Article
MI5's propaganda own-goal
The head of the security service is denouncing the media for simply reporting the judicial truth of its complicity in torture
A matter of trust: Jonathan Evans, director general of MI5, addressing the Society of Editors annual conference in Manchester, 2007. Photograph: Wire/PA
An extraordinary spectacle is being played out with the head of MI5 denouncing the media – and implicitly three of the country's most senior judges – for reporting that officers in the security service were complicit in "at the very least cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment" of Binyam Mohamed, a British resident, by the CIA.
The MI5 boss, Jonathan Evans, in an article in today's Daily Telegraph, referred to "conspiracy theory and caricature", and to allegations that his organisation has been trying to "cover up" its activities. "That is the opposite of the truth," he wrote. It stems from an attempt, so far successful, by the government's counsel, Jonathan Sumption QC, to suppress damning criticism of MI5 in the draft judgment of Master of the Rolls Lord Neuberger, endorsed by three appeal court judges in the Binyam Mohamed case.
In a letter to Neuberger, Sumption complained that the draft suggests MI5 officers "deliberately misled" parliament's Intelligence and Security Committee, the ISC, shared a "culture of suppression" and "does not in fact operate a culture that respects human rights". In what Neuberger admits was an "over hasty" response he immediately cut the offending paragraph, a move being challenged by lawyers for Mohamed, Liberty, Justice, Index on Censorship, the Guardian, the Times, the BBC, and other media.
The criticism of MI5 – to which Evans and the home secretary, Alan Johnson, responded in remarkably intemperate language today – came not from the media, as they suggest, but from a senior judge, supported by two others. It is based on evidence, including 42 unpublished CIA documents, collected over the past 18 months by two high court judges and described in six separate judgments.
Their judgments are strongly critical of David Miliband, the foreign secretary. They show how MI5 withheld evidence from the ISC, contrary to claims made by its chairman, former foreign office minister,, Kim Howells. "We can ask for absolutely any classified material we want to see and we do it all the time," Howells said. The trouble is he does not know what to ask for.
It was clear from the evidence "that the relationship of the UK government to the US authorities in connection with Mohamed was far beyond that of a bystander or witness to the alleged wrongdoing", the high court judges said. Only last summer, well over a year after the hearings began, did MI5 officers provide fresh evidence revealing the extent to which MI5 co-operated with the CIA in Mohamed's interrogations, including sending a list of 70 questions he should be asked, while the CIA passed back Mohamed's answers.
Evans expressed the hope in his article that the US will not now be "less ready" to share vital intelligence with Britain. The same concerns, repeatedly expressed by Miliband during the hearings, were dismissed by the appeal court as "logically incoherent and therefore irrational". While the political and security establishment hits out at the British judiciary and media over revealing sensitive information, the facts of the case were laid out already in a US court that accepted as true detailed allegations of Mohamed being "physically and psychologically tortured". The US judge added: "His genitals were mutilated. He was deprived of sleep and food."
Rather than focusing on accusations of cover-ups, Evans and MI5 should address the more profound failings. Evans' argument suggests that the media reporting the findings of senior judges is dangerous, helping our enemies use "propaganda" to undermine our ability to confront them. Better to remember the government's more traditional argument: it is the failure to uphold our values, and the law, that is the greatest propaganda own-goal.
Related Content
User Comments
nottingberry
12 February 2010 6:26PM
It's alarming the way in which past and serving members of the government and intelligence services are increasingly accusing the public and media of an obsession with "conspiracy". Tony Blair expressed this in his interview with Fox News after his appearance at the Chilcot Inquiry. Rather than the Chilcot Inquiry being an attempt to get to the truth of Britain's involvement in the Iraq invasion and to restore some trust in government, in the fact of evasion, concealment and double-speak, Chilcot is portrayed as the latest in a series of inquries that panders to the public's appetite for finding conspiracy where there is none. Then Miliband made similar accusations in media interviews after the reducted seven paras on Binyam Mohamed's treatment had to be revealed. Now we find the head of MI5 echoing this in his article, vocally backed up by Home Secretary Alan Johnson - who tatlks of the media's "luidcrous lies" - and chairman of the parliamentary Intelligence and Security committee Kim Howells.
To be treated in this way by Blair, Miliband, Evans et al is an insult to the intelligence (no pun intended) of the public. Oh well, roll on voting day. Being shown the "human face" of Brown courtesy of Piers Morgan counts for very little in the face of these repeated kickings.
FuriusCamillus
12 February 2010 6:28PM
I'm surprised that anyone's surprised that MI5 does this. What did people imagine goes on in interrogations? A few hands of bridge and a cup of tea?
Heiland
12 February 2010 6:28PM
Wasn't it always thus with New Labour?To them the judiciary is an inconvenient obstacle to their assault on civil liberties. They have to peretuate the myth of the threat of terror in order to lull a supine public ipinion into accepting even more draconian measures against any form of dissent.
Secrecy and the illusion of our lilywhite boys battling against bearded extremists is part of the package.
Miliband, Straw and the rest are the ones who should be in the dock.
wotever
12 February 2010 6:37PM
Jonathan Evans, in an article in today's Daily Telegraph, referred to "conspiracy theory and caricature"
????????
I think we really need to question the character of Mr Evans, and his suitability for his job if he cannot judge the mood of country.
Why does not simply call for the arrest of the judges? We seem to have every other characteristic of a tin pot banana republic, I suppose that's the next logical step.
monstera
12 February 2010 6:38PM
'If you've nothing to hide, you've nothing to fear' is only for the little people.
savethewhale
12 February 2010 6:38PM
The more denials the more ludicrous this is becoming. Its time for all those involved to come clean and stop treating the public as gullible idiots who are not alarmed by our complicity in torture..
casestudy26
12 February 2010 6:48PM
FuriusCamillus
So that makes it OK then? Obviously this is a big joke to you. Spare a thought for Shaker Aamar who is probably being beaten by our "special relationship" buddies while you read these words.
ClaireMcW
12 February 2010 6:49PM
BeautifulBurnout
12 Feb 2010, 6:14PM
Contributor ContributorThe key to this all was contained in the High Court ruling of 4th Feb 09 at para 20
As regards this, we note that s.52 of the International Criminal Court Act 2001 (set out at paragraph 77 of our first judgment) provides that a prosecution can be brought against a person who aids and abets a war crime (or assists in concealing a war crime) in the United Kingdom or against a United Kingdom national or resident who so acts anywhere in the world. A war crime is defined to include grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions of 1949 such as torture or inhuman treatment.
Does this mean we can look forward to seeing David Milliband being prosecuted for assisting in concealing a war crime?
Every single interview I've seen him do on this topic makes me cringe.
Streatham
12 February 2010 6:50PM
FuriusCamillus
I'm surprised that anyone's surprised that MI5 does this. What did people imagine goes on in interrogations? A few hands of bridge and a cup of tea?
Oo-ar, what a tough guy. Morally bankrupt, but still a tough guy.
ClaireMcW
12 February 2010 6:51PM
FuriusCamillus
12 Feb 2010, 6:28PM
I'm surprised that anyone's surprised that MI5 does this. What did people imagine goes on in interrogations? A few hands of bridge and a cup of tea?
I didn't think it involved razor blades to the genitals.
freewoman
12 February 2010 6:53PM
It is not the job of a judge to consider the need to intelligence share. We need to intelligence share. We do not have the option to go it alone.The needs of national security outweigh nit picking human rights.
Stupid article of the usual bash anything British type. This is the sort of propaganda Evans was talking about. The self destructive anti British Left. Can't wait to see the back of the lot of them.
oldonmk2
12 February 2010 6:56PM
OIL: the one word never to be uttered in connection with terrorist, Afghanistan Iran and Iraq. All these deaths and torture over OIL and yankee hubris.
Torture has been a routine procedure by the United States, as has the slaughter of civilians, who then become "terrorists", or the corpses thereof.
Just look at the treatment of the Vietnamese! [ My Lai anyone]
Remember the Iraqi prison, where the US army guards thought torture and humiliation so acceptable that they took photos to show at home! These men and women were National Guard [=T.A] whose civilian occupations were prison guards. Hence the horror stories of treatment in US prisons.
Perhaps we should pull out of Afghanistan NOW! The EU should quit Nato en bloc and clear US bases out of Europe.
Buckenheimer
12 February 2010 6:56PM
beautifulburnout
A war crime is defined to include grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions of 1949 such as torture or inhuman treatment.
I don`t remember anybody being tortured. So there goes that little argument.
oldonmk2
12 February 2010 6:56PM
OIL: the one word never to be uttered in connection with terrorist, Afghanistan Iran and Iraq. All these deaths and torture over OIL and yankee hubris.
Torture has been a routine procedure by the United States, as has the slaughter of civilians, who then become "terrorists", or the corpses thereof.
Just look at the treatment of the Vietnamese! [ My Lai anyone]
Remember the Iraqi prison, where the US army guards thought torture and humiliation so acceptable that they took photos to show at home! These men and women were National Guard [=T.A] whose civilian occupations were prison guards. Hence the horror stories of treatment in US prisons.
Perhaps we should pull out of Afghanistan NOW! The EU should quit Nato en bloc and clear US bases out of Europe.
gryff
12 February 2010 6:58PM
BeautifulBurnout wrote:
Now. Hands up all you MI5 agents who are going to admit to complicity with or collusion in torture?
That is why I wrote yesterday: I await the case against Witness B - or will that be suppressed (in the interests of security if course).
And of course, as ClaireMcW suggests, how far up the ... er chain ... it might go.
gryff :)
casestudy26
12 February 2010 7:00PM
freewoman:
The needs of national security outweigh nit picking human rights.
Oh dear! here lies the problem freewoman believes that our citizens are worth less than protecting misdeeds done to our citizens. How twisted!
Streatham
12 February 2010 7:00PM
freewoman
The self destructive anti British Left. Can't wait to see the back of the lot of them.
As in 'disappear' them I assume you mean from your history of posting.
BeautifulBurnout
12 February 2010 7:01PM
savethewhale
They can't come clean. They have arguably committed an offence which is indictable at The Hague.
There will be no admissions, no hints, nothing. They will have to be dragged kicking and screaming by the hair.
Why do you think Miliband was so utterly determined to keep this information out of the public domain with his pathetic lie that it would affect the relationship between the US and the UK in terms of intelligence-sharing when it has already been declared by a US court that BM has been tortured (the US not being signatories to the International Criminal Court, of course, so not much to fear - as well as having the American Service Members Protection Act - known jokingly as the Invasion of the Hague Act to ensure that American Service personnel are not indicted - and thus having nothing to fear from the ICC at all).
The UK, on the other hand, is a signatory to the ICC and anyone involved in collusion with torture can be liable to indictment.
There must be some people shitting themselves about all this...
focus29
12 February 2010 7:03PM
If this is the reaction of government which was supposed to bring in "ethical foreign policy" and "respect for human rights" then I really do fear for the future.
This judge has released documents which show the MI5 in its true light. That is UK government and its agencies are more than happy to comply with what ever USA and its agencies wish to have. Human rights are for countries like Iraq, Afghanistan and Iran when we wish to invade and threaten them.
The judge in this case had better watch out, remember what happened to Dr Kelly when he challenged the government its wholly true Iraq "dossier"?
BeautifulBurnout
12 February 2010 6:14PM
The key to this all was contained in the High Court ruling of 4th Feb 09 at para 20
Now. Hands up all you MI5 agents who are going to admit to complicity with or collusion in torture?
No?
Nobobdy?
I wonder why?....