From the Guardian

Whitehall officials play down torture inquiry expectations

Suggestions the inquiry will be held in private and would have to await pending court cases comes after William Hague's remarks about a judge-led hearing

Richard Norton-Taylor
guardian.co.uk
Friday 21 May 2010 21.13 BST


The scope and nature of an inquiry into claims that the security and intelligence agencies were complicit in the torture abroad of terror suspects are far from being agreed, government officials made clear tonight.

It became apparent today that frantic attempts were being made to play down the significance and urgency behind remarks by William Hague, the foreign secretary, on BBC Radio 4's PM programme on Thursday, confirming what he had previously proposed – namely, a judge-led inquiry. Officials said Hague's remarks "came out of the blue".

It was suggested that any inquiry might have to await court cases, including a civil trial, which has yet to start, in which British residents and citizens held by the US in Guantanámo Bay are seeking compensation from MI5 and MI6. It was also being suggested in Whitehall that any inquiry would have to be held in private.

Nevertheless, Hague's remarks were hailed by a growing number of groups demanding an independent investigation into the allegations.

Tory MP Andrew Tyrie, chairman of the all-party committee on rendition, described Hague's comments as "a tremendous early success of coalition politics. After years of stonewalling, a British government is going to do the right thing."

The former Conservative shadow home secretary David Davis said: "This is excellent news. I am glad to see that both parties in the coalition are living up to their pre-election promises."

He added: "It is vital that this investigation is comprehensive, covering all of the torture allegations in full. It is also vital that it is exhaustive, and that the inquiry team have full access to all people and papers, in all security classifications, both at home and abroad. It is also vital that it is fully independent, and this should be guaranteed by it being led by a high ranking and experienced judge who is not involved with the security services."

Clive Stafford Smith, director of the legal charity Reprieve, said: "We cannot learn from history if we do not know what that history is. The previous government made such a concerted effort to cover up the truth that a full and open inquiry is vital to Britain's credibility. Only when the truth is known can we put in place the kinds of rules that will deter a future government, in crisis, from abandoning our core principles."

He continued: "We do not call for retribution, or the opportunity to abuse the abusers. A truth and reconciliation process is more sensible if we want to get to the facts. It is also more consistent with our principles."

Human Rights Watch said an inquiry should be held in public and "examine the degree to which UK government policy, and decisions by UK ministers and officials, contributed to such abuse".

The Liberal Democrat justice and human rights spokeswoman in the European parliament, Sarah Ludford said: "This inquiry has the potential to once and for all bare the truth and provide accountability regarding Britain's post-9/11 human rights record. It will allow us to finally come to terms with what happened, and hopefully move on."

Something good may finally come out of Labour having been booted from government. The new coalition government has much less cause to go hush-hush on British involvement in torture and rendition allegations since they were not directly compromised.

On the contrary, they may actually be able to gain political capital from a full disclosure of what happened, because whereas politicians may be talked into "allowing torture if it promises good results," the British public at large doesn't.

By "collaborating fully" with an "impartial investigation," the new government comes across as the clean-shaven boys they aren't.

Originally Posted by Francois Cellier

By "collaborating fully" with an "impartial investigation," the new government comes across as the clean-shaven boys they aren't.

Clever... but that would also be at the cost of pissing off Americans. Just sayin'...

__________________
Unless otherwise specified, I am posting as a regular poster. When I will act as a mod, I'll make sure you're in no doubt.

True. Do you know what the attitude of the new coalition government is w.r.t. the "special relationship" of Britain with the U.S.? Is the new government as eager as the previous one to point out that "special relationship" on every possible and impossible occasion? Does satisfying the needs of the U.S. still take precedence over national self-interest?