I have just realised that the press release below, issued today, is being put out on the one day when you can be guaranteed that not a single political journalist in the country will look at it, when they are all swamped beneath thousands of pieces of material on the G20 summit.

https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2009/04/evidence.html

I have just received the following from the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights:

2 April 2009

Session 2008-09 No. 31

PRESS NOTICE

Notice of Forthcoming Public Evidence Session

UN Convention Against Torture

The following oral evidence session has been arranged:

Tuesday 28 April 2009

1.45pm

Craig Murray (former British Ambassador to Uzbekistan)

The Committee will be following up its 2006 Report on the UK’s compliance with the UN Convention Against Torture by taking evidence from Craig Murray, former British Ambassador to Uzbekistan, on allegations that UK ministers and officials knowingly received information obtained by torture. The Committee previously heard evidence from Ian Cobain of The Guardian and Brad Adams of Human Rights watch about allegations of abuse and mistreatment involving British agents in Pakistan. A transcript of this session and the Committee’s correspondence with ministers on this issue is available at:

http://www.parliament.uk/parliamentary_committees/joint_committee_on_human_rights/tortureiniraq.cfm

The above meeting is open to members of the public. It is advisable to allow about 20 minutes to pass through security checks. There is no system for the prior reservation of seats in Committee Rooms. Members of the public enter via the Visitors Entrance, next to St Stephens Entrance, the Palace of Westminster.

The members of the Committee Are:

Mr Andrew Dismore MP (Labour, Hendon) (Chairman)

Lord Bowness (Conservative)

John Austin MP (Labour, Erith & Thamesmead)

Lord Dubs (Labour)

Dr Evan Harris MP (Liberal Democrat, Oxford West & Abingdon)

Lord Lester of Herne Hill (Liberal Democrat)

Mr Virendra Sharma MP (Labour, Ealing, Southall)

Lord Morris of Handsworth (Labour)

Mr Richard Shepherd MP (Conservative, Aldridge-Brownhills)

The Earl of Onslow (Conservative)

Mr Edward Timpson MP (Conservative, Crewe and Nantwich)

Baroness Prashar (Cross-Bencher)

Clerks of the Committee:

Dr Mark Egan (House of Commons) 020 7219 2797

and Rebecca Neal (House of Lords) 020 7219 6772

Enquiries: 020 7219 2797/2467 Fax: 020 7219 8393

E-mail: [email protected]

Homepage: http://www.parliament.uk/jchr

Media Inquiries: Ms Jessica Bridges-Palmer: 020 7219 0724

As I prepare for my evidence session before the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights on 28 April, I was looking back for the evidence I gave to the European Parliament on extraordinary rendition. Unfortunately it seems that no transcript was made of the committee questioning me (unless anyone who knows the system there better than I can come up with one) but rather a kind of precis made of my evidence as a “working document”.

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/comparl/tempcom/tdip/working_docs/pe374341_en.pdf

It also helpfully published the supporting documentation I gave.

What still surprises me is that, after I gave my evidence, I was mobbed by media, gave numerous television interviews, and was headline news all over Europe. Except in the UK where there was no mention of it at all. I was pondering this over the weekend as I read a very large number of commentary pieces, in every serious newspaper, on the apparent complicity in torture and what enquiries into it may find.

I have been answering the question of the moment – was there a policy of torture – for the last five years, with eye-witness testimony backed up with documentary proof. Yet I appear not to exist to the media. Will my testimony to the JCHR also be simply ignored?

At least this time I am going to get to give evidence. This was the response when I tried to give evidence to the House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee in 2006:

Dear Mr Murray, The Committee considered your e-mail at its meeting yesterday, 15 March. As you requested, it was made available to all members. The Committee decided not to receive the communication as evidence. Steve Priestley Clerk of FAC

https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2007/07/duck_here_comes.html

It is, I think, worth thinking about this again

https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2007/11/blacklisted.html

With thanks to Andrew.

This is the most important blog post I have ever made. I would be grateful if you could do everything in your power to disseminate a link to anyone you know who has the remotest interest in human rights – or should have. This blog will be silent for a few days now.

Tucked away at Page 15 of its annual Human Rights report, the FCO has finally made a public admission of its use of intelligence from torture. Despite the Orwellian doublespeak about “unreserved condemnation of torture”, this is the clearest statement the government has ever made that it, as a policy, employs intelligence from torture.

“One example is the question of the use of intelligence

provided to the UK by other countries. The provenance of

such intelligence is often unclear ?” partners rarely share

details of their sources. All intelligence received, whatever

its source, is carefully evaluated, particularly where it is clear

that it has been obtained from individuals in detention.

The use of intelligence possibly derived through torture

presents a very real dilemma, given our unreserved

condemnation of torture and our efforts to eradicate it.

Where there is intelligence that bears on threats to life, we

cannot reject it out of hand. What is quite clear, however, is

that information obtained as a result of torture would not

be admissible as evidence in any criminal or civil

proceedings in the UK. It does not matter whether the

evidence was obtained here or abroad.”

http://www.fco.gov.uk/resources/en/pdf/pdf15/human-rights-2008

Let us take this apart.

Let me start by noting that it confirms precisely the response I was given by the FCO when I tried to stop this back in 2003. https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/documents/Wood.pdf

It is worth noting two things. First it follows not just the precise legal distinctions made by Sir Michael Wood between intelligence and evidence, but it also very carefully mirrors the heading of his letter by referring to “Intelligence possibly obtained under torture” – even where there really was no actual doubt.

Secondly, it deploys the argument that you cannot be sure if the intelligence was obtained by torture or not, because the intelligence report does not give you the source. As I explain in my evidence statement to the Joint Commission on Human Rights, that is a deliberate double blind. The name of the source is always omitted from the intelligence report, on purpose so you cannot prove they were tortured to give that intelligence.

Trying Again to Stop Torture: My Formal Statement for the Joint Committee on Human Rights

I might pause here to say that this stunning new admission by the FCO proves I was telling the truth all along. Given that Jack Straw in particular and the FCO in general have been calling me mad and a liar for the last five years, I hope you might forgive me for asking you to dwell on that for a moment.

Now let me return to analyse what the FCO statement means. It is a piece of mind-blowing hypocrisy. You cannot, in the same paragraph, argue our unreserved condemnation of torture, and that it save lives so we use intelligence from it. I would add that it is also an outright lie. Not a single one of the many pieces of torture intelligence I saw in Uzbekistan had the slightest bearing on saving lives in the UK. In fact the “intelligence” was, on the whole and in detail, highly misleading. Yet the FCO made a very definite policy decision to continue to receive it – because it came from the CIA.

The FCO has in fact under New Labour never rejected any intelligence on the grounds that it came from torture.

The fact that the government accepts that it cannot use such intelligence as evidence in court, is not of great comfort when instead it is used to have people kidnapped and sent on extraordinary rendition, or severely beaten and detained without charge, or deported to home countries where they will be murdered.

The ticking bomb scenario is a Hollywood myth. 99 per cent of the tens of thousands of cases of torture in the War on Terror have been “Fishing expedition”. Torture does not work. The tortured individual will not tell you the truth, but will tell whatever he or she thinks will satisfy the torturer and stop the pain. We know this from history. People confessed under torture that their cat was the Devil and they flew on broomsticks. In my time in Uzbekistan children were tortured in front of their parents and dissidents were boiled alive.

Yet by accepting torture material for “Careful evaluation” we create a market for it. We increase the amount of torture in the World by putting a value on its result. And we are breaking international law by complicity in torture, which is plainly against Article 4 of the UN Convention Against Torture.

The government has set up its usual planned exoneration by allowing their cronies at Scotland Yard to conduct a highly circumscribed investigation into the MI5 agents involved in the torture of Binyan Mohammed.

In fact the guilt lies plainly with those who set this policy of compliance with evil. The most guilty is Jack Straw.

The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights has agreed to hear my evidence on torture on Tuesday 28 April at 1.45pm. Many thanks to everyone who helped lobby for this.

I am delighted, as I have been trying for over four years to lay the truth about British torture policy before Parliament. I will testify that as British Ambassador I was told there is a very definite policy to accept intelligence from torture abroad, and that the policy was instituted and approved by Jack Straw when Foreign Secretary. I will tell them that as Ambassador I protested formally three times in writing to Jack Straw, and that the Foreign Office told me in reply to my protests that this was perfectly legal.

I will prove my evidence with documentation.

Here is the written evidence I will speak to

https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2009/03/trying_again_my.html

There is now a wealth of evidence from individual cases to support my testimony that such an underlying secret policy exists.

It is likely that I will face hostile questioning from government supporters and from “War on Terror” hawks. In the past the government has accused me of corruption, sexual blackmail, and alcoholism (all completely untrue) and hinted that I am insane, in an effort to deflect attention from the cold facts of my testimony. The hearing will be open to the public, so if anyone can make it along, some friendly faces in the gallery would be extremely welcome.

I will also see if I can discover if anything usefully can be done by way of lobbying to ensure that the Parliament channel films it for broadcast.

SCOTTISH PARLIAMENT

MOTION

Date of Lodging: 18 March 2009

Short Title: University Rector’s Torture Evidence

S3M-03730 Bill Wilson (West of Scotland) (SNP): That the Parliament

supports the request by the rector of the University of Dundee, Craig Murray, to give evidence to the Westminster Parliament’s Joint Committee on Human Rights on the subject of the UK Government’s policy on receiving intelligence obtained by torture abroad and considers that Mr Murray is offering first-hand eye-witness testimony with documentary proof of a secret and reprehensible policy of attempting to benefit from torture, endorsed and directed by UK ministers.

Bill Wilson MSP has also put out this press release:

University Rector Must Present Torture Evidence, says MSP

Dr Bill Wilson, SNP MSP for the West of Scotland, announced today that he had just lodged a motion calling for the Rector of the University of Dundee, Craig Murray, to be allowed to present evidence of the UK Government’s involvement in torture to Westminster’s Joint Committee on Human Rights.

Dr Wilson commented, “I have long admired Mr Murray’s principled stand against UK complicity in human rights abuses, a stand that lost him his job as British Ambassador to Uzbekistan. He has clear evidence of the fact that the UK Government is prepared on a regular basis to receive intelligence from torture.

“I agree with the suggestion by commentators on Mr Murray’s website that the fact that he is not being allowed to present his evidence to the Joint Committee on Human Rights strongly suggests that the purpose of this committee is not to uncover the truth but to bury it, to ‘prove’ that the government isn’t involved.”

Mr Murray commented on Dr Wilson’s Motion: “It is essential that people are told the truth about some of the terrible things that have been done in their name, if we are to avoid such outrages in future. There is a degree of integrity on this issue being shown in Holyrood that appears so far lacking in Westminster.”

I can make contact details for Bill Wilson available to anyone who wants them. I am very grateful for this support, which makes it still more difficult for the government to pretend that my evidence does not exist.

UPDATE

MSPs Robin Harper, Dr Christopher Harvie, Christina McKelvie, Stuart McMillan, Joe FitzPatrick, and Bill Kidd have now added their names to Dr Bill Wilson’s motion calling for my evidence to be heard.

http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/Apps2/business/motions/Default.aspx?motionid=16106

Mark Egan, clerk to the committee, has sent an assurance that the emails to the Joint Human Rights Commission were in fact read, at least by the secretariat. Thanks to the correspondent who passed this on:

Thank you for your email to Andrew Dismore MP, Chair of the Joint Committee on Human Rights. Mr Dismore has asked me to reply.

The Committee staff received over 500 emails relating to Craig Murray’s request to give oral evidence to the Committee. All were read by the staff – I read many of them myself – and the Committee was informed of the number of emails we received and the nature of them.

The emails were deleted on Friday because Mr Dismore had replied to Mr Murray and indicated that people who had emailed the Committee should read his reply, and we needed to free up space in our inbox. We were not able to respond to each email individually because of the number we received.

Most of the emails were read using Outlook’s preview facility, which is why they were technically “unread” according to Outlook. Those which were opened properly were converted back to “unread” so that we could more easily count the total number we had received.

I hope this fully explains how we handled the Murray emails and deals with your suggestion of discourtesy.

Yours sincerely

Mark Egan, Commons Clerk, JCHR

I accept Mark Egan’s word on this. It remains the fact however that the Committee has still not agreed to hear my evidence.

Mark Egan should be receivng the signed top copy by registered post today. This bears repeating at every possible occasion: this is the signed statement I have sent to the Joint Committee and on which I wish to testify.

WITNESS STATEMENT TO THE PARLIAMENTARY JOINT COMMITTEE ON HUMAN RIGHTS

My name is Craig Murray. I was British Ambassador in Uzbekistan from August 2002 to October 2004.

I had joined the Diplomatic Service in 1984 and became a member of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office’s Senior Management Structure in 1998. I had held a variety of posts including Deputy High Commissioner, Accra (1998 to 2001) and First Secretary Political and Economic, Warsaw (1994 to 1997).

I had also been head of the FCO section of the Embargo Surveillance Sector leading up to and during the first Gulf War, monitoring and interdicting Iraqi attempts at weapons procurement. In consequence I had obtained security clearances even higher than those routinely given to all executive members of the Diplomatic Service. I had extensive experience throughout my career of dealing with intelligence material and the intelligence services.

It was made plain to me in briefing in London before initial departure for Tashkent that Uzbekistan was a key ally in the War on Terror and to be treated as such. It was particularly important to the USA who valued its security cooperation and its provision of a major US airbase at Karshi-Khanabad.

As Ambassador in Uzbekistan I regularly received intelligence material released by MI6. This material was given to MI6 by the CIA, mostly originating from their Tashkent station. It was normally issued to me telegraphically by MI6 at the same time it was issued to UK ministers and officials in London.

From the start of my time as Ambassador, I was also receiving a continual stream of information about widespread torture of suspected political or religious dissidents in Tashkent. This was taking place on a phenomenal scale. In early 2003 a report by the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture, in the preparation of which my Embassy much assisted, described torture in Uzbekistan as “routine and systemic”.

The horror and staggering extent of torture in Uzbekistan is well documented and I have been informed by the Chair is not in the purview of the Joint Committee on Human Rights. But what follows goes directly to the question of UK non-compliance with the UN Convention Against Torture.

In gathering evidence from victims of torture, we built a consistent picture of the narrative which the torturers were seeking to validate from confessions under torture. They sought confessions which linked domestic opposition to President Karimov with Al-Qaida and Osama Bin Laden; they sought to exaggerate the strength of the terrorist threat in Central Asia. People arrested on all sorts of pretexts ?” (I recall one involved in a dispute over ownership of a garage plot) suddenly found themselves tortured into confessing to membership of both the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan (IMU) and Al-Qaida. They were also made to confess to attending Al-Qaida training camps in Tajikistan and Afghanistan. In an echo of Stalin’s security services from which the Uzbek SNB had an unbroken institutional descent, they were given long lists of names of people they had to confess were also in IMU and Al-Qaida.

It became obvious to me after just a few weeks that the CIA material from Uzbekistan was giving precisely the same narrative being extracted by the Uzbek torturers ?” and that the CIA “intelligence” was giving information far from the truth.

I was immediately concerned that British ministers and officials were being unknowingly exposed to material derived from torture, and therefore were acting illegally.

I asked my Deputy, Karen Moran, to call on a senior member of the US Embassy and tell him I was concerned that the CIA intelligence was probably derived from torture by the Uzbek security services. Karen Moran reported back to me that the US Embassy had replied that it probably did come from torture, but in the War on Terror they did not view that as a problem.

In October or November of 2002 I sent the FCO a telegram classified Top Secret and addressed specifically for the attention of the Secretary of State. I argued that to receive this material from torture was:

Emails sent by members of the public to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights were deleted by the committee without even being read. Two people who happened to have enabled tracking sent me the following two automated repllies they received:

Your message

To: Joint Committee On Human Rights

Subject: Craig Murray:

Sent: Fri, 6 Mar 2009 20:51:41 -0000

was deleted without being read on Fri, 13 Mar 2009 10:46:42 -0000

and

Your message

To: Joint Committee On Human Rights

Cc: craig murray

Subject: Torture evidence on 10 March

Sent: Thu, 5 Mar 2009 14:47:36 -0000

was deleted without being read on Fri, 13 Mar 2009 10:46:42 -0000

Note the identical time of deletion. Evidently people’s emails were not even deleted individually but selected as a group and deleted en masse.

This is a shame because there was no template and people made some very telling individual points. Plainly people put time and thought into attempting to participate actively in a key part of a supposedly democratic process. It is a disgrace that these emails were deleted unread. Is the UK really a democracy now?

Here is a selection of some 500 which were copied to me. As people sent them to the committee over their names, I presume they would not mind the names being published here, but I do not give email addresses. Remember, if you even glance at them, that is more than the parliamentary committee on human rights did.

Dear Sirs/Mesdames

I have heard Craig Murray speak on the issue of torture in Uzbekistan and read his book Murder in Samarkand. I consider it of the utmost importance that a committee dealing with human rights should hear his testimony and display the openness which one would expect in a truly democratic country which claims to pride itself in transparency in all aspects of public life.

Yours faithfully

I Roberts-Parry

Dear Member of Joint Committee on Human Rights,

I am very concerned about the degree to which evidence appears to be stacking up to confirm that the UK Government may have been complicit in the rendition and torture of foreign nationals for the purposes of obtaining intelligence related to counter terrorism operations.

The latest reports which disturb me greatly relate to the report by UN Special Raporteur Martin Scheinin, together with the testimony of Binyam Mohammed, recently released from US custody at Guantanamo Bay, as reported in the Independent newspaper.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/un-condemns-britains-role–in-torture-cases-1641147.html

However, I have also followed the earlier reports about the claimed use of UK airports by CIA civil flights alleged to have been engaged in rendition of terrorism suspects, and am aware of the compelling evidence placed in the public domain by Mr Craig Murray, former UK Ambassador to Uzbekistan. Having read Mr Murray’s book ‘Murder in Samarkand’ about the circumstances surrounding his claimed efforts to prevent the UK government from continuing to knowingly use intelligence information obtained through torture, and his subsequent dismissal from office I have to say that I regard Mr Murray’s accounts of his experiences as entirely credible and worthy of scrutiny by your committee.

I understand that Mr Murray has offered to appear before the Joint Committee on Human Rights and that your will meet shortly to consider whether to hear his evidence. I believe that Mr Murray by his actions at the time – as recorded in his book – and subsequently bears all the hallmarks of an honourable ‘whistleblower’ who should be heard, if there is any chance of the truth being uncovered.

In the interests of democracy and the reputation of Parliament I urge you to hear and assess Mr Murray’s evidence.

Yours sincerely,

Andrew Thompson

Dear Members of the Joint Committee on Human Rights,

I hope you will be hearing evidence from Craig Murray about the use of

evidence/intelligence gained by torture. He has had first hand experience of

this in Uzbekistan as many of us know who have heard him speak. It would

be extraordinary if you were to deliberately exclude him and not transparent

at all.

It would be to Britain’s shame if his evidence had to be routed through the

Human Rights Committee of the UN the next time they meet to review the

United Kingdom’s record on Human Rights.

Yours in peace, Robin Brookes

Devizes Peace & Justice Group

Dear JCHR,

It is my understanding that Craig Murray may not be allowed to give evidence to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights.

Unles there is an agenda which seeks other than the whole truth this makes no sense.

Leslie Dalton

Hi,

I have heard and read works by Craig Murray and believe you should hear his evidence related to whether or not the UK government used evidence as the result of torture.

It is important there is not cover up in this case.

Regards,

Martin

I would like to register my concern that the Government is trying to block Craig Murray’s valuable testimony to the human rights committee. I heard him speak in Caernarfon last year and his evidence is compelling. The validity and integrity of the committee’s discussion and conclusions depend on it hearing every side of the case.

Thank you

Anna Jane Evans

Dear Sir/Madam

I am writing to urge you to listen to Craig Murray’s evidence on torture claims. I have followed Mr Murray’s work and believe he is raising issues that the government are conveniently ignoring,often those who speak the truth are labelled madmen as the unthinkable become normalised.

I have followed Mr Murray’s work from his days in Uzbekistan and still cannot believe the British government’s complicity with that nation

I hope that he is given a chance to present his evidence

thank you

Dr N Haque

I hope I am in time to add my voice to those urging the Joint Committee on Human Rights to hear Craig Murray’s evidence on the government’s use of intelligence obtained through torture. His evidence may be unpalatable, but this issue must be dealt with comprehensively in order that the government never again resorts to such tactics. As a long time member of Amnesty, I spend a fair bit of time asking governments around the world to observe international law and the conventions they have ratified. Prohibition on the use of torture is absolute; we need to be setting an example, not sitting in the dock ourselves.

Liza Lishman

Swindon

We heard Craig Murray speak and read his book, Murder in

Samarkhand, in Caernarfon recently. We believe that a committee dealing

with human rights would

be derelict in its duty not to hear his evidence. Only when the

evidence is heard can its validity be determined. Your committee needs

to know all that it can learn about the use of evidence gained by torture.

Diolch yn fawr

Val Williams

Brian Thirsk

I strongly urge your committee to hear out Craig Murray’s evidence, which he is eager to give, as he has first-hand knowledge, as an ex-Ambassador to Uzbekistan, of this government’s skullduggery with regard to evidence gained from torture abroad.

I have heard Craig speak many times in public, and have the highest regard for his honesty and integrity in the face of a government with a track record of lies, deception, spin and secrecy.

The fact that the government is lobbying hard for his exclusion shows that it has something to hide. And, if you are in earnest at uncovering the truth and thereby stopping the evil practice of torture and restoring Britain’s battered reputation abroad, you cannot allow yourselves to capitulate to government pressure.

Nor can you take the risk of your inquiry becoming a white-wash if you fail to discharge the solemn duty entrusted to you.

Best wishes

Zahir Mecci

Dear Sir/Madam

I urge you to allow Craig Murray to stand as witness at the meeting on Tuesday 10 March of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights.

I heard him speak a few years ago, he has valuable information concerning UK complicity with torture which must be heard and acknowledged. He was a witness recently during the European Council’s enquiries into extraordinary rendition and his contribution was described by the European Council’s Rapporteur, Senator Dick Marty, as “Compelling and valuable”.

It would implicate the government still further in allegations of complicity in torture not to call this man as a witness, since he was British Ambassador in Uzbekistan from 2002 to 2004 where he

was regularly seeing intelligence from detainees in the Uzbek torture chambers, sent him by the CIA via MI6. He can confirm that British Ministers and officials were seeing the same torture material.

In October/November 2002 and January/Februray 2003 he sent two Top Secret telegrams to London specifically on the subject of UK receipt of intelligence gained under torture. He argued this was illegal, immoral and impractical. The telegrams were speciifically marked for the Secretary of State.

He was formally summoned back to the FCO for a meeting held on 7 or 8 March 2003 specifically and solely on the subject of intelligence gained under torture. Present were Linda Duffield, Director Wider Europe, FCO, Sir Michael Wood, Chief Legal Adviser, FCO, and Matthew Kydd, Head of Permanent Under-Secretary’s Department, FCO.

He was told at this meeting that it is not illegal for the UK to obtain intelligence gained by torture, provided that we did not do the torture ourselves. He was told that it had been decided that as a matter of War on Terror policy we should now obtain intelligence from torture, following discussion between Jack Straw and Richard Dearlove. He was told that we could not exclude receipt of specific material from the CIA without driving a coach and horses through the universality principle of the UK/US intelligence sharing agreement, which would be detrimental to UK interests.

Sir Michael Wood gave legal advice that it was not illegal to receive intelligence got by torture.

This would seem to go the heart of the issue.

I repeat there can be no excuse for excluding this evidence from your enquiry.

Yours faithfully

Roslyn Cook

Dear Chair

My name is Mair Jones and i’m writing to you and your Committe to request that you take evidence from Mr Craig Murray on the intelligence gathered from torture. It is unclear to me why your Committe has not come to a clear conclusion on whether to hear evidence from Mr Murray.

I had the honour to meet Mr Murray about 18 months ago on a visit to North Wales.

He attracted two large audiences on his visit to North Wales and was very well received.

I have been in the unfortunate position of being a whistleblower myself and regard Craig Murray’s actions as very honourable.

His uncomfortable testimony is crucial and needs to be heard.

You as a Committe need to set an example here by your actions and invite Mr Murray to give his evidence.

If we are to rebuild true democratic processes once again at some point in Britain, testimonies like Mr Murray’s need to be heard openly and with respect.

Yours sincerely

Mair Jones

Peace activist and carer

Dear Sirs, I am writing to urge the Joint Committee on Human Rights to hear Mr Craig Murray’s evidence in relation to your investigations into the UK’s compliance with the UN Convention against Torture. Clearly, Mr Murray has invaluable information for the Committee as a result of his experiences as Ambassador to Uzbekistan and his communications with the UK Government during that time. It seems to me that were it not for Mr Murray, the question of the UK’s compliance with UNCAT might not be in the public eye at all. I note that the Committee has already heard evidence from Mr Ian Cobain of The Guardian and from Human Rights Watch. Surely Mr Murray’s evidence will be at least as valuable as theirs. Yours faithfully,

Jane Ballard

Dear Sir or Madam,

I am writing to urge that the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights receive Craig Murray’s testimony with regard to torture. Neither the credibility of the committee, not that of the country is served by neglecting critical sources.

As an expatriate British citizen, I am deeply concerned with the loss of even the perception of honour, adherence to law, human dignity, or even handedness in our foreign relations. I do not believe that our government should consider itself above such petty considerations. When it does, far more than the mere perception of honour is lost.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Abbott

I think it is imperative for Craig Murray to give evidence before the Joint Committee on Human Rights on the subject of the UK government’s policy on intelligence cooperation with torture abroad. I believe torture is morally repugnant and I think that it is an outrage that Britain is supporting torture in the 21st century.

I feel is rather worrying that a Committee specifically gathered to debate HUMAN RIGHTS should fight to silence one side of the debate.

Government Officials would do well to remember that they are elected representatives of the British public to be involved in atrocities in our name is totally unacceptable.

Miss Allen

To whom it may concern.

It is of the utmost importance that Craig Murray, (human rights activist and former British Ambassador) is able to give crucial evidence to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights on Tuesday 10th March. At a time when there is real concern over the issue of the awareness of the British Government to the issue of torture of detainees prior to their rendition to Guantanamo and elsewhere, evidence must be tested, and if necessary contested. It is inappropriate for any attempt to be made to prevent such evidence being given.

In my letter to the Foreign Secretary of 6 July 2006 concerning Benyam Mohammed Al Hasbashi I questioned whether the Government accepted evidence obtained by torture, and was assured in a reply from David Triesman, that the ‘British Government including the intelligence and security agencies, never uses torture for any purpose, including to obtain information. Nor does the British Government or its Security and Intelligence agencies ever instigate, condone, or otherwise support others in the use of torture for any purpose.’

The nature of democracy depends upon truthful responses from government, particularly in the area of Human Rights. I received this answer from the minister in good faith. If there is reason to question its veracity, the evidence must be able to be presented to ensure the integrity of democracy and the people’s trust in their elected representatives.

+Peter

The Rt Revd Peter B Price

Bishop of Bath & Wells

Dear members of the JCHR,

I met Mr. Craig Murray in Stockholm 2007 where he gave a talk about the situation in Uzbekistan, during a seminar on human rights, organized by Amnesty International. I have also read his book “Murder in Samarkand”, with great interest.

I believe his evidence to be a matter of grave importance and of high standard, and therefore kindly ask you to include his statement as a witness before the Joint Commission on human Rights.

Yours sincerely,

Fredrik W Engberg

Dear Sir/Madam

Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights: Hearing Evidence from Craig Murray.

I would like the committee to take the opportunity to hear the evidence that Craig Murray is willing to put forward. You will be aware of the range of experience that Mr Murray has, including his interest in human rights. I am sure that the evidence he can provide would be of interest to the committee.

Aefauldlie

Dr Bill Wilson MSP

Dear Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights,

On hearing that it was being ‘considered’ that Craig’s valuable evidence be withheld from a hearing where no less that the core ethical underpinnings of our society will be discussed, I was morally outraged. Such censoring is more akin to a totalitarian state than a self-proclaimed liberal democracy. This brief message is being sent in wholehearted support of Craig’s case and I am certain that my belief in his right to have his voice heard would be shadowed by the majority to the peoples of Great Britain.

Yours faithfully,

Adam Rolfe

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am very disturbed that Craig Murray is being denied the chance to speak to the JCHR. The UK government is involving itself in actions that are shaming it across the world, of which this is yet another example. Freedom of information and human rights must be aspects of life that Britain begins officially to respect. I have heard Craig Murray speak and his testimony to our disregard for fundamental aspects of democracy demands official action.

Yours sincerely,

Louis Bayman

To the Parliamentary Joint Human Rights Commission

I am very concerned about the reports that are coming to light regarding the British Government’s involvement in human rghts abuses outside the UK. It is of grave concern that our government are being implicated in such atrocities abroad.

I find it deeply worrying that David Milliband and Jacqui Smith have refused to appear before the human rights committee to answer questions regarding these allegations. I believe that these questions need to be answered and the truth revealed to the public.

I believe it is your duty to investigate the matter fully and consider all evidence available and to this end I would like to advocate that you listen to the evidence of Craig Murray, as I believe he has compelling evidence relating to this matter.

Yours sincerely

Cheryl MacDonald

Dear Sirs

I understand the Joint Committee on Human Rights has not yet decided to hear

the evidence of HM former Ambassador to Uzbekistan Craig Murray.

I am writing to respectfully ask that the committee hear Mr Murray’s

evidence.

I have followed Mr Murray’s writings closely since he was dismissed

from the FO for speaking out against British Government policy on torture.

He is clearly in a unique position to provide evidence pertinent to the

committees enquiries and is I believe in possession of documentary evidence

to substantiate his claims.

Were the committee to decline to hear his evidence it might be construed as a

Government ‘cover up’.

I can also highly recommend his latest book. “The Catholic Orangemen of Togo”.

It is very illuminating about the ‘Arms for Africa’ affair and a good read

too.

Yours

Derek Jennings

I’m writing to urge that Craig Murray be given an opportunity to

present evidence on rendition and torture to the parliamentary

enquiry.I have read and listened to some of Craig Murray’s compelling

evidence on this matter and it would be a travesty if an ex ambassador

with his insight was denied an opportunity to present evidence.

Yours sincerely,

Selwyn Wiliams

Senior Lecturer

Education Department

Bangor University

Dear Craig ‘

Have sent an email tp the Parliamentary Committee on Human Rights as follows:

Dear Committee members,

I think it is most important that your committee hears Craig Murray, a former ambassador to Uzbekistan, on the subject of evidence of use of torture there used to produce evidence justifying them being held as terrorist suspects against the western powers, and possibly transported out of the country.

I heard him speak, and believe him to be a creditable witness, and I also have read his book, Murder in Samarkand.

Elaine Miles

Dear Sirs,

I consider it of crucial importance that Craig Murray be allowed to give evidence on the UK government’s secret collusion with the criminal Bush administration policy condoning the use of intelligence gained by torture. Only a rigorous process of investigation and prosecution can save Britain from being permanently stained by this vile, archaic foolishness. You are fortunate that Mr. Murray is willing and able to assist.

Yours faithfully,

A. Strenger Hodson

As someone who as read Craig Murray’s books and as a result gained an amount of respect for what he has to say, I feel for you to listen to what he as to say about UK government involvement in torture will serve multiple purposes.

Firstly it will likely open an avenue of enquiry which others with more to lose would not want to go down. Secondly it will likely furnish your enquriy with more depth and presumably lead to a more satisfactory outcome. And thirdly, it will help convince people like me that government equiries actually have real value, and are not just excuses to hide unpleasant truths.

Your faithfully,

Julian Coombes

Skelmersdale

Lancashire.

Dear Sirs,

Like many others, I am profoundly concerned to learn, while on

research leave abroad, that the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human

Rights decided not to come to an immediate decision on March 3 on

whether to hear the evidence of our former ambassador in Uzbekistan,

Craig Murray, on the UK government’s policy on intelligence obtained

through torture. Given his diplomatic experience, Mr Murray is an

extremely credible witness and a person who has clearly suffered

considerable defamation as a result of his following the dictates of

his conscience. Any evidence on British government collaboration with,

or acquiescence in the routine use of, torture by foreign governments

should be properly and exhaustively scrutinised by parliament. Having

read (and been shocked by) both the concerns that he reported to the

government and the government’s responses to them, I feel that it

would be particularly disturbing if he was not heard. I would

therefore like to add my voice to those urging that the Committee

determine on March 11 that it will hear Craig Murray’s evidence.

Yours sincerely,

John Gledhill

Max Gluckman Professor of Social Anthropology

Co-Director, Centre for Latin American and Caribbean Studies

The University of Manchester

I would like to urge the Joint Committee on Human Rights to give Craig

Murray the opportunity to give evidence to the Committee on what he

knows about the use of information obtained with the use of torture.

Unless his evidence is heard and evaluated any conclusions reached by

the Committee will always be suspect.

Frank Land

Emeritus Professor, Information Systems and Innovation Group London

School of Economics

I hear with disquiet about the likelihood that Craig Murray will be refused

the opportunity to present his evidence on torture to the Parliamentary

Joint Committee on Human Rights.

The present course of government and parliament, ready to sacrifice all in

the interests of some imagined perfect world of ‘security’, is extremely

worrying, and is remarked on around the world. Failure to follow President

Obama’s lead and embrace the possibilities for making a better world are

being closed at every turn for reasons inconceivable to all but an obsessed

few.

I have heard Craig Murray talk, and am myself somewhat acquainted with the

situation he confronted when he was in Uzbekistan. I can only hope that good

sense will prevail, and that this witness to inhumanity will be allowed to

speak where it matters. Whatever his evidence, the reports of all who have

seen torture at first hand must be brought out into the open if it is ever

to end. And any British government complicity in torture, wherever it took

place, needs to be uncovered so that British subjects do not suffer the

eternal shame of what might have been done in their name.

I urge you to hear Murray’s evidence.

Dr Caroline Finkel

It is very important that the evidence of Craig Murray be heard by the committee. Please do ensure that it forms part of the presentations to the committee.

Thank you,

Martha Mundy

Professor of Anthropology

LSE

re Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights.

Craig Murray wishes to offer himself as a witness before the Joint Commission on Human Rights on the subject of the UK government’s policy on intelligence cooperation with torture abroad. Any attempt to ‘blacklist’ him is an affront to so-called democracy in the UK,

J B Robinson

Dear Sir

Having read Craig Murry’s case I urge that you allow him to act as a witness before the Joint Commission on Human Rights on the subject of the UK government’s policy on intelligence cooperation with torture abroad.

I have seen the letter sent by Sir Michael Wood’s describing his legal advice that it was not illegal to receive intelligence got by torture was sent on to Mr Murry in Tashkent and I find it utterly disgusting and inappropriate that the British government has co-opperated with individuals or other state forces to gain evidence and/or intelligence from detainees under torture.

As a British film maker, I have fought against and followed the case of British resident Guantanamo Bay Prison detainee Binyam Mohammed (as supported by British lawyer Clive Stafford Smith). I fully understand the case and position that Mr Murry wishes to give evidence for and how this has implicated the British government as acting in an illegal and immoral manner.

I urge that Craig Murry, British Ambassador in Uzbekistan from 2002 to 2004, be allowed to give evidence before the Parliamentary Joint Commission on Human Rights on the above on the 10th March 2009./

Yours sincerely,

Anthony Bairstow

I am writing in support of Craig Murray’s appeal to be heard by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights.

I have often heard Craig Murray interviewed. I can quite understand the governments desire to exclude him, but I am distressed and confused by the apparent reluctance of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights to hear and to question him.

Regards,

Miles Stuart.

The Chairman and Members of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights

I strongly urge you to accept the offer of Craig Murray, former Ambassador to Uzbekistan, to submit evidence before the Joint Commission on Human Rights concerning the UK government’s policy on intelligence cooperation with torture abroad.

Given his first-hand account and documentary evidence on the subject, to conduct the hearing without him as witness would surely result in the serious undermining of the credibility of the commission.

Whilst reservations may be held by some within the FCO and parliamentary circles about his breaching of the Official Secrets Act, much of the body of his evidence is already documented through his website and two published books, and it therefore deserves the scrutiny of the commission if the matter is to be taken seriously. The importance of understanding our government’s behaviour on the issue of using intelligence from torture and flouting of basic human rights should supersede this and all other concerns.

Yours faithfully,

Gareth Williams,

I am writing to express my abhorence and total disagreement with the view currently held by our government that the use of torture to obtain intelligence is acceptable provided othe people do our dirty work for us. Apart from strong moral objections the practice doesn’t even work!!!.Evidence obtained under torture is totally unreliable and I am appalled that my government condones these medieval practices.

I write to urge the jchr to hear evidence from Craig Murray on March 10. It is essential that such an important witness be allowed to speak. This very grave matter should not be hushed up and swept away . What will future generations think of us?

Yours sincerely

Mary Weston (Mrs)

I am writing to urge that Craig Murray should be allowed to give

evidence to the JCHR session on March 10th.

I followed Craig’s work for several years, in particular since my time

as Acting Programme Director at Amnesty International, and feel I can

vouch for his integrity, consistency and relevance.

The points he wishes to submit with respect to his posting in

Uzbekistan are clearly substantial and relevant to your committee’s

current investigations.

I would be grateful if you would inform me of the committee’s position

on this matter.

Yours sincerely

Dr. Dan McQuillan FRSA

Having served as a member of HM Diplomatic Service in the 1970s and having heard him speak at Chatham House, of which I am a member, I would urge the committee to hear what Craig Murray has to say.

Lawrence F T Smith OBE

Sir/Ms

I understand that on Tuesday 10 March the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights will discuss whether or not to hear the evidence of Craig Murray on the UK government’s policy of using intelligence from torture, having discussed whether to hear his evidence on 3 March but failed to reach a conclusion.

I have read Murray’s book, attended a number of speaking engagements by him and discussed his knowledge with him on two occasions. His knowledge of British Government attitudes and actions in respect of the use of torture for intelligence are both of critical importance and as yet unimpeached but legitimate objection. This is the view of many scholars up and down the country who have reviewed it, and his own narrative and correspondence and compelling. Murray appeared as a witness in person before both the European Parliament and European Council’s enquiries into extraordinary rendition. His evidence was described by the European Council’s Rapporteur, Senator Dick Marty, as “Compelling and valuable”.

That the JCHR is considering whether to hear the evidence is disappointing to all who think that the best way to come to some resolution of some of the worst excesses perpetrated in the name of, but ineffectively for, security is to have a proper and legitimate enquiry. Failure by the appropriate Parliamentary Committee will only strengthen views that it is ineffective and at the behest of a Government and establishment anxious to cover up its lapses in judgement and ethical conduct. It will also strengthen calls for a full public enquiry. The question is not whether the JCHR should hear Murray’s evidence, it is whether it can afford not to. Either the JCHR is interested in Human Rights as fundamental to a civilised society and willing to accept that involves hearing unpalatable truths, or it is a product of lip service to legislation with no credibility to its enquiries. I dearly hope it is the former.

Regards

Paul Reynolds

Centre Director

Centre for Research Ethics and Ethical Deliberation

To the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights:

As a psychologist who has worked with victims of torture from around the world, I ask that you Mr. Craig Murray be allowed to testify at your upcoming hearing. I have followed Mr. Murray’s work from afar, and his courage in speaking out against government collusion in torture is both honorable and heroic. A number of my colleagues found inspiration and hope for the future by the example of Mr. Murray’s public stand against torture.

Our two societies — the United States and the United Kingdom — are struggling to emancipate themselves from the most barbaric of all practices by which a government can exercise its power. Terrible crimes have been and are being done in our names. I look to the the great traditions of the English Parliament, which historically stood against tyranny and executive absolute rule, to make once again a historic stand against the brutality embraced by supposedly democratic governments.

Mr. Murray has a great deal of first hand evidence to offer. He should be called as an important material witness, and all efforts by the executive to exclude him should be rebuffed.

I speak as a clinician to many whose lives were ruined by torture. I am also a scholar, having given a paper at the 2007 meeting of the American Psychological Association on the history of U.S. government-funded research into sensory deprivation during the 1950s-1960s, and the results of that research, which was later used to help shape the abusive detention and interrogation policies of the modern day.

I thank the good members of the Joint Committee for your time.

Yours respectfully,

Jeffrey S. Kaye, Ph.D.

Dear Sir/Madam,

I urge the Joint Committee on Human Rights to call the former British Ambassador Craig Murray to give evidence regarding the British Government’s policy on the torture of terrorist suspects, at your meeting on 10 March. Not to do so would deprive the Committee of the opportunity to hear important evidence calling into question the truth of the Government’s stated public position on this crucial matter, offered by someone with direct experience of the issue in his capacity as the senior British representative in Uzbekistan from 2002 – 04. It is difficult to see how the JCHR can properly carry out its function of scrutinising the Government’s track record with respect to fundamental human rights, or retain any credibility as an independent Parliamentary watchdog, if it closes its ears to critical voices and refuses to consider relevant evidence.

Yours faithfully,

Dr Graham Dawson

Reader in Cultural History

Dear Sir or Madam Chair

I would like to urge you in the strongest possible terms that Mr Craig Murray be allowed to give evidence before your Committee next week. I have heard Mr Murray speak most movingly and with both unalloyed clarity and utmost authority on the issue of torture, extraordinary rendition and the wholesale abuses of human rights that have proliferated since the inception of so-called ‘War on Terror’, launched after that terrorist outrage more popularly, if improperly, known as ‘9/11’.

I have read Murray’s work on Uzbekistan and I would suggest that given the recently publicised, yet long denied, cases of torture having been meted out on UK residents in various locations abroad, apparently with the alleged connivance of the British security services, his voice should most definitely be heard.

I am convinced he has a series of evidentially based observations that will most definitely illumine your Committee’s deliberations on this subject, which, given your undoubted desire to maintain Britain’s standing in the world as the mother of parliaments, as well as to protect the sanctity of our reputation for being inveterate champions of international justice, liberty and fair play, is presently one of greatest possible public concern.

Therefore, I can think of no one more qualified to speak to you at this most critical period in the struggle for the preservation of our human rights and civil liberties, someone who has helped ensure that our long cherished, democratic values are unequivocally upheld at a time when the current UK government has seen fit to drastically curtail our hard won freedoms and to control/ structure the debate around our security by donning the dubious, and by now it must be said, rather tattered cloak of the ‘national interest’, which, in my long experience, is most invariably invoked whenever governments are being less than candid.

Thanking you in anticipation of your most careful consideration of this matter

Yours sincerely

Phil Vellender

To Whom it May Concern,

I am writing to urge the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights to hear evidence from Craig Murray. His evidence and opinions have a provenance in the current public debate that make it imperative that he be heard in this important forum.

Sincerely,

Dr Richard Jackson

Editor, Critical Studies on Terrorism

Department of International Politics, Aberystwyth University

Dear Sir/Madam

I understand the Joint Committee on Human Rights is due to take

evidence on the question of using security intelligence obtained via

torture abroad, and that Mr. Craig Murray, former British Ambassador,

has offered to take part.

It would seem to me that if the UK has accepted intelligence obtained

through torture, or has encouraged torture abroad in order to procure

specific items of evidence, that any session on this topic would be a

waste of time unless these questions can be considered. Since Mr.

Murray would like to give evidence, and since he maintains with good

reason that he can prove that the UK had/has a policy of co-operating

with torturers, I cannot think of a single reason why you may not want

to see him.

I believe that your committee discussed the question of accepting Mr.

Murray as a witness, on 3 March, but were unable to come to a

decision. I am perplexed as to why this could be the case, and would

hope that if you choose not to call him as a witness, that the

official record of the session includes a clear statement as to the

reason why.

Meanwhile, I have read Mr Murray’s written work, and in my view he is

a man of principle and great courage. Whilst there are some people who

clearly would prefer Mr Murray to be excluded from your process, I am

confident that you can overcome those obstacles and I look forward to

reading what comes out of your sessions.

Needless to say, should it come to the attention of the committee that

Members of the Cabinet have actively colluded in torturing people, it

can only be right that those Members are also required to give

evidence, so that justice can be done, can be seen to be done, and can

be seen to apply to everybody equally.

Yours sincerely,

Jonathan Hinks

Birmingham

To whom it may concern,

I would like strongly support the right of Craig Murray to give evidence on the UK government’s policy of

using intelligence from torture at the upcoming meeting of the Joint Committee on Human Rights. This is important evidence that needs to be heard,

yours

Professor Mark McGovern

Edge Hill University

Not to allow Craig Murray’s evidence to inform your considerations would be

like discussing space exploration without listening to the leading space

scientist – and to give in to pressure that it’s part of your responsibility

to resist.

Bob Brecher

Reader in Moral Philosophy

University of Brighton

WITNESS STATEMENT TO THE PARLIAMENTARY JOINT COMMITTEE ON HUMAN RIGHTS

My name is Craig Murray. I was British Ambassador in Uzbekistan from August 2002 to October 2004.

I had joined the Diplomatic Service in 1984 and became a member of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office’s Senior Management Structure in 1998. I had held a variety of posts including Deputy High Commissioner, Accra (1998 to 2001) and First Secretary Political and Economic, Warsaw (1994 to 1997).

I had also been head of the FCO section of the Embargo Surveillance Sector leading up to and during the first Gulf War, monitoring and interdicting Iraqi attempts at weapons procurement. In consequence I had obtained security clearances even higher than those routinely given to all executive members of the Diplomatic Service. I had extensive experience throughout my career of dealing with intelligence material and the intelligence services.

It was made plain to me in briefing in London before initial departure for Tashkent that Uzbekistan was a key ally in the War on Terror and to be treated as such. It was particularly important to the USA who valued its security cooperation and its provision of a major US airbase at Karshi-Khanabad.

As Ambassador in Uzbekistan I regularly received intelligence material released by MI6. This material was given to MI6 by the CIA, mostly originating from their Tashkent station. It was normally issued to me telegraphically by MI6 at the same time it was issued to UK ministers and officials in London.

From the start of my time as Ambassador, I was also receiving a continual stream of information about widespread torture of suspected political or religious dissidents in Tashkent. This was taking place on a phenomenal scale. In early 2003 a report by the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture, in the preparation of which my Embassy much assisted, described torture in Uzbekistan as “routine and systemic”.

The horror and staggering extent of torture in Uzbekistan is well documented and I have been informed by the Chair is not in the purview of the Joint Committee on Human Rights. But what follows goes directly to the question of UK non-compliance with the UN Convention Against Torture.

In gathering evidence from victims of torture, we built a consistent picture of the narrative which the torturers were seeking to validate from confessions under torture. They sought confessions which linked domestic opposition to President Karimov with Al-Qaida and Osama Bin Laden; they sought to exaggerate the strength of the terrorist threat in Central Asia. People arrested on all sorts of pretexts ?” (I recall one involved in a dispute over ownership of a garage plot) suddenly found themselves tortured into confessing to membership of both the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan (IMU) and Al-Qaida. They were also made to confess to attending Al-Qaida training camps in Tajikistan and Afghanistan. In an echo of Stalin’s security services from which the Uzbek SNB had an unbroken institutional descent, they were given long lists of names of people they had to confess were also in IMU and Al-Qaida.

It became obvious to me after just a few weeks that the CIA material from Uzbekistan was giving precisely the same narrative being extracted by the Uzbek torturers ?” and that the CIA “intelligence” was giving information far from the truth.

I was immediately concerned that British ministers and officials were being unknowingly exposed to material derived from torture, and therefore were acting illegally.

I asked my Deputy, Karen Moran, to call on a senior member of the US Embassy and tell him I was concerned that the CIA intelligence was probably derived from torture by the Uzbek security services. Karen Moran reported back to me that the US Embassy had replied that it probably did come from torture, but in the War on Terror they did not view that as a problem.

In October or November of 2002 I sent the FCO a telegram classified Top Secret and addressed specifically for the attention of the Secretary of State. I argued that to receive this material from torture was:

Considering for a second time whether to hear my direct evidence of conscious UK government complicy in torture, on Tuesday 10 March the joint human rights committee decided to postpone a decision again. At the same time they decided to rebuke me for questioning their motives and integrity.

This is the text of the letter from Andrew Dismore MP, Chairman of the JCHR:

BEGINS

Request to give oral evidence to the Committee

Dear Mr Murray

Thank you for writing to the Committee to offer to give oral evidence about the allegations of UK complicity in torture abroad. The material you sent has been circulated to Members of the Committee, who have now had time to discuss your request fully.

Select committees usually request oral evidence from some of the individuals and organisations who have submitted detailed written memoranda, which form the basis for the questioning and can be made available to the public and the press at the start of the evidence session. In your case, it would be helpful if you could expand on the bullet points that you have already submitted and set out in more detail the case you wish to put across to us. Written evidence should not exceed 2,500 words and we would ask you to supply us with a signed hard copy as well as an electronic version, preferably in Word.

In preparing your memorandum you should be aware of the Committee’s terms of reference, which relate to human rights in the UK and which encompass the compliance of public bodies (including the intelligence and security services) operating overseas with the UK’s human rights obligations.

Our starting point for this inquiry is that the Security Service and the Secret Intelligence Service are both public bodies for the purposes of the Human Rights Act and its agents are required to act in accordance with the Act. In addition, the agencies should comply with the provisions of the UN Convention Against Torture (UNCAT). Our 2006 report on UNCAT (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/jt200506/jtselect/jtrights/185/18502.htm) includes sections on cooperation with foreign intelligence agencies and complicity in torture and abuse (paras 52-60) which are relevant to our current inquiry.

We are not able to consider the policies and activities of other countries in relation to the treatment of detainees. This would be a matter for the House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee.

If you have any questions about submitting written evidence to the Committee, I suggest that you contact the Commons Clerk, Mark Egan, with whom you have already been in correspondence.

Finally, the comments you published about the Committee on your website last week were intemperate, unjustified and untrue. I have already drawn your attention to the Committee’s report on UNCAT, which clearly demonstrates that we have consistently sought to hold the Government to account on torture. I would also like to draw your attention to the membership of the Committee (http://www.parliament.uk/parliamentary_committees/joint_committee_on_human_rights/joint_committee_on_human_rights_members.cfm): not only are there no Whips on the Committee, but Labour members are in the minority. The Committee deprecates your comments and hopes that you will take a more constructive attitude towards our work from now on.

We will publish this letter on our website (http://www.parliament.uk/parliamentary_committees/joint_committee_on_human_rights/tortureiniraq.cfm) and I expect that you will do likewise. I would be grateful if you could direct readers of your website to this letter so that those who have emailed the Committee about your evidence can see my response. We are unable to reply individually to everyone who has emailed the Committee.

Yours sincerely,

SENT UNSIGNED

ANDREW DISMORE MP

Chair, Joint Committee on Human Rights

I telephoned the Committee Clerk to check what this meant. He confirmed that I have to submit a further memorandum of up to 2,500 words. Only after receipt of that memorandum will the Committee consider – again – whether to accept my evidence.

I had of course already submitted,this memorandum, with attachments:

BEGINS

I wish to offer myself as a witness before the Joint Commission on Human Rights on the subject of the UK government’s policy on intelligence cooperation with torture abroad.

I appeared as a witness in person before both the European Parliament and European Council’s enquiries into extraordinary rendition. My evidence was described by the European Council’s Rapporteur, Senator Dick Marty, as “Compelling and valuable”.

The key points I wish to make are these:

– I was British Ambassador in Uzbekistan from 2002 to 2004.

– I learned and confirmed that I was regularly seeing intelligence from detainees in the Uzbek torture chambers, sent me by the CIA via MI6.

– British Ministers and officials were seeing the same torture material.

– In October/November 2002 and January/Februray 2003 I sent two Top Secret telegrams to London specifically on the subject of our receipt of intelligence gained under torture. I argued this was illegal, immoral and impractical. The telegrams were speciifically marked for the Secretary of State.

– I was formally summoned back to the FCO for a meeting held on 7 or 8 March 2003 specifically and solely on the subject of intelligence gained under torture. Present were Linda Duffield, Director Wider Europe, FCO, Sir Michael Wood, Chief Legal Adviser, FCO, and Matthew Kydd, Head of Permanent Under-Secretary’s Department, FCO.

– This meeting was minuted. I have seen the record, which is classified Top Secret and was sent to Jack Straw. On the top copy are extensive hand-written marginalia giving Jack Straw’s views.

– I was told at this meeting that it is not illegal for us to obtain intelligence gained by torture, provided that we did not do the torture ourselves. I was told that it had been decided that as a matter of War on Terror policy we should now obtain intelligence from torture, following discussion between Jack Straw and Richard Dearlove. I was told that we could not exclude receipt of specific material from the CIA without driving a coach and horses through the universality principle of the UK/US intelligence sharing agreement, which would be detrimental to UK interests.

– Sir Michael Wood’s legal advice that it was not illegal to receive intelligence got by torture was sent on to me in Tashkent (copy attached).

https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/documents/Wood.pdf–

On 22 July 2004 I sent one further telegram on intelligence got by torture, with a lower classification, following FCO communications on the subject. Copy attached.

https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/documents/Telegram.pdf

It was my final communication before being dismissed as Ambassador.

In conclusion, I can testify that beyond any doubt the British government has for at least six years a considered but secret policy of cooperation with torture abroad. This policy legally cleared by government legal advisers and approved by Jack Straw as Secretary of State.

Craig Murray

2 March 2009

Frankly my statement of 2 March seems to me concise, damning and to answer the exact questions that the Committee is supposed to be investigating. I cannot understand the lengthy passages in Andrew Dismore’s letter which appear to imply that my evidence is about a foreign country and not about the UK’s human rights compliance. I do not see how my evidence can go further to the heart of the subjects Dismore says the committee is supposed to be investigating.

Anyway, I will jump through the hoops and expand my above evidence into a memorandum which will say exactly the same thing.

Then the committee can discuss a third time whether to accept my evidence.

[Comments are enabled again. Apologies we were suffering the most massive spam attack involving many tens of thousands of items of spam. Many comments blocked today are not retrievable so please post again. Thanks]

On Tuesday 10 March the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights will discuss whether or not to hear my evidence on the UK government’s policy of using intelligence from torture. They discussed whether to hear my evidence on 3 March but failed to reach a conclusion.

The government is lobbying hard for my exclusion. I need everybody to send an email to [email protected] to urge that I should be allowed to give evidence. Just a one-liner would be fine. If you are able to add some comment on the import of my evidence, or indicate that you have heard me speak or read my work, that may help. Please copy your email to [email protected].

Please also pass on this plea to anyone you can and urge them to act. Help from other bloggers in posting this appeal would be much appreciated.

The evidence I am trying to give the parliamentary committee is this:

I wish to offer myself as a witness before the Joint Commission on Human Rights on the subject of the UK government’s policy on intelligence cooperation with torture abroad.

I appeared as a witness in person before both the European Parliament and European Council’s enquiries into extraordinary rendition. My evidence was described by the European Council’s Rapporteur, Senator Dick Marty, as “Compelling and valuable”.

The key points I wish to make are these:

– I was British Ambassador in Uzbekistan from 2002 to 2004.

– I learned and confirmed that I was regularly seeing intelligence from detainees in the Uzbek torture chambers, sent me by the CIA via MI6.

– British Ministers and officials were seeing the same torture material.

– In October/November 2002 and January/Februray 2003 I sent two Top Secret telegrams to London specifically on the subject of our receipt of intelligence gained under torture. I argued this was illegal, immoral and impractical. The telegrams were speciifically marked for the Secretary of State.

– I was formally summoned back to the FCO for a meeting held on 7 or 8 March 2003 specifically and solely on the subject of intelligence gained under torture. Present were Linda Duffield, Director Wider Europe, FCO, Sir Michael Wood, Chief Legal Adviser, FCO, and Matthew Kydd, Head of Permanent Under-Secretary’s Department, FCO.

– This meeting was minuted. I have seen the record, which is classified Top Secret and was sent to Jack Straw. On the top copy are extensive hand-written marginalia giving Jack Straw’s views.

– I was told at this meeting that it is not illegal for us to obtain intelligence gained by torture, provided that we did not do the torture ourselves. I was told that it had been decided that as a matter of War on Terror policy we should now obtain intelligence from torture, following discussion between Jack Straw and Richard Dearlove. I was told that we could not exclude receipt of specific material from the CIA without driving a coach and horses through the universality principle of the UK/US intelligence sharing agreement, which would be detrimental to UK interests.

– Sir Michael Wood’s legal advice that it was not illegal to receive intelligence got by torture was sent on to me in Tashkent (copy attached).

https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/documents/Wood.pdf– On 22 July 2004

I sent one further telegram on intelligence got by torture, with a lower classification, following FCO communications on the subject. Copy attached.

https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/documents/Telegram.pdf

It was my final communication before being dismissed as Ambassador.

In conclusion, I can testify that beyond any doubt the British government has for at least six years a considered but secret policy of cooperation with torture abroad. This policy legally cleared by government legal advisers and approved by Jack Straw as Secretary of State.

Craig Murray

2 March 2009

I have received this reply from the Parliamentary Joint Human Rights Commission to my request to give evidence to them:

Dear Mr Murray

Mark Egan

How typical. The Commission has been huffing and puffing and pretending to make a fuss about finding the truth behind the government’s attitude to intelligence from torture, with particular relation to the Binyam Mohammed case. This is part of the cosy Westminster game. But when someone comes along who can actually tell the truth, with documentary backing to prove it, they don’t really want to know – in fact their first instinct is to bury the truth.

The politicians will be seeking advice now from their political masters, and the government spin machine will yet again go into overdrive. The wires from Whitehall to Westminster and thw whips offices are already whispering yet again that Craig Murray is mad, alcoholic, corrupt and a pervert. Not the sort of chap you should take evidence from.

The government has had all those things published about me since I started fighting their use of torture. All of those things are lies.

But even if they were all true, I can nonetheless prove from documentary evidence and first hand testimony that the government systematically and as a matter of policy obtains evidence from torture abroad.

Why will parliament not hear me?

Yesterday Harriet Harman was lying through her teeth on the Andrew Marr show, claiming that the Government had never had any idea any of its intelligence was coming through torture. Meanwhile, the Government has refused to testify on this subject before the Parliamentary Joint Commission on Human Rights, where such lies may have consequences. If Harman is telling the truth, what do Ministers have to hide from the Parliamentary Commission?

Of course, she is not telling the truth. I today sent this memorandum to the Joint Commission on Human Rights, offering to give evidence before them – if Ministers won’t tell them what is happening, perhaps I can:

I wish to offer myself as a witness before the Joint Commission on Human Rights on the subject of the UK government’s policy on intelligence cooperation with torture abroad.

I appeared as a witness in person before both the European Parliament and European Council’s enquiries into extraordinary rendition. My evidence was described by the European Council’s Rapporteur, Senator Dick Marty, as “Compelling and valuable”.

The key points I wish to make are these:

– I was British Ambassador in Uzbekistan from 2002 to 2004.

– I learned and confirmed that I was regularly seeing intelligence from detainees in the Uzbek torture chambers, sent me by the CIA via MI6.

– British Ministers and officials were seeing the same torture material.

– In October/November 2002 and January/Februray 2003 I sent two Top Secret telegrams to London specifically on the subject of our receipt of intelligence gained under torture. I argued this was illegal, immoral and impractical. The telegrams were speciifically marked for the Secretary of State.

– I was formally summoned back to the FCO for a meeting held on 7 or 8 March 2003 specifically and solely on the subject of intelligence gained under torture. Present were Linda Duffield, Director Wider Europe, FCO, Sir Michael Wood, Chief Legal Adviser, FCO, and Matthew Kydd, Head of Permanent Under-Secretary’s Department, FCO.

– This meeting was minuted. I have seen the record, which is classified Top Secret and was sent to Jack Straw. On the top copy are extensive hand-written marginalia giving Jack Straw’s views.

– I was told at this meeting that it is not illegal for us to obtain intelligence gained by torture, provided that we did not do the torture ourselves. I was told that it had been decided that as a matter of War on Terror policy we should now obtain intelligence from torture, following discussion between Jack Straw and Richard Dearlove. I was told that we could not exclude receipt of specific material from the CIA without driving a coach and horses through the universality principle of the UK/US intelligence sharing agreement, which would be detrimental to UK interests.

– Sir Michael Wood’s legal advice that it was not illegal to receive intelligence got by torture was sent on to me in Tashkent (copy attached).

https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/documents/Wood.pdf

– On 22 July 2004 I sent one further telegram on intelligence got by torture, with a lower classification, following FCO communications on the subject. Copy attached.

https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/documents/Telegram.pdf

It was my final communication before being dismissed as Ambassador.

In conclusion, I can testify that beyond any doubt the British government has for at least six years a considered but secret policy of cooperation with torture abroad. This policy legally cleared by government legal advisers and approved by Jack Straw as Secretary of State.

Craig Murray

2 March 2009

So now I wait to see what response I get. The Foreign Affairs Committee refused to call me to give evidence, and I rather fear that the Joint Commission on Human Rights may continue the British parliamentary tradition of ostracising whistleblowers.

Please click on home at top to see latest post on how you can help.

David Miliband was making great show today of fulminating in Kiev against Russian disregard of international law. Yet simultaneously he is continuing the sorry British record of participation in war crimes and contravention of the UN Convention Against Torture, Article IV of which covers “complicity” in torture. Both of these are serious breaches of international law.

Binyam Mohamed is a British resident who was the victim of illegal rendition and hideous torture in several countries.

Miliband has declined to release further evidence about the case on grounds of national security, arguing that disclosure would harm Britain’s intelligence relationship with the US.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/aug/27/guantanamo.humanrights

Mohamed faces a “Trial” by military tribunal in Guantanamo Bay. Judges, defence and prosecution lawyers are all members of the US military. Neither Mohamed not his defence lawyers will be allowed to see much of the evidence against him. This includes evidence of participation in his torture by British security services, and details of where he was being held and interrogated over two years (Uzbekistan? Afghanistan? Poland? Diego Garcia? – Miliband is keeping it secret). By the symmetry of evil, UK evidence is being witheld on grounds it could damage security cooperation with the US, while US evidence is being witheld on the grounds it could damage security cooperation with the UK. This farce is sickening.

It was, of course, the excuse that security cooperation with Saudi Arabia would be damaged that led to the dropping of the prosecution of the vile corrupt executives at BAE. The operations of the security services are, beyond any shade of argument, above the law both sides of the Atlantic.

When I threw over my diplomatic career to expose the hideous UK/CIA complicity with torture in Uzbekistan, I genuinely believed that my personal sacrifice would form part of a movement which would end this abomination being carried out in our names. In fact, the Bush/Blair acolytes have pushed further to the point that poor Binyan Mohamed faces a fate that would have been beyond the pen of Kafka.

Never mind, let’s divert the public by pointing at those evil Russians!

Amnesty International has accused European governments, including Ireland and the UK, of complicity and inaction over US-led rendition and secret detention, as it published a new report on European renditions and a ‘Six-point Plan’ for their prevention.

Amnesty International’s report, ‘State of denial: Europe’s role in rendition and secret detention’, published yesterday, shed further light on the extent of Europe’s role in the US-led rendition and secret detention programmes. It also exposes the continuing failure of European states, including Ireland, to admit or investigate violations carried out by their nationals or on their territory.

From The Washington Post

A senior CIA lawyer advised Pentagon officials about the use of harsh interrogation techniques on detainees at Guantanamo Bay in a meeting in late 2002, defending waterboarding and other methods as permissible despite U.S. and international laws banning torture, according to documents released yesterday by congressional investigators.

Torture “is basically subject to perception,” CIA counterterrorism lawyer Jonathan Fredman told a group of military and intelligence officials gathered at the U.S.-run detention camp in Cuba on Oct. 2, 2002, according to minutes of the meeting. “If the detainee dies, you’re doing it wrong.” …

A Professor at University College London, Philippe Sands, has revealed that top echelons in the Bush administration put pressure on officials at Guantanamo Bay detention camp to devise new torture techniques. These actions flouted the Geneva conventions protecting prisoners’ human rights. This information is revealed in a new book ‘Torture Team‘ published by Allen Lane.

(UCL) Through candid interviews with, among others, the head of interrogation and the staff judge advocate at Guantanamo, Professor Sands reveals the true circumstances in which US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld approved new and aggressive interrogation techniques in December 2002 that reneged on principles for the conduct of interrogation laid down by Abraham Lincoln almost 150 years previously. The decision involved the administration’s most senior lawyers.

The move was designed to extract information from a single detainee, suspected of being the 20th hijacker involved in the September 2001 attacks on the United States, who had been held in isolation for four months. However, it has led governments around the world to justify increasingly cruel methods in an effort to acquire information ?” methods that have proved no more effective than standard interrogation approaches, according to Professor Sands’s research. Professor Sands found that the popularity of the fictional television drama ’24’ among the top level of the US government, which featured successful use of cruel techniques to gather intelligence, was a factor in the decision.

In an interview with the ‘Guardian’, Professor Sands said: “Since 1863, the US military had forborne the use of cruelty in relation to any person at any time. It’s a historic and marked change of direction. [… ] In relation to Guantanamo, decision-making went to the highest levels of the administration: the vice-president’s lawyer and the president’s lawyer were directly involved. [… ] Popular culture astonishingly played into individual decision-making on the ground at Guantanamo. The fact that the US has moved to these techniques is deeply disturbing; it has vitally undermined American moral authority and has made it much more difficult to promote the rule of law and human rights internationally.”

Unsubscribe