Category Archives: Britain

Britain, Government, Human Rights, Intelligence, Military, National Security, Politics, United Nations, United States

Rendition…

(From the archives) Originally posted on April 19, 2012 by markdowe

 MURKY POLITICAL WORLD

EVEN welcome regime change can have treacherous effects, transforming once-needed allies into enemies, or vice versa. And rarely have the risks been more graphically illustrated recently than with Libya, where a former dissident, Abdelhakim Belhaj, is now head of post-Gaddafi Libya’s armed forces. Not only is he suing the British government for allegedly colluding with Colonel Gaddafi to have him forcibly returned to Libya and tortured, but – as of yesterday – he is also taking legal action against a named official: Jack Straw, Foreign Secretary in the last British government.

The drama has unfolded in two stages. The first was last September, when documents found in Tripoli appeared to support claims that British intelligence had supplied information that allowed the CIA to spirit the fugitive Mr Belhaj and his wife back to Libya in 2004. The second has played out over the past week, after a newspaper quoted sources alleging that Mr Straw personally signed off on the operation. The former cabinet minister is accused of complicity in torture and misfeasance in public office.

It is thought to be the first time that such proceedings have been launched against a former Foreign Secretary – which is one reason why the full implications are as yet unclear. That there are implications, however, and potentially serious ones – both positive and negative – is beyond doubt. On the plus side, the latest lawsuit could mean that real light is finally cast on the still-murky subject of rendition and the involvement of the last British government. That rendition – the clandestine detention and transfer of suspects to their own country or third countries – and interrogation under torture were weapons deployed by the United States during George Bush’s “war on terror” is known and largely admitted. What is less known and mostly not admitted – though not expressly denied either – is how much the British government of the day knew about, and actively co-operated with, such actions with its transatlantic ally.

Co-operation may have taken many forms: from supplying information that permitted rendition (as Mr Belhaj’s lawsuit alleges), through facilitating it by, for instance, allowing the use of planes or refuelling stops, to providing the questions and witnessing, or even conducting, interrogations that entailed torture. Such accusations have featured in the testimony of many former British prisoners at Guantanamo, and in most cases the government has paid compensation rather than have the charges aired in court. The justification given is that crucial intelligence methods might be divulged. The suspicion must be, however, that there is another consideration: fear that the real role of the British state in the ill-conceived “war on terror” would be laid bare. If the lawsuits initiated by Mr Belhaj force genuine information about this shameful chapter into the open, that can only be a good thing. The people of this country have a right to know what was being done in their name.

The novelty of Mr Belhaj’s latest lawsuit, however, is that it names Jack Straw personally. And here the arguments become more complicated. Of course, individual ministers – like military commanders – must act within the law, hence the controversy about Lord Goldsmith’s rulings on the Iraq war. But does knowledge of rendition or torture break the law? Or would it take active involvement? What about ordering information to be passed to the US (a major ally)? And does the legal responsibility reside with the minister or the Prime Minister or the government collectively?

In principle, a minister’s responsibility is political – to Parliament – rather than judicial. But are there instances where that line is crossed? It might be salutary for that question to be tested. But if ministers are to be held personally accountable before the courts for their (or their boss’s) decisions, the risk is that no significant decisions – right or wrong – will be taken at all.

ANALYSIS

IT IS NOT UNKNOWN for ministers to be sued in the civil courts. During the last Conservative government, both John Patten and Michael Heseltine were sued – separately and successfully – for libel. The rule of thumb in such cases is that if the minister is found to have transgressed while performing ministerial duties (as was the case with Lord Heseltine), the government covers any damages, while if he was acting in a private or party political capacity (as was Lord Patten) he has to foot the bill himself. This may come as a relief to Jack Straw, the former foreign secretary, who is being sued by Abdel Hakim Belhadj, former leader of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG). Mr Belhadj alleges that Mr Straw personally authorised his rendition in 2004 when he was seized by CIA agents and handed over to the Libyan dictator, Muammar Gaddafi. The LIFG had links to al-Qaeda and Mr Belhadj claims he was tortured by the Libyan regime. He is already suing the British government and its security services.

Rendition is not a crime. The British government’s position on this was set out in 2008 by the then foreign secretary, David Miliband. He said that the agreement this country has with the United States meant permission for rendition via UK territory or airspace would be given only if it accorded “with UK law and our international obligations; and how we understand our obligations under the UN Convention Against Torture”. If rendition is not a criminal offence, complicity in torture is, and in his complaints against Mr Straw and the British government, Mr Belhadj appears to be eliding the two. Yet Mr Straw last year explicitly denied any involvement in torture: “We were opposed to any use of torture or similar methods. Not only did we not agree with it, we were not complicit in it and nor did we turn a blind eye to it.”

It is self-evident that criminal allegations against a minister should be investigated by the police. But civil actions, where the burden of proof is less rigorous, are more problematical. The difficulty facing both Mr Straw and the Government is the reluctance of the intelligence services to contest such accusations as Mr Belhadj’s in the civil courts because it would expose their own officials to unwanted public scrutiny. This is what led to the payment of many millions of pounds in compensation to 16 Guantánamo detainees two years ago. Perhaps it is the prospect of such easy pickings that lies behind this case. In these circumstances, and in the unlikely event of this case ever reaching the courts, fairness demands that Mr Straw be indemnified against financial outlay. Otherwise a dangerous precedent will have been set in a complex and contentious area.

Standard
Britain, Government, Human Rights, Legal, National Security, Politics, Society

Secret courts: The need to balance security with individual freedom…

(From the archives) Originally posted on April 4, 2012 by markdowe

BALANCING SECURITY AND LIBERTY

Keeping citizens safe and free is the primary role of the state. In attempting to achieve this it must properly balance the requirements of national security with the principles of liberty. In Britain, this tension runs like a thread throughout its history. Over the centuries, the executive has sought to arrogate further powers to itself – usually in the name of protecting the people – while Parliament and the judiciary have acted as a check on its presumption. Invariably, parties in opposition believe the government of the day is acting in an illiberal fashion; yet when they take office, they discover that achieving the right balance is harder than they imagined.

When in opposition, the leaders of the two parties now making up the Coalition were vehemently critical of Labour’s plans for a substantial extension of the state’s surveillance powers. But having flip-flopped, the Conservative-LibDem coalition are now making precisely the same supportive arguments as their predecessors. The problem with this kind of volte-face is that it erodes public trust in government, and makes it harder for ministers to do anything in the name of security without being denounced for their illiberal instincts. This is one reason why the Government’s proposals for ‘secret courts’ have received such a sceptical, if not hostile, reception. In a report published today the joint parliamentary committee on human rights adds its criticism, saying that plans outlined in a Green Paper last year to hear some civil actions involving the security and intelligence services behind closed doors are based on ‘spurious assumptions’ and are ‘inherently unfair’.

The Government is seeking to extend the so-called evidence procedures following the claims for damages brought by Binyam Mohamed and others, who alleged that Britain had ben complicit in their mistreatment whilst in Guantanamo Bay. Rather than disclose information that might damage national security, the Government withdrew from the action and paid substantial compensation. Under plans put forward by the Coalition, a judge would see the evidence and hear arguments from special advocates with appropriate clearance. However, no one else – including the plaintiffs – would be entitled to know what was being discussed. This should go without saying that this is not open justice. The question, though, is whether it is justified.

On balance perhaps it is – so long as these procedures are used only in the most exceptional circumstances and not at all in inquests. There are times when the national interest requires secrecy; it would be naïve to pretend otherwise. But Parliament must ensure that the law is properly framed to balance the requirements of fairness and security.

Standard
Britain, European Union, Government, Politics, Society

EU Referendum: Argument for and against and public reaction…

(From the archives) Originally posted on January 24, 2013 by markdowe

 EUROPEAN REFERENDUM

Argument For:-

…At last, voters are trusted to choose Britain’s future. David Cameron has given Britain a far better chance of securing a satisfactory settlement with the European Union

David Cameron cannot have imagined when he became Prime Minister that he could conceivably preside over both the break-up of the United Kingdom and its exit from the European Union. The likelihood must be that neither will happen; but the possibility has been raised that both might. Almost out of nowhere, we have an epochal moment in British politics.

The referendum on Scottish independence will take place next year, but the plebiscite on Europe is contingent on a Tory victory at the next election. That, indeed, was one of the principal aims of the Prime Minister’s speech yesterday: not just to address the vexed question of Britain’s position in Europe, but to woo the voters by promising them something they have long wanted, but have not been given since 1975.

Not for the first time, Mr Cameron has shown a capacity to surprise whenever the pressure is greatest. Even though his speech was long-awaited and vigorously debated in advance, it lost none of its impact. It was well judged, elegantly phrased, persuasively argued and expertly delivered. No one should doubt its importance both for domestic politics and for Britain’s foreign policy, which for decades has been based on retaining a central role within the European project. Indeed, despite his criticisms of the current arrangements, Mr Cameron made clear that this remains not just Government policy, but his overwhelming personal preference: he explicitly ruled out the halfway house of a looser association on the Norwegian or Swiss model. Still, while his aim is to campaign to stay within a reformed EU, he proposes that it will be the country, not its politicians, that makes the choice – and has the option to leave.

Politically, the speech was an immediate success. Conservative MPs, who have been agitating for just such a statement, were delighted. Ideally, they will now give their leader some breathing space while the shape of his plans becomes clear, ending the rows that have done much to destabilise the party. Ukip, while outwardly pleased to have the debate finally conducted on its territory, must privately fear that it will now be marginalised. Labour found itself boxed in, with many asking how Ed Miliband can sustain his bizarre position, adopted at Prime Minister’s Questions, that voters should not be offered an in-out referendum, even when so much about Europe is changing so rapidly. For their part, the Liberal Democrats now oppose the very referendum that they promised in their most recent manifesto. Then again, it is a characteristic of the most ardent proponents of the European venture that they consider it dangerous to ask the people what they think.

Rather than listing particular goals, Mr Cameron sought to frame his argument in a wider philosophical context. He argued, entirely correctly, that it would benefit Europe as a whole if its institutions were less bureaucratic and more competitive. He made a powerful case for a more flexible, adaptable and open EU – and observed that we are not alone in Europe in holding such ambitions (hence the cautious welcome that his words received from many on the Continent, including Angela Merkel). Yet if this is not forthcoming, Mr Cameron warned, “we need to safeguard our interests”.

Ultimately, what matters most to Britain is what is best for Britain. Indeed, only when this country is involved does defence of the national interest become something to be sneered at. In Berlin earlier this week, Mrs Merkel and François Hollande celebrated the 50th anniversary of the Elysée Treaty, which set the seal on the post-war reconciliation between France and Germany. Ever since, Europe has developed very much in the way decreed by these two countries. As Mrs Merkel said in Berlin, in order to underpin monetary union, the next move will involve greater economic and fiscal integration. That, as Mr Cameron argued, must inevitably change this country’s relationship with the eurozone nations.

Although the UK signed up 40 years ago to the “ever closer union” envisaged in the Treaty of Rome, our leaders have, for much of that time, tried to stop it happening. But the forward momentum has been relentless. Monetary union, the removal of internal borders under the Schengen deal, the proposed harmonisation of justice and home affairs under the Lisbon Treaty, and now the intended fiscal federation in the eurozone, mean Europe is very different from the institution we joined.

Yesterday, David Cameron set out a different vision. He may not be able to bring enough other leaders to share it, but the leverage granted by the prospect of a referendum will give us a far better chance of securing a settlement we can live with. Indeed, many of the arguments in yesterday’s speech were made in another keynote address, delivered by Margaret Thatcher in Bruges in 1988. She, too, bemoaned Europe’s insularity, its lack of accountability, its drift towards federalism, all of which have accelerated since. What even she did not offer, however, was to let the people decide whether they wanted to stay in. In proposing that they should, Mr Cameron has taken an audacious and momentous step, and one deserving of the highest praise.

Continue reading →

Standard