Straw: Britain cannot ignore evidence obtained by torture

[struggle4progress]

Straw: Britain cannot ignore evidence obtained by torture

Straw: Britain cannot ignore evidence obtained by torture
By Colin Brown, Deputy Political Editor
11 March 2005

Britain cannot ignore the intelligence gained by America from prisoners who were tortured, Jack Straw has told a committee of MPs.

The Foreign Secretary said torture was "completely unacceptable" to the Government but, in a letter to senior MPs investigating prisoner abuse, Mr Straw said Britain faced a "moral hazard" over using US intelligence gained from prisoners who may have been abused. <snip>

They found that officers from the Secret Intelligence Service, MI6, were twice involved in questioning Iraqi detainees who were hooded in breach of the conventions and UK rules. <snip>

One intelligence officer who encountered ill-treatment of prisoners by the US reported back to his superiors in London about the abuse in 2002. The SIS responded by issuing a warning to its officers that they could face criminal action in the UK, if they breached the Geneva Conventions but they did not order officers to raise the complaints with local US commanders. <snip>

MI6 officers broke law by interrogating hooded Iraqis

By Philip Johnston, Home Affairs Editor
(Filed: 11/03/2005)

MI6 officers interrogated hooded prisoners in Iraq in contravention of both international law and the long-standing policy of the British Government, it was disclosed yesterday.

An inquiry conducted by Parliament's intelligence and security committee found that the officers involved were not aware of any rules against the hooding of suspects even though the technique was specifically forbidden as long ago as 1972.<snip>

The report said these were the only instances of maltreatment by British intelligence officers in more than 2,000 interrogations conducted in Afghanistan, Iraq and Guantanamo Bay.

However, they witnessed 15 occasions when prisoners were not treated properly by American or other captors under the Geneva Convention. British officers raised concerns several times about the treatment of prisoners with American authorities but these were not properly followed up. <snip>

US 'ignored' MI6 agents' concerns over prisoners

JAMES KIRKUP

<snip> The intelligence and security committee of MPs and peers, which has access to confidential intelligence, yesterday revealed that British agents expressed their concerns about the treatment of prisoners held in Afghanistan following the 2001 war there, and in postwar Iraq. In total, five incidents were reported by MI5 and MI6 officers in Afghanistan, concerned about American treatment of prisoners. Only in one case, in Iraq, did the US authorities alter their treatment of detainees. <snip>

UK should have probed US prisoner abuse

By Peter Graff

LONDON (Reuters) - <snip> But it concluded that officials did not do enough to pursue reports of possible misdeeds by their allies. <snip>

"We have reported that on a number of occasions, when UK officials informed the U.S. authorities of their concerns, these were not fully followed up by the UK. All such reports should be followed up by the UK authorities and, so far as it is within their power, fully investigated," it said on Thursday. <snip>

Greens fail in bid for torture inquiry

PM - Thursday, 10 March , 2005 18:40:00
Reporter: Kim Landers
MARK COLVIN: The Greens have failed in an attempt to set up a Senate inquiry into claims of Australian involvement in the torture of terror suspects overseas.

Former Guantanamo Bay detainee Mamdouh Habib says an Australian official stood by and watched as he was tortured in Pakistan.

Greens Leader Bob Brown wanted the inquiry to investigate the practice of transferring people to countries which allow torture.

But as Kim Landers reports from Canberra, the inquiry won't be going ahead because neither Labor nor the Government will support it. <snip>

[VegasWolf]

1. Regardless of the pleas of please god no no more tortrure. I tell you

ANYTHING you want to HEAR.

[merwin]

2. If they really thought it was bad, they wouldn't support it by using the

intel gained by it.

[Maple]

3. Evidence obtained by torture

isn't likely to be reliable anyway.

People will tell you anything you want to hear in order to stop the pain.

It's why we gave up torturing people...back in the Middle Ages.

At least we were supposed to have.

[Lautremont]

4. The "moral hazard" they face

is from providing implicit approval of torture.

[blogbear]

5. Have things really changed that much in the West..

since the time of Joan of Arc?

[seriousstan]

6. I am confused, there is an equal number of

"the information isn't reliable" and "the moral impetus is on us not to use it". I would think the first would negate the second. But is the second reason contradicting the first?

The case is somewhat like the "Nazi human experiment results" arguments. Should doctors use the info from Nazi criminal scientists to further the treatment of people with frostbite, wounds and burns?(I refuse to get more graphic) I think they should use any info they deem reliable to save lives. That is one of the first responsibilities of government.