Accountability, denial and the future-proofing of British torture

Ruth Blakeley,Sam Raphael

doi:10.1093/ia/iiaa017

Abstract

Abstract When powerful liberal democratic states are found to be complicit in extreme violations of human rights, how do they respond and why do they respond as they do? Drawing on the example of the United Kingdom's complicity in torture since 9/11, this article demonstrates how reluctant the UK has been to permit a full reckoning with its torturous past. We demonstrate that successive UK governments engaged in various forms of denial, obfuscation and attempts to obstruct investigation and avoid accountability. The net effect of their responses has been to deny the victims redress, through adequate judicial processes, and to deny the public adequate state accountability. These responses are not simply aimed at shielding from prosecution the perpetrators and those who have oversight of them, nor preventing political embarrassment. The various forms of denial and obstruction are also designed to ensure that collusion can continue uninterrupted. A core concern of intelligence officials and ministers has been to prevent any process that would lead to a comprehensive prohibition on involvement in operations where torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment are a real possibility. The door remains wide open, and deliberately so, for British involvement in torture.

Highlights

Ruth Blakeley and Sam Raphael taking all measures to evade accountability
When powerful liberal democratic states are found to be complicit in extreme violations of human rights, how do they respond, and why do they respond as they do? This article explores the various responses of the British state to revelations that UK intelligence and security services colluded in the secret detention, rendition and torture of terror suspects during the irst years of the ‘war on terror’
Democratic leaders are motivated both by self-preservation—saving face, retaining their positions—and by their desire to continue to govern, which in turn depends on maintaining the loyalty of oicials, especially security oicials. This is achieved through avoiding punishment of those responsible, or, when necessary, enacting it at the lowest plausible level of the command chain.[4]

Summary

RUTH BLAKELEY AND SAM RAPHAEL

When powerful liberal democratic states are found to be complicit in extreme violations of human rights, how do they respond, and why do they respond as they do? This article explores the various responses of the British state to revelations that UK intelligence and security services colluded in the secret detention, rendition and torture of terror suspects during the irst years of the ‘war on terror’. These dictated that oicials should neither have the legal responsibility for prisoners (they would rarely, if ever, be the formal detaining authority), nor be physically present during periods of mistreatment and torture With these caveats in place, involvement in abusive practices was deemed legitimate, ensuring that the agencies could remain full partners of the United States and other allies, including in the use of torture, rendition and illegal detention, while at the same time continuing to insist that the UK counterterrorism efort was underpinned by a robust commitment to human rights.[40].

Suppressing evidence

Limiting and misleading investigations

Conclusion