« Joint Human Rights Committee Postpones Again Decision on Whether to Call My Evidence on UK Complicity in Torture | Main | So You Think This Is A Democracy? »
March 13, 2009
Trying Again to Stop Torture: My Formal Statement for the Joint Committee on Human Rights
WITNESS STATEMENT TO THE PARLIAMENTARY JOINT COMMITTEE ON HUMAN RIGHTS
My name is Craig Murray. I was British Ambassador in Uzbekistan from August 2002 to October 2004.
I had joined the Diplomatic Service in 1984 and became a member of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office’s Senior Management Structure in 1998. I had held a variety of posts including Deputy High Commissioner, Accra (1998 to 2001) and First Secretary Political and Economic, Warsaw (1994 to 1997).
I had also been head of the FCO section of the Embargo Surveillance Sector leading up to and during the first Gulf War, monitoring and interdicting Iraqi attempts at weapons procurement. In consequence I had obtained security clearances even higher than those routinely given to all executive members of the Diplomatic Service. I had extensive experience throughout my career of dealing with intelligence material and the intelligence services.
It was made plain to me in briefing in London before initial departure for Tashkent that Uzbekistan was a key ally in the War on Terror and to be treated as such. It was particularly important to the USA who valued its security cooperation and its provision of a major US airbase at Karshi-Khanabad.
As Ambassador in Uzbekistan I regularly received intelligence material released by MI6. This material was given to MI6 by the CIA, mostly originating from their Tashkent station. It was normally issued to me telegraphically by MI6 at the same time it was issued to UK ministers and officials in London.
From the start of my time as Ambassador, I was also receiving a continual stream of information about widespread torture of suspected political or religious dissidents in Tashkent. This was taking place on a phenomenal scale. In early 2003 a report by the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture, in the preparation of which my Embassy much assisted, described torture in Uzbekistan as “routine and systemic”.
The horror and staggering extent of torture in Uzbekistan is well documented and I have been informed by the Chair is not in the purview of the Joint Committee on Human Rights. But what follows goes directly to the question of UK non-compliance with the UN Convention Against Torture.
In gathering evidence from victims of torture, we built a consistent picture of the narrative which the torturers were seeking to validate from confessions under torture. They sought confessions which linked domestic opposition to President Karimov with Al-Qaida and Osama Bin Laden; they sought to exaggerate the strength of the terrorist threat in Central Asia. People arrested on all sorts of pretexts – (I recall one involved in a dispute over ownership of a garage plot) suddenly found themselves tortured into confessing to membership of both the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan (IMU) and Al-Qaida. They were also made to confess to attending Al-Qaida training camps in Tajikistan and Afghanistan. In an echo of Stalin’s security services from which the Uzbek SNB had an unbroken institutional descent, they were given long lists of names of people they had to confess were also in IMU and Al-Qaida.
It became obvious to me after just a few weeks that the CIA material from Uzbekistan was giving precisely the same narrative being extracted by the Uzbek torturers – and that the CIA “intelligence” was giving information far from the truth.
I was immediately concerned that British ministers and officials were being unknowingly exposed to material derived from torture, and therefore were acting illegally.
I asked my Deputy, Karen Moran, to call on a senior member of the US Embassy and tell him I was concerned that the CIA intelligence was probably derived from torture by the Uzbek security services. Karen Moran reported back to me that the US Embassy had replied that it probably did come from torture, but in the War on Terror they did not view that as a problem.
In October or November of 2002 I sent the FCO a telegram classified Top Secret and addressed specifically for the attention of the Secretary of State. I argued that to receive this material from torture was:
• Illegal – Plainly it was a breach of UNCAT
• Immoral – To support such despicable practices undermined our claims to civilisation
• Impractical – The material was designed to paint a false picture
I received no reply, so in January or February of 2003 I sent a further telegram repeating the same points.
I was summoned back to a meeting which was held in the FCO on 7 or 8 March 2003. Present were Linda Duffield, Director Wider Europe; Matthew Kydd, Head Permanent Under Secretary’s Department; Sir Michael Wood, Legal Adviser.
At the start of the meeting Linda Duffield told me that Sir Michael Jay, Permanent Under Secretary, wished me to know that my telegrams were unwise and that these sensitive questions were best not discussed on paper.
In the meeting, Sir Michael Wood told me that it was not illegal for us to obtain intelligence from torture, provided someone else did the torture. He added “I make no comment on the moral aspect” and appeared to me to be signalling disapproval.
Matthew Kydd told me that the Security Services considered the material from the CIA in Tashkent useful. He also argued that, as the final intelligence report issued by the security services excludes the name of the detainee interrogated, it is not possible to prove that torture was involved in any particular piece of intelligence.
Linda Duffield told me that Jack Straw had discussed this question with Sir Richard Dearlove and the policy was that, in the War on Terror, we should not question such intelligence. The UK/US intelligence sharing agreement stipulated that all intelligence must be shared.
Influential figures in the US believed this was an unfair agreement as we received much more from the US than they did from us. It was not in our interest to abandon the universality principle and refuse categories of CIA material.
It was agreed that Sir Michael Wood’s view that it was not illegal to receive intelligence from torture would be put in writing. I attach a copy of his letter of 13 March 2003.
http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/documents/Wood.pdf
This meeting was minuted. I have seen the minute, which is classified Top Secret. On the top copy is a manuscript note giving Jack Straw’s views. It is entirely plain from this note that this torture policy was under his personal direction.
I returned to Tashkent. In May 2003, during a visit to Tashkent by my line manager, Simon Butt, he told me I was viewed in London as “unpatriotic”. This hurt me enormously as I had served my country with great enthusiasm for 19 years. Every traceable generation of my family had served in the British military. I felt it was my country which had abandoned the principles I had believed I was working for.
In August 2003 the FCO attempted to frame me on eighteen false charges of gross misconduct and demanded my resignation. I refused and after a sickening fight was acquitted and returned to Tashkent in January 2004.
While in London in approximately May 2004 for a medical check-up I was informed by Jon Benjamin, Head of Human Rights Policy Department FCO, that there had just been a senior level interdepartmental FCO meeting on receiving intelligence from torture and he had been surprised I was not invited. The policy that we would accept this intelligence had been re-affirmed.
On return to Tashkent I sent on 22 July 2004 yet a further telegram arguing we should not obtain intelligence from torture. I kept an electronic copy and this is attached.
http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/documents/Telegram.pdf
I specifically argued (paras 16 to 18) that we were in breach of Article 4 of UNCAT which concerns complicity with torture. I also referred to the US transport of detainees to Uzbekistan (para 18). I referred to the London interdepartmental meeting (paras 8 to 9).
I received a brief and extraordinary reply to the effect that there had been no such meeting in the last two weeks. I knew it had been before then and had not referred to a date in my telegram.
This telegram, which was sparked by my anger at the lies in our public position on torture after Abu Ghraib became public, resulted in my dismissal as ambassador when it was leaked to the Financial Times (not by me).
Conclusions
1. All CIA intelligence is received by the UK. MI6 has seen the fruits of every CIA waterboarding session and rendition torture. Very many will have been passed on to ministers and senior officials.
2. Ministers decided the principle of the universality of the UK/US intelligence sharing agreement was more important than any aversion to torture. We could not refuse this material from the CIA without compromising the basic agreement.
3. Ministers did know they were receiving intelligence from torture. There was a definite, internally promulgated and legally cleared policy to receive intelligence from torture, directed in person by Jack Straw.
4. The format of intelligence reports contains a deliberate double blind; by excluding the name of the detainee from the final report, Ministers can state they have never knowingly seen intelligence from torture.
5. The government’s public lines that we do not condone, endorse, encourage or instigate torture, even that we condemn it and work against it, do not answer the key question:
“Are we prepared on a regular basis to receive intelligence from torture?”
That question is capable of a one word answer. The true answer is yes. The government refuses to give a straight answer.
Signed
Craig J Murray
13 March 2009
Posted by craig on March 13, 2009 2:04 PM in the category Rendition
Comments
They are not really even pretending to be listening. Someone just sent me this response to their email to the joint committee:
Your message
To: Joint Committee On Human Rights
Cc: craig murray
Subject: Torture evidence on 10 March
Sent: Thu, 5 Mar 2009 14:47:36 -0000
was deleted without being read on Fri, 13 Mar 2009 10:46:42 -0000
Posted by: Craig at March 13, 2009 2:27 PM
That's all beautifully put, Craig. If email's down, put the bugger in the post, before it gets privatised. And thanks from us, anyway.
They'll be listening all right - wondering , freaking out about what to do about this devastating testimony.
Your move, Dismore.
Posted by: Strategist at March 13, 2009 2:37 PM
What's the betting they'll come back and say you used the wrong font ...
Just a thought but would it be possible to put in a FOI request to see communications relating to any discussions or advice Dismore received in preparing his response to you?
Posted by: gremlins3 at March 13, 2009 2:49 PM
I am prepared to give the jchr the benefit of the doubt while I try to give them evidence. But Jack Straw and the security services are a different matter.
Might be worth pointing out that I am enormously looking forward to the birth of our new baby in May, and am very happy with Nadira and my kids Jamie and Emily. There is absolutely no way I am going to kill myself. Just thought it might be wise to get that out in public!
Posted by: Craig at March 13, 2009 2:52 PM
And I guess it's safe to presume you're not considering any extreme sports or canoeing around Southend pier anytime soon?
:-)
Might want to be extra careful crossing the road for the next couple of weeks...
Posted by: ceedee at March 13, 2009 3:20 PM
Craig resist the temptation to go swimming off Beachy Head ok - you might be hit by a falling gargoyle!
Seriously, it's great that you take a stand against these creeps. Very best of luck to you and Nadira!
Posted by: Richard at March 13, 2009 3:32 PM
"There is absolutely no way I am going to kill myself. Just thought it might be wise to get that out in public!"
Goes to show how bad things are when you have to say that.
George Galloway has said the same thing on his radio show.
My God we are in deep trouble,as if we didn`t know.
Posted by: George Dutton at March 13, 2009 5:04 PM
I was aware of your "experiences" in Tashkent when they hit the news (briefly) and was appalled. I'm sorry now that I did not take more interest.
I note with distaste the name of Jack Straw in this matter.
Should we approach our Local Members of Parliament on this matter?
David M
Posted by: David Mills at March 13, 2009 6:26 PM
Craig - if the committee again refuses to hear you, you could get a sympathetic MP [your own if possible] or Peer to ask a Private Notice Question.
Posted by: anticant at March 13, 2009 6:35 PM
It astonishes me that during this enquiry they have taken evidence from a journalist at the Guardian and a researcher from Human Rights Watch - both good people I am sure - yet are resisting taking actual first hand eyewitness evidence.
Posted by: Craig at March 13, 2009 6:50 PM
"It astonishes me that...[they] are resisting taking actual first hand eyewitness evidence." - What does it tell you Craig? Stephen's post on the previous thread about faux and pacifying 'inquiries' is on the button. I think Ruth and Dr chris burns-cox (both prev. post) were on the button too.
@ George:
"Goes to show how bad things are when you have to say that.... My God we are in deep trouble, as if we didn’t know." - That sent a shiver even down my spine! But it's absolutely 100% correct.
Posted by: lwtc247 at March 13, 2009 7:04 PM
This purpose of the committee isn't to uncover the truth about torture, but to bury it, to prove that the government isn't involved; because, if it was shown to be involved, this could have serious implications.
Posted by: writerma n at March 13, 2009 7:19 PM
From writerman:
This purpose of the committee isn't to uncover the truth about torture, but to bury it, to prove that the government isn't involved; because, if it was shown to be involved, this could have serious implications.
I absolutely agree.
Posted by: Ruth at March 13, 2009 8:15 PM
Obama seems to be shielding our war criminals over here.Sy Hershs' latest might stir up some investigations but I'm not holding mt breath.Good luck and be careful.
Posted by: par4 at March 13, 2009 8:32 PM
"this could have serious implications"
The charge is torture...It could well turn out to be torture and murder...
http://tinyurl.com/7ejwd
Posted by: George Dutton at March 13, 2009 8:53 PM
Just a thought ... Have you considered approaching The Guardian and offering your submission to the JCHR to appear as an article on "Comment is Free"?
Getting this out and into the MSM might be more productive than just using the blogs. Best of luck!
Posted by: Mike K at March 13, 2009 9:10 PM
writerman: "This purpose of the committee isn't to uncover the truth about torture,..."
Indeed, the purpose of this committee is not to uncover the truth about torture. That's OK, it has a useful role anyway as indicated in the first paragraph of its home page: "The Committee is charged with considering human rights issues in the UK..."
The particular human rights issue *in the UK* which I think it should be considering in the light of Craig's evidence is, quite narrowly, the question of the legality of the UK government receiving intelligence derived from torture.
Clearly the evidence that Craig is presenting is that the FCO, etc., currently think that that is legal. Either:
1) they're wrong (i.e., it's illegal) and the matter needs to be clarified, something this committee seems to be in a good position to do or
2) they're right in which case the committee probably ought to consider the compatibility of current British law with UNCAT (and basic morality) and "report[s] its findings ... to the House".
In order to do something useful there is no need for this committee to go after particular individuals ("...but cannot take up individual cases"). If it simply gets the law clarified or changed for the future then that will be enough within its remit.
Posted by: Ed Davies at March 13, 2009 9:21 PM
Mike K, The Guardian has been an active participant in the media blackout of Craig. I honestly suspect would get more chance with the Mail on Sunday. Which is a shaming indictment of The Guardian.
Posted by: Strategist at March 13, 2009 10:12 PM
Keep going Craig. And tell your story anywhere that will publish it. The media blackout is real; I only came to know of you through the blogosphere and I DO pay attention to the news. And the 'suicide' thing? Say it and keep saying it, it may just keep you alive. Interesting times indeed.
Posted by: wh00ps at March 13, 2009 10:39 PM
The Attorney General referred to Mr Dismore in his capacity as chair of the JCHR in her answers yesterday in the HoL about the torture and rendition of Binyam Mohammed.
http://www.theyworkforyou.com/lords/?id=2009-03-12a.1265.6&s=dismore#g1267.4
On that subject he said on 5 February 2009 in the HoC -
"On the potentially exculpatory material to which my right hon. Friend referred, would he at least go as far as to say, in general terms, whether it included evidence of torture? If so, that would fit the pattern of the cogent evidence that the Joint Committee on Human Rights received on Tuesday afternoon about allegations of torture committed by the Pakistan security services, and the complicity of UK agents in that. Although my right hon. Friend may see no evil and hear no evil, that does not mean that the evil of torture does not exist. Would he ensure that the JCHR gets full co-operation in our inquiry into UK compliance with the requirements of the United Nations convention against torture in these matters?"
As Vice Chair of Labour Friends of Israel, Dismore often speaks in the House about anti-semitism, the holocaust and the like...In fact he introduced the bill to create the Holocaust Memorial Day.
On 29 January 2009 he said in the HoC:
"I am grateful to my hon. Friend because he has made an important point, particularly in the wake of the recent troubles in Gaza and southern Israel. There has been a real upsurge in anti-Semitic attacks in my constituency and borough, and more widely. The Community Security Trust recorded more than 150 attacks, the highest number since it started keeping details. That is a very serious matter. Does my hon. Friend think that those responsible for those attacks could learn a lot if they studied what had happened during the holocaust?"
Yet in his February 2009 (from his website) newsletter specifically for the Jewish constituents in Hendon, he reports their answers to this question in his questionaire -
Q7) Have you experienced any anti-semitic behaviour since the crisis began?
We heard a lot about the rise in anti-semitism in the media, as a result of the Gaza crisis; and many people have written to me about their fears.
Whilst we can never be complacent on this extremely serious issue, the level of anti Semitism seems to be low, in the constituency – 90% say they have not experienced anti-semitism since the crisis began; only two respondents say they have (the rest did not answer the question).
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Can you spot the contradiction?
He has been to Israel with the Labour Friends of Israel and to Paris last year with the European Friends of Israel.
Above info from TheyWorkForYou
Posted by: mary at March 13, 2009 11:02 PM
Well done, Craig! Noli nothis permittere te terere.
Posted by: Steve Abbott at March 13, 2009 11:13 PM
I am standing amongst giants. The BBC's Frank Gardner says there is no suggestion that Uncle Tony made use of material gained by torture. The Right Hon. Mr Andy D. of the UK Parliament's Jewish Committee on Human Rights agrees.
Our man in his leopard spotted leotard and the crowd consisting of every other human being on this planet, God and His angels, do not agree.
Is Uncle Tony getting a prickly feeling on the back of his neck at this time or is he too busy forcing the people of Palestine to come to heel?
Posted by: Anas Taunton at March 14, 2009 1:09 AM
Do you mean war pimp and MI5/6 liaison officer Frank Gardener who hides, like many of them do, in the BBC? Frank G who, very much to his disgrace, pulled out of his azz unsourced rubbish designed to bring into disrepute National Intelligence director Dennis Blair who said the other day ‘Iran has no enriched uranium’.
Frank G should be instantly sacked for that, or at least grilled like Andrew Gilligan. but he won't be as he in alignment with the mission of the BBC.
War pimping is the done thing. It’s only the poor fools who expose the lies and try to stop unimaginable death and suffering who are for the chop. Disagree? Look at this pimping: Friday, 2 March, 2001, 23:52 GMT Saddam's bomb (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/correspondent/1191203.stm)
Sick!
Frank reports the (filtered) surprise that people were 'srprised at the fuss' of the UK bugging the UN. *jaw drops at this mans unchallended agenda* {click on name-link}
Posted by: The eyes have it at March 14, 2009 2:03 AM
Like many others here I really do admire your efforts Craig; and I wish you the very best of luck. Anger and disgust at the Government is a natural response to the evidence you set out. I was particularly struck by your response to Simon Butts remarks on patriotism. I too have served in the armed forces as did my father and both grandfathers, one of whom was blinded at Paschendale in 1917. I too had always regarded myself as 'Patriotic'; but events leading up to the invasion of Iraq, coincident as they were with my experiences of government and its enforcers during the Campaign for Hunting, have changed my view of 'patriotism' fundamentally. I began a process of intense study and began to question some lifelong assumptions. The results have been and remain very uncomfortable indeed. I can no longer be patriotic about the British State. In fact I can do no other than despise it heartily and when I hear the likes of Gordon Brown extolling 'British values' and 'Britishness' it makes me cringe with shame and embarrassment. Suffice to say that anyone interested in exploring instances of similar behaviour by successive governments and the senior civil service could do worse than read John Pilger's Book 'Freedom Next Time' - especially the first chapter about the Chagos Islanders. It's also on DVD and Pilger's interviews with senior British and US functionaries are a revelation in the brutal, cynical amoral arrogance of power.
Dismore and the rest of the Privy council level apologists for Great Britain will make quite sure that the boat is rocked only so far - if at all. Defence of the Establishment status-quo is their function in life; their whole raison d'etre. Rank, position, and place in life (and a gong if they are judged to have succeeded) depend on unswerving loyalty to a certain narrative of Britain as an essentially benign state seeking to make the world a better place (and in his case loyalty to that racist apartheid monstrosity Israel as well). So do not expect much, if anything from his committee other than to seriously embarrass it and risk making yet more powerful, amoral and utterly ruthless enemies.
I have an ongoing attempt to describe my own journey from credulous naivity on the Sabretache site.
Posted by: sabretache at March 14, 2009 9:02 AM
Yet no inquiry was held into the death of Willie McRae. Instead, there was a whispering campaign suggesting that "McRae was everything from an alcoholic, to a homosexual, to a man in deep financial trouble."
"Good enough reasons why he might be troubled, why he might have killed himself, but absolutely without any substance"...
http://tinyurl.com/apyscu
Posted by: George Dutton at March 14, 2009 11:44 AM
George. A cadidate for SADS
http://conspiraloon.blogspot.com/2008/09/sudden-adult-death-syndrome.html
Posted by: lwtc247 at March 14, 2009 4:30 PM
Keep voting Tory and Labour, fools. Keep chatting. Keep talking. Keep writing comments. Keep e-mailing.
The only thing they'll listen to now is violence.
Posted by: Other John at March 15, 2009 5:19 PM
I wish you the very best of luck Craig.
The fact that you have to mention that you're not going to commit suicide shows how truly desperate,evil and out of control this mob and their cowed little spooks truly are.
It ought terrify every single citizen in this land now.
What a disgraceful state.
Posted by: at March 20, 2009 2:21 PM
Congratulations Craig Murray.I have been helping Brian Haw in Parliament Sq: for the last 7 years trying to make people pay attention.There is a growing awareness but the question remains how to hold those responsible to account.Bliar should either be in Broadmoor or at the Hague .If only people demanded that their M.P. DID something. M Culver
Posted by: Michael Culver at March 22, 2009 1:32 PM