The euphemistic road to freedom
Torture’s such an ugly word, isn’t it? Loaded with meaning. It suggests fingernails being ripped out, genitals being electrocuted and all kinds of unpleasantness. We need something a bit more user friendly, something that does away with notions of screaming and bleeding but instead suggests an atmosphere of friendly cooperation between suspect and interrogator.
So thank goodness for MI5’s head spook, Eliza Manningham-Buller and her “detainee reporting“:
“Experience proves that detainee reporting can be accurate and may enable lives to be saved.”
Detainee reporting. You know what it means. I know what it means. She knows what it means. But she can pretend it doesn’t mean what she knows it means and so can the rest of us if we like.
It’s a nice ambiguous, modern phrase that lets the likes of Manningham-Buller sleep at night. She can deny that human rights, presumption of innocence and just plain common decency are being sullied. By letting Algeria collect detainees’ “reports”, she keeps her hands clean (metaphorically), her staff keep their hands clean (literally), she doesn’t have to blow her departmental budget on Cillit Bang to shift all that blood from the floor in the basement, and she doesn’t have to say every ten minutes, “do shut the door, would you Perkins, those bubbling screams are giving me a frightful headache.”
There also seems to be a neat little get-out if you suspect information supplied by a foreign power may have been obtained through torture, but don’t really want to know: Don’t ask.
She points to information from Algerian agencies who questioned a man called Mohammed Meguerba. The evidence led to a raid on a London flat and the eventual uncovering of the so-called ricin plot.
…
But Ms Manningham-Buller says: “In those circumstances, no inquiries were made of Algerian liaison about the precise circumstances that attended their questioning of Meguerba.”
Easy, eh? Wouldn’t life be so much simpler if we all adopted the Manningham-Buller Gambit. I don’t want my partner to pay the gas bill this month because I’d rather spend the money on DVDs. So I won’t ask if she’s paid it.
That’s all fine though because, according to our top spy, the Algerian government wouldn’t have told us anyway:
“In any event, questioning of Algerian liaison about their methods of questioning detainees would almost certainly have been rebuffed and at the same time would have damaged the relationship to the detriment of our ability to counter international terrorism.”
Try it if you’re ever done for possession of drugs. Or for buying moody goods off a bloke in a pub. “Well, I would have asked but…” See how far it gets you. Probably not into a highly-paid position in MI5, if we’re honest with each other.
Anyway, Manningham-Buller is clearly not trying hard enough. A quick googling will tell her what goes on in Algeria’s jails. Amnesty International, for instance, could fill the gaps in her intelligence, if the Algerians won’t play ball. If googling doesn’t have the same cloak and dagger frisson that Eliza’s used to, she could always get a flunky to print the Amnesty report off and discreetly hand it to her inside a copy of The Times while she feeds the ducks in St James’s Park:
Despite the recent inclusion of torture as a criminal offence in the Penal Code and the reduction in allegations of torture and ill-treatment by the police and gendarmerie, the organisation has received a significant number of allegations about such abuses by officers of the Département du Renseignement et de la Sécurité (DRS), Department of Information and Security. These allegations include detention of the accused in places impossible for them to know the location of, and torture, including beatings and the torture known as chiffon. The delegation questioned the authorities about the fact that it could find no mention of these abuses in the medical reports written by the doctors responsible for examining detainees in these centres. If these allegations are confirmed, such breaches of duty would constitute grave violations of medical ethics.
“Chiffon”, in case anyone was wondering, is the delightful practice of tying a person up and forcing them to drink dirty water or urine. By a process of recycling, it’s a gift that keeps on giving.
You needn’t even go as far as relying on intelligence from bleeding-heart liberals like Amnesty. As I’ve pointed out before, our very own chaps at the Foreign Office have got the Algerian Government’s number:
Alongside the violence committed by the Islamic armed groups over the last decade are numerous documented allegations of human rights abuses by the security forces and state-armed militias, including the enforced disappearances of at least 4,000 people, abductions, torture and extra-judicial killings.
Still, ignorance is, was, and always will remain, bliss. Whether it’s a state you want your intelligence service to be in, I’m not sure:
Prime Minister: Bond, a shadowy terrorist organisation has threatened to blow up London with a satellite made of diamonds. Do you know who’s behind it?
Bond: You know, I never thought to ask.
As excuses go, “We didn’t ask because we didn’t think they would tell us”, is a terribly poor one, even for the current the-public-are-dickheads-anyway establishment. It’s almost as if she doesn’t care that terrible pain is being inflicted in potentially innocent people, and that would be a terrible slur.
It’s like I’ve said before, we swallow all kinds hateful offal from The Greater Good that we would never accept from a child:
Little Johnny’s Dad: (Thinks) Hmmmm, these chocolates Little Johnny gave me are delicious. The thing is, he hasn’t had his pocket money this week. I wonder if Little Johnny stole them? That said, the questioning of Little Johnny about his methods of chocolate procurement will almost certainly be rebuffed and at the same time will damage the relationship to the detriment of our ability to enjoy The Simpson’s together.
The Nextdoor Neighbour: (Shouting through the letterbox): Oi, Little Johnny’s Dad! I’ve just seen Little Johnny nicking chocolates from the corner shop!
Little Johnny’s Dad: (Fingers in ears) La, la, la! Speak louder, can’t hear you!
Little Johnny: I’m just off down the shops again, Dad.
Little Johnny’s Dad: That’s great, son. Can we have some more of these fantastic chocolates?
Manningham-Buller says she doesn’t think the Algerian government would tell her how they get people to tell them things. There’s a way of getting people to tell you things when they don’t want to, apparently. It’s called Detainee Reporting. Couldn’t we just kidnap Algeria, take it to, I don’t know, Egypt or Jordan, and get them to put electrodes on Algeria’s genitals until it tells us how it obtains its information?
Posted on October 24th, 2005 at 9:52 am
| See also • 113005765345678528 • The torturous road to freedom • The more things change… |
• Permalink • Trackback • Subscribe |
|
• Filed under Uncategorized |
• |

I’m sorry to hear her using such gutless euphamisms. I heard her speak at a function once and she came across as a gutsy, no-nonsense kind of woman - but then, this was a no-press event so perhaps her honesty is dependent on who is listening.
Seriously though, it is quite a difficult position to be in. If a foreign government comes along and says ‘we have evidence that a bombing may be happening soon. Here are some names’, where torture has probably been used to get that information, what do you do? Do nothing?
Hi Katherine, you don’t need me to tell you about the myriad arguments for and against torture and I don’t have the time to rehearse them here.
This, however, is one of the best arguments against I’ve read recently.
…and this.
Excellent article Mr CY
It’s a nice ambiguous, modern phrase that lets the likes of Manningham-Buller sleep at night.
Unlike the “detainees”, since - apparently - one of the most effective “tortures” is denying sleep to the suspect. Very effective and, since it causes no long-lasting damage, it has the virtue of deniability.
Let’s just suppose that the Algerians were going to torture these detainees anyway: should we not attempt to profit from what they learn, even if we disapprove of their methods?
And, does anyone else think that Eliza Manningham-Buller sounds like a Roald Dahl name…?
DK
Thanks Justin - yes, I have seen those debates and read and cogitated with interest.
Most of the debate seems to centre around whether you, yourself (or rather, your own state) should use torture as a method of interrogation - for either ethical or practical reasons. This choice is in our control, theoretically.
The point I was trying to raise though was where the use of torture is not in your control - where information is offered, as in the example that Eliza Manningham-Buller gives. There is a practical distinction between active commission of torture and passive benefit. Or is there?
You are given information, and you suspect, or even know, that it was obtained using torture. It sounds like a theoretical situation, but what Eliza Manningham-Buller has said makes it real. Do you ignore the information, on the basis that it is ethically wrong to do so and would encourage the further use of torture (after all, can you on the one hadn say ‘torture is wrong’ and on the other say ‘but thanks for that information’)?
I don’t have any particular view on this, I am just interested in other people’s thoughts. Apologies for hijacking your blog to get my answers though Justin.
DK & Katherine: I’d comment separately but I think my reply answers both your points.
Ethical considerations aside, I don’t think it can be just a case of “Well, they’ve got the information anyway so we might as well use it”. I would argue that information extracted under Detainee Reporting is essentially useless in isolation because it can’t be trusted. The man with the needles under his fingernails (NGO reports coming out of Algeria don’t speak much of sleep deprivation, I’m afraid) will say anything to make you take them out.
You might get some juicy “facts” between the screams but they need to be corroborated. You could try torturing his associates if you have them or can find them but if not you’re chasing your tail. You can only torture one man so much until his body or his mind breaks, I would have thought.
Katherine: No apology needed.
Does this mean that MI5’s policy is the same as the US Military’s policy for gays “Don’t ask, don’t tell”?