British intelligence agencies were involved in the torture and kidnap of terrorism suspects after 9/11, according to two reports by the parliamentary intelligence and security committee.
The reports published on Thursday amount to one of the most damning indictments ever of UK intelligence, revealing links to torture and rendition were much more widespread than previously reported.
While there was no evidence of officers directly carrying out physical mistreatment of detainees, the reports say the overseas agency MI6 and the domestic service MI5 were involved in hundreds of torture cases and scores of rendition cases.
The committee says the agencies were aware at an early point of the mistreatment of detainees by the US and others. There were two cases in which UK personnel were party to mistreatment administered by others. One has been investigated by the Metropolitan police but the other is still to be fully investigated.
- On 232 occasions UK intelligence officers were found to have continued supplying questions to foreign agencies between 2001 and 2010, despite knowing or suspecting a prisoner was being tortured or mistreated.
- There were 198 occasions when UK intelligence officers received information from a prisoner whom they knew was being mistreated.
- In a further 128 cases, foreign intelligence bodies told UK intelligence agencies prisoners were being mistreated.
- MI5 or MI6 offered to help fund at least three rendition operations.
- The agencies planned or agreed to a further 28 rendition operations.
- They provided intelligence to assist with a further 22 rendition operations.
- Two MI6 officers consented to mistreatment meted out by others. Only one of these incidents has been investigated by police.
- In a further 13 cases, UK intelligence officers witnessed an individual being tortured or mistreated.
- MI5, MI6 and the military conducted up to 3,000 interviews of prisoners held at Guantanamo.
- No attempt is being made to find out whether guidelines introduced by the coalition government in 2010 are helping to prevent the UK’s intelligence agencies from continuing to be involved in human rights abuses.
- The UK breached its commitment to the international prohibition of torture, cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment.
- On at least two occasions ministers took inappropriate decisions.
- A further Scotland Yard investigation must be considered.
The report dealing with the treatment of detainees details a litany of cases of concern, saying: We have found 13 incidents where UK personnel witnessed at first hand a detainee being mistreated by others, 25 where UK personnel were told by detainees that they had been mistreated by others and 128 incidents recorded where agency officers were told by foreign liaison services about instances of mistreatment. In some cases, these were correctly investigated but this was not consistent.
It said that in 232 cases UK personnel continued to supply questions or intelligence to other services despite knowledge or suspicion of mistreatment, as well as 198 cases where UK personnel received intelligence from liaison services which had been obtained from detainees who knew they had been mistreated or with no indication as to how the detainee had been treated but where we consider they should have suspected mistreatment.
The committee found three individual cases where MI6 or MI5 made or offered to make a financial contribution to others to conduct a rendition operation. In 28 cases, the agencies either suggested, planned or agreed to rendition operations proposed by others. In a further 22 cases, MI6 or MI5 provided intelligence to enable a rendition operation to take place. In 23 cases they failed to take action to prevent rendition.
The report says those at headquarters were aware of reports of mistreatment by the US including 38 cases in 2002 alone but did not take them seriously.
That the US, and others, were mistreating detainees is beyond doubt, as is the fact that the agencies and defence intelligence were aware of this at an early point, the report says. The same is true of rendition: there was no attempt to identify the risks involved and formulate the UK’s response. There was no understanding in HMG of rendition and no clear policy or even recognition of the need for one.