UK

10° London Hi 11°C / Lo 6°C

Rights and wrongs of rendition: MI5 consults 'ethical counsellor'

By Kim Sengupta

An 'ethical counsellor' has been working at MI5 for three years

Jonathan Evans

An 'ethical counsellor' has been working at MI5 for three years

Britain's spies have been seeking guidance from an "ethical counsellor" on how to cope with moral dilemmas.

MI5 members have discussed issues like the rights and wrongs of extraordinary rendition and whether the Government was right to try to alter the ideological views of citizens.

The counsellor's existence was revealed yesterday in the Commons Intelligence and Security Committee's annual report. The post, created three years ago, is held by a former service director-general. Security reasons prevent the disclosure of his name. Senior figures dealing with the service's most sensitive work have been to see the senior adviser and some of the matters raised have led to wider debate within the organisation.

The report states that "concerns the individuals have raised include... whether there were sufficient controls for sharing information with countries that do not comply with international standards for the treatment of those in detention and whether guidance for staff on these matters was sufficiently accessible and understood."

Last week, the British Government admitted involvement in extraordinary rendition, where terror suspects were handed to the US in Iraq to be flown to Afghanistan for interrogation.

Lawyers for Binyam Mohammed, a British resident released from Guantanamo Bay, claim MI5 knew the US had used torture to obtain information from him, but the service denies this.

The issue of "whether it was ethical for the Government to seek to alter the ideological views of its citizens as part of its counter-radicalisation strategy" goes to the heart of government strategy that aims to use community campaigns to confront fundamentalism.

MI5 members questioned whether the service had adequate mechanisms to evaluate risks to the health of international counter-terrorism agents. The director-general of MI5, Jonathan Evans, has disclosed that 75 per cent of his agency's work is devoted to threats from Islamists, and that a large number of British Muslims, as well as local people in Pakistan and Afghanistan, are MI5 agents. The concern raised related to these field agents.

Logistics and seemingly a concern over resources also featured in discussions. Staff questioned whether MI5 should be involved in the Government's Prevent strategy, to prevent terrorism developing in communities, "given the pressure it faces to tackle the terrorist threat directly".

The report also said the service employed 3,382 people and expected that number to grow to 4,100 by 2011. Twelve of those employees have seen the counsellor so far.

The Commons Intelligence and Security Committee said: " It is reassuring that so few Security Service staff have felt the need to raise ethical concerns or complaints. We nonetheless welcome the establishment of the post and believe it provides an important avenue, should the need arise, for staff to discuss their concerns."

MI5 regrets that one employee did not access the counsellor, an officer whose partner was part of a secretly-filmed sadomasochistic session with Max Mosley. The officer revealed what happened to a newspaper. The officer was suspended and later resigned.

"The incident has highlighted the risks inherent in the vetting system," the report said. "The committee intends to look at this in more detail."

Post a Comment

View all comments that have been posted about this article.

Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.

Comments

RENDITON, WAR, LEGAL TOOLKITS
[info]sammie_hall wrote:
Friday, 6 March 2009 at 02:55 am (UTC)

Ethics Counsellor?
Perhaps a solictor specializing in international and military law would be better.

Rendition is neither new nor extraordinary.
Rendition is codified in international treaties, and is derived from various supra-jurisdictional concepts, such as extra territorial jurisdiction, universal jurisdiction, and the jurisdiction exercised by an occuping power (Nuremberg).

Universal jurisdiction is used for six catagories of 'universally heinous' crime,
two of which are genocide and extrajudicial killing (terrorism).
Amnesty International is one of the many advocates of Universal Jurisdiction
being used to render Very Bad Dudes to justice.

Extraordinary rendition has been part of European history and common law for centuries--we captured pirates on the high seas, outside our jurisdiction, and forced them to trial.
And of course, there were those pesky Nazis that just wouldn't turn themselves in, and had to be tricked, captured, cuffed, and rendered out of Argentina.

The body of law that allows terrorists to be rendered to military tribunals in Gitmo
is the same body of law that allows perpetrators of genocide
to be rendered to the the International Criminal Court.
It's a mistake to believe that those rendered to Gitmo do not have a warrant out for their capture.

Brits, and Europeans in general are also subject to rendition--it's part of our domestic criminal law.
We even watch it on TV and call it entertainment
when those Yankie bail bondsmen and bounty hunters
pounce on their guy and haul him cross country.
Maybe terror suspects should have a higher legal standard and not be subject to the same rendition?

We need a legal toolkit like the Yanks.
They moved terror offenses out of criminal law and into military law.

They recognise a terrorist for what he is--a soldier in a private army, fighting for an ideology, often under proxy for a State. But those States are then impunded.
Military tribunals are the correct place to try soldiers.
It is because we use our criminal courts that the convictions cannot be made.

Evidence against a terrorist is most always classified intelligence, and often from the Yanks,
which can't be used in a criminal trial.
And even if we could use it, we couldn't properly gather the evidence, because almost all terror related offenses end up in 3rd world countries,
and we have no jurisdiction to gather it.
The very idea of a British detective snooping around in Pakistan is laughable.
And then there's the fact that the terrorist and his cell
have the right in criminal court
to know everything about the evidence, which exposes the agents, endangers their lives, exposes the operations themselves, and wastes our tax money by exposing our operations.
Criminal trials for terrorists is a looneyleftist fantasy--we need military tribunals.

And POW camps, during a war, are not criminal prisons.
The alternative to internment in a POW camp is not a criminal trial, it's death on the battlefield.
I wonder if Churchill ever had to listen to any PC looneyleftists crying for German soldiers to be given trials to determine if they were guilty of the 'crime' of 'inflicting war' on Britain?

Moving terror offenses committed by foreign nationals out of criminal law and into military law allows us citizens to live with our civil liberties intact.
I'll drink to that.
Re: RENDITON, WAR, LEGAL TOOLKITS
[info]neil_mcgowan wrote:
Friday, 6 March 2009 at 03:34 am (UTC)
WRONG. WRONG. AND WRONG AGAIN.

We don't need ANYTHING from the SCUM yanks.

Nothing. They can rot in hell.
Re: RENDITON, WAR, LEGAL TOOLKITS
[info]drahcir38 wrote:
Friday, 6 March 2009 at 10:30 am (UTC)
If believing that seriously harming/killing someone in order to get them to "confess" is ethically wrong and morally repugnant, and that makes me a "PC looneyleftist" then all I can say is I'm glad to be one!!
Re: RENDITON, WAR, LEGAL TOOLKITS
[info]uanime5 wrote:
Friday, 6 March 2009 at 11:06 am (UTC)
Finally a sensible view point. We have to clamp down on terrorists if we want to stop them.
Re: RENDITON, WAR, LEGAL TOOLKITS
[info]what_why_how wrote:
Friday, 6 March 2009 at 05:07 pm (UTC)
There are all sorts of ummm... sneaky things going on here. Firstly, did 'Gitmo', as it is affectionately known in some circles, have anything to do with the International Criminal Court?!! Secondly, we were told at the time by the people with the "legal toolkit" that people destined for dear old Gitmo were not in fact soldiers, private or otherwise. In fact the legal toolkit was very clear - it said "I am You-nanimous in this" - that they were NOT soldiers. And this item in the toolkit was fashioned to ensure that people could be hit on the head until they vomited and could be packed in a plane and be taken to storage in Gitmo. This tool was a crucial item in the toolkit because it enabled the Occupying Power to prove that the Geneva Conventions were not applicable to them. In fact the Occupying Power was caught doing this in Italy to someone who was on their way to the grocery store, I am told The Italians took a dim view of it because they were not aware of being occupied. As a matter of fact they seemed to think that it was the Occupying Force that was engaged in unlawful killing or something unlawful, because the court in Rome sentenced the goons... er.... agents of the Occupying Force, in absentia. Nor did the Occupying Force think these aspiring grocery shoppers had anything to do with "ideology". Because, if they were taken as fighting for an ideology (like the people who went to Spain to fight the Gitmo-Keepers of their day) this fact would set them apart from the people targeted by bounty-hunters, who are usually criminals, and have been tried in a proper court of law and convicted of a crime. Is throwing a sack over people's heads and hitting them on the head until they are limp enough to handle the equivalent of criminal conviction in a court of law in the Land of Whatever ? The Italians thought this was even more laughable than snooping around in 3rd world Pakistan.
Legalised thuggery
[info]neil_mcgowan wrote:
Friday, 6 March 2009 at 03:34 am (UTC)
A minister's head will roll for this.
Ethics in time of civilian war
[info]gaius_godd wrote:
Friday, 6 March 2009 at 03:41 am (UTC)
There are issues of conscience in every act during a war, all along the chain of command. I suppose it's called a chain rather than a daisey-chain since endurance, resilience and stabilty, ethical or otherwise are important. All the other links cannot be dependent on the conscience of one link. We must remember the Roman dictum, "If you want peace, prepare for war!" The new ideological religious wars seem to ignore the ethical niceites as suicide bombings change the battleground and targets.

We need to keep our nerve, not wrack our consciences in times of war.

Perhaps one day...
[info]ancientoneuk wrote:
Friday, 6 March 2009 at 03:52 am (UTC)
... these agents will realise the atrocious way they acted and do the decent thing taking the honourable way out, heres hoping for sleepless nights for the rest of their naturals and a sense of guilt that will make them jump every time someone knocks on the door and maybe, just maybe, that knock might be a copper with a warrant...

Those agents knew the law, taking someone from the street, incapacitating them, removing them to a secret location and torturing them by proxy... surely they must have known that one day it would lead to trouble when the people at home found out?

Rendition has always been and always will be a dirty, underhand and criminal thing, you cannot claim the rule of law exists then bypass it when it suits you.

Heres hoping for a very open and exposing trial exposing the dirty underhand tactics of this government to justify itself.
[info]mister_bartlett wrote:
Friday, 6 March 2009 at 06:12 am (UTC)
sammie_hall - you seem to be a bit confused. The current brouhaha is not because "bad dudes" were taken abroad to face trial, it is because bad dudes, and not-so-bad dudes, were taken to countries precisely so they would NOT face trial, so they could be tortured without the unfortunate inconvenience of our legal system.
[info]hanif001 wrote:
Friday, 6 March 2009 at 11:01 pm (UTC)
Thats a good point.
But there is also the question about how many innocents can be mopped up along side the terrorists.
Is it 1 innocent per 1 terrorist, or
10 innocnets per 1 terrorist or
100 innocents per 1 terrorist (like Guantanamo)?

Also, need to consider whether Muslim nations should apply rendition on Wesern personnel who are deemed terrorists?
Because, there are many Western politicians who (when viewed from the otherside) have caused the deaths on many hunderds of thousands using the worlds most advanced weapons. To think that these collateral-civilians were not terrorised by the invasions (note I am intentionally not using the word 'war') like Iraq would be wrong.
TERRORISTS ARE SOLDIERS, NOT CRIMINALS
[info]sammie_hall wrote:
Friday, 6 March 2009 at 01:28 pm (UTC)

There is much confusion about the process that adjudicates terrorists as soldiers under the Military Commission Act.
The idea that there is no due process, and no trials is a HUGE MISTAKE.

Most of these mistaken ideas are from a lack of understanding
about military law--people confuse military tribunals with criminal courts.

Get the facts from the archived overview of the process, which gives a brief explanation of each legal process and what the accused is and is not entitled to.....linked.


http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2006/09/20060906-5.html

Clipped from opening paragraph from that link:

MYTH: Trials by Military Commission Deprive the Accused of Due Process
FACT: Military Commissions provide fair trials affording unlawful enemy combatants substantial due process, including....CONTINUES ON LINK
MYTH: The Administration supports "Secret Trials" in Absentia...CONTINUES ON LINK...



[info]dreadmorayeel wrote:
Friday, 6 March 2009 at 04:25 pm (UTC)
Another PR exercise...

Torture.murder,rendition are just plain WRONG.

Im no expert but most plausible people i've read in this field know torture to be wholly unreliable and counter-productive.

I'd advocate a Competence Commissioner,first and foremost.

And another Commssioner to ensure that the UK doesn't again succumb to the appalling barbaric idiocy of a wholly out of control American political,ahem,elite.

It's a no-brainer.

Go read first hand accounts of extrardianry rendition,Abu Ghraib,Gitmo and ask yourself if the UK should really go further down this most slippery pf paths...

A path to inevitable ruin.
[info]dreadmorayeel wrote:
Friday, 6 March 2009 at 04:33 pm (UTC)
This whole War On Turr,Inc is,and has been from the start,a MASSIVE PACK OF LIES.

Not to mention staggeringly incompetent.

The truly tragic thing is the UK spooks know this better than most,but still went along with torture,rendition et al...

"Only following orders" eh?

To save the cowardly political opportunist weak charlatans of NuLAbour,themselves atrociously in thrall to the NeoCon bullies and barbarians.
POW
[info]dkayedon wrote:
Sunday, 8 March 2009 at 09:57 am (UTC)
Did you ever see a POW. Camp ? .Very different to the Military bases of today,various countries, such as the likes of little islands re:- Guantanamo Bay; and worse.
Let improve our world, not go backwards.
[info]lana_wadley wrote:
Friday, 3 July 2009 at 07:03 pm (UTC)
I agree with the guy above.
And Guantanamo bay, camp X-Ray, was closed for a reason, may those reasons be applied to this situation. The techniques they use is vile and disgusting and a mockery of what stands for humanity.
May that never happen in the UK, although I feel this may be too late.
Lana from buy to let remortgages

Most popular


Article Archive

Day In a Page

Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat

Select date