Army must come clean on torture in Iraq, say MPs

The British Army are coming under heavy pressure from an influential committee of MPs to explain the "stark inconsistencies" between the department's official line on what is permissible during interrogations and evidence given at the recent court martial of seven British soldiers.

The court martial into the death of Iraqi hotel worker Baha Mousa, who died after sustaining 93 separate injuries, heard evidence that senior British officers in Iraq sanctioned the 'conditioning' of prisoners, which included the use of hooding and forcing detainees to stand for hours in stressful positions.

The MoD, however, told the joint committee during its recent inquiry into the UK's compliance with the UN Convention Against Torture that the use of hooding and stress positioning for the purpose of interrogation has been prohibited since 1972. The Committee has now written to the Defence Secretary, Des Browne, seeking an explanation.

The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights will ask Des Browne to explain how there could be such a difference between what is actually taking place on the ground and the rules that the MoD insist are being followed, in what could potentially be a major embarrassment for the MoD as it could be found to be acting outside of international human rights laws.

'The Government should now accept our recommendation that the provisions of the torture convention should apply to all of our armed forces' actions,' Andrew Dismore, the committee's chairman, said. 'It should ensure that our troops are suitably trained to equip them with the skills and knowledge needed to comply fully with our international obligations.'

Leanne MacMillan, director of policy and external affairs at the Medical Foundation for the Care of Victims of Torture, welcomed the decision to seek answers from the MoD. 'It is quite clear that assurances given to parliament by the then Prime Minister Edward Heath in March 1972 have not been honoured,' MacMillan said.

'He stated quite unequivocally in the House of Commons that conditioning techniques such as hooding, stress positions, sleep deprivation, the withholding of food and drink, and bombardment with loud noise would not be used by Britain's armed forces unless sanctioned in advance by parliament. It is quite clear, however, both from the court martial, and from what the Medical Foundation has learnt from former army interrogators, that the techniques have continued to be used.'

There are many who have questioned whether or not hooding and stress positions constitute torture, as if torture - in the words of Bill O'Reilly - only really begins if one "loses a finger".

However, the European Court of Human Rights has ruled that such techniques are inhumane and degrading and, indeed, the United Nations Committee Against Torture has recently ruled that such practices do amount to torture.

It's one of the most distressing things that has taken place since the establishment of Guantanamo Bay and Rumsfeld talking about enemy non combatants. We, in the west, now find ourselves arguing over what constitutes torture and what doesn't. What has happened to us?

We once led the world by example, it was taken for granted that we didn't engage in the kinds of actions that one might expect to find taking place in tinpot dictatorships. Then came 9-11 and the US, the world's source of moral authority, began to be rumoured to be taking people to secret prisons, we had a US Vice President who appeared to be arguing that the US must reserve the right to torture and a Congress falling over itself to give the president the power to engage in "enhanced interrogation techniques". These are techniques which the President and the administration tell us fall short of torture whilst refusing to say which acts they would consider as constituting torture.

And, of course, where the US goes, her allies eventually follow. So now Des Browne will have to explain why the British Army appear to be engaging in techniques which we have outlawed since 1972.

I expected many reactions post 9-11, but I honestly never thought the world's supposedly great civilisations would ever find themselves arguing over what constitutes torture and what doesn't.

The very fact the question is being asked is a measure of how many of our principles we have thrown away.

Nor can we be comforted by blaming al-Qaeda. For our response to any provocation is a chosen one. We chose this path. That should be a source of shame to all of us.

Click title for full article.