Category Archives: National Security

Britain, Government, Intelligence, National Security

A grave betrayal by British intelligence

TORTURE AND RENDITION

IT HAS taken almost 15-years to produce an official government report into British involvement in the torture and kidnap of terror suspects.

This is far too long and is disgracefully and shamefully overdue.

It shows that British involvement in George W. Bush’s illegal and barbarous programme of kidnap for torture was far deeper and more extensive than we have previously been told.

The figures within the report are stupefying: 13 incidents where British intelligence officers witnessed the mistreatment of suspects; 25 incidents where our intelligence personnel were told by the detainees they were being mistreated; and, a further 128 incidents where intelligence officers were informed by foreign liaison services about instances of mistreatment.

Thanks to the report delivered by the Intelligence and Security Committee (ISC), we at last learn for certain that there was direct ministerial involvement. It contains the revelation that the then foreign secretary, Jack Straw, authorised, at least once, the payment of “a large share” of the costs for an aircraft that was used for rendition purposes.

Quite simply, that is reprehensible.

The report doesn’t disclose the identities of the victims of that particular operation. It does, however, reveal they were taken to a location with a “real risk of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment”.

Mr Straw signed off this payment in September 2004, and yet just over a year later he made a remarkable statement in the House of Commons which bears repeating in full: “Unless we all start to believe in conspiracy theories and that officials are lying, that I am lying, that behind this is some kind of secret state which is in league with some dark forces, and let me also say, we believe that US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is lying, there simply is no truth in the claims that the United Kingdom has been involved in rendition.”

 

MR Straw’s conspiracy theory, we now know, was true. This report lays that bare. Yet Mr Straw continues to maintain he didn’t know what was going on, insisting that he learned the truth of what had been happening for the first time from the ISC investigation.

This isn’t remotely good enough. The former Foreign Secretary was responsible for the British overseas intelligence service (MI6) at a time when something was dreadfully wrong.

Many will now believe that his emphatic statement in the Commons when answering questions about extraordinary rendition 13 years ago is remotely compatible with his protestations of ignorance today. Mr Straw’s conduct was deplorable.

So, too, was that of Sir Richard Dearlove, who was head of MI6 at the time when the US embarked, with British collusion, on its programme of extraordinary rendition and torture after the attack on the Twin Towers on 9/11.

The ISC report highlights the fact that British intelligence knew very early on that the US had changed its policy on torture to be far more aggressive, and yet they did not react, or even apparently deign to tell ministers.

In fairness, it was a very difficult time. There were fears of a follow-up attack and intelligence officers felt a patriotic duty to protect their fellow citizens. Some argued that the use of torture was justified by the extreme urgency of the international crisis which followed 9/11. It is worth reminding readers that in the late summer of 1990, Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait, and the government of the day sent an instruction around Whitehall saying that under no circumstances should British officials make use of intelligence obtained under torture.

Something changed after 9/11, and not for the better.

It is essential to bear in mind that one of the most important pieces of information leading to the decision to go to war with Saddam Hussein in 2003 was obtained through the torture of Libyan terror suspect Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi.

He told his interrogators that Saddam had close links with al-Qaeda. This information was widely used to justify the invasion of Iraq by President Bush, Vice-President Dick Cheney, Secretary of State Colin Powell, and others.

It was also completely untrue. Shaykh al-Libi disclosed later that he had fabricated these claims in order to mitigate his suffering.

This is one example where the use of torture proved utterly counter-productive. There are many other cases we know where it was simply worthless. Some victims pulled off the street were innocent of any terror involvement. For years, British intelligence and politicians lied about all of this.

It is important to remember that the first ISC inquiry into extraordinary rendition, which was carried out as long ago as 2007, concluded that nothing had been amiss.

MI6 withheld vital documents from the inquiry, causing the committee to reach a false conclusion and verdict.

 

SIR John Scarlett, successor to Sir Richard at MI6, was head of the agency at the time. This is the same John Scarlett who, as the head of the Joint Intelligence Committee (JIC) at the start of the century, oversaw the deeply misleading dodgy dossier on Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction. In effect, that was a propaganda weapon to sell the calamitous Iraq invasion to the British people.

It was once said that the health of a nation can be measured by the health of its intelligence services. If so, then something went very badly wrong with British intelligence, and Britain itself, at the start of the century.

Tony Blair, the Prime Minister at the time, must bear the heaviest responsibility, even though the ISC has produced no smoking gun linking him to torture. But Sir Richard and Sir John bear much of the blame.

Many unanswered questions remain, partly because Theresa May refused permission for key officials to be interviewed by the inquiry.

Pertinently, how much did Jack Straw really know? Why did intelligence chiefs not tell ministers the truth? What we do know for sure is that the intelligence services betrayed the values that Britain stand for.

So far, there has been barely a squeak of contrition from anyone involved. That isn’t good enough, because torture, and collusion with torture, are not just a betrayal of British values. They are against the law.

Action should follow. Dearlove and Scarlett should be stripped of their knighthoods. They have brought shame and disgrace not just on MI6 but also on Britain.

In less tolerant countries than ours, intelligence chiefs who have made much less serious errors get shot at dawn. As for Straw, he should be stripped of his Privy Councillorship.

And the question of prosecution must be reopened.

For our intelligence services to be effective, they need to have the trust of the British people, something they enjoyed for many years.

The ISC investigation suggests they are worthy only of contempt after their cynical betrayal of all that we stand for as a proud, civilised and humane nation. The torture revelations and the extent of the collusion is a disaster for British intelligence, and a disaster for Britain.

Standard
Britain, Government, National Security, Society, United States

Spy chief speaks for the first time over unrepentant Snowden

NATIONAL SECURITY

BRITAIN’S ability to keep its citizens safe was compromised as a result of the intelligence leaks by US traitor Edward Snowden, a spy chief has revealed in an excoriating attack.

Jeremy Fleming, head of Britain’s eavesdropping agency GCHQ, said the unrepentant former spy had caused “real and unnecessary damage” to the security of the UK and its allies.

In his first remarks on the devastating impact of the security breach five years ago, he said the American fugitive, who is now living in exile in Russia, needed to be held to account for his “illegal” actions. His comments came as Snowden said he had “no regrets” about revealing sensitive information via the pages of The Guardian newspaper.

In a rare statement given on the anniversary of the biggest leak of secret documents in its history, Mr Fleming said: “GCHQ’s mission is to help keep the UK safe. What Edward Snowden did five years ago was illegal and compromised our ability to do that, causing real and unnecessary damage to the security of the UK and our allies. He should be accountable for that.”

Mr Fleming, who was deputy director general of MI5 until last year, also made clear that the agency was striving for greater transparency long before the leaks. In a pointed remark, he told The Guardian: “It’s important that we continue to be as open as we can be, and I am committed to the journey we began over a decade ago to greater transparency.”

His comments came as Snowden, 34, showed no remorse over leaking classified data from the US National Security Agency (NSA). Speaking to The Guardian, he said: “People say nothing has changed: that there is still mass surveillance. That is not how you measure change. Look back before 2013 and look at what has happened since. Everything changed.

“The Government and corporate sector preyed on our ignorance. But now we know. People are aware now. People are still powerless to stop it, but we are trying. The revelations made the fight more even.” Asked if he had any regrets he said “no”, before adding: “If I had wanted to be safe, I would not have left Hawaii.”

Snowden was living in Hawaii while he worked as a security contractor for the NSA. It was there that he acquired the data he later leaked, including details of the precise methods used by the intelligence agencies to track terrorist plots. A year after the leaks – by which time Snowden had fled to Hong Kong before subsequently settling and given immunity in Russia – it was estimated that a quarter of the serious criminals being tracked by GCHQ had fallen off the radar because they had been alerted to the covert methods being used to track them.

Theresa May, then as Home Secretary, revealed how Britain’s ability to track terrorists and crime gangs was severely damaged because of the leaks. She said police and security services were finding it harder to monitor the electronic communications used by fanatics and master criminals.

The former head of GCHQ, Sir Iain Lobban, said in 2013 that terrorists were known to be “discussing how to avoid vulnerable communications methods.” And just last month, Bill Evanina, director of the US National Counter-intelligence and Security Centre, said Snowden’s leaks would continue to cause problems for years to come. He told a conference that only about 1 per cent of the documents taken by him had been released.

Standard
Britain, European Union, Government, National Security, Politics, Society

The Galileo satellite project

BREXIT

Galileo is Europe’s Global Satellite Navigation System (GNSS), providing improved positioning and timing information with significant positive implications for many European services and users.

BREXIT talks have turned into an extraordinary row over security cooperation as Brussels accused British negotiators of “chasing a fantasy”.

A senior EU official even threatened to bring talks to a halt due to acrimony over the EU’s Galileo satellite project and a post-Brexit security pact.

Brussels says Britain should not have full access to the £9billion satellite navigation system after it leaves the EU.

Britain has hit back by threatening it could demand the return of £1.2billion of taxpayer investment if Brussels goes through with its threat.

The UK also warned that the bloc’s hard-line approach to future cooperation on crime and security issues was in danger of creating “unnecessary risks to public safety”.

A senior EU official then struck back by warning of a halt to Brexit talks, insisting Brussels “would not negotiate under threat”.

The official claimed that British negotiators were “chasing a fantasy” and ignoring the “consequences of Brexit”.

The comments are likely to have infuriated the Government and Brexiteers, with talks now at a critical juncture ahead of a key summit at the end of next month.

The EU’s approach to Galileo has particularly enraged ministers, because Britain has already invested hundreds of millions in the programme.

Jean-Claude Juncker’s close ally Martin Selmayr is thought to be behind the tough approach, which has caused a split with other EU states that want security cooperation with the UK. Britain wants access to high-security elements of the Galileo programme, started in 2003 to rival America’s dominant GPS system, that have been factored into British military planning.

But Brussels claims that as a non-EU country, the UK should be treated similarly to partners such as America.

Britain warned the bloc that failure to provide the UK access to encrypted parts of Galileo would create an “irreparable security risk” and could cost the EU a total of £2billion.

Brexit negotiators said the EU would face a £880million bill if the UK continues to be frozen out of the programme – as well as a three-year delay beyond its expected completion in 2020.

In a position paper, the UK also said it would seek to claim back its £1.2billion taxpayer investment if Brussels refused to offer immediate unrestricted access. And the Government reiterated that it would push ahead with the development of its own alternative.

The UK’s demands were outlined in a combative paper presented to the EU negotiating team. The UK text said: “An end to close UK participation will be to the detriment of Europe’s prosperity and security and could result in delays and additional costs to the programme.”

The paper suggested that Brussels was deliberately overlooking the UK’s “considerable contribution” to European security.

It added: “The Commission suggestion that UK involvement in such exchanges and discussions ‘could irretrievably compromise the integrity’ of the system risks being interpreted as a lack of trust in the UK.” Brexit Secretary David Davis added: “A relationship based solely on existing third country precedents, as some seem to be suggesting, would lead to a substantial and avoidable reduction in our shared security capability.”

EU officials suggested that handing the UK security codes to the system would give them the ability to turn it off single-handedly while outside the EU.

An official also claimed that UK calls for reimbursement of its investments could breach a so-called “backsliding” clause that could allow talks to be frozen.

 

ARE the bureaucrats running the European Commission determined to damage the continent’s security in the pursuit of their grand project? There is no other way to explain the decision to try and exclude Britain from the Galileo satellite project after Brexit.

If this is an attempt to use Galileo to teach Britain a lesson it’s a mistake. This country’s vast military spending and world leading intelligence services mean the cards are overwhelmingly stacked in our favour. Far too often Britain’s negotiators have underplayed their hand. But rightly they have now issued an ultimatum: access to Galileo or our £1billion investment back, with the threat that Britain could go it alone – or join forces with Australia.

Meanwhile, the European Commission ought to consider much graver threats to the grand projects – Italy, crippled by debt and run by a ragtag coalition united only by loathing for Brussels, and the continuing rise of Eurosceptic opinion across more than half the continent.

Standard