U.K. Spies Said to Be Complicit in U.S. Torture of Terrorism Suspects

0
212


“While the committee’s report represents a helpful step forwards, it is not the definitive account of what really happened,” she said. “It was always the wrong tool for the job.”

Mrs. May prevented the panel from questioning agents who were low-ranking at the time — in other words, most of those working in the field — and from asking any officials about specifics of the operations they worked on, the committee said. It added that it had asked her to reconsider her orders in early 2017, but that, more than a year later, “no response has been received.”

In her statement, the prime minister did not directly address that criticism, but said the government would “give further consideration” to the committee’s findings, “in the spirit of continuous improvement.”

The committee wrote that it did not find evidence that British intelligence services willfully overlooked American abuses as a matter of policy. Rather, it concluded, the British “were the junior partner with limited access or influence, and distinctly uncomfortable at the prospect of complaining to their host.”

The abuses occurred primarily from 2002 to 2004, the report says, after which guidelines for British conduct were strengthened, though not always followed.

Although British policy prohibited rendition, the committee found, British agents repeatedly aided other countries in sending suspects to places where there was a high probability they would be mistreated. In three cases, it reported, the British paid, or offered to pay, for renditions; in 28, they “suggested, planned or agreed to rendition operations” conducted by others; and in 22, they provided intelligence to enable a rendition to take place. Finally, in 23 cases, they knew of a rendition operation — in some of those cases involving British citizens or residents — and did nothing to stop it.

The committee took particular issue with the financing, which it called “completely unacceptable,” accusing the intelligence agencies of “outsourcing of action they knew they were not allowed to undertake themselves.”



Source : Nytimes