As President Trump visits the United Kingdom, the focus has been on strained trans-Atlantic relations, his intervention in domestic politics, and massive public protests.
A different, diplomatically-couched protest has received less attention but sends a consequential signal about the so-called “special relationship” between the two countries: U.K. parliamentarians are concerned that under Trump, America could return to a policy of torture — and they are warning British intelligence agencies to guard against it.
Parliament’s Intelligence and Security Committee released a of at the end of June providing extensive detail about U.K. complicity in torture, rendition, and other abuses of detainees by the U.S. military and the CIA during the George W. Bush administration. The reports by the committee, which oversees the U.K.’s intelligence agencies, also focus on policy changes needed to avoid a repeat of such abuses.
The committee uncovered at least 166 instances in which British officials either directly witnessed or had credible information suggesting that torture and abuse were carried out by Americans. It also found 232 cases in which U.K. personnel continued to interrogate or provide intelligence about a U.S.-held detainee even after they knew or suspected that the detainee had been abused. And there were 192 cases in which the U.K. accepted intelligence information obtained by the U.S. from detainees the U.K. knew or should have suspected had been tortured or abused.
The committee found dozens of instances in which the U.K. provided intelligence or financial support to illegal U.S. “renditions” — in which the U.S. essentially kidnapping people and transferring them to third countries where they were subjected to torture and degrading treatment.
The stories the committee tells are harrowing. It cites internal reports from U.K. intelligence officers who visited U.S. detention facilities and saw prisoners hooded and held in painful “stress” positions for hours on end. It describes the CIA’s practice of forcing detainees into small wooden crates designed so that they could neither lie down nor stand up.
The committee describes U.K. intelligence officials documenting detainees’ accounts of sleep deprivation and other forms of abuse — and facing internal pressure from higher-ranking officials to remove those details from their reports. It tells of U.K. foreign service officers walking through the halls of the U.S. detention facility at Bagram Air Force base in Afghanistan, hearing “audible screams” coming from detainees. It describes how U.S. officials asked U.K. officers to leave an interrogation room so they would have “plausible deniability” when the U.S. interrogator “roughed up” the detainee.
How did the U.K. become the Best Supporting Actor in the U.S.’s shameful torture drama? The committee suggests that British intelligence agencies may have been “deliberately turning a blind eye so as not to damage the relationship [with the U.S.] and risk the flow of intelligence.” It notes that the U.K. is the “junior partner” of American intelligence agencies, relying — perhaps over-relying — on the U.S. for intelligence. The committee also says that the U.K. let pressure to share intelligence distract from its obligations to uphold fundamental human rights.
The U.K. intelligence agencies’ own explanation to the parliamentary committee is that they were taken unaware by America’s rapid abandonment, in the aftermath of 9/11, of what the U.K. assumed was a shared set of basic values.
The chief of the U.K.’s Secret Intelligence Service noted that “there was an assumption prevailing that the U.S. would be behaving lawfully. Nothing in our previous experience before 2001 had led us to doubt that.” As a result, he said, the U.K. failed for too long to “join the dots” and fully comprehend its complicity in torture and abuse by its closest ally.
Whatever you think of this explanation from U.K. agencies mired in complicity with torture, we live now in less innocent times. The committee repeatedly refers to a current risk that the U.K. will once again be pressured to choose between complicity in torture and continued cooperation with America. It calls for further tightening of rules to prevent U.K. intelligence agencies from participating in interrogations and exchanging intelligence when there is a serious risk of involvement in torture or mistreatment.
Ominously, the committee specifically refer to “the clear shift in focus signaled by the present US administration,” and asserts that reliance on past U.S. assurances that U.K. territory will not be used for rendition “is completely unsatisfactory.”
Diplomacy may have stopped the committee from naming the sources of its renewed concern, but there can be no doubt that President Trump and CIA Director Gina Haspel are those sources. After all, Trump has repeatedly advocated for a return to torture. And although he has not carried out that promise — or threat — he did succeed in getting the Senate to confirm a CIA director who oversaw torture, and participated in covering up and destroying torture evidence.
Now, Prime Minister Theresa May is welcoming Trump. In advance of his arrival, the U.S. ambassador went on the BBC to extoll the “special relationship” between the two nations and laud the “unprecedented interoperability” of the American and British intelligence and security apparatus.
But the looming fear of future complicity in rights violations threatens that relationship. When the U.K. parliamentarians released their reports, they warned, “We are unconvinced that the Government recognizes the seriousness of rendition and the potential for the UK to be complicit in actions which may lead to torture or CIDT” — cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment. Nevertheless, they noted that U.K. intelligence agencies “are monitoring the actions of their US liaison partners in order to identify at an early stage any shift in policy on detainees.”
Trump is now straining America’s traditional alliances in unprecedented ways. Even in these dark and turbulent times there is some good news — he should not count on America’s Western allies to go along with any return to torture.
Learn More About the Issues on This Page
-
News & CommentaryDec 2024
Human Rights
Failed War on Drugs Policies Won't Stop the Overdose Crisis, But Harm Reduction Can Save LivesFailed War on Drugs Policies Won't Stop the Overdose Crisis, But Harm Reduction Can Save Lives
Research shows extensive benefits from syringe exchange and other harm reduction programs. But misguided efforts to ban common sense care continue. -
News & CommentaryDec 2024
Racial Justice
Human Rights
Why the Fight for Racial Justice is a Human Rights IssueWhy the Fight for Racial Justice is a Human Rights Issue
On International Human Rights Day, the ACLU is advocating for a long-sought after reparatory justice to end the continued abuses against Black and brown communities. -
Press ReleaseOct 2024
Human Rights
Free Speech
Universities Should Protect Students’ Right to Protest, End Crackdown on Peaceful ProtestsUniversities Should Protect Students’ Right to Protest, End Crackdown on Peaceful Protests
WASHINGTON – College and university presidents across the U.S. need to respect and protect the right to protest in support of Palestinian rights the American Civil Liberties Union, Amnesty International, and Human Rights Watch said today in an open letter. For months the organizations have raised concerns about the potential use of unlawful force when university administrators call in law enforcement officers to break up demonstrations on campus. This new letter comes after reports of heavy-handed and excessive force by some campus police and local law enforcement against peaceful protests and encampments across the country. The groups provide recommendations for colleges and universities to ensure they protect the right to protest on their campuses. The organizations also urge university administrations to refrain from taking any further measures to suppress student protests on campus, including stopping the use of so-called less lethal weapons and ensuring that coercive police power is used only as a last resort, among other recommendations. “Universities are responsible for protecting both physical safety and free expression on campus,” said Jamil Dakwar, director at the ACLU’s Human Rights Program. “It’s deeply concerning to see universities needlessly expose students to police violence for peacefully expressing their political opinions. We’re urging schools once again to exercise restraint, practice de-escalation, and protect free speech and dissent on campus.” Preliminary analysis by Amnesty International’s Digital Verification Corps has identified at least 174 photos, videos, or social media posts from 20 universities of potential excessive use of force by law enforcement under international law that merits further investigation. This includes 17 universities where chemical irritants such as pepper spray appear to have been used against student protesters, and 11 universities where officers appear to have responded to protests armed with kinetic impact projectiles such as rubber bullets. The results of this use of force by law enforcement agencies have been devastating, including media-verified reports of severe injuries such as bleeding puncture wounds, head injuries, broken teeth, and suspected broken bones, most notably at the University of California Los Angeles, Columbia University, and the City College of New York. The Digital Verification Corps also documented at least 10 other universities where photos or videos capture potential injuries to students. It found that half of the incidents involving injuries under investigation appear to be the result of chemical irritants. “The information we have gathered on excessive use of force against student protesters is extremely worrisome and we are still in the beginning of our investigation,” said Justin Mazzola, researcher with Amnesty International USA. “With the continuation of the Israeli military’s assault on Gaza and the risk of US complicity through the sending of weapons, campus protests in favor of stopping the violence and destruction will continue. Universities have a responsibility to protect academic freedom and the rights to freedom of expression, and to peacefully protest, and we will be watching to ensure they do.” The ACLU, Amnesty International, and Human Rights Watch are not alone in their concern. The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, and several UN experts, including the UN special rapporteur on the right to education, have criticized the violent crackdown on peaceful demonstrators by law enforcement and disciplinary measures against students exercising their rights to peaceful assembly and freedom of expression. All higher education institutions, even private colleges and universities, where the First Amendment is not applicable, have a responsibility to respect the right to freedom of peaceful assembly under international law. “Instead of resorting to police action that both shuts down free speech and heightens the risk of injuries, universities need to do more to protect student speech from violence and intimidation, and actively ensure that peaceful student expression continues without interference,” said Tanya Greene, director of the US program at Human Rights Watch. As the letter explains, the ACLU, Amnesty International USA, and Human Rights Watch are conducting research and analysis of how campus administrators are responding to student protests. They urge universities to fulfill their human rights responsibilities by facilitating protests and ensuring that all students' rights to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly, regardless of viewpoint, is respected. A comprehensive joint report on this issue is slated to be released by the ACLU and Amnesty International USA in the coming months. The open letter is available here: /documents/letter-to-universities-student-protesters -
News & CommentaryOct 2024
Immigrants' Rights
Human Rights
Three Ways the Media Introduces Bias to the Immigration DebateThree Ways the Media Introduces Bias to the Immigration Debate
Ahead of the election, we examined how political ads and news media stories depict the immigration debate as more negative than it may be.