This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/oct/21/ian-cobain-q-and-a-torture

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Live Q&A with Ian Cobain: Britain's long history with torture Live Q&A with Ian Cobain: Britain's long history with torture
(about 20 hours later)
The official line is that the British don't "do" torture, but by drawing on previously unseen official documents and accounts of witnesses, victims and experts, Ian Cobain reveals a very different story. From the shocking truth about what we did during the second world war to the rendition and torture of British citizens during the "war on terror", via Kenya and Northern Ireland, Cruel Britannia: A Secret History of Torture shows how the British have repeatedly and systematically resorted to brutality, turning a blind eye where necessary, bending the law where they can, and issuing categorical denials all the while. What emerges is a picture of Britain that challenges our complacency on human rights and exposes the lie behind our reputation for fair play.The official line is that the British don't "do" torture, but by drawing on previously unseen official documents and accounts of witnesses, victims and experts, Ian Cobain reveals a very different story. From the shocking truth about what we did during the second world war to the rendition and torture of British citizens during the "war on terror", via Kenya and Northern Ireland, Cruel Britannia: A Secret History of Torture shows how the British have repeatedly and systematically resorted to brutality, turning a blind eye where necessary, bending the law where they can, and issuing categorical denials all the while. What emerges is a picture of Britain that challenges our complacency on human rights and exposes the lie behind our reputation for fair play.
An investigative reporter with the Guardian, Cobain's inquiries into the UK's involvement in torture since 9/11 have won a number of major awards, including the Martha Gellhorn Prize and the Paul Foot award for investigative journalism.An investigative reporter with the Guardian, Cobain's inquiries into the UK's involvement in torture since 9/11 have won a number of major awards, including the Martha Gellhorn Prize and the Paul Foot award for investigative journalism.
He will be online on Monday 22 October between 1pm and 2pm (UK time). You will be able to post questions for him below from 12pm on Monday. Forthestate asks:
[As] the government's justice and security bill is likely to go through what effect do you think this will have on Belhaj's prosecution of Mark Allen, MI6 and MI5?
Ian Cobain replies:
Hello. Earlier this year the government appeared to be rushing to get its Security and Justice Bill through Parliament. If it does become law before the proceedings on behalf of Belhaj come to court (and they're civil proceedings, rather than a prosecution) it would mean that evidence given in defence of the government, and former ministers and officials, could be heard in secret.
There are plenty of critics of the Bill who believe that this is its central purpose.
Whether this reduces accountability remains to be seen.
But it's difficult to see how anything could neuter the weight of evidence relating to the joint UK-Libyan rendition operations of 2004: there's just so much of it.
And it's worth remembering that there's also a criminal investigation into this matter. The Bill doesn't extend to criminal cases.
allknots asks:

What difference has use of the Human Rights Act 1998 made to the government's approach to torture over the last decade? How might the 'British Bill of Rights' David Cameron is considering now change this in the coming decade?
Ian Cobain replies:

The Human Rights Act has been critical, but even more important is the European Convention on Human Rights. After the 2003 invasion of Iraq, senior military figures insisted that the Convention did not extend to Iraqi prisoners in UK custody, despite their own lawyers repeatedly telling them that it did. They were wrong, and are now facing pressure for a Convention-compliant public inquiry into the treatment of those prisoners.
It's difficult to see how a British Bill of Rights could alter this position, not least because the commission that's examining the Bill of Rights proposals is doing so under terms of reference that make clear such a Bill would build upon the UK's responsibilities under the Convention.

Celato asks:

Have you (or any others to your knowledge) pressed members of the [foreign affairs select] committee for [Jack Straw to be] recalled? And, if so, what response(s) have there been?
Ian Cobain replies:

I haven't pressed the Foreign Affairs Committee for a recall. But in a report published last week, the committee made clear that it is far from satisfied by the reassurances it received, and believes a meaningful inquiry into the UK's involvement in rendition is overdue.
Thisusernameistaken7 asks:

How have American attempts to legalise torture (and the necessary UK complicity) affected its use around the world? Is there evidence of a 'slippery slope' towards torture becoming acceptable?
Ian Cobain replies:

Hi Lucy. I think that whatever opportunities there may be for liberal democracies to advocate for improved conduct by other states must be fatally undermined when those democracies are shown to have been involved in rendition to torture.
How can the UK government raise these matters with other governments, and expect a useful response?
There's nothing new here: we now know that when the British government tried to talk to the Soviet authorities about their treatment of dissidents in the 1970s, the Soviets responded by saying, in terms: "Okay, and perhaps then we can then talk about Castlereagh..." - the police holding centre in Belfast.
I don't think torture will ever be considered acceptable in the UK. It is considered shameful, and should carry legal liabilities. But it may be that governments will consider more effective concealment to be necessary.
EfeAytac asks:

Did the techniques utitlised in Northern Ireland prove successful in any way?
Ian Cobain replies:

The government of the day justified the Five Techniques on the basis of the intelligence gleaned. But given that hundreds of people were interned at the same time and questioned without being subjected to these techniques, it is no surprise that some intelligence was gathered.
What also happened is that people joined the IRA when they learned that their friends and neighbours were not only being interned without trial, but that some were also being tortured. Earlier this year the son of one of the 14 men subjected to the Five Techniques was convicted of the murder of two soldiers.
TruePurpleGloves asks:

Do you think there are any times torture is justified?
Ian Cobain replies:

Well, I'm not one of those people who think it doesn't work. It's worth thinking about why it's used: not just to extract information, but to obtain "confessions" that can be used in subsequent court proceedings (as in Northern Ireland in the 70s and for a while in the early 90s); to secure what the British used to call the transfer of loyalties (used by the British when dealing with foreign agents during the Second World War); and to intimidate individuals, communities or even entire societies (used to great effect, unfortunately, in many parts of the world today).
But I'm not sure that it ever has just one consequence. I know a man who was tortured by police in Northern Ireland in 1977. He was subsequently jailed for life for murder - one of several killings for which he was responsible - on the basis of an admission he was said to have made under torture. After ten years in jail he left the IRA, believing he could no longer support the campaign of violence, but remained incarcerated for a further six. On release he became a useful and productive member of society.
His torture had real utility: it removed this man from society, preventing him being involved in spreading further grief, fear and anger, until he was ready to live a peaceful life.
On the other hand, this man tells me that he is concerned that torture creates what he calls "a reservoir of hatred", which will not run dry for generations: he fears that there are Irish children not yet born who will grow to hate the British state because of what was done to him.
I also know a number of the police officers who were involved in the interrogations at the holding centres. Many had come to the conclusion by the late '70s that what they had been doing had prolonged, rather than shortened, the conflict.
Not sure whether that answers your question, but I hope it's useful.
chemoi45moscow asks:

Given that the Tories could make big capital out of New Labour's apparent complicity in torture during the "war on terror". Why do the Tories still try to cover it up?
Ian Cobain replies:

There is reason to believe that a number of Cabinet ministers are genuinely horrified by what they've learned about the actions and omissions of the last government.
To his credit, one of the Prime Minister's first acts after entering No10 was to announce an inquiry into the UK's involvement in rendition and torture. Then various people in buildings around Whitehall appeared to get their hands on the plan, and what was eventually proposed was a secretive review rather than an inquiry, with no victim participation, and in which ministers and officials would be able to give evidence behind closed doors. Not surprisingly, almost every human rights group in the world announced they were boycotting it.
Perhaps one of the lessons to be learned from Bloody Sunday and Hillsborough - and there are plenty of those - is that the British state cannot be trusted to investigate itself, and that no wrong-going will be acknowledged until a generation - rather than a General Election - has passed?