IN THE wake of recent revelations, it appears that agents from Britain’s intelligence community might finally be held accountable for their previously lesser-known involvement in the CIA’s globally extended program of torture.
As the ramifications of this controversial program unfold, the gaze of international accountability now shifts to the operatives of Britain’s intelligence agencies.
The spotlight is now firmly focused on the United Kingdom’s foreign and domestic intelligence apparatus, with a tribunal specifically created for overseeing intelligence operations now subjecting them to close scrutiny.
On May 26, London’s notoriously secretive Investigatory Powers Tribunal (IPT) unanimously delivered a ground-breaking judgement.
This decision implies that the grievances of two Saudi nationals, who endured severe torture at CIA black sites before being incarcerated for years in Guantanamo Bay, can finally be investigated – albeit in a non-public setting.
The British government had steadfastly maintained that the IPT, which is explicitly designed to scrutinise potential misconduct by London’s security and intelligence agencies, did not hold jurisdiction over the cases of Mustafa al-Hawsawi and Abd al-Rahim Nashiri. However, the IPT beg to differ and held otherwise.
The IPT noted that ‘the underlying issues raised by this complaint are of the gravest possible kind,’ adding that ‘if the allegations are true, it is imperative that that should be established,’ as it would be in the public interest for these issues to be examined.
This ruling implies that the IPT is likely to hear a complaint from Mustafa al-Hawsawi. Since his capture by American troops in 2003, who label him ‘a senior al-Qaida member’, al-Hawsawi has remained under US custody.
The tumultuous journey of al-Hawsawi, who was transferred among various CIA black sites for three years before being relocated to the notorious US torture camp situated in the unlawfully occupied territory of Guantanamo Bay in 2006, exposes a grim tale of human rights violations.
Along this harrowing journey, al-Hawsawi was subjected to violent ‘enhanced interrogation’ techniques, which included rectal examinations performed with ‘excessive force’. These encounters have resulted in severe physical injuries, and he reportedly continues to grapple with ongoing health complications to this day.
Al-Hawsawi’s legal representatives assert that they have compelling evidence that British intelligence agents illegally ‘aided, abetted, encouraged, facilitated, procured and/or conspired’ with the US to torture and abuse their client.
Al-Hawsawi is among the last five remaining detainees in Guantanamo to face charges over their alleged involvement in the 9/11 attacks. According to a declassified summary of the US Senate report into CIA torture, al-Hawsawi was among a number of prisoners held and mistreated, ‘despite doubts and questions surrounding their knowledge of terrorist threats and the location of senior al-Qaeda leadership.’
The attorneys for al-Hawsawi maintain that there is ‘credible evidence’ suggesting that the UK’s MI5 and MI6 delivered queries for his American torturers to pose during the so-called ‘enhanced interrogation’ sessions. The British intelligence agencies are also accused of accepting the information extracted during these brutal sessions.
In contrast to al-Hawsawi’s case, Abd al-Rahim Nashiri was taken into custody in the United Arab Emirates in October 2002, due to his purported involvement in an al-Qaeda attack on the USS Cole in Yemen two years prior.
The US Senate’s report concluded that Nashiri was subjected to repeated episodes of torture and mistreatment, despite the assessment by his interrogators that he was cooperative, and thus the use of any ‘enhanced’ techniques were deemed unnecessary.
Nashiri’s interrogation sessions were marred by the use of a series of horrifying and officially unapproved methods, including ‘threatening to sexually abuse the prisoner’s mother, raising a pistol to his head, and holding a cordless drill to his body,’ as noted by the UK’s Rendition Project.
Nashiri’s lawyers propose that he was of ‘specific interest’ to British intelligence. This interest may explain why London allegedly advised the CIA to refuel at Luton Airport in December 2002 while Nashiri was being transported from Thailand to Poland. They argued, ‘There is an irresistible inference that the UK agencies participated in intelligence sharing in relation to (Nashiri) and were complicit in his torture and ill-treatment.’
Meanwhile, the British government is trying to preclude Abu Zubaydah, known as Guantanamo’s ‘forever prisoner’, from initiating legal action against MI5 and MI6 for supplying the CIA with questions intended for Zubaydah during enhanced interrogations conducted across six distinct nations. The authorities in London counterargue that domestic laws do not apply to Zubaydah, and that his case should be presented against the countries where the torture was carried out.
Zubaydah was subjected to waterboarding 83 times, locked in a diminutive coffin-like box for hundreds of hours, with cockroaches (his lifelong fear) hung from hooks. He was deprived of sleep and forced to endure ‘stress positions’ for extended periods. The consequences of this abuse are profound and enduring. He lost an eye, developed permanent brain damage, suffers from constant seizures, virtually perpetual headaches, and an ‘excruciating sensitivity to sounds.’
In 2018, a report by the UK Parliament’s Intelligence and Security Committee (ISC) confirmed that British intelligence had ‘direct awareness of extreme mistreatment’ of Zubaydah at the hands of the CIA, and continued supplying questions for his American torturers to ask him regardless. The report concluded that not long after Zubaydah’s capture in Pakistan in 2002, MI6 officials determined the techniques carried out on the detainee were so harsh that ‘98 percent of US Special Forces would have broken if subject to the same conditions.’
The ISC findings definitively showcased London’s key supporting role in the CIA’s extraordinary rendition program. Under the terms of this covert agreement, British intelligence and security services provided extensive logistical support to the CIA and outsourced the torture of detainees to some of the world’s most repressive regimes. With the full knowledge and active involvement of the British government, the detainees were flown to countries where they would face harsh interrogation techniques that would otherwise be illegal under UK law.
The British government’s attempts to distance itself from the controversial operations have been futile. Revelations indicate that Britain’s intelligence apparatus was not merely a passive observer, but an active participant in these inhumane practices.
Reprieve, a legal charity based in London, has been instrumental in revealing the depths of the British government’s involvement. The group has managed to build a comprehensive body of evidence by painstakingly collating fragments of information from a multitude of sources, including official documents, media reports, court testimonies, and interviews with victims and their families. The resulting dataset paints a grim picture of Britain’s role in the CIA’s program.
The disclosures have led to an outcry from human rights organisations and civil liberties advocates worldwide. Many demand the immediate cessation of Britain’s complicity in such activities and the prosecution of those responsible for the torture and ill-treatment of detainees. However, efforts to obtain justice for the victims have been hindered by the British government’s refusal to cooperate.
Despite the government’s efforts to obfuscate and deny culpability, the mounting evidence has made it increasingly difficult for the authorities to evade scrutiny. Indeed, the revelation that Britain was complicit in the CIA’s program has already prompted some governmental and judicial inquiries. Yet, their progress has been slow, largely because of the British government’s resistance to full disclosure and accountability.
On the international front, these revelations have drawn widespread condemnation. The United Nations, as well as several international human rights organisations, have urged the British government to initiate thorough investigations and bring those responsible to justice.
The IPT ruling marks a pivotal turning point, in which the veil of secrecy shrouding Britain’s intelligence community begins to lift. The tribunal’s judgement not only opens the door for further investigations into the UK’s involvement in the CIA’s torture program but also sets a precedent that could impact other nations involved in such activities.
Meanwhile, the victims continue to endure the psychological and physical scars of the horrendous abuses they suffered. Their pursuit of justice is not just about seeking recompense for their personal suffering, but also about revealing the truth to the world and holding those accountable who violated international law under the guise of national security.
If the IPT’s ruling is upheld, it could expose the British government to potential lawsuits from other victims of the CIA’s program. In the end, the tribunal’s decision may well be a watershed moment in the ongoing struggle for transparency, accountability, and justice for those who were subjected to the inhumane practices of the CIA’s torture program, with the active participation of its British allies.
Picture description- US Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham, photographed alongside Abdelhakim Belhaj, leader of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, amidst NATO’s intervention in Libya. Notably, to the left of Belhaj stands the late Christopher Stevens, the US Ambassador to Libya.
