MI5 "don't ask if it was torture" evidence and the non-existent ricin plot
via Craig Murray's website (former UK Ambassador to Uzbekistan):
Channel4 TV news seems to somehow been given, and published a facsimilie copy of some of the evidence (.pdf) which Dame Eliza Manningham-Buller, the Director General of MI5 the Security Service , which Channel 4 claim was evidence for the Law Lords "torture" appeal currently being heard.
However, given the date of the document, 20th September 2005, perhaps it was actually intended for submission to the British Parliament's Joint Committee on Human Rights call for evidence on Counter-Terrorism Policy and Human Rights, at any rate, they should certainly review this statemment in their Inquiry.
This mentions the completely unsurprising statement of fact or history, that foreign countries', security and intelligence agencies are not accountable to British ones, and that cooperation and liason officers cannot afford to ask too many questions about whether they suspect that an informant in the custody of such a foreign security agency might have been tortured, especially if they want the "intelligence product" to keep flowing.
What is interesting are the abbreviated examples cited:
Djamel Beghal, detained in the United Arab Emirates, and who allegedly revealed details of a plot against the US Embassy in Paris.
and
Mohammed Meguerba who was questioned in Algeria and whose alleged information led to the failed "ricin plot" in Wood Green in London, and indirectly to the murder of PC Stephen Oake in Manchester by Kamel Bourgass, and to the dubious arrest, prosecution and attempts at deportation of other alleged "ricin plotters", despite their aquittal in court.
Mohamed Meguerba was the person whose alleged "questioning" by the Algerian authorities led, intially to a false tip off to the British authorities about a non-existent address in London , followed by a tip off to the flat above the chemists shop in Wood Green where the "non-existant ricin plot" failed to present itself as an immediate "clear and present danger" to the public, although there was obvious evidence of intent, despite insufficient technical knowledge or skill to carry out such a plot.
Does this show that people being tortured or merely brutally questioned, are likely to try to give answers which they think the ir interrogators want to hear ?
According to press reports by Reuters and others, Mohamed Meguerba is now allegedly serving a ten year prison sentence in Algeria. Whether this is true or not, it is hard to say, given the nature of military dictatorships.
A note to any of of readers who think that because something is reported about terrorism in the media, that all the details are easy to understand or that they can be wholly trusted:
Even though we are quoting the reputable UK website, of a political opponent of the current Labour Government, who was the formerly the British Ambassador to the brutal regime in Uzbekistan, quoting a reputable UK TV news organisation, quoting "leaked" evidence supposedly given to the United Kingdom Parliamnnt's Joint Committee on Human Rights, by the Director General of MI5 the Security Service, quoting anonymous Algerian security service liason sources, who may or may not have been getting their information from torturers or interrogators, or their alleged victims.
We will therfore continue to use the words "alleged" and "supposed" where appropriate.
One extraordinary feature of the alleged fax published by Channel 4, is that it appears to bear the signature of Dame Eliza Manningham-Buller.
We are not sure if this will lead to an increase in the number of fake Interception or Electronic or Intrusive Surveillance Warrants, apparently signed by her under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, or if it will help to authenticate them to those people at the sharp end, who have to obey the real ones.
Surely it is time for the UK Government to make use of the technology of Digial Signatures under the already existing Electronic Communications Act 2000, and not to rely on pen and ink signatures for important orders or legal documents ?
Comments
Evidence obtained by torture isn't really evidence. History is full of false confessions obtained by torturing people. When people are tortured they're just likely to tell you whatever they think you want to hear.
In my view evidence obtained by torture, from whatever source, should never be admissible in a British court of law.
Posted by: Sir Arthur Streeb-Greebling | October 21, 2005 11:15 AM
Direct physical torture is not the only thing which might make an informant in the hands of a police state give false or misleading information, or which might legally taint his information , even if it turns out to be true.
Threats to the informant's family and/or bribery or promises of a reduction in a sentence on regarding an unrelated crime are also things which a British Court could and should take into account, but which they usually cannot. Similarly any testimony from a witness who stands to gain financially e.g. from a reward or cheqquebook journalism eyc. if someone is convicted, should also be carefully scrutinised.
However, note that although the British Police are said to have attempted to interview Mergueba, the ALgerian authorities refused access, obviously leading to the suspicion that he was under some form of coerion.
The legal case against the so called 20th hijacker, accused of complicity in the September 11th 2001 attacks, collapsed in Germany, because the key witness being held in the USA, was not allowed to appear before athe German court, even though he is allegedly cooperating with the US authorities.
Posted by: wtwu | October 21, 2005 8:24 PM
Digital Sig?
all documents signed are eventually returned to the signee... the only fool proof way to do things... unless of course there is a bloody mole in there! lol
Posted by: anon | January 20, 2006 5:36 PM