina Haspel, is <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/02/us/politics/cia-deputy-director-gina-haspel-torture-thailand.html">reported to have overseen</a> a U.S. site in Thailand where torture of a suspected terrorist took place. Later she allegedly helped destroy evidence of torture.</p>
<p>Her nomination, pending congressional approval, is viewed by many as further evidence of this administration’s <a href="https://www.thenation.com/article/donald-trump-has-a-passionate-desire-to-bring-back-torture/">support of torture</a> and an undoing of Obama-era efforts to end it. Her work was allegedly part of a program the CIA launched after 9/11 called <a href="https://fas.org/irp/congress/2014_rpt/ssci-rdi.pdf">Rendition, Detention and Interrogation</a>. From 2002 to at least 2006, the CIA orchestrated disappearances, torture and indefinite detention without charge of suspected terrorists.</p>
<p>What can a small group of committed citizens who oppose these practices do to push back? A commission against torture in North Carolina may serve as a model for how citizen-led initiatives can create transparency and accountability for abuses of power in government.</p>
<h2>North Carolina’s involvement in CIA torture</h2>
<p>In 2005, <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/31/us/cia-expanding-terror-battle-under-guise-of-charter-flights.html">The New York Times reported</a> that two planes used in the CIA torture program were operated by a contractor based in North Carolina. Forty-nine of the known 119 CIA prisoners were flown from two rural North Carolina airfields to secret prisons or nations with lax policies on torture for violent interrogation. Haspel allegedly oversaw the so-called <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2018/03/gina-haspel-black-site-torture-cia/555539/">“black site” in Thailand</a>, starting in 2002 where two of those suspects were held for interrogation.</p>
<p>The revelation about the CIA program <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/jan/17/cia-rendition-flights-north-carolina-citizens-commission">angered a number of North Carolinians</a>. They condemned the use of tax dollars to fund an aviation facility that was involved in what they believed was illegal and immoral activity. They wanted to <a href="http://www.newsobserver.com/news/politics-government/state-politics/article10198829.html">end the state’s participation</a> in torture and hold accountable those who were responsible.</p>
<p>A grassroots movement began. Over more than a decade, it has evolved into a forceful voice against the use of torture. In 2017, organizers created the <a href="http://www.nccit.org">North Carolina Commission of Inquiry of Torture</a>, an independent and nonpartisan group dedicated to transparency and accountability for the state’s role in the CIA program.</p>
<p>The commission compiled extensive research and appointed <a href="http://www.nccit.org/the-commission">11 commissioners</a> to review the evidence. In November 2017, the commission held public hearings to investigate North Carolina’s role in the CIA’s program. <a href="https://www.palgrave.com/us/book/9783319749648">My research</a> explores the importance of understanding torture’s wide-ranging implications for survivors, communities and human rights workers. I also volunteered as a note taker during the hearings.</p>
<p>The commission currently invites public input for its recommendations and will publish its report in fall 2018. With it, the commission will seek to determine North Carolina’s responsibility and liability for its participation in the Rendition, Detention and Interrogation program.</p>
<h2>Neighbor-to-neighbor activism</h2>
<p>The nongovernmental, nonpartisan commission builds on the extensive work of <a href="http://www.ncstoptorturenow.org">North Carolina Stop Torture Now</a>, a coalition of anti-torture citizens across the state. It started with a core group of 10, that expanded to protests of up to 250 people. The organization has partnered with as many as 75 organizations on various public actions. Over more than a decade, the group has staged public and legislative campaigns and educational conferences. The campaigns, described as “<a href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/jan/17/cia-rendition-flights-north-carolina-citizens-commission?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other">neighbor-to-neighbor activism</a>,” have sought to focus public attention on state and citizen complicity with torture.</p>
<figure class="align-left zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/210676/original/file-20180315-104671-saq29b.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/210676/original/file-20180315-104671-saq29b.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/210676/original/file-20180315-104671-saq29b.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=900&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/210676/original/file-20180315-104671-saq29b.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=900&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/210676/original/file-20180315-104671-saq29b.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=900&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/210676/original/file-20180315-104671-saq29b.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1131&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/210676/original/file-20180315-104671-saq29b.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1131&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/210676/original/file-20180315-104671-saq29b.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1131&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">A woman holding anti-torture signs.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/djbiesack/455184757">djbiesack</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/">CC BY-NC-SA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>With other civic organizations, NC Stop Torture Now put pressure on state and county officials, as well as Aero Contractors – the company that owned the planes and hangar used to transport suspects. Activists publicized the CIA’s actions and drew attention to laws against torture, enforced disappearance and indefinite detention without charge.</p>
<p>In 2007, Aero Contractors decided to <a href="http://www.ncstn.org/PDF_Archives/Aero%20No%20Longer%20Flying%20from%20GTP.pdf">sell its hangar</a> at the Kinston, North Carolina air facility. That year, NC Stop Torture Now also helped generate bipartisan support in the state legislature for <a href="https://www.ncleg.net/Sessions/2007/Bills/House/PDF/H2417v0.pdf">a bill</a> that would have criminalized participation in CIA-sponsored disappearances and torture. However, the bill stalled the following year and never passed. To date, <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/jan/17/cia-rendition-flights-north-carolina-citizens-commission">state officials have avoided</a> any official or lasting response. The Johnston County commissioners have at times gone on record to defend Aero Contractors. </p>
<p>Meanwhile, the U.S. government has attempted to shield itself from liability for its torture program. In <a href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/1xR0f57XwEHw4Mmblo4OxS526ug5BG_VY/view">three federal court cases</a>, the government argued for immunity and for the protection of state secrets. A fourth lawsuit, Salim v. Mitchell, targeted the psychologists who designed the CIA’s interrogation program. The case <a href="https://www.aclu.org/cases/salim-v-mitchell-lawsuit-against-psychologists-behind-cia-torture-program">was settled</a> in 2017 for an undisclosed sum.</p>
<h2>Public hearings</h2>
<p>In November 2017, the commission convened public and private stakeholders, survivors of disappearance and torture, former interrogators, legal and medical experts and citizens. Altogether, <a href="http://www.nccit.org/witnesstestimony">20 witnesses</a> gave testimony during the public hearings. Together with the research the commission has amassed, these efforts provide the fullest picture to date of the local dimensions of the CIA program. Representatives of Aero Contractors did not respond to an invitation to participate. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/214626/original/file-20180412-592-1t2jfyd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/214626/original/file-20180412-592-1t2jfyd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/214626/original/file-20180412-592-1t2jfyd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=422&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/214626/original/file-20180412-592-1t2jfyd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=422&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/214626/original/file-20180412-592-1t2jfyd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=422&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/214626/original/file-20180412-592-1t2jfyd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=530&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/214626/original/file-20180412-592-1t2jfyd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=530&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/214626/original/file-20180412-592-1t2jfyd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=530&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Man speaks to the North Carolina Commission of Inquiry on Torture.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">AP Photo/Emery Dalesio</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Testimony began with Professor Sam Raphael, co-director of the United Kingdom’s <a href="https://www.therenditionproject.org.uk/about/index.html">Rendition Project</a>. Synthesizing material from the <a href="https://www.amnestyusa.org/pdfs/sscistudy1.pdf">Senate Select Committee on Intelligence’s</a> report on the program, analysis of flight plans, corporate records and personal testimony, the Rendition Project has compiled extensive documentation of the CIA-sponsored flights.</p>
<p>Raphael detailed the Rendition Project’s research on the scope of Aero Contractors’ participation. According to their analysis, Aero Contractors used publicly funded aviation facilities to launch abductions of suspected terrorists from around the world. They were taken to CIA secret prisons, or “black sites,” or to foreign sites where torture was the norm rather than the exception. </p>
<p>The researcher offered detailed testimony about abduction protocols, including abductors’ silence, failure to identify themselves and lack of arrest warrants. For the captives, Raphael testified, rendition flights involved removal of clothing, diapering, hooding, restraining, and the forced use of suppositories, which prisoners often experienced as sexual assault. Captives often had no knowledge of why they were being taken, where they were being transported, or how long they would be held, Rafael said.</p>
<p>Former counterintelligence, investigators and interrogators Steve Kleinman, Mark Fallon and Glenn Carle also testified. They spoke of the pressure they experienced either from their superiors in their agencies or from the Department of Defense to support the use of torture on captives. </p>
<p>All three witnesses drew on <a href="https://www.fbi.gov/file-repository/hig-report-august-2016.pdf/view">extensive research</a> and <a href="http://www.simonandschuster.com/books/Unjustifiable-Means/Mark-Fallon/9781942872795">their own experience</a> to argue that coercive interrogation techniques do not yield valuable intelligence. Instead, according to the witnesses, coercive techniques impeded accurate recall, triggered resistance and produced false information aimed at ending the pain. All three also testified to the usefulness of rapport-building techniques in gathering “actionable intelligence.”</p>
<p>A survivor’s wife detailed her husband’s lasting emotional and psychological damage after his rendition and 10 years of detention:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>“He is 44 years old. His hair and beard are graying; his gestures, his look betray the state of anxiety and pressure in which he has existed for many years. How will we live? We both ask, each on our own. I look at him, but I do not recognize him. … We struggle to understand each other. Day after day I realize that this condition will no longer leave us.”</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Another powerful statement came from Allyson Caison, a founding member of NC Stop Torture Now. She explained the difficulty of activism in a small community, in which Aero executives are prominent members.</p>
<p>She said, “As a mother, I like to think if somehow my boys were kidnapped and tortured that there would be another mother out there where my boys were like me, trying to end an injustice that begins in my neighborhood.” </p>
<p>Legal scholars Deborah Weissman and Jayne Huckerby, summarizing <a href="http://www.law.unc.edu/documents/academics/humanrights/tortureaccountability.pdf">extensive research</a>, concluded North Carolina has a duty to adhere to state, federal and international laws that prohibit kidnapping, enforced disappearance, extrajudicial detention, and torture or cruel and degrading treatment. The scholars believe North Carolina is liable for participation in those crimes.</p>
<p>Alberto J. Mora, the former chief legal officer of the U.S. Navy and Marines, detailed the costs of the program to national security.</p>
<h2>From stealth torture to democracy</h2>
<p>The CIA’s rendition and torture program was notable for its use of what Darius Rejali, a scholar of international torture, has called “<a href="https://press.princeton.edu/titles/8490.html">stealth torture</a>.” These techniques, including waterboarding, stress positions and environmental extremes, are designed to inflict extreme physical pain and suffering without leaving visible traces.</p>
<p>Despite the challenge this presents to government transparency and accountability, the commission hearings have created a forum in which the scope of the CIA program can be disclosed and the public can debate the infrastructures that make torture possible.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/89342/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Alexandra Moore provided volunteer assistance to the North Carolina Commission of Inquiry on Torture.</span></em></p>A grassroots movement is fighting for transparency and accountability on North Carolina’s involvement in torture.Alexandra Moore, Professor of Human Rights in Literary and Cultural Studies, Binghamton University, State University of New YorkLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/719482017-01-27T13:04:25Z2017-01-27T13:04:25ZIf Trump brings back torture, can the UK be trusted not to collude in it?<p>Throughout his campaign for the presidency, Donald Trump insisted he would reintroduce torture against terror suspects. In an <a href="http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/president-trump-tells-abc-news-david-muir-absolutely/story?id=45045055">interview</a> after taking office, he said he “absolutely thinks waterboarding works”, and that “we have to fight fire with fire”. </p>
<p>This puts him at odds with both <a href="http://edition.cnn.com/2017/01/25/politics/john-mccain-trump-torture/">domestic</a> and <a href="https://www.hrw.org/news/2003/03/11/legal-prohibition-against-torture#laws">international</a> law, and with key members of the US Congress. It also ignores the US Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (SSCI), whose exhaustive inquiry into the CIA’s <a href="http://www.cfr.org/terrorism/senate-intelligence-committee-study-central-intelligence-agencys-detention-interrogation-program/p33919">Rendition, Detention and Interrogation</a> (RDI) programme <a href="http://www.therenditionproject.org.uk/documents/RDI/141209-SSCI-Torture_Report_Executive_Summary.pdf">concluded</a> that torture (including waterboarding and so-called <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11723189">enhanced interrogation techniques</a>) was “not an effective means of obtaining accurate information” and that it did little to make detainees co-operate. </p>
<p>The committee also found that using these methods “damaged the US’s standing in the world”. And yet, Trump persists in his views – threatening to make life rather uncomfortable for some of the US’s key allies.</p>
<p>Just before her visit to meet Trump for the first time, the British prime minister, Theresa May, <a href="http://www.extraordinaryrendition.org/news/211-andrew-tyrie-pmqs-trump-torture-policy-rendition.html">was asked</a> if she would make clear to Trump that she will not permit Britain to be dragged into facilitating torture. <a href="http://www.extraordinaryrendition.org/news/211-andrew-tyrie-pmqs-trump-torture-policy-rendition.html">She answered</a>: “We do not sanction torture, we do not get involved in that, and that will continue to be our position.” </p>
<p>But despite May’s assurances, the UK’s position in recent years has been far more unclear – and indeed, there is substantial evidence that Britain has over the years been <a href="http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1354066116653455">complicit in CIA prisoner abuses</a>.</p>
<h2>Part of the problem</h2>
<p>Investigations by human rights groups have found that MI6 probably <a href="https://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/reports/libya0912webwcover_1.pdf">co-operated</a> in the “rendition” (extrajudicial arrest and transportation) of Libyan citizens. MI5 and MI6 questioned prisoners despite clear evidence they had been abused, as the <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terrorism-in-the-uk/7204741/MI5-knew-Guantanamo-detainee-Binyam-Mohamed-was-being-tortured.htmlf">UK High Court found</a> in the Binyam Mohamed case. UK agencies passed information to the CIA which resulted in rendition and torture, as established in the case of <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2006/mar/28/politics.guantanamo">Bisher al-Rawi and Jamil el Banna</a>, and <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11715577">received information</a> from the CIA which was obtained through the torture of <a href="http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/khalid-sheikh-mohammed-cia">Khalid Sheikh Mohammed</a>; CIA interrogators subsequently acknowledged that the information <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2014/dec/09/cia-false-heathrow-terror-plot-waterboarding-ksm">was false</a>. At least 20 rendition operations are also thought to have been <a href="http://www.therenditionproject.org.uk/flights/renditions/index.html">facilitated</a> by refuelling stopovers in both mainland Britain and the British Indian Ocean Territory of <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-mauritius-and-the-uk-are-still-sparring-over-decolonisation-40911">Diego Garcia</a>.</p>
<p>Despite the fact that so much evidence is now in the public domain, public investigations into the full extent of British involvement have struggled to get off the ground. The judge-led <a href="http://www.detaineeinquiry.org.uk/">Detainee Inquiry</a> announced in July 2010, was delayed while the panel awaited the outcomes of police investigations into specific cases, and was then also hamstrung when leading human rights organisations withdrew their co-operation because the government would not disclose evidence in relation to specific victims they represent. </p>
<p>The inquiry was ultimately wound up in 2012, and it was <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2012/jan/18/gibson-inquiry-torture-collusion-abandoned">announced</a> that the panel would produce a report on its <a href="http://www.detaineeinquiry.org.uk/2013/12/statement-by-the-inquiry-december-2013/index.html">findings so far</a> to be taken forward by the Parliamentary Intelligence and Security Committee (ISC). An ISC Inquiry was duly commissioned in December 2013, but was delayed by staff shortages and the start of a new parliament. </p>
<p>More than three years later, its work is still ongoing. This is not good for the UK. Whereas the US Senate’s inquiry gave the US a chance to evaluate the consequences of the CIA’s RDI programme, strengthening many policymakers’ resolve to maintain and reinforce prohibitions on torture, these endless delays mean there has been no such reckoning at the British end. </p>
<p>There has also as yet been no thorough investigation into whether UK intelligence and security agencies are adequately equipped to prevent torture where they have a chance to stand in its way.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/154536/original/image-20170127-30419-1hl9pbg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/154536/original/image-20170127-30419-1hl9pbg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/154536/original/image-20170127-30419-1hl9pbg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/154536/original/image-20170127-30419-1hl9pbg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/154536/original/image-20170127-30419-1hl9pbg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/154536/original/image-20170127-30419-1hl9pbg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/154536/original/image-20170127-30419-1hl9pbg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Extrajudicial rendition flights have long been used to move detainees around the world for interrogation.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/modern-business-jet-standing-on-parking-505318114?src=LWt_GXMKP26Wx3Yt-O4TpQ-1-2">Fasttailwind via Shutterstock</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>In 2002, after an MI6 field operative <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/224699/isc_handling_detainees.pdf">raised concerns</a> about the abuse of prisoners in Afghanistan, all MI5 and MI6 officers were issued with <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/224699/isc_handling_detainees.pdf">guidance on how to handle detainees</a>. First, UK authorities must never take legal custody of prisoners; second, UK personnel should not “engage in any activity that involves inhuman or degrading treatment of prisoners”. But this left plenty of scope for UK personnel to collude in coercive interrogations just so long as they weren’t physically present. </p>
<p>The CIA’s RDI programme was finally <a href="https://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/2015/10/14/revealed-cia-torture-black-sites-history-boom-bust/">shut down in 2009</a>, and the following year, new <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/62632/Consolidated_Guidance_November_2011.pdf">Consolidated Guidance</a> was issued to UK military and intelligence personnel, covering detention of prisoners and information sharing. </p>
<p>These guidelines are more comprehensive, but they still leave considerable scope for co-operation with third party states who torture and abuse prisoners. </p>
<h2>Wiggle room</h2>
<p>The tone of the Consolidated Guidance is set by its opening statement: “Personnel whose actions are consistent with this guidance have good reason to be confident that they will not risk personal liability in the future.” There is no reference to the immorality of torture, nothing about its effects on victims and perpetrators, and nothing about its <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/law/2017/jan/26/does-torture-work-and-is-it-worth-the-cost-donald-trump">weaknesses</a> as a tool for obtaining of credible intelligence. </p>
<p>The guidance states that before interviewing prisoners held by other states, UK personnel must consider whether they may have been subjected to “unacceptable standards of detention or treatment”. They should consider attaching conditions to information they pass on, and they are instructed to consider “obtaining assurances” regarding prisoners’ treatment. Where they consider assurances to be reliable, they may proceed with interviews – but no detail is given on how they distinguish which assurances are “reliable” and which are “unreliable”. </p>
<p>The guidelines say that where personnel consider there to be a “lower than serious risk” of cruel treatment, they may proceed with interviews, yet no specific explanation is given on how such risk assessments are to be made. The guidance repeatedly encourages staff to report concerns to superiors, who are required in turn to escalate serious cases to ministers. </p>
<p>So far, we have no way of knowing whether any concerns about treatment of prisoners by the UK’s allies have been raised at any level since these guidelines were introduced. This would seem to be an extremely important line of enquiry for the ISC investigation. </p>
<p>In the absence of a comprehensive and detailed account of British involvement in CIA counter-terrorism activities, whether under the RDI programme or since, there is no hard evidence to suggest that the culture of UK-US co-operation in this area has changed. As such, any statement that the UK does not sanction or collude in torture is at best naive, and at worst disingenuous and irresponsible.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/71948/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Ruth Blakeley received funding from the Economic and Social Research Council for her research on the CIA's Rendition, Detention and Interrogation programme. She has given evidence to the Parliamentary Intelligence and Security Committee inquiry.</span></em></p>The UK has yet to properly grapple with its past complicity in prisoner abuses and torture.Ruth Blakeley, Professor of International Relations, University of KentLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/713962017-01-18T13:14:14Z2017-01-18T13:14:14ZSupreme court rulings open door to future ‘war on terror’ litigation in Britain<p>The UK Supreme Court has <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-38649683">handed down</a> three landmark judgements relating to the activities of UK authorities and officials in the fight against terrorism. The court ruled on January 17 that cases could now proceed against UK officials accused of involvement in detention and rendition operations – even if foreign states and their officials were the “prime actors” of alleged human rights violations. This means that <a href="https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2014-0264.html">cases can now proceed against</a>, among others, the former foreign secretary Jack Straw. </p>
<p>Another key element of the rulings relates to the authority to detain people in armed conflict, and the interplay between the law of armed conflict and international human rights law.</p>
<p>The Supreme Court’s rulings will have a significant impact on future litigation in relation to the activity of UK authorities and officials abroad. As a number of the claims relate to the extraterritorial application of the <a href="http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/42/contents">Human Rights Act</a> and its application to UK armed forces, these cases are particularly sensitive in the <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-human-rights-law-is-not-a-threat-to-the-british-armed-forces-66504/">current political climate</a>.</p>
<h2>The cases at stake</h2>
<p>The rulings relate to four specific cases, with many joined legal issues:</p>
<ul>
<li><p>The UK’s alleged involvement in the 2004 detention, rendition to Libya, and subsequent torture of <a href="https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2014-0264.html">Abdul Hakim Belhaj</a>, a former Libyan dissident, and his wife. </p></li>
<li><p>The detention by UK forces in Iraq of <a href="https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2015-0002.html">Yunus Rahmatullah</a>, a Pakistani citizen. Rahmatullah was transferred to US custody, and was detained by US forces first in Iraq and then for over ten years at Baghram airbase in Afghanistan. He alleges severe mistreatment in both UK and US detention.</p></li>
<li><p>The detention in Afghanistan of <a href="https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2015-0218.html">Serdar Mohammed</a>, a suspected senior Taliban commander. He was detained by UK forces for three and a half months, and it is alleged that there was no legal basis authorising this detention.</p></li>
<li><p>The detention in Iraq of <a href="https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2014-0219.html">Abd Ali Hameed Ali Al-Waheed</a> on suspicion of involvement in insurgent activity, relating to the discovery of a store of improvised explosive devices and other weapons. Al-Waheed was detained for six and a half weeks and released after an internal review held that a successful prosecution was unlikely. His claim is joined with Mohammed’s.</p></li>
</ul>
<p>Although the complexity involved in the rulings mean that they require considerable further consideration, they impact on two key areas of law.</p>
<h2>State immunity and foreign acts of state</h2>
<p>Some of the most significant elements of the rulings relate to state immunity and foreign acts of state. Both these principles are related to the principle of sovereign equality of states established under the <a href="http://www.un.org/en/charter-united-nations/">UN Charter</a>. Essentially they mean that domestic courts cannot judge the acts of foreign states.</p>
<p>The Supreme Court has now ruled that state immunity does not provide a defence in cases directed against a government official, despite the fact that foreign states may have been the prime actors in causing the alleged harm. As foreign states and their officials would suffer only reputational – and not legal – harm from such a case, the principle of state immunity is protected. The Supreme Court also held that due to the alleged facts of the cases at hand – which constituted severe human rights violations – the government was not entitled to rely on the foreign act of state doctrine.</p>
<p>These findings mean that the Belhaj and Rahmatullah cases against UK officials – including former foreign secretary Jack Straw – can proceed. This is both a political and a legal landmark that will have concrete knock-on effects regarding the joint military and intelligence operations conducted by the UK with other states. </p>
<p>The Supreme Court has confirmed that if, in the course of these activities UK authorities or officials are involved in human rights violations, they may be brought to court in the UK. This will focus attention on how military and intelligence partners are complying with human rights law.</p>
<h2>Detention in armed conflict</h2>
<p>The key issue in the Al-Waheed and Mohammed cases was the extent to which the <a href="http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Convention_ENG.pdf">European Convention on Human Rights</a> (ECHR) – to which the UK is a signatory – applied to military detention operations abroad. </p>
<p>The court held that human rights law continued to apply in situations of armed conflict, even though human rights law had to be “adapted” to fit with the requirements of the law of armed conflict. In this case, this meant that internment (security detention to prevent future harm) was regarded as compatible with international human rights law. This is despite the fact that in normal circumstances a formal “derogation” – or waiver – from the ECHR would be required. This ruling presents a positive approach to the relationship between human rights law and the law of armed conflict, and it means that Mohammed and Al-Waheed cannot sue the UK government regarding the legal basis of their detention.</p>
<p>However, this case is complex and beneath this broadly positive trend lie a number of important – and controversial – legal issues that are likely to be played out in future decisions. In particular, a key issue in the oral hearings of these cases before the Supreme Court was whether the law of armed conflict provided an explicit legal basis for detention in conflicts involving non-state actors. For example, was the UK government within its rights to detain a suspected member of the Taliban. </p>
<p>The Supreme Court dodged the heart of this issue by examining the relevant UN Security Council resolutions, rather than the law of armed conflict. The court’s arguments here were somewhat convoluted, and appear difficult to reconcile with the previous <a href="http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#%7B%22fulltext%22:%5B%22al-jedda%22%5D,%22documentcollectionid2%22:%5B%22GRANDCHAMBER%22,%22CHAMBER%22%5D,%22itemid%22:%5B%22001-105612%22%5D%7D">Al-Jedda</a> ruling by the European Court of Human Rights. So it is likely that this issue will be pursued further before the European Court of Human Rights, either on appeal or in future cases. </p>
<p>Although this part of the ruling constitutes a “win” for the British government, as noted by the legal scholar <a href="http://www.ejiltalk.org/a-trio-of-blockbuster-judgments-from-the-uk-supreme-court/">Marko Milanovic</a>, the victory may be hollow. It may mean that in the absence of a UN Security Council resolution, the UK will need to establish explicit legal authority to detain during military operations under national law. A waiver from the ECHR modifying the normal human rights standards, and permitting such detention, will almost certainly be necessary. Legal uncertainty persists.</p>
<p>The Supreme Court’s three judgements are likely to be scrutinised by lawyers in great detail. But it is already clear the rulings will pave the way for significant future litigation and could open the door to a number of detention and rendition cases arising from the “war on terror”.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/71396/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Daragh Murray does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Three key rulings by the UK Supreme Court and their legal implications.Daragh Murray, Lecturer in International Human Rights Law at Essex Law School, University of EssexLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/608332016-07-18T16:01:08Z2016-07-18T16:01:08ZBritain’s part in torture and rendition is still kept hidden 15 years after 9/11<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/129876/original/image-20160708-24060-v3dbms.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-3775892p1.html?cr=00&pl=edit-00">Artyom Anikeev</a> / <a href="http://www.shutterstock.com/editorial?cr=00&pl=edit-00">Artyom Anikeev/Shutterstock.com</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Even as the Chilcot Report lays bare the sad story of the UK’s decision to join in the 2003 invasion of Iraq, a veil is still drawn over another dark aspect of Britain’s partnership with George W Bush’s administration.</p>
<p>For years now, the British state has barely acknowledged its alleged deep involvement in the abuse of terror suspects, and there has been very little in the way of justice for the victims of torture and “rendition” – the practice of abducting suspects without due legal process and transferring them to other countries or territories for interrogation. </p>
<p>Nonetheless, <a href="http://ejt.sagepub.com/content/early/2016/05/26/1354066116653455.full.pdf">my colleague Ruth Blakeley and I have found</a> that this involvement was direct, deep and longstanding. Moreover, most official channels have been closed to keep the extent of the UK’s co-operation from coming to light. </p>
<p>An <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2012/jan/18/gibson-inquiry-torture-collusion-abandoned">aborted judge-led inquiry</a> into British involvement in prisoner mistreatment uncovered more than 200 separate allegations of abuse, at least 40 of which were significant enough to warrant detailed investigation. Some of these cases have led to civil action against the British government in the UK courts, others have led to police investigations and criminal inquiry. </p>
<p>In response, however, the government has maintained its innocence in every individual case while simultaneously working to block the release of relevant information. There have been attempts to withhold publication of key documents in open court, such as those which demonstrate that British intelligence knew about the torture of prisoners by the CIA before participating directly in their interrogation. </p>
<p>Where British courts have refused to accept government attempts to hold hearings in camera, the government has offered substantial payouts without any admission of liability. Indeed, the 2013 <a href="http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2013/18/contents/enacted">Justice and Security Act</a>, which introduced so-called “<a href="https://www.theguardian.com/law/2012/sep/25/secret-courts-the-essential-guide">closed material procedures</a>” into the main civil courts, gave the state the legal ability to keep details of British involvement in torture out of the public record.</p>
<p>Outside the UK court system, government officials have made regular representations to the US Senate to ensure that any mention of the UK was <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2014/dec/09/cia-torture-report-released">redacted</a> from its report into CIA torture. Likewise, my Freedom of Information Act requests for official records have been met with <a href="http://ejt.sagepub.com/content/early/2016/05/26/1354066116653455.full.pdf">a range of techniques</a> to deny the release of information regarding British involvement in torture. </p>
<p>Individual cases, meanwhile, are not finding resolution. It was <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jun/09/mi6-officers-not-charges-rendition-of-libyan-families-abdel-hakim-belhaj">recently announced</a> that the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) will not press charges against an unnamed intelligence official for involvement in the rendition of Libyan dissidents and their families to Colonel Gaddafi’s torture chambers as there was insufficient evidence to proceed. However, the CPS said that there was sufficient evidence to support the claim that the official in question had been in communication with individuals from the foreign countries responsible for torture and rendition, and that he’d sought informal political authority to do so.</p>
<p>The official wasn’t named explicitly, but it is widely understood to be Sir Mark Allen, a former director of counter-terrorism at MI6. </p>
<p>This decision is simply the latest instalment in the government’s attempt to hide its hand. But to be clear, despite all the obfuscation and murk, there is now a huge weight of evidence which points, undeniably, towards British complicity in these crimes, including renditions to Gaddafi’s Libya. </p>
<h2>A matter of record</h2>
<p>Alongside a number of investigative journalists, human rights investigators and legal teams, we at <a href="https://www.therenditionproject.org.uk/">The Rendition Project</a> have spent years documenting this evidence. Having gathered and reviewed what’s available, <a href="http://ejt.sagepub.com/content/early/2016/05/26/1354066116653455.full.pdf">our conclusions are clear</a>: Britain’s involvement in rendition and torture during the “war on terror” was deep, direct, multifaceted, and should now be considered a matter of historical record. </p>
<p>British intelligence and security agencies have worked hand-in-glove with counter-terrorism partners to identify and apprehend suspects and disappear them into secret detention where torture was endemic. Once suspects were in secret detention, British intelligence and security agencies were, in many cases, intimately involved in the torture which took place, either by participating in the interrogations, providing the intelligence which formed the basis of the torture, or receiving intelligence gained through torture. </p>
<p>In addition, British territory was used as a key logistical hub for the global network of secret detention and torture, with the UK facilitating the movement of suspects between secret prisons.</p>
<p>The evidence of this complicity is nowhere clearer than in the rendition of Libyan dissidents and their families back to the Gaddafi government. <a href="https://www.therenditionproject.org.uk/documents/RDI/040323-CIA-Fax-Libyan-Intelligence-Madhir-Rendition.pdf">One memo from the CIA to its Libyan counterpart</a> made clear that the agency was “aware that your service had been cooperating with the British to effect [Sami al-Saadi’s] removal to Tripoli”, and offered to step in to “render [him] and his family into your custody”. </p>
<p>Similarly, a <a href="http://www.therenditionproject.org.uk/documents/RDI/040318-MI6-Memo-Blair-Trip-and-Belhadj-Rendition.pdf">memo from Allen</a> to his counterpart in Libya, Musa Kusa – obtained by Human Rights Watch after the fall of Tripoli <a href="https://www.hrw.org/news/2013/04/19/submission-united-nations-committee-against-torture-united-kingdom">and submitted</a> to the UN Committee against Torture – explicitly congratulated Kusa on the “safe arrival” of Libyan rebel commander Abu ‘Abd Allah Sadiq Belhadj and discussed direct British access to the detainee’s interrogations:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Most importantly, I congratulate you on the safe arrival of Abu 'Abd Allah Sadiq [Belhadj]. This was the least we could do for you and for Libya to demonstrate the remarkable relationship we have built over the years. I am so glad … Amusingly, we got a request from the Americans to channel requests for information from Abu 'Abd Allah through the Americans. I have no intention of doing any such thing. The intelligence on Abu ‘Abd Allah was British. I know I did not pay for the air cargo. But I feel I have the right to deal with you direct on this and am very grateful for the help you are giving us.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Both <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20715507">al-Saadi</a> and Belhadj have testified that they were interrogated by British intelligence officers once in Libyan custody, with further evidence that intelligence agencies sent <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/jan/22/cooperation-british-spies-gaddafi-libya-revealed-official-papers">more than 1,600 questions</a> to their Libyan counterparts. </p>
<p>Al-Saadi, his wife and their four children were subsequently rendered and detained for six years. The dissident himself was <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/sep/09/how-mi6-family-gaddafi-jail">beaten and subjected to electric shocks</a>.</p>
<p>The UK’s involvement may have been one step removed, focused on supporting counter-terrorism allies in ways which would hide the British hand, but justice has nonetheless been evaded. It remains to be seen how and when the full truth of Britain’s complicity in torture and illegal detention during the War on Terror will come out.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/60833/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Sam Raphael receives funding from the Economic and Social Research Council. </span></em></p>The War on Terror-era programme of clandestine abductions and detentions wasn’t just an American initiative.Sam Raphael, Senior Lecturer in International Relations, University of WestminsterLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/539222016-03-20T13:21:11Z2016-03-20T13:21:11ZExplainer: the long, complicated history of the US at Guantánamo Bay<p>President Barack Obama’s visit to Cuba has been heralded as a “<a href="http://www.latimes.com/world/mexico-americas/la-fg-obama-cuba-advance-20160318-story.html">new beginning</a>” for Washington and Havana. The American embassy in the Cuban capital has been reopened, and travel restrictions for US citizens are being <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/21/travel/the-latest-on-travel-to-cuba.html">relaxed</a>. But despite their so-called “thaw”, the US’s relationship with Cuba is still deeply tangled. It has been since the 19th century – and central to the two countries’ ugly history is Guantánamo Bay.</p>
<p>La Bahía de Guantánamo is a saltwater lagoon 40 miles to the east of Santiago de Cuba. Before 1492, Puerto Grande, as Columbus named the bay, was productive hunting and fishing ground for the indigenous <a href="http://www.smithsonianmag.com/ist/?next=/people-places/what-became-of-the-taino-73824867/">Taínos</a> and their predecessors. Since there are no defensive bluffs at the harbour entrance, the Europeans did little to develop the lagoon beyond building villages and the nearby town of Guantánamo. </p>
<p>Things began to change as Cubans fought for independence from Spain in the wars of 1868-1878 and 1895-1898. The US was never going to stay on the sidelines; while a proposal to annex Cuba was rejected in Congress, US senators followed events in Cuba very closely and provided material support to the rebels. </p>
<figure class="align-left zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/115635/original/image-20160318-4456-o0p2hk.gif?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/115635/original/image-20160318-4456-o0p2hk.gif?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/115635/original/image-20160318-4456-o0p2hk.gif?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=682&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/115635/original/image-20160318-4456-o0p2hk.gif?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=682&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/115635/original/image-20160318-4456-o0p2hk.gif?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=682&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/115635/original/image-20160318-4456-o0p2hk.gif?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=857&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/115635/original/image-20160318-4456-o0p2hk.gif?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=857&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/115635/original/image-20160318-4456-o0p2hk.gif?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=857&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Remember the Maine.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Journal98.gif">Wikimedia Commons</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>In February 1898, the USS Maine, deployed to quell a pro-Spanish conspiracy, exploded in Havana harbour, killing nearly 300 men. Blaming Spain for the explosion, the US entered the war to assist the Cubans in their struggle for independence. Guantánamo Bay was captured in June 1898, a naval base was established, and the US fleet found hurricane shelter in the bay before invading Santiago that July.</p>
<p>The Spanish were defeated by the combined US and Cuban forces, and the new republic’s constitution was drawn up to hand over control from the US military governorship. This control was only partial: an amendment drawn up by Senator Orville Platt was inserted into the constitution, stipulating not only tight trade and economic regulations and the US’s right to intervene in Cuban affairs, but also the leasing of four coaling and naval stations – including Guantánamo Bay. </p>
<p>The <a href="https://history.state.gov/milestones/1899-1913/platt">Platt Amendment</a> details complete jurisdiction of the US in those locations while recognising Cuba’s “ultimate sovereignty”, and stipulates the right to use the areas only as naval stations and for no other purpose. The lease is also predicated upon the continuing agreement of both parties. </p>
<p>These three stipulations have caused trouble ever since. Many Cubans, especially marginalised non-whites, were bitter that Spain had simply been replaced by a new imperial force, albeit managed through the “sovereign” Cuban republic. This led to an uprising across the island in 1912, put down brutally by police, military and local militias who feared a black revolution – “another Haiti”. </p>
<p>The US stationed more than 1500 marines in Guantánamo and Santiago to help quell the uprising and to protect US interests. The military presence remained in Guantánamo long afterwards, outlasting various Cuban leaderships. </p>
<p>In 1933 Franklin D. Roosevelt cancelled both the 1903 Treaty of Relations and the Platt Amendment under the so-called “<a href="https://history.state.gov/milestones/1921-1936/good-neighbor">Good Neighbour Policy</a>”, and a new agreement was signed in 1934 outlining the continuation of the original Guantánamo Bay lease. Expanded during World War II, the site became a strategic refuelling and distribution depot for military and merchant shipping during the war, and a training site for anti-submarine activities.</p>
<h2>Crocodiles and cactus</h2>
<p>Things changed radically with the revolution of the 1950s. The US’s lease cheques are still made out to the “Treasurer General of the Republic”, a position that ceased to exist in 1959. They have supposedly been piling up uncashed in a desk drawer; Fidel Castro has <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN17200921">said</a> he once cashed one for $4,085 by mistake in the confusion of his government’s early days. </p>
<p>After Castro took control, the White House made clear that no changes in diplomatic relations would affect the Guantánamo treaty. Free access for workers ended in 1958, and heightened security was installed on both sides of the perimeter. Castro increased the natural defence of crocodiles and cactus to create the “Cactus Curtain”, while US troops laid 75,000 land mines between the US and Cuban border. The <a href="https://history.state.gov/milestones/1961-1968/cuban-missile-crisis">Missile Crisis of October 1962</a> saw an influx of US marines to the base. Castro turned off its water supply, prompting the base’s commanders to import water from Jamaica until a desalination plant could be constructed. </p>
<iframe src="https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/0/embed?mid=z6OWAMleTW6c.kCtyzvC30BLY" width="100%" height="480"></iframe>
<p>In the early 1960s, the base was key for <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/1997/11/19/us/declassified-papers-show-anti-castro-ideas-proposed-to-kennedy.html">various covert operations</a> to topple Castro’s regime: Northwoods, Mongoose, Bingo, Dirty Trick, and more besides. One of the Northwoods proposals was to blow up a US ship in Guantánamo Bay and blame it on Cuba, reminiscent of what happened to the USS Maine in 1898. </p>
<p>The base remained a focus of Cold War tension until the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. In that same year, Camp Bulkeley, named after the “Gitmo” base commander of 1964, was <a href="http://articles.latimes.com/1991-11-28/news/mn-151_1_guantanamo-bay">hastily enlarged</a> with hundreds of tents to house Haitians fleeing their country after a coup-d’état overthrew democratically-elected president Jean Bertrand Aristide. </p>
<p>Those Haitians picked up in international waters by the US Coast Guard were brought to Guantánamo and held for processing by the Immigration and Naturalization Service. Many were declared economic, not political, migrants, and were returned to Haiti. Others were screened for HIV, and those tested positive were denied entry into the US. </p>
<p>The US government was ultimately sued over the HIV camp, and the case became a cause célèbre, with law students going on hunger strike and actors Susan Sarandon and Tim Robbins raising the issue at the 1993 Academy Awards. The camp was declared unconstitutional and <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/1993/06/15/us/haitians-with-hiv-leave-cuba-base-for-lives-in-us.html?pagewanted=all">closed</a>.</p>
<p>This episode became something of a blueprint for events at Guantánamo post-2001.</p>
<h2>Beyond the rule of law</h2>
<p>Much ink has been spilled on what’s happened at Guantánamo since the inception of the War on Terror. The bay’s detention facilities, comprising specific units such as <a href="http://www.upi.com/News_Photos/Features/Inside-Camp-Delta-Guantanamo-Bay/3536/">Camp Delta</a>, Camp Iguana, <a href="http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-23771851">Camp 7</a> and the now defunct <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/09/01/us/guantanamo-camp-x-ray-ghost-prison-photographs.html?_r=0">Camp X-Ray</a>, with orange-suited detainees kneeling behind wire fences, are today part of the popular imagination. Amnesty International called the facility “<a href="http://www.theguardian.com/world/2005/may/26/usa.guantanamo">the Gulag of our time</a>”.</p>
<p>Most importantly, various of the US’s practices at Guantánamo violated articles of the <a href="http://www.bu.edu/today/2013/gitmo-the-legal-mess-behind-the-ethical-mess/">Geneva Conventions</a> and the <a href="https://newrepublic.com/article/119928/us-violates-un-convention-against-torture-signed-20-years-ago">United Nations Convention against Torture</a>, to both of which it is signatory. Many of these violations have been justified on the basis of Guantánamo’s extraterritorial status, which has allowed the US to carefully develop it as an anomalous site beyond the rule of law.</p>
<p>President Obama signed an executive order closing the facility at Guantánamo on his first day in office in 2009, but to no avail; the camp remains open. He is still keen to close Guantánamo before his presidency ends. Many in Congress oppose him. Presidential contenders have been asked their views. <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hillary-clinton-guantanamo-memo_us_5654cc40e4b0258edb33537b">Hillary Clinton</a> and <a href="http://www.politico.com/blogs/2016-dem-primary-live-updates-and-results/2016/02/bernie-sanders-gitmo-shut-down-clinton-219672">Bernie Sanders</a> support Obama, agreeing that the site is a recruiting tool for fighters against the US around the world. </p>
<p>On the other side, Cuban-American Ted Cruz advocates not just keeping the camp open, but <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/02/23/cruz-warns-that-obama-will-hand-guantanamo-base-over-to-the-castros/">growing it</a>. Donald Trump also <a href="http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/gop-primaries/263809-trump-calls-for-more-prisoners-in-gitmo">wants it bigger</a>. This mirrors Obama’s first presidential campaign: he promised to close it, whereas the Republicans to his right wanted it expanded.</p>
<p>Raúl Castro has repeatedly called for a return of the whole of the US possession to Cuba, citing Cuba’s “ultimate sovereignty”, and the question will loom during Obama’s visit. But the US is deeply embedded in Guantánamo, and will not surrender it willingly. Whoever wins the presidency in November is doomed to inherit an ancient problem. Good luck to them.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/53922/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>William Rowlandson works for university of Kent. He receives funding from University of Kent. </span></em></p>How did Washington get its hands on Guantánamo Bay – and why does its presence there still cause so much trouble?William Rowlandson, Senior Lecturer in Hispanic Studies, University of KentLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/500252015-10-30T16:05:37Z2015-10-30T16:05:37ZShaker Aamer’s release doesn’t get Britain off the hook for its part in abductions and torture<p>The last UK resident held at Guantánamo Bay, <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34675324">Shaker Aamer</a> has been returned to the UK after almost 14 years of imprisonment. He was never charged with any crime and never tried. He was subjected to years of cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment and torture, and has spoken to his doctors and lawyers of the <a href="http://www.itv.com/news/london/2015-06-05/shaker-aamer-gives-disturbing-account-of-guantanamo-bay-torture/">damaging psychological effects</a> of his experience. </p>
<p>This is an important victory for those who have tirelessly campaigned for Aamer’s release, and it probably does owe something to the British state, which in the months before Aamer’s release <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jan/16/shaker-aamer-guantanamo-bay-prioritise-obama-case">renewed its appeals</a> to the Obama administration to end his detention. David Cameron has welcomed the release, and says he hopes it <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/david-cameron-hopes-britons-release-will-speed-guantanamo-closure-a6669851.html">speeds the closure of Guantánamo</a>. </p>
<p>But whatever the government’s contribution to getting Aamer out of detention, the British authorities’ complicity in his detention and torture must not be forgotten.</p>
<p>Shaker Aamer was <a href="http://www.reprieve.org.uk/case-study/shaker-aamer/">sold by bounty hunters</a> in Afghanistan to US forces in December 2001. He was held for two months before being transferred to Guantánamo. During his time at Bagram Airbase in Afghanistan, Aamer was visited and interrogated <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/ministers-admission-links-mi5-and-mi6-to-torture-victim-1769946.html">by MI5 and MI6 agents</a>. </p>
<p>In evidence to his lawyers, <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/ministers-admission-links-mi5-and-mi6-to-torture-victim-1769946.html">he testified</a> that an MI5 agent was in the room when he was beaten, his head repeatedly bounced against the wall while his captors threatened to kill him. He eventually cracked under torture, <a href="http://www.reprieve.org.uk/case-study/shaker-aamer/">telling his captors whatever they wanted to hear</a>. </p>
<p>On the basis of his tortured confession, he was transferred to Guantánamo on February 14 2002, the same day that his fourth child, Faris, was born. </p>
<p>UK intelligence agents continued to visit him, but no evidence was ever secured to justify his detention. In 2007, <a href="http://www.reprieve.org.uk/case-study/shaker-aamer/">six US government agencies independently determined that he posed no threat</a>, and following pressure from the then foreign secretary, David Miliband, the Bush administration cleared him for release. </p>
<p>His release, however, was repeatedly blocked by the US Department of Defence. The Obama administration again cleared him for release in 2009, but again, his freedom was denied.</p>
<p>Lawyers for Aamer have claimed that his release was repeatedly blocked both because of his efforts to secure better conditions for fellow prisoners, and because he knows far too much about the extensive use of torture by the US military, revelations of which would be a real embarrassment for US and UK authorities. </p>
<h2>Never forget</h2>
<p>Aamer has been a powerful advocate for Guantánamo detainees. <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/oct/30/shaker-aamer-timeline-of-events-release-from-guantanamo">Having previously served as a translator for the US army</a> during the 1991 Gulf War, and having worked as an interpreter for various law firms in London, he is an articulate, intelligent man with a commitment to fighting injustice. He led other prisoners in various forms of protest at prison conditions, including leading prolonged hunger strikes. </p>
<p>As such, prison management considered him a serious threat to authority. There is evidence to suggest that he was singled out for particularly harsh treatment, including in <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/01/opinion/nocera-is-force-feeding-torture.html?_r=0">the ways that his force-feeding was undertaken</a>.</p>
<p>More disturbingly still, Aamer has testified that he was a witness to extensive torture. This may have been a particular concern of those who attempted to block his release. While he was held at Bagram, Aamer was a witness to the torture of <a href="https://www.hrw.org/news/2009/05/11/libya/us-investigate-death-former-cia-prisoner">Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi</a>, which resulted in “evidence”, later discredited, which was <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/shaker-aamer-last-uk-detainee-in-guantanamo-bay-says-britain-knew-about-torture-in-bagram-prison-a6679216.html">used to justify the 2003 invasion of Iraq</a>. </p>
<p>It is also possible that Aamer may have been exposed to some of the same techniques implicated in the suspicious deaths of three fellow hunger strikers in Guantánamo. While these were reported as suicides, one former Guantánamo guard, Joseph Hickman, <a href="http://www.newsweek.com/2015/01/23/guantanamo-bay-suicides-299432.html">has challenged the official account</a>, arguing that these were wrongful deaths resulting from prolonged beatings and torture – and that Aamer was subjected to a two-and-a-half-hour beating on the same night.</p>
<p>As the last remaining British resident in Guantánamo, Aamer’s long-awaited release marks the end of an era. But with this chapter coming to a close, there is a risk that UK authorities will attempt to sweep Britain’s role under the carpet. Aamer may be offered compensation from UK authorities as has happened with other former Guantánamo detainees, <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11769509">ostensibly to avoid costly legal cases</a> – but such an offer would of course in no way represent an acknowledgement of British wrongdoing. </p>
<p>Aamer must be given the freedom and space to decide whether he wants to pursue legal proceedings against UK authorities for any part they played in his torture. Such efforts can take an enormous toll on litigants and their families, and he and his family may well have already been through too much. </p>
<p>Whatever he decides, the rest of us must hold the UK authorities, past and present, fully accountable. While a long-delayed inquiry into these violations has so far <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jul/06/gibson-inquiry-rendition-david-cameron-uk-torture">come to nothing</a>, we must not rest until the state is held responsible for participating in the arbitrary detention and torture of Aamer and dozens of others.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/50025/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Ruth Blakeley has received funding from the UK's Economic and Social Research Council for her academic research on the CIA's rendition, detention and interrogation programme. </span></em></p>The UK’s last inmate at Guantanamo Bay has finally been brought home – but the matter of Britain’s role in the War on Terror is by no means resolved.Ruth Blakeley, Professor of International Relations, University of KentLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/367112015-01-26T15:47:35Z2015-01-26T15:47:35ZThe terrifying philosophy behind Guantanamo torture<p>There are many incredible things about the <a href="http://www.thebookseller.com/news/guantanamo-diary-launch-canongate">diary</a> recently published by Guantanamo Bay detainee <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/16/-sp-guantanamo-diary-exposes-brutality-us-rendition-torture">Mohamedou Ould Slahi</a>. It contains over 2,500 redactions, and was only published after a <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/16/guantanamo-diary-a-classified-handwritten-manuscript">six-year legal battle</a>. Its author was cleared for release in 2010 but still languishes in Guantanamo, and is unlikely to be released this year. </p>
<p>Among other outrages, the diary documents how Slahi, after suffering the indignity and abuse that arose from genuine renditions, was subject to a “<a href="http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/16/-sp-guantanamo-diary-salt-water-stephen-fry">fake rendition process</a>” designed to make him feel he was “being transferred to some far, faraway secret prison.” </p>
<p>As part of this fake rendition, he was subjected to a beating so severe he was unable to stand, then taken out to sea on a boat for three hours and forced to drink salt water as he feared he would be killed if he refused. </p>
<p>But for all these reasons, the diary is also a document of how the corrosive worldview that governed the War on Terror era has wrought havoc, and continues to do so. Almost 14 years after the Bush administration used 9/11 as a pretext to abandon international law, drawing instead on flawed and overly simplistic <a href="http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/utilitarianism-history/">utilitarian</a> calculations, we are still only beginning to fully understand the human cost of the War on Terror – and the dangerous intellectual currents that carried it along.</p>
<h2>The pursuit of liberty?</h2>
<p>The diary should remind us that Slahi’s treatment was not an abberation; it was US policy. And that only makes sense in a very particular and distorted brand of utilitarian ethics embraced by the US and UK governments during the War on Terror years. </p>
<p>That thinking is on full display in the influential writings of conservative jurist <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/10/books/review/Bazelon.t.html">Richard Posner</a> of the University of Chicago Law School. At the height of the Bush administration’s overreach, Posner <a href="http://www.utexas.edu/law/news/2006/032806_tigar.html">wrote</a> that “civilised nations are able to employ uncivilised means, at least in situations of or closely resembling war, without becoming uncivilised in the process.” </p>
<p>Posner argues that these principles are likely to be of particular relevance “when the torture is being administered by military personnel in a foreign country” – essentially denying any moral link between what happens in the domestic sphere and what is done by the forces of such “civilised nations” in their supposed pursuit of liberty abroad.</p>
<p>Of course, even if such thinking held moral water, Posner’s argument does not cover the treatment of detainees at Guantanamo, which is effectively US territory and which is not a war zone in any conventional sense. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/69997/original/image-20150126-24549-1aay1ib.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/69997/original/image-20150126-24549-1aay1ib.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=401&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/69997/original/image-20150126-24549-1aay1ib.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=401&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/69997/original/image-20150126-24549-1aay1ib.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=401&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/69997/original/image-20150126-24549-1aay1ib.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=504&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/69997/original/image-20150126-24549-1aay1ib.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=504&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/69997/original/image-20150126-24549-1aay1ib.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=504&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">True believers.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.epa.eu/?71481338046933847037&MEDIANUMBER=99280199&MEDIAITEMS=8c198f16c82a381941b86521bde5bf1f82649d07&PAGING_SCOPE_4=29&MEDIAGROUP_SCOPE=1">EPA/Pablo Martinez Monsivais</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Unsurprisingly, <a href="http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/president-george-w-bush-defends-torture-legal-effective-michigan-speech-article-1.408526">George W Bush</a> himself saw it differently. In true utilitarian style, he has always defended the treatment metered out to Slahi and others by claiming that it “saved lives” – overriding any concern about its impact on subjects or moral status in itself. <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2014/dec/14/dick-cheney-rectal-feeding-cia-torture-report">Dick Cheney</a> is similarly blunt to this day: when asked if he would still authorise the techniques documented in the recent <a href="http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2014/12/09/here-is-the-cia-torture-report">CIA torture report</a>, he answered “I’d do it again in a minute.”</p>
<h2>Damage done</h2>
<p>In the years since the end of the Bush administration, there have been some signs that these base calculations are running out of appeal in mainstream US politics. Equivocations have even come from <a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/12/john-yoo-if-senate-report-is-true-cia-interrogators-are-at-legal-risk/383790/">John Yoo</a>, the legal counsel central to the creation of the so-called “<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/ref/international/24MEMO-GUIDE.html">torture memos</a>”. </p>
<p>After the release of the torture report, Yoo went so far as to admit that some of the practices documented in it were “not supposed to be done” as they had not been authorised by the Justice Department. But those reservations aren’t moral ones, nor do they show real concern for the long-term human costs of such techniques. Instead, Yoo is only troubled by the idea that the CIA went beyond its legal purview – and that some of its employees may therefore be “at risk legally”.</p>
<p>The utilitarian thinking embraced by Bush, Cheney and Yoo dominated the War on Terror, and their crude legal and philosophical calculations set the tone for terrible abuses of authority. </p>
<p>Whether that was the mistreatment of detainees at Guantanamo, the use of white phosphorus in <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4442988.stm">Fallujah</a>, the CIA’s globe-straddling <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/rise-and-fall-of-cias-overseas-prisons-traced-in-senate-report-on-interrogations/2014/12/11/067232b4-8143-11e4-9f38-95a187e4c1f7_story.html">black sites network</a> or the use of drones in North Waziristan to such an extent that they make <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/oct/29/pakistan-family-drone-victim-testimony-congress">children</a> who live there afraid of blue skies, the policies driven by this thinking have wreaked havoc across the globe for almost a decade and a half. </p>
<p>We will be coming to terms with the costs and consequences of these policies for years to come. But we must not forget that they were crafted with care and forethought by people who shared a particular philosophy – one whose nightmarish effects are still to be fully understood.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/36711/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Peter Finn does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>There are many incredible things about the diary recently published by Guantanamo Bay detainee Mohamedou Ould Slahi. It contains over 2,500 redactions, and was only published after a six-year legal battle…Peter Finn, Lecturer in Politics, Kingston UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/352992014-12-09T19:56:39Z2014-12-09T19:56:39ZPsychologists who helped CIA interrogate terror suspects lost sight of moral principles<p>During the War on Terror, the CIA’s operations subjected hundreds of suspected terrorists to harsh interrogation techniques, which were often criticised as constituting torture. Now, the Senate Intelligence Committee’s report on the operation has made it clearer than ever that the CIA used many forms of “enhanced interrogation” to elicit information – very harsh methods indeed that simply did not yield the intended results. </p>
<p>As a leaked State Department memo put it, the report “<a href="http://bigstory.ap.org/article/state-dept-no-american-proud-cia-tactics">tells a story of which no American is proud</a>”. </p>
<p>This is a matter of outrage for everyone, but as psychologists, we have a particular obligation to speak out. Many of the approaches the CIA used were developed by our discipline, and by individuals who will have known about the codes of conduct by which US psychologists are bound – which include beneficence and non-maleficence, and respect for rights, dignity and integrity. </p>
<p>It is profoundly disturbing to see that the CIA’s techniques included deprivation of basic needs (warmth, food, water), humiliation, threats and the repeated use of waterboarding.</p>
<p>Ironically, many of the methods adopted were based on psychologists’ previous work directed at training members of the military, intended to assist them in avoiding talking to interrogators should they be captured and tortured. This work was apparently reverse-engineered for use on terrorist suspects. </p>
<h2>Overload</h2>
<p>Although these techniques have been given the newspeakish euphemism “enhanced interrogation”, they are consciously meant as a powerful assault on the basic conditions necessary for mental survival, specifically by overloading the subject’s homeostatic system. </p>
<p>Homeostasis is the body’s ability to adjust in response to external changes in order to maintain a stable internal equilibrium. The objective of an extreme assault on a human system is to stop the individual from adjusting in time, or at all. </p>
<p>For example, we are built to respond to various complex stimuli throughout the course of any given day, and when the arousal system is subjected to severe sensory deprivation over long periods, it seeks to readjust. </p>
<p>If the deprivation is intense and persistent, the arousal system seeks to fill the gap. And in the process, it can fill the void created with psychotic symptoms: hallucinations, paranoia, hearing voices and a loss of a sense of a cohesive or continuous sense of self. </p>
<p>Several other methods are directed at overload rather than deprivation, such as threats, “feral treatment” (treating people like animals), pharmacological manipulation, and humiliation. These can induce similar psychological effects, and may result in severe short, medium and even long-term symptoms, including loss of memory and a damaged ability to learn, reason or make decisions.</p>
<p>In fact, such techniques can damage brain structures such as the hippocampus (one of the first regions to suffer in Alzheimer’s disease) and lead to the loss of brain mass by inhibiting the regeneration of brain cells.</p>
<p>So both from an ethical standpoint and going on the evidence of myriad studies of trauma, enhanced interrogations are both unlikely to work and manifestly objectionable. The psychologists involved in this work should clearly have known it was an incredibly dangerous path to tread. </p>
<h2>Connection, not correction</h2>
<p>If you really want to stage an effective interrogation, the literature points in entirely the opposite direction – and so does orthodox law enforcement practice.</p>
<p>In the US (as in many other countries), rapport is considered a vital part of police interrogation. Psychological research has long shown that building rapport with witnesses increases the amount of accurate information generated. We know that rapport enhances cooperation during interviews, and elicits more accurate information. </p>
<p>In our own work, based on hundreds of hours of observation of field interviews, we found that interrogators that used approaches more akin to methods used in therapy were more effective at both decreasing detainee disengagement (including “no comment” interviews) and eliciting useful information and evidence.</p>
<p>We found that where non-judgemental acceptance, empathy and autonomy were present, alongside the ability to fluidly adapt to the detainee’s topics and shifts in what they were prepared to talk about (or not talk about), reflective listening and attentiveness were by far the most successful approach. </p>
<p>In fact, interrogators who resisted the (perhaps natural) urge to try and change or challenge the detainee’s behaviours and beliefs engaged more with their suspects and got more information from them. </p>
<h2>Dismal failure</h2>
<p>Our work on rapport is nothing new. More than 200 clinical trials, efficacy reviews, and meta-analyses have found more humane approaches to be effective in the treatment of a range of health problems once treated with harsh and coercive methods – issues as diverse as chronic mental disorder, cardiovascular rehabilitation, problem gambling, and substance use disorders. </p>
<p>In all those arenas, the original notion was that the “problem” needed to be dealt with through rational/persuasive and manipulative means that might persuade, coerce or control individuals “out” of their errant, criminal and destructive ways – essentially to bully them into compliance. </p>
<p>So a fundamental point stands: despite the ethical sanctions, the evidence is that enhanced interrogations just don’t work, and that rapport-based methods do. </p>
<p>It remains to be seen exactly why psychologists working today might have advocated, designed or implemented the methods described in the Senate report, but there can be no doubt that their complicity is a failure of both scientific rigour and morality. As the committee’s findings are picked over, and the political back-and-forth over them gets underway, this must not be forgotten.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/35299/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Laurence Alison receives funding from the University of Texas El Paso subcontracted work of the High Value Detainee Interrogation Group , with the UTEP work under the direction of Dr Chris Meissner </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michael Humann does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>During the War on Terror, the CIA’s operations subjected hundreds of suspected terrorists to harsh interrogation techniques, which were often criticised as constituting torture. Now, the Senate Intelligence…Laurence Alison, Director of the Centre for Critical and Major Incident Psychology, University of LiverpoolLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/340972014-11-12T06:25:01Z2014-11-12T06:25:01ZWhat is done can’t be undone, but US must reclaim the high moral ground on torture<p>On November 12 and 13, the US will appear before the <a href="http://www.ohchr.org/en/hrbodies/cat/pages/catindex.aspx">United Nations Anti-Torture Committee in Geneva</a> as part of its periodic look at how various countries comply with the rules on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. This should be seen as an opportunity for the US to make a clean break from the past and set an example to the whole world.</p>
<p>These review meetings happen in cycles and this is the first time the committee has examined the US since Barack Obama took office in 2009. The Committee investigates whether countries are abiding by the UN’s ban on the use of torture and its rules on the cruel treatment of their own or other citizens. In this session, it has already held meetings with Ukraine, Sweden and Australia – ruling that the latter’s treatment of asylum seekers is <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2014/nov/11/asylum-seeker-conditions-inhuman-and-unlawful-un-committee-tells-australia">inhuman and unlawful</a>. </p>
<p>When their time comes, American officials will be asked whether the US has stopped the practice of “rendition”, whether it applies torture-prohibition rules to those detained outside US territory and the status of investigations into allegations of the use of torture. </p>
<p>These questions provide a perfect opportunity for the Obama administration to distance itself from the practices that went on under George W Bush and to reaffirm its commitment to the absolute prohibition on torture. Whether or not it does so will offer a strong indication of its current thinking on this issue.</p>
<p>And when it comes to torture, the US sets an example to the rest of the world, whether it likes it or not. A group of 12 Nobel Peace Prize laureates recently wrote an <a href="thecommunity.com/no-to-torture/">open letter</a> to Obama warning him as much. They were calling on him to release a Senate report on the <a href="http://www.latimes.com/world/middleeast/la-fg-torture-report-20141109-story.html">CIA’s treatment of terrorism suspects</a> and argued that if a country like the US openly practices torture it lowers the standards for every country.</p>
<h2>Blurring the lines</h2>
<p>One of the most insidious aspects of the US approach has been to try to blur the lines of what constitutes torture. Torture is never allowed. There is no exception in international law for torture. Its prohibition is absolute. Even in war – even in a time of national crisis – it is never permitted. Yet the Bush administration has been accused again and again of <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/ref/international/24MEMO-GUIDE.html?_r=0">practices that breached the prohibition on torture</a>.</p>
<p>In <a href="https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/UNTS/Volume%25201465/volume-1465-I-24841-English.pdf">international law</a>, torture is the intentional infliction of severe physical or mental pain or suffering, by a public official – either directly or indirectly – and for a specific purpose. The purpose can be for obtaining information, obtaining a confession, for punishment, or for the purpose of intimidation or coercion.</p>
<p>Despite the international prohibition, though, some countries still argue that any measures should be allowed if security is at risk. And this was the kind of thinking that undoubtedly contributed to the use of torture by the US.</p>
<p>One of the most infamous rationales for using torture is the ticking bomb scenario. A terrorist knows how to turn off a bomb placed in the middle of a city and the only way to get the information is by torturing it out of them. It is a common plot on TV shows and has been used to create doubt about having an absolute ban on torture.</p>
<p>But this is a <a href="http://www.apt.ch/content/files_res/tickingbombscenario.pdf">false debate</a>. Even the US Army’s own field <a href="http://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/Military_Law/pdf/intel_interrogation_may-1987.pdf">manual on intelligence interrogation</a> recognises that force “is a poor technique, as it yields unreliable results, may damage subsequent collection efforts, and can induce the source to say whatever he thinks the interrogator wants to hear”.</p>
<p>The reality is that in many countries it is human rights defenders, journalists, or political opponents who are tortured. Amnesty International is so concerned about the widespread use of torture around the world that it launched a new <a href="http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/info/ACT40/004/2014/en">campaign</a> this year. It <a href="http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/ACT40/004/2014/en/96fde57f-61d9-487b-90dc-7da21c6c505d/act400042014en.pdf">reported</a> that in the past five years it has found evidence of torture and other forms of ill-treatment in at least 141 countries.</p>
<h2>Clean slate</h2>
<p>If the US was to come clean about previous practices it would send a strong message about the absolute prohibition on torture and set a new path for itself and others. Many other countries have been <a href="http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/docs/13session/A-HRC-13-42.pdf">implicated as complicit</a> in US extraditions, including the UK, Germany, Australia and Canada, so a message from the UN to the US is a message to them all.</p>
<p>Recent <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/nov/08/british-torture-inquiry-boycotted-rights-groups">controversy</a> in the UK around a parliamentary inquiry into allegations about the ill-treatment of detainees illustrates that there is still a long way to go in bringing to light the reality of what has occurred during the war on terror. The US could establish a precedent for openly dealing with the past use of torture by admitting its mistakes and making amends.</p>
<p>As its officials head to Geneva, the US urgently needs to reclaim the moral high ground on this issue. The practice of torture is alarmingly widespread in the world. Nations who would position themselves as respecting human rights and international law must have strict and absolute rules on the use of torture. When the lines on the use of torture get blurred, the standards for everyone reduce and the risks increase for all of us. It is too late to undo what has been done but it is not too late to acknowledge it and learn from it.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/34097/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Kirsten Roberts Lyer does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>On November 12 and 13, the US will appear before the United Nations Anti-Torture Committee in Geneva as part of its periodic look at how various countries comply with the rules on torture and other cruel…Kirsten Roberts Lyer, Researcher (PhD) in Human Rights , King's College LondonLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/255172014-05-13T12:08:11Z2014-05-13T12:08:11ZViolence in Britain: how the war on terror criminalises ordinary people<p>It is now accepted that the <a href="http://www.routledge.com/books/details/9780415607209/">war on terror</a> has generated an extensive repertoire of its very own terror. Drone strikes resulting in extrajudicial killings, rendition and torture – zones of exception like Guantanamo Bay come to mind, as does Britain’s complicity in <a href="http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-25445869">extraordinary rendition and torture</a>. </p>
<p>Then there are the normalised, everyday forms of terror operational in Britain that rarely register as state-sanctioned violence because they are understood to keep us safe. This includes MI5 and police raids without charge, <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/law/2013/dec/05/asian-people-stopped-uk-borders-analysis">compulsory schedule 7 detention and questioning</a> and <a href="http://www.stop-watch.org/experiences/">stop and search</a> of communities made suspect.</p>
<p>Even less visible as state violence is the global regime of targeted sanctions against non-state armed actors and those even indirectly connected to them. UN Security Council Resolution 1373 requires states to establish their own domestic banning regimes in order to criminalise the support and financing for terrorism. Variously referred to as “blacklisting”, “banning” or “proscription”, the designation of organisations and individuals as terrorist has been <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/libertycentral/2010/dec/10/terrorist-blacklisting-un-report-human-rights">under scrutiny</a> for bearing all the hallmarks of authoritarian dictatorships. </p>
<p>These forms of “lawfare”, including the <a href="http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/11/contents">Terrorism Act 2000 (UK)</a>, criminalise diverse forms of association and support, without requiring intentional acts of violence against civilians. This creates serious consequences for many diaspora in the UK – including Tamils, Kurds, Baluch and Palestinians – who remain connected to armed struggles for self-determination by virtue of being a people with a shared historical and political culture.</p>
<p>Terrorist listing makes no distinction between armed conflicts and terrorism. Worse, listing transforms diverse armed conflicts into terrorism in spite of whether armed groups are fighting an authoritarian regime or responding to state terror. Clearly, many non-state armed groups have terrorised and killed civilians and breached the laws of war. But by labelling non-state actors as <em>a priori</em> terrorists, the political claims of non-state actors, and the root causes of armed conflicts, are denied and diverse forms of state terror are legitimated as “counter-terrorism”.</p>
<p>This effect <a href="http://antoniocassese.com/italiano/oxford_jurnal/the_proper_limits_of.pdf">has been described</a> by international legal jurist Antonio Cassese as institutionalised violence. Banning organisations is a tool of British foreign policy which functions as institutionalised state violence in three key ways: firstly by denying the application of international law and principles of self-determination; secondly, by foreclosing opportunities for peaceful settlement of conflict; and thirdly, by legitimating and facilitating state terror and repressions and in some cases the war crimes of other states.</p>
<h2>Turning armed conflict into terrorism</h2>
<p>The UK has been proscribing organisations since listing Northern Irish groups, most notably through the <a href="http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/hmso/pta1974.htm">Prevention of Terrorism Act 1974</a>. More than 60 militant non-state actors are <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/301777/ProscribedOrganisationsApril14.pdf">currently banned in the UK</a> (as of April 2014). Some of these actors have used armed conflict to further political claims for statehood, regional autonomy or ethno-cultural rights and have a broad support base – for example, the Baluch, Palestinians, Tamils, Basque, among other peoples. </p>
<p>Some non-state armed groups (and nation states) breach the laws of war by targeting civilians. But listing does <a href="http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17539153.2013.765706#.U3H3ivldXsY">nothing to stop the use of terror by either side</a>. The idea is that by criminalising the broadest range of relationships connected to armed conflict, Britain can de-legitimise the organisation and eradicate its support base. What does this look like when the support base for an armed conflict demands recognition of minority cultures and languages, accountability for state crimes and an end to conflict? Let’s take the example of how the Kurdish struggle for self-determination in Turkey has been transformed into “terrorism”.</p>
<p>The Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) is listed by Britain as a terrorist organisation, yet the PKK is currently engaged in fragile negotiations for peace with Turkey. Meanwhile, listing of the PKK as terrorist by the international community has given Turkey the confidence and legitimacy to embark on a mass criminalisation of Kurdish civil society. Between 2009 and the start of 2013, <a href="http://en.firatnews.com/news/features/turkey-s-terrorism-report.htm">almost 40,000 people</a> were prosecuted for “membership of a terrorist organisation” in Turkey, according to government statistics. </p>
<p>In its campaign to urge the British government to lift its ban against the PKK, the campaign group Peace in Kurdistan <a href="http://peaceinkurdistancampaign.wordpress.com/activities/new-appeal-lift-the-ban-on-the-pkk/">argues that the ban</a> “distorts the whole political process by ensuring that anyone who expresses an opinion on controversial issues in Turkey can be held to be an associate of terrorism and prosecuted with the full force of a law that is as indiscriminate as it is unjust.”</p>
<p>In Britain, Kurds are routinely criminalised and terrorised by the fact of this proscription, but no-one has been convicted of any offences. This is because the Home Office identifies “disruption” of forms of association and material support, rather than prosecution, as the key object of the proscription regime. The UK <a href="http://books.google.com.au/books?id=SzfWbs7gywoC&pg=RA1-PA72&lpg=RA1-PA72&dq=The+UK+is+at+the+forefront+of+EU+member+States%27+action+against+the+PKK&source=bl&ots=3ySvz_DCel&sig=1Bp5mB-GnmTKzfOYsd_uW4rgQ44&hl=en&sa=X&ei=K0FFU4COBceIkQXSkoCoBg&ved=0CCwQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=The%20UK%20is%20at%20the%20forefront%20of%20EU%20member%20States%27%20action%20against%20the%20PKK&f=false">positions itself</a> “at the forefront of EU member states’ action against the PKK”. Kurdish activists are routinely harassed by police and intelligence agencies in the UK, often as part of co-ordinated operations targeting Kurds across Europe. </p>
<p>For example, in 2011, more than a dozen Kurds were sent the message by MI5 that their fundraising for charities, campaign work and their organising in community centres should stop, or they would face deportation or criminal charges. On January 10 2013, Kurdish families travelling to Paris <a href="http://peaceinkurdistancampaign.wordpress.com/resources/pik-campaign-statements/outrage-as-kurds-held-up-for-hours-at-dover-crossing/">were detained for seven hours</a> at a Dover crossing, under the notorious <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/law/2013/aug/19/david-miranda-detention-schedule-7-terrorism-act">schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act 2000</a>, which allows for detention and questioning on suspicion of terrorism without reasonable cause or access to the usual legal rights. The families were travelling to attend a demonstration to commemorate the assassination of three Kurdish activists in which the Turkish state is allegedly implicated. The significant effects of routine, everyday forms of arbitrary state interference are to disrupt collective, political life.</p>
<p>Proscription laws seek to disrupt the collective organisation of Kurdish people because they are understood to “legitimate” the PKKs political claims and, therefore, they can only be understood as supporting violence. More broadly, the proscription regime as it is constituted globally means that G8 states claiming democratic credentials create the conditions for state terror by less powerful nations. Proscription creates an international regime in which some states are empowered to use more repressive tactics against movements for self-determination. The British state, among other states who ban armed conflicts, deserves sustained attention for its role in depoliticising self-determination movements and legitimising and therefore extending state violence elsewhere.</p>
<hr>
<p><em>A conference in Liverpool on May 16 – <a href="http://www.crimeandjustice.org.uk/civicrm/event/info?id=35">How Violent is Britain?</a>– will examine this issue in detail. This is part of a series of articles on this theme on The Conversation.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/25517/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Vicki Sentas has received funding from the Berghof Foundation for Conflict Studies and the Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust for the research project: 'Blacklists and the (de)criminalisation of conflict resolution'.</span></em></p>It is now accepted that the war on terror has generated an extensive repertoire of its very own terror. Drone strikes resulting in extrajudicial killings, rendition and torture – zones of exception like…Vicki Sentas, Lecturer in Law, UNSW SydneyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.