Politics.co.uk: MPs condemn Government silence in torture row

A group of MPs has slammed the Government for twice refusing to say whether Britain uses information extracted under torture in foreign countries.

Here’s was the report had to say:

105. We find it surprising and unsettling that the Government has twice failed to answer our specific question on whether or not the UK receives or acts upon information extracted under torture by a third country. We recommend that the Government, in its response to this Report, give a clear answer to the question, without repeating information already received twice by this Committee.

106. We recommend that the Government set out, in its response to this Report, a full and clear explanation of how its policy on the use of evidence gained under torture is consistent with the United Kingdom’s international commitments as set out in the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, which states, at Article 15, that “Each State Party shall ensure that any statement which is established to have been made as a result of torture shall not be invoked as evidence in any proceedings, except against a person accused of torture as evidence that the statement was made”.

But a small article in the Times on March 27, that doesn’t seem to have gained traction anywhere else, sheds a little more light. Here it is in full:

The Times: Torture ruling

Government lawyers have given MI6 the go-ahead to use intelligence obtained under torture — as long as no British officials are involved in the interrogation, writes Robert Winnett.

The legal opinion is in a leaked Foreign Office memo drawn up in 2003 by Michael Wood, the department’s legal adviser.

It was written after Craig Murray, then the British ambassador to Uzbekistan, raised concerns about human rights abuses. The memo states: “Craig’s understanding was that it was an offence under the United Nations convention on torture to receive or possess information under torture. I . . . undertook to re-read the convention. There is nothing in (it) to this effect . . . this does not create any offence.”

However, Wood said that he “would expect” any information obtained under torture would be inadmissible as evidence in court.

So where did Craig Murray gain his “understanding… that it was an offence under the United Nations convention on torture to receive or possess information under torture?” From the same legal school as Elizabeth Wilmshurst (Michael Wood’s deputy, as it happens) who said that war in Iraq would be a “crime of aggression” in her resignation letter?

Dear Oscar once said, “Morality, like art, means drawing a line someplace”. But the lines drawn by our current government were drawn in pencils with rubbers on the other end. Who knew international law was so malleable on so wide a range of issues? It certainly must come as a relief to someone who plays as fast and loose with morality as Jack Straw:

“One of the things that is done with intelligence that comes from liaison partners, obviously an assessment is made about its provenance,” said Straw.

“Because it does not follow that if it is extracted under torture, it is automatically untrue. But there is a much higher probability of it being embellished.

So there you go. Start sterilising those needles. Anything you can glean between the screams won’t necessarily be “automatically untrue”.