Home -> Law Blog Directory -> International Law Blogs -> prisonlawinsideout

International Law

: prisonlawinsideout

Jack Straw condoned CIA torture of suspected terrorists

By John Hirst

Jack Straw condoned CIA torture of suspected terrorists

I watched a very uncomfortable looking Jack Straw, the Minister of Justice and former Foreign Secretary, sitting beside David Miliband, the present Foreign Secretary, as he read out his statement to the House of Commons, belatedly admitting that the government had knowledge that the CIA had used the UK to facilitate its "state-sponsored abduction" programme.

Jack Straw was clearly embarrassed, and so he should be, because he holds a closely guarded secret. That is, as Foreign Secretary, he actually condoned the use of torture by the CIA on suspected terrorists. He knew it was going on and did nothing to stop it. What is not yet clear is whether he authorised it or whether he simply allowed it to go on unchallenged. It has emerged that Jack Straw had knowledge at least as early as December 2005, because in a leaked internal Foreign Office Memo it states: "the British Government intends to take the following approach to the problem: extraordinary renditions are usually illegal, but complete confidence should be placed in the assurances provided by Ms Condoleezza Rise during her trip to Europe". Don't ask because we don't really want to know what is happening.

Long before rendition (which was usually legal) and the move to extraordinary-rendition which is illegal, between the 1970s and 1990s H.M. Prison Service operated the "Ghost Train" by which particular prisoners who were posing a control problem in the Dispersal System were temporarily transferred to Local Prisons and once there they would get a kicking-in by prison officers and the prison officers in the Dispersal Prisons would claim that it was nothing to do with them. They could not get away with it in the Dispersal Prisons because the long-term prisoners would have rioted. This is similar to extraordinary-rendition. For the suspects, with the rendition policy: "They would be read their rights, given lawyers, and put on trial". In contrast, the policy of extraordinary-rendition was designed to circumvent the due process of law. The suspects get no rights, no lawyers, no trial, and are tortured to boot.

"While it is against US law to take anyone to a country where there are "substantial grounds" for believing they will be tortured, those officials are said to have relied upon a very precise reading of that term, arguing that they could not be sure whether suspects would be tortured or not".

So, the CIA devise a policy to circumvent the due process of the law. Abduct suspects and arrange for the "ghost planes" to fly them to countries where they know beyond all reasonable doubt that they will be subjected to torture, because that is the whole purpose of the policy, and then claim that they cannot be sure whether suspects would be tortured or not? You cannot be surer than 100% positive. This leaves no room for any lingering doubt. The CIA asked the Clinton administration for permission to do this and "They said, 'Do it'". Post 9/11 the Bush administration allowed it to continue and even more suspects became subject to this abuse.

It comes down to this, Jack Straw as Foreign Secretary, allowed it to go on unchecked. Therefore, he condoned the use of torture on his watch. As the Minister responsible to Parliament and ultimately the electorate, he has been caught bang to rights. In this statement it is claimed that the CIA did not ask for Jack Straw's permission. It has already been established that Jack Straw ordered his officials not to ask. In this case, it is arguable that his silence amounted to consent. So, not only did Jack Straw condone the use of torture he also consented to its use. In my view, Jack Straw cannot and should not remain as Minister of Justice. At the very least he has turned a blind eye to a grave injustice. This is incompatible with his current role in the government. Either he should resign immediately or Gordon Brown should sack him from the Cabinet.

Full post as published by prisonlawinsideout on February 22, 2008 (boomark / email).