The documents I obtained under the Freedon of Information Act yesterday are irrefutable evidence that Jack Straw lied to the parliamentary inquiry into extraordinary rendition. This is what Straw said:
I set out the British Government’s position on this issue on a number of occasions, including in evidence both here and to the Intelligence and Security Committee. I wrote a pretty detailed letter to a constituent of mine back in June, setting out our position. As I said there, there are no circumstances in which British officials use torture, nor any question of the British Government seeking to justify the use of torture. Again, the British Government, including the terrorist and security agencies, has never used torture for any purpose including for information, nor would we instigate or connive with others in doing so. People have to make their own judgment whether they think I am being accurate or not.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmselect/cmfaff/573/5102405.htm
Yet all the time he had been personally directing a secret policy of using, justifying and conniving with torture, as these documents prove. I provide here a brief transcript with notes for those having difficulty understanding Civil Service jargon. :Deletions are by government censors.
My notes are in bold.
TRANSCRIPT
Classification redacted
From: Linda Duffield (Director, Wider Europe, Foreign and Commonwealth Office)
Date: 10 March 2003
Reference: 1
To PUS (Permanent Under Secretary, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Sir Michael Jay now Lord Jay)
cc: (Sir) Michael Wood, Legal Adviser
Matthew Kidd (Position redacted – representing MI6)
SUBJECT: UZBEKISTAN; INTELLIGENCE POSSIBLY OBTAINED UNDER TORTURE
1. Michael Wood, Matthew Kidd and I had a meeting with Craig Murray (Me, British Ambassador to Tashkent) to discuss his telegram (Tashkent Telno Misc 01). (Detail of telegram deleted. In it I complained that we regularly receive material from the CIA, got from the Uzbek secret services, obtained by torture.) I said you had asked me to discuss this with Craig personally in view of the sensitive nature of the issues involved.
2. Craig said his concerns had been prompted by a presentation to the Uzbek authorities by Professor Korff (OSCE Adviser) on the UN Convention on Torture. Craig said that his understanding was that it was also an offence under the Convention to receive or to possess information obtained under torture. He asked for clarification on this. Michael Wood replied that he did not believe that possession of information was in itself an offence, but undertook to re-read the Convention and to ensure that Craig had a reply on this particular point.
3. I gave Craig a copy of your revised draft telegram (attached) and took him through this. I said that he was right to raise with you and Ministers (Jack Straw) his concerns about important legal and moral issues. We took these very seriously and gave a great deal of thought to such issues ourselves. There were difficult ethical and moral issues involved and at times difficult judgements had to be made weighing one clutch of “moral issues” against another. It was not always easy for people in post (embassies) to see and appreciate the broader picture, eg piecing together intelligence material from different sources in the global fight against terrorism. But that did not mean we took their concerns any less lightly.
4. (Whole paragraph deleted – this may have related to my querying of the accuracy of the CIA torture material).
5. After Michael Wood and Matthew Kidd had left, Craig and I had a general discussion about the human rights situation in Uzbekistan and the difficulties of pushing for a Resolution in Geneva, which we both agreed was important. (Section about US administation supporting Karimov in UN deleted)
CONCLUSION
6. In conclusion, Craig said that he was grateful for the decision to discuss these issues with me personally. At the end of the day he accepted, as a public servant, that these were decisions for Ministers to take, whether he agreed with them or not. If it ever reached the stage where he could not accept such a decision, then the right thing to do would be to request a move. But he was certainly not there yet. He had fed in his views. You and Ministers had decided how to handle this question. He accepted that and would now go back to Tashkent and “Get on with the job”.
7. I think it was right to see him. I am not sure this is the end of the issue (or correspondence), but it was a frank and amicable discussion and Craig appears to be making efforts to balance his work on human rights with other FCO objectives. We shall, of course, be reviewing these again once he has produced his post objectives for the upcoming year.
Signed
Linda Duffield
Director Wider Europe
Then Comes the Endorsement from Jack Straw:
Linda Duffield
UZBEKISTAN
Last night the Foreign Secretary (Jack Straw) read a copy of your minute of 10 March reporting your conversation (in the company of Michael Wood and Matthew Kidd) with Craig Murray.
The Foregin Secretary agrees with the PUS that you handled this very well. He has asked me to thank you.
Signed
Simon McDonald
(Assistant Private Secretary to Jack Straw)
Does anybody wish to now argue that Jack Straw told parliament the truth when he said two years later – when asked specifically about my account that hese events had happened –
It is Mr Murray’s opinion. Mr Murray, as you may know, stood in my constituency. He got fewer votes than the British National Party, and notwithstanding the fact that he assured the widest possible audience within the constituency to his views about use of torture. I set out the British Government’s position on this issue on a number of occasions, including in evidence both here and to the Intelligence and Security Committee. I wrote a pretty detailed letter to a constituent of mine back in June, setting out our position. As I said there, there are no circumstances in which British officials use torture, nor any question of the British Government seeking to justify the use of torture. Again, the British Government, including the terrorist and security agencies, has never used torture for any purpose including for information, nor would we instigate or connive with others in doing so. People have to make their own judgment whether they think I am being accurate or not.
I have highlighted the bits that are plain lies to parliament in view of the above.
Any argument?
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmselect/cmfaff/573/5102405.htm
No argument from me! As per my comment on yesterday’s post, I wonder now how the wheels of justice can be oiled a little bit? I suggested that Jack Straw could be extradited to Spain, a la Pinochet, but I should imagine the chances are slim. (In the same vein, George Monbiot of the Guardian constructed an interesting argument that it would be desirable to have war criminal Blair become president of the EU Council. Why? Because he would be obliged to travel to countries who might be willing to prosecute him over Iraq.)
One could also approach the police, but what are the odds of a set of bobbies arresting Straw, or the likelihood of the CPS agreeing to take it up? “Not in the public interest”, I should think they would say!
Failing that, I wonder if a private prosecution of Straw is viable? It would require a bale of money, but if a proper organisation were to be set up dedicated to his prosecution, and donations were to be sought, I could imagine quite a few people would be inclined to contribute. He’s not well liked, you know!
I wonder if we could get the input of a human rights lawyer here too. Perhaps someone with experience in that area might speculate how this fresh evidence changes the chances of bringing this to public trial. Furthermore, is there a precedent for deliberately breaking UNCAT rules, and what sort of sanctions could be reasonably be applied?
Great news.Perhaps he can be impeached as Justice Secretary asap on this evidence alone?That might be enough to also revert the absurd secret inquests bill that he managed to force through parliament?
Craig
How much is a one way ticket to the “International Criminal Court in The Hague”?.
Craig
Not just Jack Straw from the list of names above. They knew and should have come forward to tell the truth.
I can’t see any of the self-styled members of the international community being arrested for their crimes.
The closest it ever got to that was when that Israeli general was tipped off, by our peace loving spooks no doubt:
“Major-General Doron Almog avoided arrest in September 2005 after he was tipped off that officers planned to detain him on landing at Heathrow airport.
He refused to leave his El Al flight, and remained on board for two hours before returning to Israel.
Leaked documents show police did not board the plane to detain him at the airport because they were worried about the dangers of an armed confrontation.”
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/why-israeli-general-avoided-heathrow-arrest-784147.html
According to last night’s Dispatches programme from Peter Oborne, about 80% of prospective Tory MPs are in the pay of right wing Israeli lobby groups.
Hard to believe, but it looks like the Tories will be even worse in following the disastous neocon agenda than even the Blair was.
I take it Clarke Willmott will arrive in a tank next. With a couple of Tornados by way of escort.
PS Aren’t blogs great?
On Sunday morning on Radio 4 I heard a vivid description of everyday, co-ordinated abuse by British troops, by officers and ordinary soldiers in groups of up to one hundred, in Basra. The Iraqi man interviewed said that they had not felt safe to make these complaints against them while they were still in control of the area. This was followed by a blase whitewash by Ian Rimmel who said that a tiny minority of British troops had behaved badly.
New Labour always lies about this war, abuse and torture. It’s what they do.
“According to last night’s Dispatches programme from Peter Oborne, about 80% of prospective Tory MPs are in the pay of right wing Israeli lobby groups.”
In case you missed it…
“Dispatches / Dispatches: Inside Britain’s Israel Lobby”…
http://tinyurl.com/ylrnv5x
Not being as bright as your other blog readers I can’t see the exact sentence where torture is explicitly justified, or it is admitted the British connive in the use of it.
Perhaps if the content of your telegram was included?
If your telegram is not included then it’s still your word against theirs isn’t it?
BTW I think I’d take your word every time in this situation, I’m just thinking about proof.
Brian,
I don’t see any other construction you can put on the conversation. What else do you think we might have been talking about, and why?
A revealing insight into how things work in the FCO.
This piece is interesting and goes to the root of the problem:
“….Craig appears to be making efforts to balance his work on human rights with other FCO objectives.”
I assume from that that part of your job description from the FCO was to monitor and indeed report human rights abuses?
This would cover the FCO in terms of their international human rights obligations. If, for example, you failed to report human rights abuses they could discipline you for that too, if they were so minded.
But in your posting it’s quite clear that they want you to favour these “other FCO objectives” over human rights concerns.
This is an organisation that has covered itself on both fronts, leaving the individual decision up to the person in post. You’re supposed to know what they want you to concentrate on without them having to tell you, but if it all goes wrong they’re covered either way as an organisation.
It’s not uncommon today for individuals to find themselves working in situations where the publicly stated policy objectives of the organisation are mutually contradictory and the organisation places all the risk on the person in post to, both fulfill the unstated interests of the organisation, but also take the rap if it all goes wrong.
Craig
I believe your version, but I don’t think it’s proven.
Might there not be reasonable doubt that you were perhaps talking about the issue in principle, rather than about specific instances of torture intelligence?
Brian
Well, you have the heading of the minute for one thing. You also have the probability. Why would you fly back your ambassador from Uzbekistan for a theoretical discussion about the philosophy of torture? And why would Jack Straw closely be following such a theoretical discussion? I think you are clutching at absurdities.
Further to last comment, I think it is absolutely plain in para 3 tht Linda Duffield is talking about actual intelligence amterial.
The distinction between justifying the use of torture, and justifying the acceptance of information from a third party that may well have been obtained by torture, is similar to that between theft and the receipt of probably stolen goods.
The distinction between conniving at torture in the sense of collaboration, e.g. asking torturers to extract answers to specific questions, and the acceptance of information from a third party that may well have been obtained by torture but was not provided in response to such collaboration, is similar to that between being an accomplice to theft, and the receipt of receiving probably stolen goods.
So Jack Straw’s protests could be compared to those of a fence saying ‘I am not a thief, nor am I ever an accomplice to burglars.’
George, thanks for the Dispatches link. That was excellent, and stood up to the Israeli lobby surprisingly well. Rusbridger, who to be honest I don’t think much of due to his non-cooperation with Media Lens, looked absolutely petrified!
I don’t think much of Rusbridger because he’s a lousy editor and paid oodles more than ne’s worth.
It didn’t, but what if your redacted telegram said…
“Our government does not connive in, condone or employ the use of torture, but given the conclusions of Professor Korff I’m concerned that although as an entity the British government does not use information gained from such practices the fact that the provenance of some intelligence may be unknown leaves HMG open to unpleasant accusations. Furthermore what might be the possible implications for HMG of individual officials from whatever department having knowledge of illegal acts carried out in intelligence gathering? etc…”
Might not then the meeting be justified and everyone in the clear?
Brian
No. It is unthinkable that they would recall an Ambassador to discuss that sort of woolly nonsense.
Furthermore, Linda Duffield’s responses at para 3 would not then make any sense – if the intelligence was not from torture, why would its use have “difficult ethical and moral issues involved and at times difficult judgements had to be made weighing one clutch of “moral issues” against another.”
I believe that English law has historically treated the issue of receiving stolen goods more seriously than the actual theft. I can think of several good reasons for this.
Tony
Take your point re: the Ambassador, although if I was looking to cover my tracks I’d be sending Ambassadors hither and thither to discuss such woolly nonsense as fast as I could. It could be a sign of just how seriously we take these issues.
As far as para 3 is concerned would this not make sense if you were using intelligence where the method of obtainment was unknown or deliberately not revealed/requested. This would certainly entail moral issues while perhaps not being deliberate connivance with torture.
Just thinking about those other posts concerning the deaths of John Smith, Robin Cook, David Kelly et al., but thinking also about the almost thoroughly international agenda of Blair. His main domestic agenda seemed to be concerned primarily with increasing the power of state agencies, to an extent unprecedented in modern British history.
No matter what way you look at it, there’s been at lot of very weird and dodgy stuff going on around Blair’s premiership.
One thing that’s rarely mentioned in connection with John Smith is that Smith disliked Mandelson, to put it mildly. He removed Mandelson from the inner circle of advisors. In a Smith premiership Mandy would have been a nobody.
It’s understandable of course, why an honest plain speaking Scot like Smith would dislike the sleazy ways of a Mandelson, but perhaps Smith knew more than is obvious.
When Blair won the premiership there was a newspaper report that Mandy had immediately headed over to Hillsborough House in N Ireland to check through all the secret documents. It wasn’t his brief. However, NI had been the touchstone of spook affairs for quite some time.
Wonder what he was looking for, and why.
The answers lie always in the past.
Jon
This link goes with the dispatches link…
http://tinyurl.com/ya78hmb
Craig, I entirely sympathise with and support you in pusuing this issue, but I do sometimes wonder why someone who has worked in the diplomatic sevice is so gobsmacked that their stock-in-trade is casuistry. To an outsider it seems par for the course.
No arguments at all Craig.
It’s crystsal clear.
Good work and thank you.
There is a story about a slave who bit his master when he was being beaten. The master tells the crowd,’ Look what savages these people are!’ The thing that I find most deceitful about Jack Straw et al is the underlying assumption that anything anybody else does is a crime while everything we do is done entirely innocently. This is Alice Through the Looking Glass justice.
This is a question about international law and we are discussing it as if it is merely in a court of democratic public opinion. The FCO and Jack Straw’s intentions were, either A: ‘the interests of UK citizens override the interests of foreigners’. Or B: ‘the interests of the UK as nation are not well served by torture’. It is perfectly clear from these documents that their intentions were to implement A. ‘Our interests override the interests of foreigners’ while maintaining a public facade of B, ‘It doesn’t look good to the outside world.’ As ever, our intelligence is being insulted by spin doctors in power. I would sentence New Labour to Hard Labour for connivance in torture.
All the main players,as usual,are jews (blair,brown,smith and craig are crypto jews,or what used to be known as “marranos” in 15th century spain.You can add the Windsor rabble to the list too.AKA “new christians”)
Grossly misleading statements by Straw, yes. Plain outright lies, well, that’s not so clear.
When Straw says he “would not instigate or connive with others” (in using torture), what I think he means is “Technically I’m in the clear, as long as you can’t actually prove that we Brits have actively gone out and done it ourselves, or actively encouraged someone else to do it for us. Sure, we get loads of information obtained under torture. But as long as we don’t do any worse than turn a blind eye to it happening, we’re not responsible for the torture.”
What worries me is that lots of ordinary people will sympathise with Straw. They will say “If these are the guys who are bombing the Underground, then your casuistry is only reasonable. We can’t afford high moral standards when we’re dealing with terrorist killers.”
The answer to that of course – and I’ve heard you give it, Craig – is that most of the people who get tortured are just innocent fall-guys who get picked up by the police in a police state, and shown off so that the police can prove how “effective” they are. One reason why Straw ought to be opposed to torture is that it produces unreliable evidence, pulls in the wrong people, and isn’t worth the money that’s spent on it!
David Allen,
What do you think about Peter Power then? In case you don’t remember – on the day of the London Bombings – he rushed to the BBC – and said that he was conducting a terror exercise, at the very same locations and at the very same time as the explosions went off.
Personally, I thought he was trying to cover his own arse – cos he couldn’t believe it.
Now I do realise that co-incidencies happen – even quite amazing co-incidencies…
But a similar terror exercise was taking place on 9/11…(“Is this real-world or exercise?”)
I can’t be bothered finding links and posting them – but they are very easy to find using a search engine – and in no way can they be classified as “conspiracy theory”. You can classify them as co-incidence theory if you like.
Most people simply do not want to know, because the implications – which are rapidly turning into reality are too horrendous to contemplate.
Despite the fact that we have illegally invaded other countries and killed and maimed literally Millions of innocent people, tribal psychology dictates that most people have to believe – that the real evil came from another tribe, and that our tribe is good and honourable and simply defending itself.
We can’t face the evil within our own culture. It’s like discovering your father is a Mass- Murderer – a Serial Killer. “No it Must be someone else”, even though he keeps coming home covered with blood and says he has been working with his mate down in the local butchers. You daren’t ask the butcher, if he knows you Dad, because you are frightened of what you know he will say.
Tony