Adrian Hamilton: Torture demeans the torturer as well as the victim

The policy of rendition was developed, and condoned by Britain, to get round the law

Related Topics

Within the next few weeks it is hoped that the final act of the long-running case of disclosure of information in the case of the torture of Binyam Mohamed is played out in the Court of Appeal. It has been an almost endless, and an endlessly shaming, process. The original case was brought by Mr Mohamed, held for five years in dark corners around the world, who claimed that he had been tortured and that the British intelligence service knew and were complicit in it. Of his torture there is little doubt. It was brutal, humiliating and sustained at the behest of the CIA. Of British complicity in this there is more and more evidence.

The recent round of submissions have concerned the Government's attempts to suppress some of the documents in the case on grounds of security. The Foreign Office has already lost last week the effort to stop publication of the details of the torture supplied by the Americans on grounds of breaching trust with the US intelligence services.

The latest submission – in which The Independent is involved – concerns not secrecy, not facts, not even diplomatic sensitivity but simple embarrassment. The key part of the draft judgment which the Foreign Secretary David Miliband – that constant champion of the doctrine of ethical foreign policy and an open society – sought to water down, is a clause in which the Master of the Rolls, Lord Neuberger, cast coruscating comments on the behaviour of the British authorities and implied that they had not been fully open with the parliamentary committee on intelligence.

His words have already come out. And damning they are, talking of the Security Services failing to respect human rights and developing a "culture of suppression" when it came to the public and Parliament. The sole purpose of trying to keep this part from the published judgment, craftily pursued by the government QC in the case, that chronicler of the blood and gore of the Hundred Years War, Jonathan Sumption, is to save the state from public humiliation.

We've been here before, of course. Ever since the run-up to the invasion of Iraq and the introduction of a continuous series of anti-terror rules and the removal of legal safeguards since, the Government has looked to the law not to keep it but to wriggle its way out of obeying it.

So with the Binyam case. Torture, and complicity in it, is against the law. There's no dispute about that, for all the egregious argument of those who would wish to say that it was a matter of justified circumstances. We adopted the European Convention on Human Rights in 1951 and passed a Human Rights Act in 1998 to give it extra force. Jack Straw might wish to circumvent it by talking of a new Constitution. The right might hate it. But the law it is.

Nor are the judges in this case involved because, as their more fanciful critics would suggest, they are exceeding their remit with an agenda of human rights of their own. The law has been brought into play because a British resident is suing the Government for aiding and abetting his illegal torture. The question of disclosure has been raised because the Government has tried to use security as an excuse for keeping the relevant documents away from Mohamed's lawyers and the public gaze. The judges eventually decided to release parts because their details had already been revealed in the US courts.

By doing so they will cause irreparable damage to our intelligence relations with the US, claims David Miliband, and appears to have prompted his opposite number in the US State Department to make a song and dance of it. But then let us be clear what he is saying. The US courts think it right to reveal details of torture. The US President, Barack Obama, says that the policy of rendition and the treatment of prisoners should be exposed to full public gaze with the release of documents. But over here a British Foreign Secretary says we can't possibly do that, because the US would object. Whose leg is he trying to pull?

What this is all about is not relations with our most important ally. It is about the culture of secrecy which the British intelligence services have long nurtured and still wish to protect. And what the Foreign Office's assiduous support of this case stems from is simply the desire to avoid its own part in the US-led programme of seizure of suspects and their interrogation being subject to public scrutiny.

Torture isn't a matter of niceties. You can argue the circumstances in which you might feel it useful or even necessary. You can try and épater le bien-pensant by writing "A Modest Proposal for Preventing Poor People in Britain from Being Endangered by Torturing Their Children and Their Mothers", only without Jonathan Swift's wit or intention to satirise.

You can sincerely believe it right to cripple the grannies and dismember the family pets in what you conceive of the greater community good. What you cannot do, as the Government is trying to, is get around the fact that Britain, along with most of the developed world, has decided to ban the practice.

And for good reason. After centuries of abuse, torture has been found to be neither productive nor containable. It rarely provides accurate intelligence. It produces fantasy and misleading information born out of the desperation of the victim. For all the discussion of the "ticking time bomb" and the films of Dirty Harry and Spooks, there is no reported case where an explosion has been prevented because of the use of torture.

What its proponents never like to answer is the question of just who would decide who should be tortured. The answer, of course, is the "state". And once you add that to the equation you are on a straight line to General Pinochet, Saddam Hussein and all those other characters whom successive British governments were wont to support in their heyday.

Attempting to define or confine the circumstances under which the suspect can be interrogated or the manner of the humiliation and pain that can be dealt out simply makes the unacceptable into the obscene.

What is so appalling about the treatment of Binyam Mohamed, whatever your thoughts about his motives, is that the whole policy of rendition was developed, and condoned if not actually supported by Britain, as a means of getting round the law. You couldn't torture a suspect in America or Britain, so you spirited them away to a country where you could. President Bush made suspected terrorists into combatants in a "war" so that they could be held indefinitely. Rendition made them into objects who could be dealt with in secret.

Ministers over here tut-tut and say that of course we'd never countenance doing such things ourselves. But we knew of the practice. We contributed to it by giving advice to the CIA and suggesting questions to be asked of the victim. And we were happy to use any information gleaned. Whether we went further and actually attended interrogations and aided them is what the Binyam Mohamed case is all about.

The Liberal Democrats have called for a full public inquiry. They are right. The betrayal of our most fundamental principles as a civilised nation is too important to be sacrificed behind a smokescreen of secrecy and the so-called "special relationship".

But then that is not the least reason why torture is so damaging to a society. It dehumanises and corrupts the torturer as much as the victim. All it has ever done is bring shame and discredit on any regime that has practised it. And that includes President Bush's and Tony Blair's.

React Now

Latest stories from i100
Have you tried new the Independent Digital Edition apps?
iJobs Job Widget
iJobs General

Technical Manager – Heat Pumps

£40000 Per Annum dependent on experience: The Green Recruitment Company: They ...

Test Job

TBC: Test Recruiter for iJobs: Job London (Greater)

Senior Developer - HTML, CSS, PHP, JavaScript, VBA, SQL

£30000 - £35000 per annum + benefits: Ashdown Group: We are working with one o...

Senior Developer - HTML, CSS, PHP, JavaScript, VBA, SQL

£30000 - £35000 per annum + benefits: Ashdown Group: We are working with one o...

Day In a Page

Read Next

A long way to go before we reach Dave Eggers's digital dystopia

Memphis Barker

August catch-up: dress to impress, words to use more often, and the end of the internet

John Rentoul
Kate Bush, Hammersmith Apollo music review: A preamble, then a coup de théâtre - and suddenly the long wait felt worth it

Kate Bush shows a voice untroubled by time

A preamble, then a coup de théâtre - and suddenly the long wait felt worth it
Robot sheepdog technology could be used to save people from burning buildings

The science of herding is cracked

Mathematical model would allow robots to be programmed to control crowds and save people from burning buildings
Tyrant: Is the world ready for a Middle Eastern 'Dallas'?

This tyrant doesn’t rule

It’s billed as a Middle Eastern ‘Dallas’, so why does Fox’s new drama have a white British star?
Rachael Lander interview: From strung out to playing strings

From strung out to playing strings

Award-winning cellist Rachael Lander’s career was almost destroyed by the alcohol she drank to fight stage fright. Now she’s playing with Elbow and Ellie Goulding
The science of saturated fat: A big fat surprise about nutrition?

A big fat surprise about nutrition?

The science linking saturated fats to heart disease and other health issues has never been sound. Nina Teicholz looks at how governments started advising incorrectly on diets
Emmys 2014 review: Can they genuinely compete with the Oscars

Can they genuinely compete with the Oscars?

The recent Emmy Awards are certainly glamorous, but they can't beat their movie cousins
On the road to nowhere: A Routemaster trip to remember

On the road to nowhere

A Routemaster trip to remember
Hotel India: Mumbai's Taj Mahal Palace leaves its darker days behind

Hotel India

Mumbai's Taj Mahal Palace leaves its darker days behind
10 best pencil cases

Back to school: 10 best pencil cases

Whether it’s their first day at school, uni or a new project, treat the student in your life to some smart stationery
Arsenal vs Besiktas Champions League qualifier: Gunners know battle with Turks is a season-defining fixture

Arsenal know battle with Besiktas is a season-defining fixture

Arsene Wenger admits his below-strength side will have to improve on last week’s show to pass tough test
Pete Jenson: Athletic Bilbao’s locals-only transfer policy shows success does not need to be bought

Pete Jenson: A Different League

Athletic Bilbao’s locals-only transfer policy shows success does not need to be bought
This guitar riff has been voted greatest of all time

The Greatest Guitar Riff of all time

Whole Lotta Votes from Radio 2 listeners
Britain’s superstar ballerina

Britain’s superstar ballerina

Alicia Markova danced... every night of the week and twice on Saturdays
Berlin's Furrie invasion

Berlin's Furrie invasion

2000 fans attended Eurofeurence
‘It was a tidal wave of terror’

‘It was a tidal wave of terror’

Driven to the edge by postpartum psychosis