Americas Torture Policy lets Osama Escape
July 30th, 2007 by Joe Hack
Americas growing and enthusiastic use of torture has backfired on them and risked the lives of American citizens. In the UK Government Ministers insisted that British secret agents would only be allowed to pass intelligence to the CIA to help it capture Osama bin Laden if the agency promised he would not be tortured, it has emerged.
MI6 believed it was close to finding the al-Qaida leader in Afghanistan in 1998, and again the next year. The plan was for MI6 to hand the CIA vital information about Bin Laden. Ministers including Robin Cook, the then foreign secretary, gave their approval on condition that the CIA gave assurances he would be treated humanely. The plot is revealed in a 75-page report by parliament’s intelligence and security committee on rendition, the practice of flying detainees to places where they may be tortured.
The report criticises the US administration’s approval of practices which would be illegal if carried out by British agents. It shows that in 1998, the year Bin Laden was indicted in the US, Britain insisted that the policy of treating prisoners humanely should include him. But the CIA never gave the assurances.
“In 1998, SIS [MI6] believed that it might be able to obtain actionable intelligence that might enable the CIA to capture Osama bin Laden,” the committee says in its report. It adds: “Given that this might have resulted in him being rendered from Afghanistan to the US, SIS sought ministerial approval. This was given provided that the CIA gave assurances regarding humane treatment.” British intelligence made a similar request in 1999, and obtained the same response from Whitehall, but in the event MI6 did not provide the information.
But 1998 and 1999 were not the only times Britain had Bin Laden in its sights. In January 1996 the Home Office wrote to him when he was in Sudan. The letter, seen by the Guardian, advised him that Michael Howard, then home secretary, had “given his personal direction that you be excluded from the United Kingdom on the grounds that your presence…would not be conducive to the public good.”
What it comes down to is this. Torture is wrong. Period. No excuses. No ifs, ands, buts or maybes. Anyone who practices it or condones it is utter scum and deserves to be shunned by decent people everywhere. Any politician who allows it must be hounded out of office and, ideally, locked up as a criminal. Bush, Cheney and Gonzalez may see no problem with torturing prisoners but the rest of the civilized world damn sure does, thank God, and ultimately that is bound to work to the disadvantage of America. Until some semblance decency is restored to the Whitehouse and to American foreign policy we can expect more of this kind of thing to happen.
You get what you deserve. Who says so ? Joe Hack does.
-Tags:Afghanistan al quaeda Bush Iraq osama bin laden Political Rants scandal terrorism terrorist war on terror
If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!
Posted in Political Rants |
July 30th, 2007 at 6:52 am
Sounds like MI6 should be painted with the weak policy complaint. And what about that story that Bill Clinton refused to take Bin Laden when Sudan and Saudi security offered to pick him up and deliver?
July 30th, 2007 at 5:34 pm
Does it ever strike anyone that the bushies really don’t *want* to catch Bin Laden ? After all, he is the big bad bogeyman. With him in jail or dead what woud they use to scare the gullible? Just a thought.
July 31st, 2007 at 10:55 am
do you even know who the president of the United States was in 1996, 1998, and 1999. it was Bill Clinton you dumbass! if the CIA refused to give assurances to MI6 or SIS during those years then that would fall upon Bill Clinton. and i have to say that if the CIA under Bill Clinton refused to give assurances not to torture OBL then that’s one of the few times i would have agreed with him. your hatred for Bush has got you so blind that you don’t even know who was the president during the ’90’s. oh, and by the way hijacking 4 airplanes and flying them into the WTC, the Pentagon, and a remote field in Pennsylvania is also condemed by the civilized world, but no word of criticism about it from you. i anticipate your correction of the photoshopped picture and title of your post, NOT.
August 1st, 2007 at 9:23 am
Good points Stormin, and in fact I’m happy to amend the article for the sake of clarity in case anyone else misunderstands the essential point. See what a reasonable guy I am ? Let me spell it out. Regardless of the past, the Bush administration is the first to my knowledge to overtly support the use of practices considered to be torture, both directly by the US itself (eg ‘water-boarding’ and worse) and indirectly by ramping up the ‘extraordinary rendition’, (kidnapping) of foreign nationals to secret facilities abroad where they can be tortured. Americas increased use of torture under Bush is a disgrace and is in fact rejected by most genuinely patriotic americans. It is always wrong, period, and anyone who condones it is as guilty as the torturer. That clearly includes Bush, Cheney, Gonzalez, and in fact anyone who seeks to excuse the use of torture in any circumstances. Not only is it morally wrong, its criminally dumb and counter-productive because it produces flawed intelligence, creates new enemies, and makes people who should be allies turn away in disgust. Maybe it was a secret, shameful thing in the past but now its out in the open and condoned at the highest level. How did America sink so low under Bush that it is even necessary to have this public discussion ? And how can we regain some moral credibility in the eyes of the world ? I don’t want to be one of the bad guys. Do you ?