View Full Version: Salahuddin Amin & Torture

July 7th People's Independent Inquiry Forum > Operation Crevice > Salahuddin Amin & Torture


Title: Salahuddin Amin & Torture
Description: - Appeal & civil action?


Bridget - May 10, 2007 04:44 PM (GMT)
QUOTE
Trial Raised Question of MI5 Link To Torture

03/05/2007
Ian Cobain

The Old Bailey trial raised concerns that the security service is prepared to turn a blind eye to the torture of suspects - or even play a role in their ill-treatment - in its determination to combat terrorism.

One of the men convicted of the bomb plot was arrested in Pakistan and interrogated there for 10 months while his co-conspirators were being questioned in London. Salahuddin Amin, a British citizen, alleges he was repeatedly beaten and flogged, threatened with an electric drill, shown other prisoners who had been tortured, and forced to listen to the screams of men being abused nearby.

Amin, 32, also claims that his mistreatment may have been directed by officers of the security service, MI5. While he received no consular visits during his time in custody in Pakistan, he was visited more than 10 times by MI5 officers. The visits, he alleges, followed a pattern. After being taken to Hamza Camp, the headquarters of Pakistan's Inter Service Intelligence (ISI) agency in Rawalpindi, he would be asked questions while being tortured. A few days later he would be visited by MI5 officers, who would ask the same questions, and he would give the answers previously extracted under torture.

While Amin says he was never ill-treated by any British officials, he says that his chief torturer always remained in the room during their visits, and that he was always too terrified to complain. Once, while hooded, he says he was taken for interrogation in a building where he glimpsed a marble staircase and small union flags on a desk. He also alleged that he was once interrogated in English in a room with a camera in it, and says he suspects that this session may have been filmed for MI5.

Under the 1988 Criminal Justice Act, it is illegal for British officials to commission acts of torture anywhere in the world, or even to acquiesce in the face of torture. The crime can be punished by life imprisonment.

MI5 officials denied that they knew Amin was being tortured. They said there was no reason to suspect it was happening. Amin's lawyers dismiss these denials as laughable, given the ISI's notorious reputation for mistreatment of prisoners. His counsel, Patrick O'Connor QC, suggested to the jury that perhaps both sides in the so-called war on terror had come "to share common standards of illegality and immorality".

Amin's lawyers are convinced that the reason he was held in Pakistan for so long without consular assistance was that British officials had decided that his questioning, under torture, should be coordinated with the questioning of his co-conspirators being held in the UK.

Amin was eventually set free, told that he had "been cleared in England", and allowed to leave the country. He was re-arrested as his plane touched down at Heathrow. Amin is expected to appeal against his conviction, and his lawyers are preparing a civil action against the British government.

source

Sinclair - May 22, 2007 12:15 PM (GMT)
Some earlier news articles on Salahuddin Amin & his claims of torture:

QUOTE

Sunday, February 13, 2005 

Pakistani charged with bomb plot

LONDON: A man who arrived in Britian from Pakistan was charged Saturday in relation to an alleged bomb plot, police said.

Salahuddin Amin, 29, was arrested Tuesday at London’s Heathrow airport under anti-terrorist legislation but was charged Saturday for explosives offences. He is alleged to have conspired with others, between October 1, 2003 and March 31, 2004, to explode a bomb which was likely to endanger life and cause serious property damage. Amin will appear in London Central Criminal court on Monday. afp

source:Pakistan Daily Times


QUOTE
From Times Online
February 14, 2005

Heathrow terror suspect claims he was tortured
By Jenny Booth, Times Online

A British man claimed in court today that he had been tortured by British, American and Pakistan intelligence agents for the last seven months.

Salahuddin Amin, 29, made a brief appearance at Bow Street Magistrates Court in London where he was charged with conspiring to cause an explosion.

Afterwards his lawyer, Fariquain Shah, read out a statement on Amin’s behalf outside court, in which he claimed mental and physical torture while detained in Pakistan.

In his statement Mr Amin said: "In the name of God, the most merciful and gracious, I, Salahuddin Amin, was born in the UK and I am a British citizen with all my family resident in the UK.

"On April 2 2004 I surrendered myself to the authorities in Pakistan and was detained in the most despicable conditions for over 10 months.

"Throughout my detention I was tortured mentally and physically and subjected to interrogation by British, American and Pakistani intelligence authorities.

"On February 8 2005 I was finally released without any criminal charges. But when I entered the UK, to my surprise, I was arrested and charged with conspiracy to cause explosions in the UK.

"I completely deny this charge. I have faith in God Almighty and I’m confident that the British judicial system will deal with my case in a just manner.

"My only crime is that I took it on myself to provide water and food and shelter to the widows and orphans of the Afghan war.

"I would never do anything that would cause harm or injury to people in the UK."

Mr Amin was detained at Heathrow Airport last Tuesday when he flew in from Pakistan.

During his brief hearing in front of District Judge Nicholas Evans today, Mr Amin gave his name, date of birth and an address in Luton. Bearded and wearing glasses, he was dressed in a brown corduroy jacket and dark trousers for his court appearance.

He was jointly charged under Section 3 of the Explosive Substances Act 1883, along with with Omar Khyam, Anthony Garcia (also known as Rahman Adam), Nabeel Hussain, Jawad Akbar, Waheed Mahmood and a youth.

The charge said that they "unlawfully and maliciously conspired together and with Mohammed Momin Khawaja and with others unknown to cause by explosive substances an explosion of a nature likely to endanger life or cause serious injury to property in the United Kingdom."

source:The Times


There are also BBC News & The Independent articles from 14th Feb 2005, just after Amin's arrest upon his return to the UK, here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/4263795.stm
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/crime/article11126.ece

Further news articles which were reporting on the Crevice Trial:
QUOTE

British Muslim tells of torture in Pakistan as US officials stood by

Ian Cobain
Wednesday November 29, 2006
The Guardian

A British Muslim arrested in Pakistan during an investigation into an alleged al-Qaida bomb plot was beaten and threatened while American intelligence officials watched, the Old Bailey heard yesterday.
Salahuddin Amin told the jury that he was slapped around the head by his Pakistani jailers, threatened with a whip and told he was to be sent to Guantánamo in dozens of interviews during which the US officials were present.

The Americans also threatened to skin him alive if he did not cooperate, he said. He did not complain of his treatment to British security officials who also interviewed him, because he believed they were colluding with his torturers. "I assumed my treatment was tolerated by the British at a very high level," he said.

Mr Amin is accused of being a member of a gang of young Britons alleged to have links with al-Qaida. He is said to have given a co-defendant, Omar Khyam, the formula needed to mix a 600kg fertiliser bomb, which was to have been used in an attack on a London nightclub, a shopping centre, or gas pipelines.

He denies conspiring to cause an explosion likely to endanger life or injure property between January 1 2003 and March 31 2004. Mr Khyam, 24, Waheed Mahmood, 34, Jawad Akbar, 23, and Shujah-ud-din Mahmood, 19, all of Crawley, West Sussex, Anthony Garcia, 24, from Ilford, Essex, and Nabeel Hussain, 21, from Horley, Surrey, all deny the same charge.

Hussain, Garcia and Khyam also deny possessing 600kg of fertiliser for the purposes of terrorism, and Mr Khyam and Mr Mahmood deny possessing aluminium powder for purposes connected with terrorism.

Mr Amin said last week he had been beaten repeatedly during his 10 months' detention in Pakistan, lashed with whips made out of rubber tyres and once was menaced with an electric drill which his jailers threatened to push into his buttocks.

Mr Amin, 31, from Luton, confessed to being involved in the plot when he was arrested on his return to the UK. He insists, however, that he made the confession only because of the way he had been treated.

He said his mistreatment included "bad language, profanities against my family, threats to rape me with the wooden handle of the lash and a lot of swear words. They would say you will not see the sun again, you will not breathe the fresh air."

Mr Amin said he confessed to attempting to acquire a so-called dirty bomb after being hung up by his wrists and beaten.

"They took my chemise off and took my pyjamas down and tied my hands with a leather strap against the wall," he told the jury.

"They pulled me up so much my feet were lifted off the floor and the major started hitting me on my back and my things with the lashes. They threatened to insert the handle of the lash. They threatened to rape me with it."

He said he confessed to being involved in a plot to buy an "isotope bomb" from a mafia contact in Belgium. "I was willing to admit to anything," he said.

Mr Amin also saw other detainees who had been tortured, and was forced to listen to their screams as they were being abused, he said.

He added that he was interviewed by British intelligence officials around 11 times during his detention. Sometimes he would be questioned by them after being driven to a "posh" building where he could see, despite a hood over his head, both Pakistani and British flags.

The trial continues.

source:The Guardian


QUOTE

Wednesday, November 22, 2006  

Pakistani intelligence tortured Briton to confess bomb plot: lawyer

LONDON: A British Muslim falsely confessed to planning to bomb several high-profile English landmarks after being tortured and subjected to degrading conditions in Pakistan, his defence lawyer said on Tuesday.

Salahuddin Amin, 31, was subjected to “inhumane” treatment by Pakistani intelligence during 10 months of incarceration, Patrick O’Connor told a London court. The torture took place with the knowledge of British intelligence agencies although no British agents were actually involved or witnessed it, he said.

Amin is one of seven British Muslims accused of planning to make explosives out of ammonium nitrate fertiliser to bomb pubs, clubs, trains, a shopping centre and synagogues.

O’Connor said Amin, who also holds Pakistani nationality, had been deprived of all “basic human rights” while in custody in Pakistan in 2004. Such treatment had caused Amin to make confessions, which were not detailed in court, to British police on his arrest in February last year on arriving back in London, he added.

He added that the idea that British intelligence did not know the “notorious practices” of Pakistani intelligence and what would happen to Amin in their custody “is regarded as risible”.

Prosecutors accuse Amin of sending emails detailing the plot with a formula on how to make explosives from fertiliser to another of the suspects, Omar Khyam. O’Connor said Amin denied the claim.

“No one seems to be able to produce it (the emails) formally,” he told the court.

He said if Amin’s confessions were not true, prosecutors would have to rely [solely] on evidence from Mohammed Babar, a Pakistan-born, US supergrass who has admitted terrorism-related offences in New York.

Babar said earlier in the trial he had met some of the defendants at terrorism training camps in Pakistan.

Amin, Khyam, his younger brother Shujah Mahmood, 18, Anthony Garcia, 27, Nabeel Hussain, 20, Jawad Akbar, 22, and Waheed Mahmood, 33, deny conspiring to cause an explosion likely to endanger life.

Khyam, Garcia and Hussain are also charged with possessing 600 kg of ammonium nitrate fertiliser for terrorism purposes and Khyam and Mahmood also deny having aluminium powder — an ingredient in explosives. reuters

source:Pakistan Daily Times

numeral - April 29, 2008 07:49 AM (GMT)
QUOTE
MI5 accused of colluding in torture of terrorist suspects

Sinclair - April 29, 2008 07:56 AM (GMT)
QUOTE (numeral @ Apr 29 2008, 07:49 AM)
QUOTE
MI5 accused of colluding in torture of terrorist suspects

From the article ^:
QUOTE
The Foreign Office also declined to say how many had complained of mistreatment [torture], saying: "We have a duty to respect the privacy of the individuals concerned."
user posted image

Kier - April 29, 2008 10:44 PM (GMT)
QUOTE
Guantanamo, Pakistan detainees plan to sue Britain
Tue Apr 29, 2008 7:25pm IST

By Mark Trevelyan, Security Correspondent

LONDON, April 29 (Reuters) - Lawyers for former detainees are preparing to sue the British government and intelligence services for alleged complicity in abuse of terrorism suspects by the United States and Pakistan.

The cases, if they reach court, would be among the first anywhere to examine alleged wrongdoing by spy agencies in the U.S.-led "war on terrorism". Similar lawsuits in the United States have been thrown out on grounds of national security.

Lawyers for eight former inmates of the U.S. Guantanamo Bay prison camp in Cuba are launching proceedings to sue Britain for alleged complicity with their abduction, ill-treatment and interrogation, sources familiar with the case say.

Five are British and three are foreign nationals living in Britain.

And Salahuddin Amin, a British man who is appealing against his conviction last year for involvement in an al Qaeda-inspired bomb plot, is preparing a civil action alleging British acquiescence in what he says was torture by Pakistan's ISI security agency, his lawyer Tayab Ali said on Tuesday.

"The civil action will take the form of suing members of the British government, establishment, who we feel are responsible for his treatment, or who acquiesced to it at the very least -- failed in their duty to prevent that from happening," Ali said.

"We have a list of individuals, some of whom are named, that we intend to process against," he added in a telephone interview.

In an account of his treatment, published in The Guardian newspaper, Amin said he was held for 10 months by Pakistan's ISI in 2004 and subjected to repeated torture sessions, including savage beatings and being threatened with an electric drill.

These were interspersed with interviews with two members of Britain's MI5 intelligence service, calling themselves Matt and Chris, at which Amin said he would be asked the same questions, and give the same replies, as in the preceding torture sessions.

Britain and the United States deny allegations by human rights groups that they have "outsourced torture" by exploiting intelligence information extracted from terrorist suspects held in countries where prisoner abuse is rife.

British intelligence officers have questioned suspects held by third countries, but "we never use torture under any circumstances and we never instigate others to commit it", a security source said.

"We don't comment on individual cases but we do take our responsibilities very seriously. All our staff ... are fully committed to complying with the requirements of the law when working at home and overseas."

Amin raised the torture allegations at his London trial, which ended in April last year, but was convicted with four others. British security agents responded to his charges but their evidence was given in camera, with the press excluded.

The Guardian said two other Britons formerly held in Pakistan on suspicion of terrorism have alleged they were tortured there. One said he had three fingernails pulled out with a pair of pliers. (edited by Richard Meares)

Source


Kier - April 29, 2008 10:48 PM (GMT)
Probably worth reproducing the Guardian articles:

QUOTE
MI5 accused of colluding in torture of terrorist suspects

British agents alleged to have questioned men at Pakistani interrogation centre after they had been brutally mistreated

    * Ian Cobain
    * The Guardian,
    * Tuesday April 29 2008

Officers of the Security Service, MI5, are being accused of "outsourcing" the torture of British citizens to a notorious Pakistani intelligence agency in an attempt to obtain information about terrorist plots and to secure convictions against al-Qaida suspects.

A number of British terrorism suspects who have been arrested in Pakistan at the request of UK authorities say their interrogation by Security Service officers, shortly after brutal torture at the hands of agents of Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence agency (ISI), has convinced them that MI5 colluded in the mistreatment.

Those men have given detailed accounts of their alleged ordeals at the hands of the ISI over the last four years. Some of them appear to have been taken to the same secret interrogation centre in Rawalpindi, where they say they were repeatedly tortured before being questioned by MI5.

Tayab Ali, a London-based lawyer for two of the men, said: "I am left with no doubt that, at the very worst, the British Security Service instigates the illegal detention and torture of British citizens, and at the very best turns a blind eye to torture."

One man from Manchester says that in 2006 he was beaten, whipped, deprived of sleep and had three fingernails slowly extracted by ISI agents at the Rawalpindi centre before being interrogated by two MI5 officers. A number of his alleged associates were questioned in Manchester at the same time and two were subsequently charged. This man's lawyers say his fingernails were missing when they were eventually allowed to see him, more than a year after he was first detained. They say they have pathology reports that prove the nails were forcibly removed.

A second man, from Luton, Bedfordshire, alleges that two years earlier he was whipped, suspended by his wrists and beaten, and threatened with an electric drill, possibly at the same torture centre. His interrogation was coordinated with the questioning of several associates at Paddington Green police station, west London, and the questioning of a further suspect in Canada.


MI5 does not dispute questioning him several times during his 10 months' detention in Pakistan. At his trial, the judge accepted he had been mistreated but said he believed the claims were exaggerated.

No attempt was made to extradite either man to be questioned by police officers in the UK, and they received no assistance from British consular officials. They were eventually arrested on arrival in Britain after being placed aboard aircraft and flown in without extradition hearings.

The accusation that MI5 is at the very least turning a blind eye to the torture of British citizens - and may have actually colluded in their torture - is to surface in a number of forthcoming court cases, including the trial of the man who lost his fingernails, an appeal lodged by the man from Luton after he was convicted of terrorism offences, and a separate civil action being pursued on his behalf.

MI5 is thought to be considering a defence based on its officers' insistence that they had no reason to know that the ISI might have been torturing the men - a position that Pakistani lawyers and human rights activists in Pakistan and the UK say beggars belief. Even a high-ranking Scotland Yard counter-terrorism detective has conceded privately that there is little doubt that the Luton man was tortured.

The Guardian is aware of claims by a number of other British citizens that they were tortured after being detained as terrorism suspects in Pakistan.


The allegations being made by these men and their lawyers, which are detailed in today's Guardian, are expected to be raised by human rights groups. Andrew Tyrie, Conservative MP for Chichester and a campaigner against the abuse of the human rights of terrorism suspects, is considering asking a series of questions about the matter in the Commons.

Under the Criminal Justice Act 1988 it is an offence for British officials to instigate or consent to the inflicting of "severe pain or suffering" on any person, anywhere in the world, or even to acquiesce in such treatment. Any such offence could be punished by life imprisonment.

Last week it was disclosed that eight men freed from US custody at Guantánamo Bay had issued writs against MI5 and the Secret Intelligence Service, MI6, alleging they were complicit in their illegal detention and subsequent abuse.

The Security Service declined to comment on the allegations, but pointed to recent reports by the all-party Intelligence and Security Committee, which said all MI5 officers receive training about possible mistreatment of detainees held by foreign intelligence agencies.

The Foreign Office said it was aware of five British citizens being detained in Pakistan over the last four years for questioning about alleged terrorism offences, but would not say how many were detained before 2004. It admitted it had attempted to seek consular access to only two of these people, but declined to say how many had been seen by other British officials.

The FO also declined to say how many had complained of mistreatment, saying: "We have a duty to respect the privacy of the individuals concerned."

Source



Kier - April 29, 2008 10:52 PM (GMT)
QUOTE
'Questions, answers, months of brutality'

Three accounts accuse MI5 men of complicity in interrogation ordeals

    * Ian Cobain
    * The Guardian,
    * Tuesday April 29 2008

After two weeks in a secret prison run by Inter-Services Intelligence, the Pakistani security agency denounced by human rights activists as one of the most vicious in the world, Salahuddin Amin says he was ready to do whatever he was asked. The college graduate from Luton claims he had been deprived of sleep for several days before being beaten, whipped and threatened with an electric drill. Then, he says, he was suspended by his wrists and beaten some more. His suffering appears to have been filmed, through a poorly concealed camera in the corner of the ceiling of his cell.

After about 15 days of interrogation, he says, he was taken from his cell, blindfolded, hooded and shackled and pushed into the back of a car. After 20 minutes the car stopped and he was led into a building, up some stairs, and left alone in an air-conditioned room.

In an account that Amin has written of his 10 months in the ISI's prison, he describes what happened next.

"The door opened and a few people entered. When my hood was taken off I saw two white men standing in front of me. One of them looked at the major and asked if my handcuffs could be taken off.

"He introduced himself at Matt from MI5 and his colleague was Chris. His tone was friendly, which was a relief. Matt was a senior officer but Chris seemed more like an office boy and during the questioning he just took notes. Matt and Chris took their notebooks and pens out.

"Matt had a list of questions, which I soon realised were from the previous interrogations by the major."

It was, Amin and his lawyers allege, the start of a pattern that would be played out for the next 10 months: he would be asked a series of questions, under torture, and would give answers.

The torture would stop, and there would be another interview with the men later named at Amin's trial as Matt and Chris. Amin says he would be asked the same questions that his torturers had already asked, and he would give the same answers. Then the two British men would leave, and the torture would begin again, with a different set of questions. This was April 2004, and Amin, then 29, had moved to Pakistan three years earlier after graduating from an engineering course at the University of Hertfordshire. He says he was in search of a slower, more peaceful life. Police and the Security Service say he was in contact with senior figures in al-Qaida. He surrendered himself to the ISI after the agency contacted his uncle, a retired brigadier from the Pakistan army, to say the British were seeking his arrest.

A few days earlier, 18 people had been detained at addresses across the south-east of England and were being questioned over a plot to blow up the Bluewater shopping centre in Kent, or the Ministry of Sound nightclub in London, with a half-tonne fertiliser bomb. Amin was accused of supplying the formula needed to mix the explosives.

Unanswered questions

Amin says the MI5 officers would insist that his main torturer remained in the room - "as much as they hated him smoking like a chimney, and his mobile phone going off every few minutes" - because they wanted this man to know which questions had not been answered. These, Amin alleges, would form the basis of the next torture session. The presence of the torturer also meant he felt unable to complain to the British about his treatment, although he does not believe this would have served any purpose, as he is convinced MI5 wanted him tortured. "I assumed my treatment was tolerated by the British at a very high level," he would later tell the Old Bailey.

After 10 months in ISI custody, Amin was put aboard a plane to Heathrow. There was no extradition process or court hearing. On landing he was arrested and charged with conspiring to cause explosions, and put on trial alongside six of the men who had been arrested in this country. He and four of those men were convicted after a year-long trial and are now serving life sentences.

During the trial, Amin's counsel, Patrick O'Connor QC, suggested to the jury that there had been "a tacit understanding of some considerable amorality" between MI5 and the ISI, with the British knowing their Pakistani counterparts could torture him with impunity.

The war on terror, O'Connor suggested, "has led those on both sides ... to share common standards of illegality and immorality".

There may be some at MI5 who would argue that some very difficult moral decisions need to be taken to protect Britain from the sort of mass murder and suffering that Amin and his friends were convicted of plotting. In public, however, the agency has said nothing about the allegations that it has colluded in torture. It is impossible to report on the response that MI5 gave at Amin's trial: testimony from its officers was heard in camera, with press and the public excluded. Asked about the allegation that MI5 had colluded in torture, the agency's spokesman at the Home Office gave no comment.

At Scotland Yard, however, one senior officer involved in counter-terrorism operations has conceded privately that he accepts Amin was tortured.

Amin is not alone in alleging that MI5 colluded in his torture. A 33-year-old man from Manchester, who cannot be named for legal reasons, spent more than a year in Pakistani custody after being picked up by the ISI in August 2006.

He says he was dragged from a taxi in Haripur, 40 miles north of Islamabad, and surrounded by ISI officers accompanied by a white woman. He was hooded and shackled and driven to a building where he was locked in a small cell that also had a camera fixed in a corner of the ceiling.

The man's description of the place where he was held suggests that it was the same secret interrogation centre in Rawalpindi at which Amin had been detained more than two years earlier.

For the first 14 days, he says, he was deprived of sleep, beaten about the head during interrogation, whipped on the thighs and buttocks with a rubber lash, and beaten on the soles of his feet with a wooden stick.

On the sixth or seventh day, he alleges, one of his interrogators took a pair of pliers from a box and removed a fingernail from his left hand. He says that at the end of this process he was given a painkilling injection and his finger was bandaged. He says that on the following day a second nail was removed, and a third the day after that. He says that after each of these torture sessions he was given painkillers and his finger bandaged.

'Shackled and blindfolded'

After two weeks, he says he was given a change of clothes, shackled, blindfolded and hooded, taken from the detention centre and driven for about 20 minutes. When his hood and blindfold were removed he found himself in a well-furnished office with drawn curtains. Two men in their 30s walked in, introduced themselves as being "from the British government", and questioned him for 30-40 minutes.

He says he was in obvious discomfort and his three fingers were clearly bandaged. He says he told these men that he had been tortured, but neither appeared to make any note of his complaint.

Eight months after his arrest, the man was transferred to prison. Five months after that he was driven to Islamabad airport where he says he met British consular officials for the first time. One, he says, told him he was returning to the UK where he would see his family and receive medical treatment. He says she also told him that consular officials had been refused access to him.

On arrival at Heathrow, the man was arrested and taken to Manchester, where he discovered that four alleged associates had been arrested and questioned at the same time he says he was being tortured by the ISI. Two had been charged with terrorism offences, and he was charged with three counts of directing a terrorist organisation.

His lawyers are convinced that the two British officials who questioned him were from MI5, and that MI5 colluded in his torture. The lawyers say that three of his fingernails were missing when they first saw him, and that they have a pathologist's report that they say supports his allegation they were forcibly extracted. They also have a report from a psychiatrist who says the man is suffering from post-traumatic stress.

A third British citizen, Zeeshan Siddiqui, also claims that he was tortured in Pakistan before being interrogated by British officials. Siddiqui's claims should perhaps be treated with some caution, as he has a history of mental illness.

What is beyond dispute is that he was detained by the ISI and spent eight months in Pakistani custody accused of being a terrorist. Given the agency's reputation, it seems unlikely that he would have escaped mistreatment.

And given that he is from Hounslow, west London, that he is a former London underground worker, and that he had been a close friend of Asif Hanif, who killed himself and murdered three others in a suicide bomb attack in Tel Aviv in 2003, it would be extraordinary if British counter-terrorism officials did not want to question him.

'Catheter forcibly inserted'

Siddiqui, 27, claims that after being detained in Peshawar, Pakistan, in May 2005, ISI agents threatened him, beat him and injected him with a variety of drugs. He alleges that he was chained to a bed for 11 days, had chemicals injected up his nose and a feeding tube pushed down his throat.

He also says a catheter was forcibly inserted and removed from his penis, causing bleeding. He was then taken to prison, where he says he was questioned by British intelligence officers.

Siddiqui's description of his first meeting is remarkably similar to that of the 33-year-old's from Manchester. He says the British officers began by explaining that there were people at the consular division of the high commission whose job it was to help British citizens, but then stressed: "We want you to know that we are not those people, we are from British intelligence."

In an interview with the BBC after his release, Siddiqui said: "Every time they came I tried to make the point to them that I had been tortured. They admitted that they know the situation in Pakistan, the conditions were very bad in prison. They even acknowledged that, you know, torture is used in Pakistan."

It is unclear whether Siddiqui had been arrested at the request of UK authorities. Eventually he was released without charge and put aboard an aircraft to the UK, where he was subjected to a control order. In September 2006 he escaped from a psychiatric unit by climbing out of a window and has not been seen since.

· This article was amended on Tuesday April 29 2008. In the article above we originally said that the 33-year-old from Manchester, whose experience is described in detail, said that a British consular official "also told him that consular officials had refused access to him". This should read "consular officials had been refused access to him". This has been corrected.

Source


QUOTE
'I felt as if my skin was ripping'

    * Ian Cobain
    * guardian.co.uk,
    * Tuesday April 29 2008

The light was kept on all day and night, and guards banged on the door whenever he began to sleep. Not far away he could hear the sound of people being whipped and screaming. On the third day his interrogators began swearing and screaming at him and ordered a guard to bring two rubber whips.

They both started hitting me around my back, shoulders and thighs with full force. They were constantly hitting me and swearing at me. I was in extreme pain. I felt as if my skin was ripping apart. I broke down and started crying.

The word Allah came out of my mouth. The inspector started hitting me even harder when he heard the word Allah. Sometimes I wondered if they were really Muslims. At one point the inspector pointed at the camera and asked me if I knew there was a camera there, and I said yes. To this day I don't know why he said that.

After beating me for a few minutes, that seemed like hours, the inspector ordered the guard to get the drill. This is when I got really scared because I didn't know how far these people could go. I have heard many stories about them torturing people to death. I was in tears.

The drill machine was brought in and plugged in outside the room somewhere. It didn't work at first and the inspector shouted at the guard and said to make it work. I was praying that it wouldn't work, but it started working. The inspector told Sikander to drill a hole in my backside and he told me to face the wall and lift my shirt and I had no choice but to do so. Sikander came and warned me while the machine was running. He touched me.

I realised later it wasn't the drill machine he touched me with because I had no injuries, but at that point I really thought it was a drill. They were doing this to break me. I started saying to them that I would agree with whatever they would want me to.

That's when the inspector told me to sit on the stool and put my glasses back on. They then showed me a photograph of another terrorism suspect. I told them that I knew him, and met him in Luton ...

Source


Kier - April 29, 2008 10:55 PM (GMT)
QUOTE
'Endemic, widespread and systematic' use of torture

    * Ian Cobain
    * The Guardian,
    * Tuesday April 29 2008

Amin's lawyers, activists at Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, and Pakistani defence lawyers all say that any claim by MI5 that it had no reason to know what was likely to be happening to Amin in ISI custody would simply not be believable. Amin's counsel, Patrick O'Connor, QC, told the jury at his Old Bailey trial that Security Service officers would need to have been "naive in the extreme" not to know.

Report after report by human rights organisations have detailed the mistreatment of detainees in Pakistan. In October 1996, Nigel Rodley, the United Nations special rapporteur on torture, reported on the "endemic, widespread and systematic" use of torture in the country. The methods used, he reported, included "rape; beatings with sticks, hosepipes, leather belts and rifle butts; kicking with heavy boots; being hung upside down; electric shocks to the genitalia and knees; cheera (forced stretching apart of the victim's legs, sometimes in combination with kicks to the genitalia); sleep deprivation; prolonged blindfolding; and boring of holes with an electric drill into parts of the victim's body".

Sir Nigel Rodley, as he is now, is sceptical of any claim by British officials that they did not know how Amin was likely to be treated. "It sounds like wilful ignorance to me," he says.

Four years after Rodley's report, the London-based Medical Foundation for the Care of Victims of Torture reported on 51 clients whose torture in Pakistan had been medically documented: almost all had been beaten or whipped, more than a third while suspended, usually upside down.

In February 2004, two months before Amin's arrest, Amnesty wrote to Pervez Musharraf, president of Pakistan, raising concerns about the treatment of non-Pakistanis suspected of al-Qaida membership.

At the end of that month, just weeks before Amin was detained at the request of British authorities, the US state department was reporting that Pakistani "security force personnel continued to torture persons in custody throughout the country". Amin's lawyers are planning an appeal against his conviction, and considering bringing a civil action against MI5 on his behalf, possibly for damages for assault, battery and false imprisonment.

MI5 can be expected to contest vigorously any legal claim that it is responsible for the mistreatment of Amin. The involvement of British officials in the torture of anyone, anywhere in the world, was outlawed by the 1988 Criminal Justice Act, which makes clear that it is an offence to "consent to or acquiesce" in torture. The offence carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment.

Source


The Antagonist - April 29, 2008 11:20 PM (GMT)
^ And as we know, the State never breaks its own laws, nor International War Laws which renders the establishment liable to prosecution for war crimes.

Sinclair - May 1, 2008 11:17 AM (GMT)
QUOTE
Tortured in Pakistan, Thanks MI5 

29/04/2008 09:01:17 PM GMT    Comments (0)      Add a comment 
 

CAIRO — When Salahuddin Amin moved from London to his home country Pakistan in 2004, he was searching for a slower, more peaceful life. Instead, he was locked in a cell for months where he was tortured by the notorious Pakistani intelligence acting in collusion with its British counterpart. "Sometimes I wondered if they were really Muslims," Amin, a British Muslim from the city of Luton, told the Guardian on Tuesday, April 29.

Amin was 29 when he travelled to Pakistan three years ago after getting an engineering degree from the University of Hertfordshire.

A few days after his arrival to Islamabad, he went to the Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) after the agency contacted his uncle, a retired army brigadier, saying Britain's MI5 was seeking his arrest.

For two days, Amin was kept in a small dark cell, he later discovered was in a secret interrogation center in the garrison city of Rawalpindi, where the light was kept on all day and night and guards banged on the door whenever he closed his eye.

He could hear the sound of screaming people being whipped.

On the third day, interrogators stepped into the cell with two rubber whips.

"They both started hitting me around my back, shoulders and thighs with full force. I was in extreme pain," recalls Amin.

"The word Allah came out of my mouth. The inspector started hitting me even harder when he heard the word Allah.

"I felt as if my skin was ripping apart."

Founded by a British army officer in 1948, the ISI is the largest and most powerful arm of Pakistan's intelligence.

It is denounced by human rights activists as one of the most vicious in the world, with numerous reports accusing its agents of rigging elections, forced disappearances and extra-judicial assassinations.

After the 9/11 attacks, President Pervez Musharraf ordered intelligence agencies to show full cooperation with the US and other Western security agencies in the so-called war on terror.

The Drill

After all the hitting and beating, it was the time for a new kind of torture.

Amin's interrogator ordered the guards to get "the drill".

"This is when I got really scared because I didn't know how far these people could go," recalls Amin.

"I have heard many stories about them torturing people to death. I was in tears."

The "drill" was brought in and the interrogator ordered guards to drill a hole in the backside of Amin.

"The guard came and warned me while the machine was running. He touched me.

"I realized later it wasn't the drill machine he touched me with…They were doing this to break me."

And they succeeded.

"I started saying to them that I would agree with whatever they would want me to."

Complicit MI5

Amin was taken from his cell - blindfolded, hooded and shackled - and pushed into the back of a car that took him to a new building.

It was time to meet two MI5 agents.

"He introduced himself as Matt from MI5 and his colleague was Chris. Matt had a list of questions," he remembers.

It was the start of a pattern that played out for the next 10 months: Amin would be tortured by the ISI, then interrogated by the MI5, and under the torture, he gives the correct answers.

Each time the torture begins, the MI5 men would have a different set of questions.

At the end of the ten months, Amin was put aboard a plane that brought him back to Britain, where he was arrested on landing.


He was been convicted of contacts with al-Qaeda and supplying the explosives' formula for blowing up a shopping center in Kent, in southeast England, and is now serving a life sentence.

Two other British Pakistanis have also claimed being tortured by ISI and then interrogated by MI5 for information about alleged terrorist activities in 2004 and 2005.

The three have lodged appeals and civil actions against MI5, accusing it of turning a blind eye to, and in some cases colluding in, the torture of British nationals.

MI5 contests it had no reason to know what was likely to be happening to Amin and other prisoners of the ISI.

Patrick O'Connor, Amin's counsel, told the jury at his trial MI5 officers would need to have been "naive in the extreme" not to know that the men were tortured.

Tayab Ali, lawyer for Amin and one of the other two men, shares the same view.

"I am left with no doubt that, at the very worst, the British Security Service instigates the illegal detention and torture of British citizens and at the very best turns a blind eye to torture."

http://www.islamonline.com/news/newsfull.php?newid=113407

numeral - May 12, 2008 01:07 PM (GMT)
QUOTE
Revealed: torture centre linked to MI5
# Ian Cobain
# guardian.co.uk,
# Monday May 12 2008
11am BST

user posted image

An aerial photograph of Rawalpindi showing the interrogation centre. Photograph: Getty Images

A secret interrogation centre in Pakistan where British terrorism suspects are alleged to have been tortured after UK authorities had them arrested has been found by the Guardian.

The centre, run by the country's Inter-Services Intelligence agency (ISI), is in the Saddar district of Rawalpindi. It is surrounded by high walls and watchtowers, and bristling with surveillance cameras.

So notorious is the ISI that local photographers are reluctant to take pictures of the centre, although satellite images are readily available.

A British citizen says he was driven there in 2004, held for 10 months and tortured. Salahuddin Amin, now aged 33, had moved to Pakistan three years earlier from Luton, Bedfordshire.

Amin was eventually returned to the UK and successfully prosecuted. His trial heard that he was interviewed by officers from the British security service MI5 several times during his detention. His lawyers allege ISI officers beat and whipped him, and threatened him with an electric drill, in between the MI5 interviews, and that the British officers must have known he was being mistreated.

A second British citizen, aged 33 and from Manchester, who was arrested at the request of British authorities, is thought to have been held at the same place. The man, who cannot be named for legal reasons, has described being hooded and driven to a detention centre that resembles Amin's account. He was deprived of sleep and whipped, the man says, and an ISI officer used pliers to pull out three fingernails from his left hand. He says he was then interviewed by two British officials. His lawyers suspect they were from MI5.

Two other British citizens have said they were tortured by the ISI before being questioned by British counter-terrorism officials. Lawyers say there is evidence MI5 instigated the torture of British citizens or, at very least, turned a blind eye to their mistreatment. Last month, the Guardian disclosed how the allegations are to be aired in forthcoming court cases, including a terrorism trial, a criminal appeal and a civil action being pursued by one of the alleged victims.

MI5 declined to comment, but pointed to evidence given to the all-party intelligence and security committee about training it gives its agents regarding the possible mistreatment of detainees by foreign intelligence agencies. Guidance for officers questioning detainees held overseas states: "The security and intelligence agencies do not participate in, solicit, encourage or condone the use of torture or inhuman and degrading treatment."

Amin says he was one of several prisoners kept in an underground block of 10 small cells, each with a mattress and a pillow. The torture, he says, took place nearby in a carpeted room with bright overhead lights, a table, several chairs and a small wooden stool where prisoners were expected to sit. In one corner of the room was a camera. He says that sometimes he would be hooded and driven for 20 minutes to meet two MI5 officers; on other occasions they would question him in the room where he had been tortured.

Among other people thought to have been tortured at the Rawalpindi centre is an innocent taxi driver who was caught up in the investigation of Amin. Ezaj Rabanni, 38, was interrogated for several days about the whereabouts of Amin, who had been his passenger several times and whom the ISI had been unable to locate.

"They beat me for half an hour or so on the first day and they whipped me with a leather belt," Rabanni said in a statement taken before Amin was tried at the Old Bailey. "I couldn't see them because I had a hood over my head the whole time. They kept asking me about Salahuddin, asking me where he was. They beat me the second day and the third day. I couldn't protect myself - my hands were shackled behind my back the whole time.

"Then I heard the sound of an electric drill being switched on. I could feel the drill touching my side and my clothes being wrapped around it. I have never been so frightened in my life."

Rabanni gave evidence at the Old Bailey trial that ended with Amin and four other men being jailed for life for conspiring to cause explosions in the UK. The taxi driver now says he is too terrified to return to Pakistan, because he fears he may be arrested and tortured again because of what he said in court. He has applied for asylum and is living in Stockton-on-Tees, Cleveland.

Questions are likely to be asked about the role of the Foreign Office, as consular officials tried to visit only two of the detainees. The men's lawyers say consular officials must also have been aware of the detention of each of them, and known there was a strong possibility they were being tortured.

Asked about this failure, the Foreign Office said it could not act for British citizens of joint British-Pakistani nationality, as the authorities in Islamabad regarded them as being only Pakistani.

However, the Foreign Office does act on behalf of the more than 200 young people of dual nationality forced into marriage in Pakistan each year. It has five people working full-time on such cases.

Ali Dayan Hasan, the south Asia researcher for Human Rights Watch, said: "I find it worrying that the British high commission has sought refuge behind the dual citizenship clause when it knows that the detainee's life may be in danger and that the detention is illegal under Pakistani, British and international law."

The Foreign Office would not say how many British citizens have been detained in Pakistan in the last decade and questioned over alleged terrorism. Nor would it disclose how many had subsequently complained of mistreatment, saying: "We have a duty to respect the privacy of the individuals concerned."

Asked how many complaints of mistreatment had led to investigations by British authorities, the Foreign Office replied: "None. The British authorities are not able directly to investigate the conditions in Pakistani institutions."

The Antagonist - May 12, 2008 02:45 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (numeral @ May 12 2008, 02:07 PM)
QUOTE
Revealed: torture centre linked to MI5
# Ian Cobain
# guardian.co.uk,
# Monday May 12 2008
11am BST

user posted image

An aerial photograph of Rawalpindi showing the interrogation centre. Photograph: Getty Images

A secret interrogation centre in Pakistan where British terrorism suspects are alleged to have been tortured after UK authorities had them arrested has been found by the Guardian.

The centre, run by the country's Inter-Services Intelligence agency (ISI), is in the Saddar district of Rawalpindi. It is surrounded by high walls and watchtowers, and bristling with surveillance cameras.

So notorious is the ISI that local photographers are reluctant to take pictures of the centre, although satellite images are readily available.

<snip>

Here's a closer look. As nondescript as Guantanamo airstrip Bay.

numeral - July 14, 2008 11:25 PM (GMT)
QUOTE
Terror suspects: Torture: MPs call for inquiry into MI5 role
· New torture claims spark inquiry call
· New allegations that abuse of Britons was outsourced to Pakistani agencies

· New torture claims spark inquiry call
· New allegations that abuse of Britons was outsourced to Pakistani agencies

MPs are calling for an investigation into allegations that British intelligence has "outsourced" the torture of British citizens to Pakistani security agencies after hearing accounts of people being abducted and subjected to mistreatment and, in some cases, released without charge.

John McDonnell, the Labour member for Hayes and Harlington, and Andrew Tyrie, Conservative member for Chichester, say the allegations should be examined by the Intelligence and Security Committee (ISC), the Westminster body that oversees the Security Service, MI5, and the Intelligence Service, MI6.

In a statement to the Guardian, released via the Home Office, the Security Service insisted it did "not participate in, solicit, encourage or condone the use of torture".

However, details of three new cases have raised concerns among MPs.

McDonnell says he wants to know whether British officials colluded in the abuse of one of his constituents.

The man, a medical student, said he was abducted at gunpoint in August 2005 and held for two months at the offices of Pakistan's Intelligence Bureau opposite the British Deputy High Commission in Karachi. The student, who has not spoken out before, has described how he was whipped, beaten, deprived of sleep, threatened with execution and witnessed other inmates being tortured.

He was questioned about the suicide attacks on London's transport network in July of that year, and says that after being tortured by Pakistani agents he was questioned by British intelligence officers. He was released to his father, who says he received a personal apology from the director of the Intelligence Bureau.

The student returned to his London teaching hospital, qualified last year, and is now working in a hospital in the south-east of England. He remains terrified of both Pakistani and British intelligence agencies, however, and has asked not to be identified. A second Briton, Tariq Mahmood, 35, a taxi driver from Sparkhill, Birmingham, has said he was abducted in Rawalpindi in October 2003 and released without charge about five months later.

He is thought to have been held in a prison run by a different agency, Inter-Service Intelligence, where a number of other Britons have also been held and allegedly tortured before being flown to the UK to stand trial. Mahmood's family say he was tortured, and that MI5 officers and American intelligence officers had a hand in his mistreatment. They have declined to issue any detailed allegation, however, apparently fearing for the safety of relatives in Pakistan.

A third Briton, Tahir Shah, 41, an author from London, was held for 16 days in 2005. He says he was interrogated about the July 7 bombings in what he describes as "a fully-equipped torture chamber", with mangles, whips and electrical equipment.

He says he was hooded and shackled for long periods and deprived of sleep. He does not allege that British officials were involved, but believes it is unlikely they would not have been informed. He was eventually bundled aboard a scheduled flight to Heathrow, where his passport was returned by an unnamed official whom he believes to have been from MI5.

Allegations of collusion in torture could be examined by the Investigatory Powers Tribunal, established eight years ago with a remit to investigate complaints against MI5 and MI6. Another possibility is that the ISC could look into the claims.

McDonnell said of his constituent: "I believe that there is now sufficient evidence from this and other cases to demonstrate that British officials outsourced the torture of British nationals to a Pakistani intelligence agency.

"This warrants the fullest investigation by the ISC, which is best placed initially to undertake such an inquiry. I would expect the government to cooperate fully with such an investigation and eventually for the prime minister to make a statement to parliament on how this practice has been allowed to develop and what action is to be taken."

Tyrie, chairman of the All Party Parliamentary Group on Extraordinary Rendition, added: "Any torture of British nationals by Pakistani authorities would be utterly unacceptable. If credible allegations implicating British officials in such mistreatment have been made then they require investigation. The ISC appears to be the most suitable body to examine these issues."

Asked about the allegations, MI5 asked the Home Office to issue a statement which said: "The government unreservedly condemns the use of torture as a matter of fundamental principle and works hard with its international partners to eradicate this abhorrent practice worldwide.

"The Security and Intelligence Agencies do not participate in, solicit, encourage or condone the use of torture or inhumane or degrading treatment. For reasons both ethical and legal, their policy is not to carry out any action which they know would result in torture or inhumane or degrading treatment.

"The ISC gave the Security Service a clean bill of health in its 2005 report on torture. When Security Service personnel had come across instances when poor treatment of detainees was suspected, the report commended that MI5 officers notified the detaining authorities immediately and this was followed up with an official complaint from London.

"All Security Service staff have an awareness of the Human Rights Act 1998, and are fully committed to complying with the requirements of the law when working in the UK and overseas." Earlier this year representatives of Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch told another Commons body, the Foreign Affairs Committee, they believed British intelligence officers were colluding in torture.

Tom Porteous, London director of Human Rights Watch, told MPs: "It is pretty clear the US and the UK are relying rather heavily on the well-known abusive Pakistani intelligence agency, Inter-Services Intelligence, in the counter-terrorism operations. It is one of the most brutal intelligence agencies in the world." He added that British interrogations of people being held by this agency "seem to amount to complicity and collusion in the mistreatment".

In April the Guardian reported that four other British men, who had been detained in Pakistan during British-led counter-terrorism operations and held illegally for several months without access to a lawyer or court, had each alleged that British officials colluded in their torture.

Under the Criminal Justice Act 1988 it is an offence for British officials to instigate or consent to the inflicting of "severe pain or suffering" on any person, anywhere in the world, or even to acquiesce in such treatment. Any such offence could be punished by life imprisonment.

One of the four, Salahuddin Amin, 33, a university graduate from Luton, later told the Old Bailey that he was interviewed by two MI5 officers several times in 10 months, in between being whipped, beaten with sticks, suspended from his wrists and threatened with an electric drill. MI5 was permitted to give its response to the allegations in camera, with the media and the public excluded.

Allegations of collusion were raised at Amin's appeal against conviction for terrorism offences last month, which was also heard largely in camera. They are to be raised again later this year at the trial of a British man whose lawyers said he had three fingernails extracted while a prisoner of a Pakistani intelligence agency. They say their client was then questioned by British intelligence officers.

Bridget - July 15, 2008 08:36 AM (GMT)
QUOTE ("numeral")
One of the four, Salahuddin Amin, 33, a university graduate from Luton, later told the Old Bailey that he was interviewed by two MI5 officers several times in 10 months, in between being whipped, beaten with sticks, suspended from his wrists and threatened with an electric drill. MI5 was permitted to give its response to the allegations in camera, with the media and the public excluded.

Allegations of collusion were raised at Amin's appeal against conviction for terrorism offences last month, which was also heard largely in camera. They are to be raised again later this year at the trial of a British man whose lawyers said he had three fingernails extracted while a prisoner of a Pakistani intelligence agency. They say their client was then questioned by British intelligence officers.


Sinclair - July 23, 2008 04:51 PM (GMT)
QUOTE
Terror suspects: Torture: MPs call for inquiry into MI5 role
· New torture claims spark inquiry call
· New allegations that abuse of Britons was outsourced to Pakistani agencies

<...>


The report at the centre of this story:

From the House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee - Foreign Affairs - Ninth Report

Here you can browse the report together with the Proceedings of the Committee. The published report was ordered by the House of Commons to be printed 9 July 2008

QUOTE
UK Officials and Torture

54. The FCO report emphasises that "torture is one of the most abhorrent violations of human rights and human dignity, and its use is absolutely prohibited under international law". Accordingly, the Government never uses it for "any purpose", its use is "unreservedly condemned" and the UK seeks "its eradication". However, the report notes comments made by this Committee and others over the ethical dilemma of using intelligence that may have been gained from the use of torture to prevent future terrorist activity. Where "intelligence bears on threats to life", the report argues that it would be "irresponsible to reject it out of hand", however it was obtained.[88]

55. In April 2008, The Guardian reported a number of very serious allegations relating to torture and the conduct of UK officials in Pakistan. A number of British citizens claim to have been detained and tortured by the Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) agency. Whilst in detention, they claim that they were interrogated by British intelligence officers. Some of these men were later flown back to the UK and have faced trial on terrorism related charges. The newspaper summed up the charge against MI5 as being one of "outsourcing" torture to the ISI.[89]

56. Human Rights Watch comments on this issue in its submission to our inquiry. It is important to note that this submission was made before The Guardian published its report. The organisation states that the FCO report "remains notably silent on the hundreds of disappearances of terrorism suspects in Pakistan" and suggests that the "UK has itself been complicit in the illegal detention, forcible transfer to the UK and […] torture of some terrorism suspects".[90]

57. We asked Tom Porteous for more information when he appeared before us. He told us that it was "pretty clear" that the UK and US have been relying "rather heavily" on the ISI for intelligence. For the UK in particular, intelligence was useful for the counter-terrorism effort at home because of the large number of British nationals of Pakistan origin. He argued that the ISI was "one of the most brutal intelligence agencies in the world" and initially behind the Taliban regime in Afghanistan. He said that there was "good evidence", including medical evidence, that a number of the British men had been "brutally treated" over long periods by the ISI. Commenting on the meetings of the British nationals with UK officials, he argued:

      It is incredible that British agents would not be aware of the kind of treatment these men could expect at the hands of the Pakistani intelligence agency. Either way, the circumstances seem to amount to complicity and collusion in the mistreatment of these men.[91]

58. We took the opportunity to raise this issue with Lord Malloch-Brown. We asked him for his assessment on whether the ISI practices torture. His reply was oblique:

      Let me put it this way, we think that the return of civilian government and hopefully the strengthening of civilian control over the ISI, which we hope will give a lot more transparency to its methods, is an extremely good development in Pakistan.[92]

Following further questioning, he said he did not know whether he was "prepared" to go further by stating that the ISI was guilty of practicing torture. He said: "we are extremely concerned. We have certainly not run frontly into evidence of torture, but we think that the ISI's methods could do with a lot of opening up and a lot of transparency."[93] Referring to the allegations that have been made, he stated: "we absolutely deny the charge that we have in any way outsourced torture to Inter-Services Intelligence as a way of extracting information, either for court use or for use in counter-terrorism."[94]

59. Lord Malloch-Brown said that the Government is "aware of six cases of British or dual British/Pakistani nationals having been detained on suspicion of terrorist offences in Pakistan".[95] He told us that the FCO gained consular access to two dual national individuals, and one UK national.[96] Consular access was not sought in all six case as the Pakistani authorities "are under no obligation to inform us of the detention of a dual Pakistani-British national nor to allow consular access".[97] As he argued, the "bar for demanding access" is higher in such cases.[98] However, as The Guardian notes, the FCO "does act on behalf of the more than 200 young people of dual nationality forced into marriage in Pakistan each year. It has five people working full-time on such cases." Ali Dayan Hasan, the South Asia researcher for Human Rights Watch, said: "I find it worrying that the British High Commission has sought refuge behind the dual citizenship clause when it knows that the detainee's life may be in danger and that the detention is illegal under Pakistani, British and international law".[99]

60. In his letter, Lord Malloch-Brown states that "British officials sought and were granted access to the two mono-British nationals".[100] However, as cited in the previous paragraph, only one mono-British national received consular access. This indicates that access to the other mono-British national was on a non-consular basis, which could mean access by intelligence officials. We know from a written answer to Parliament that consular access was sought in this individual's case.[101] It is interesting to note that other British officials were granted access to this individual, whilst consular officials were not.

61. Four of the six individuals have alleged to UK officials that they were mistreated by the Pakistani authorities.[102] Lord Malloch-Brown told us that the three individuals that were met on a consular basis only complained of their mistreatment once they were released from Pakistani detention. In the case of one British citizen who complained of mistreatment, Lord Malloch-Brown told us that the Government raised these allegations with the Pakistani authorities.[103] He added that "our position is that we do not know of any cases of torture".[104] We note that a number of the cases relating to particular individuals are sub judice and we are therefore unable to comment on them further at this point.

62. We conclude that it is extremely important that the veracity of allegations that the Government has "outsourced" interrogation techniques involving the torture of British nationals by Pakistani authorities should be investigated. Irrespective of these allegations, we recommend that the FCO should immediately seek full consular access in all cases where it is aware of mono- or dual-national British citizens being detained by the Pakistani authorities, and in particular by the Inter-Services Intelligence agency. We conclude that it is not acceptable for the Government to use an individual's dual nationality as an excuse to leave him or her vulnerable to the prospect of possible torture.

63. We recommend that, in its response to this Report, the Government should explicitly state whether UK officials met any of the four dual nationals to discuss non-consular matters and should also state why non-consular access was granted to one UK national, but not consular access. We also recommend that the Government should further tell us whether it was aware of all six individuals at the time of their detention, and whether intelligence or evidence gained by the Pakistani authorities in its interrogation of any of these men led in whole, or in part, to further investigations or charges in the UK. We further recommend that the Government should describe its collaboration with the Inter-Services Intelligence agency, and its human rights concerns about this organisation, in its response to this Report.

source


Salahuddin Amin is one of the 6.

Others?

Zeeshan Siddique?

cmain - February 2, 2009 01:26 PM (GMT)
As posted in the Cheetham Hill terrorism arrest thread:

QUOTE
MPs to hear claims that Britain colluded in torture of suspects
Matthew Taylor
The Guardian, Monday 2 February 2009

A committee of MPs is to consider allegations tomorrow that British security services colluded in the torture of terrorism suspects.

The claims, which were first reported in the Guardian last year, relate to a number of suspects arrested in Pakistan at the request of British authorities between 2003 and 2007. The men say they were repeatedly tortured by agents of Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence agency (ISI), before being questioned by MI5.

Yesterday Andrew Dismore, chair of the joint committee on human rights, said: "The fact that we are holding this hearing underlines the seriousness of these allegations."

The men, or their legal representatives, have detailed accounts of their alleged ordeal at the hands of the ISI. Some appeared to have been taken to the same secret interrogation centre in Rawalpindi, where they say they were repeatedly tortured by ISI agents before being questioned by British security services.

In an editorial last year the Guardian, which will give evidence to the committee, described the allegations as being "at the heart of the difficulties which terrorism poses for democracies". It also said that an investigation by the bodies responsible for the oversight of the country's intelligence agencies is "the least a democracy expects".

The committee will also hear from the campaign group Human Rights Watch. Brad Adams, the charity's Asia director, said: "What is most disturbing about these accounts is that the British government knew full well the techniques the ISI and Pakistani law enforcement agencies use in interrogations, particularly in terror investigations."

One of the alleged victims, Rangzieb Ahmed, from Manchester, says that in 2006 he was beaten, whipped, deprived of sleep and had three fingernails extracted by ISI agents at the Rawalpindi centre before being interrogated by two MI5 officers. In December a jury at Manchester crown court convicted Ahmed of being a member of al-Qaida and of directing a terrorist organisation. But it was not told that three fingernails of his left hand had been removed.

Ahmed, 33, says the nails were removed slowly with a pair of pliers over three consecutive days at a secret ISI prison, and alleged that on the fourth day he was hooded and bound and taken to a place where he was questioned by two MI5 officers. Before Ahmed's trial began, the judge ruled that he did not believe the fingernails were taken out before the meeting with MI5. Part of the judges ruling is being kept secret.

A second man, from Luton, Bedfordshire, alleges that he was whipped, suspended by his wrists and beaten, and threatened with an electric drill, possibly at the same torture centre. His interrogation was coordinated with the questioning of several associates at Paddington Green police station, west London, and the questioning of a further suspect in Canada.

Another man, who is accused of being an al-Qaida terrorist from the West Midlands, claimed he was tortured after being detained in Pakistan during a British-led counter-terrorism investigation. He says that for several months the ISI kept him in a pitch-black cell not much bigger than a coffin, and that he was brought out to be beaten, whipped and subjected to electric shocks. On one occasion, he alleges, he was kept hooded and interrogated by people speaking English, with British and American accents.

The hearing is part of the JCHR's ongoing inquiry into the UN charter against torture. If the MPs decide the issues need further investigation they can hold further hearings, calling more witnesses and may produce a written report.

Sinclair - June 14, 2009 07:52 PM (GMT)
QUOTE
Neutral Citation Number: [2006] EWCA Crim 4
  Case No: 200506175 D5

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
COURT OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT
THE HON. SIR MICHAEL ASTILL

  Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
  13th January 2006

B e f o r e :

PRESIDENT OF THE QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
THE HON. MR JUSTICE OPENSHAW
and
THE RT HON. SIR PAUL KENNEDY
____________________
Between:
R

- v -

The Crown Court at the Central Criminal Court Ex parte A [Salahuddin Amin]
Times Newspapers Ltd
Guardian Newspapers Ltd
British Broadcasting Corporation


____________________

Mr Patrick O'Connor QC and Mr H. Mullan for A
Mr David Waters QC, Mr M. Heywood and Mr D. Atkinson for the Crown
Mr Keir Starmer QC and Mr A. Hudson for the Times Newspapers Limited,
Guardian Newspapers Limited and the British Broadcasting Corporation
Hearing date: 16th December 2005
____________________

CODE
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2006/4.html
[Note that Keir Starmer QC holds the position as the Director of Public Prosecutions]

The case involves the reporting of the case of the torture of Salahuddin Amin, but also I think there was the restriction placed on publishing information relating to the identification of MSKhan & STanweer.

Some excerpts:
QUOTE

#6   This hearing concerns an order dated 28 November 2005 made by Sir Michael Astill, the nominated trial judge, sitting as a Deputy High Court judge at the Central Criminal Court.� At the end of a hearing in camera he ordered:

    "� for reasons of national security and the avoidance of harm to the due administration of justice, this court will sit in camera for those parts of the trial and the pre-trial process during which there is any evidence given or any reference made to evidence, information or argument which relates to the material disclosed by the prosecution by a notice dated �"

#7 The reasons for the judge's ruling are stark.� He was satisfied that the material shown to him revealed that:

    "� general publication of the relevant parts of it could give rise to a substantial risk to national security.� Additionally it could obstruct the identification of, and cause the Crown to be deterred from prosecuting in this and other cases, those who it is in the public interest should be tried.� �� The importance of the principle of open justice and the special function of the media are acknowledged, but the grave risk to national security at the present time from potential acts of terrorism and the likely obstruction both to the identification of perpetrators and to the bringing to justice those who are identified are so real that an exceptional course is justified.� Departure from the principle must be the minimum necessary to achieve the objective."

QUOTE

#42 Having examined the material, in our judgment, the substantial risk of prejudice to national security and to the administration of justice without an order for an in-camera hearing to the extent ordered by the judge is unequivocally established.� The in-camera order will enable A [Salahuddin Amin] to be provided with material which may assist in the preparation of his defence, while simultaneously ensuring that the prosecution is not forced to discontinue the prosecution.� In short, the trial will proceed fairly to both sides[user posted image], so far as practicable diminishing the risks to national security.� We agree with the decision of the judge and the reasons he gave for it.� We do not propose to repeat those reasons using different language.


QUOTE
The Appeal
#38 After we had adjourned to consider the relevant material, it was drawn to our attention that the ex parte hearings before the judge, were, with his knowledge, recorded, not by a shorthand writer, but by a mechanical tape recording.� This arrangement was made for obvious security reasons, including the protection of any shorthand writer from inappropriate pressure, or, if the material somehow became public, from any allegation of wrong doing.� At the conclusion of the hearings, the tapes were removed from the recording machinery, and placed in marked envelopes and retained within the precincts of the court.� When notice of the present appeal was given, transcripts based on the tape recording were prepared by security-cleared employees of the relevant intelligence agency.� For Mr O'Connor, it was a matter of understandable sensitivity that any material drawn to our attention should be prepared or checked independently.� As we appreciated during our pre-reading, the transcripts were not absolutely complete.� They were, however, perfectly intelligible and, on the face of it, the omissions and infelicities in the text were explicable on the basis that difficulties can arise, for perfectly understandable reasons, if transcripts are being urgently prepared from a tape recording.� What was not made known to us, however, was that the transcripts prepared for the purposes of the application for leave had not been independently verified or checked.� On subsequent investigation, we ascertained that the judge had not been told how, in the event of an application, it was proposed that the transcripts should be prepared.� When the facts were discovered, immediate arrangements were made for the transcripts to be submitted to the judge.� In the course of a further short hearing before us, Mr O'Connor was informed of these arrangements.� Since then, Sir Michael Astill has examined the transcripts.� Allowing for the omissions and infelicities already noted, they fairly represent what happened at the hearings before him.� Nothing of importance is omitted, and nothing has been added.� This was a sufficient check of the integrity of the transcripts.

#39 For the future, there should be no misunderstanding.� We understand the reasons why the ex parte proceedings were tape recorded, and indeed why transcription could not, in the available time, be arranged by someone independent of the intelligence agencies, who was himself or herself security cleared to the appropriate level.� In urgent cases, and certainly as soon as it becomes known that an application for leave to appeal will be made, the trial judge should be informed, and invited to check the transcripts against his recollection and his notes before they are submitted to this court.� Thereafter, the court should be fully informed of what has happened.

#40 We have reflected on the written submissions on behalf of the appellants and the Crown.� We need comment only on Mr O'Connor's most troublesome submission, that the argument for an in-camera hearing was irrational and patently absurd.� Paragraph 4 of the statements supplied in support of the application attempted to explain how national security would be endangered if the application were not to be granted and the trial were to proceed.� He asserted that there is no rational connection between disclosure and the danger envisaged, and that an irrational connection would not suffice.� He also pointed out that the in-camera issue emerged late, but the reasons have been explained.� In the end, what mattered to the judge, and what matters to us, is whether the order was appropriate.� The structure of the order was indeed unusual, and Mr O'Connor submitted that it was so unusual that it called into question the whole alleged risk to national security.� In effect, he asked rhetorically, can there really be a risk to national security which can be guarded against by prohibiting general disclosure to the public, but permitting disclosure to an alleged terrorist, his co-accused, the legal advisers and jurors?� That must represent an irrational response.�

Sinclair - July 6, 2009 11:16 AM (GMT)
From 'Secret Evidence - A Justice report:
CODE
http://www.justice.org.uk/images/pdfs/Secret%20Evidence%20-%20June%202009%20-%20website%20version.pdf

QUOTE

[page 158]

R v Amin

#298. In November 2005, Sir Michael Astill, a judge sitting in the Old Bailey, ordered that ‘for
reasons of national security and the avoidance of harm to the due administration of justice’,
part of the trial of Salahuddin Amin for conspiracy to cause explosions (the so-called ‘Fertiliser
plot’)749 would be held in camera.750 Amin had been arrested on a flight from Pakistan to
London in February 2005. Prior to his arrest, he had been detained in Pakistan for several
months, during which time he alleged he had been tortured by Pakistani, British and American
intelligence officials.751 In particular, the judge directed that, although Amin’s own account of
his treatment could be published:
evidence relating to, or any reference to, the events touching or concerning [Amin's]
treatment out of this jurisdiction, from the commencement of the investigation to the
time of his arrest on 8 February 2005, [is] to be given in camera.


Sir Michael acknowledged ‘the importance of the principle of open justice and the special
function of the media’ but held that the order was necessary as publication of the details of the
evidence relating to Amin’s treatment ‘could give rise to a substantial risk to national
security’.
752 The judge also made the cryptic suggestion that publication of the evidence might
‘obstruct the identification’ and potential prosecution of ‘those who it is in the public interest
should be tried’.
753

#299. The judge’s ruling was appealed to the Court of Appeal the following month. There it
was suggested that the evidence in camera related to investigations made by the prosecution
as to Amin’s treatment in Pakistan, including material that might assist Amin in his defence.754
The Court also noted that the judge had made his ruling only after adversarial argument from
both parties, including submissions from representatives of the media.755 However, the Court
rejected the argument that the media should have had disclosure, at least in summary, of the
in camera material:756

When an application for an in camera hearing is being made, it is self-evident that if it
is to be justified on the grounds of national security, or the protection of the identity of
witnesses, some at least of that material is almost certainly bound to be highly
sensitive, and cannot be made available for dissemination …. If counsel representing
media interests are put into possession of the same material as the judge before he
makes his decision, the purpose of an in camera hearing would be defeated.


#300. The Court also rejected the argument that it was irrational for the judge to conclude
that there would be a risk to national security if the evidence were disclosed to the public,
given that it would not be withheld from Amin himself:757

Simply because the order made by the judge was subject to the inevitable limitations
created by the entitlement of the defendant and his legal advisers to be present
throughout the trial, and to provide the defence with material which may be of possible
assistance to him, it does not follow that the order for an in-camera hearing was
flawed or irrational.


In April 2007, Amin was convicted of conspiracy to cause explosions, along with four others,
and sentenced to life imprisonment. However, the fact that the prosecution was willing to
tolerate disclosure to someone later proved to be a terrorist continues to raise doubts about
the need for secrecy in the first place. More generally, if the prosecution was prepared to
tolerate this kind of disclosure (to the accused and his lawyers but not to the public at large) in
Amin’s case, then it raises questions about the government’s failure to do so in civil
proceedings involving secret evidence
.758

#301. In July 2008, the Criminal Division of the Court of Appeal ruled on Amin’s application
leave to appeal his conviction, together with those of his four co-defendants.759 The court’s
judgment, although open, contained thirty-four redactions, for example:760

We must analyse the facts in some detail. In March 2004, [redaction] the authorities
in Pakistan to detain Amin [redaction] although residing in Pakistan at the time, Amin
was a British citizen with a UK passport…
During the course of these many and various interviews [redaction] Amin made
detailed and extensive admissions about terrorist activity in Pakistan.761
The interviews conducted [redaction] of Amin in Pakistan were directed to possible
intelligence of value to public safety here. Once in the UK he was interviewed as a
suspect. Both in the UK and in Pakistan, when seen [redaction] he was treated with
due courtesy.


Amin’s application for leave to appeal was refused although his tariff was reduced.

------------
749 In March 2004, Amin’s co-accused were arrested as part of Operation Crevice in which more than 1,300 pounds of
ammonium nitrate fertiliser were seized. See e.g. ‘Seven with alleged Al-Qaeda links deny plotting terror bomb campaign’,
The Guardian, 22 March 2006.
750 See R v The Crown Court at the Central Criminal Court ex parte A and others [2006] EWCA Crim 4 at para 6.
751 Ibid, para 2.
752 Ibid, para 7. See also the Court of Appeal, ibid: ‘The starting point is that every infringement of the principle of open justice is
significant’ (para 22); and ‘The principle of open justice, whether in the Court of Appeal, or at the court of trial, is so
fundamental that supporting citation of authority is not required’ (para 32).
753 Ibid, para 7.
754 Ibid, para 10: ‘following the assertions made by the [Amin’s] solicitor after the committal, and in the light of the defence case
statement, the authorities in this country made efforts to discover, so far as they could, whether there was, indeed, any
material which might enable [Amin] to advance arguments against the admissibility of evidence obtained in this country, or
indeed to support any application that his future trial might amount to an abuse of process. In short, the order against which
this appeal is now brought relates to material which the prosecution wishes to disclose to the defendant’.
755 Ibid, para 19.
756 Ibid, para 20.
757 Ibid, para 41.
758 See e.g. BB v Secretary of State for the Home Department (SC/39/2005, 14 November 2006) in which SIAC rejected an
interlocutory application for disclosure of the closed material to the parties but with the press and public excluded: ‘‘We
cannot conceive of a single instance in which the exclusion of the press or public would permit disclosure of any material to
[a defendant] which would otherwise remain closed. In reality such material would be open’ (para 30 per Ouseley J).
759 R v Khyam and others [2008] EWCA Crim 1612.
760 Ibid, para 42.


The report also discusses the case of Rangzieb Ahmed & PII restrictions etc.

amirrortotheenemy - August 3, 2009 10:49 PM (GMT)
QUOTE
Allegations that Britain colluded in torture of terror suspects reach European court

Ian Cobain
guardian.co.uk, Sunday 2 August 2009 18.49 BST

Allegations that the UK's intelligence agencies have colluded in the torture of British citizens during overseas counter-terrorism investigations have reached the European courts.

In what is expected to be first of a series of applications to the European court of human rights, lawyers representing Salahuddin Amin are arguing that he has been a victim of torture and was denied the right to a fair trial.

The same legal team have also lodged proceedings on behalf of Amin at the high court in London, suing the director generals of MI5 and MI6, the Home Office, the Foreign Office and the attorney general.

Amin, 34, from Luton, Bedfordshire, was questioned 11 times by MI5 officers during the 10 months he spent in the unlawful detention of Pakistan's Inter Services Intelligence Directorate (ISI), who had detained him at the request of the British. After his eventual deportation to the UK, he and four other men were convicted of conspiring to mount an al-Qaida-inspired bomb attack.

All five are serving life sentences they were refused permission to appeal against to the House of Lords.

Amin says that he was beaten, whipped, deprived of sleep and threatened with an electric drill while being asked questions that would subsequently be put to him again during non-violent interviews by two MI5 officers. Before Amin went on trial, the judge ruled that his conditions in ISI custody had been "physically oppressive" but that he had exaggerated his mistreatment and that it fell short of torture.

Since then, Human Rights Watch (HRW), the New York-based NGO, has spoken to a number of Pakistani intelligence officers who they say corroborated the accounts of torture given by several British citizens alleging UK complicity.

In the case of Amin, according to HRW, the Pakistani sources said his account was "essentially accurate", adding that it was a "high-pressure" case and the desire for information on the part of both British and American authorities was "insatiable". HRW add that their sources say British intelligence officials were "perfectly aware that we were using all means possible to extract information from him and were grateful that we were doing so".

Since Amin's deportation, a number of other British men have made similar allegations about being questioned by British intelligence officials after being tortured by Pakistani agents. In one case, the extent of MI5's involvement in the torture of a man from Rochdale was concealed until David Davis, the former shadow home secretary, used the protection of parliamentary privilege to detail the way in which his brutal mistreatment had been effectively sub-contracted to the ISI.

The government has repeatedly denied that it has solicited or encouraged torture, and maintains that intelligence officers do not commit acts that they know will result in torture.

Source

Bridget - August 5, 2009 08:14 PM (GMT)
QUOTE
Terrorist to sue over 'torture' claims

Published Date: 05 August 2009

Luton man seeking damages of up to £50,000

A terrorist jailed over a terrorist plot to bomb targets including the Bluewater shopping centre in Kent is suing the government for torture he says he suffered in Pakistan.

Former Dunstable College student Salahuddin Amin, 34, from Luton, was jailed in 2007 for being part of the fertiliser bomb plot, which would would have resulted in Britain's biggest ever mass murder.

He and four other men, all from London, were branded "trained, dedicated and ruthless terrorists" by the judge at their trial at the Old Bailey in London. Amin was ordered to serve 17 and a half years in prison before he could be considered for release.

But now the former taxi driver, who became radicalised during a trip to Pakistan in 1999, is suing the British government and security services for up to £50,000. He says that after surrendering to the Pakistani Secret Intelligence Service after fleeing the UK, he was repeatedly tortured by being whipped and threatened with a drill, and alleges British authorities turned a blind eye.

His lawyer said Amin wanted to "hold people who are guilty of being complicit in this torture to be accountable for their actions".

But a Home Office spokesman told the Daily Mail on Saturday: "There is not a shred of evidence to support these allegations. We utterly refute them and we will robustly defend ourselves in court."

The story of Amin's involvement in the massive plot, which centred around using 600kg of ammonium nitrate fertiliser to create bombs which would have caused death on a massive scale, came as a surprise to many in Luton and Dunstable who had known him as calm, shy and softly spoken.

source

Sinclair - August 10, 2009 12:18 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (Page 4)


'Drill another hole in his buttocks'

The first sign that Britain had turned to torture came when Salahuddin Amin, a terrorism suspect from Luton, was
deported to Britain in February 2005. Amin, then aged 29, had surrendered 10 months earlier to the ISI. An ISI officer -
an old friend of Amin's uncle - had approached members of his family in Pakistan to say that MI5 wanted him detained
and questioned, and that if he didn't hand himself in other relatives would be taken instead. Amin decided his treatment
might be more lenient if he surrendered. "I knew I was going to get tortured, because that's the standard," he explained
later. "When the ISI picks you up, that's the minimum you're going to get."

After taking tea with a couple of ISI officers at his uncle's home, Amin was driven to a detention centre in the Sadar
district of Rawalpindi. The moment the gate closed behind him, he says, he was hooded, handcuffed and shackled. For
two days, in between interrogation sessions, he was placed in a cell with five brilliant white lights permanently switched
on, and the guards would rattle the padlock on the door from time to time to ensure he could not sleep. On the third day,
after being shown photographs of a number of friends from Britain, he says his interrogators began to beat and whip him.
"They were using lashes made from strips of car tyre tied to wooden handles. They whipped me around my neck and
arms and shoulders. It was extremely painful. " Then a guard came in with an electric drill. "I was told to face the wall,
and the guard was told: 'Drill another hole in his buttocks.'" The guard switched on the drill, and touched Amin's
backside. At this point he appears to have passed out. When he came around the questioning continued, his
interrogators whipping his head.

Over the next two weeks he was interrogated almost every day. His interrogation was co-ordinated with the questioning
of 20 other men - one in New York, one in Ottawa, and 18 in London - who had been detained a few days earlier.
Throughout his ordeal, Amin says, it was made clear to him that this treatment had been requested by the British.

After around 15 days, he says, he was taken from his cell, blindfolded and handcuffed, and driven for around 20 minutes.
He was led into a building and into an air-conditioned room. He heard someone asking, in English, for his hood and
handcuffs to be removed. "There were two British people there. They shook my hand and said they were called Matt and
Richard, and they were from MI5." Amin's chief torturer, a man called Major Rahman, was also in the room. "I didn't tell
them I was being tortured because the major was there, I was frightened of him, of course, and it was pretty clear that
they were all involved in it
." It was the first of 11 meetings with "Matt and Richard" or with two other MI5 officers, a
bearded man in his 30s who called himself Chris, and a long-haired woman in her 20s who did not give her name. Amin
says a pattern emerged: he would be asked questions, under torture, and then he would be driven to the air-conditioned
building, where MI5 would ask him the same questions again. Sometimes the MI5 officers would come to the ISI prison
to question him there. In all, Amin's lawyers have established that MI5 saw him 11 times over the next few months
.

Amin was eventually deported to the UK, where he and four other men were convicted of conspiring to bomb a target in
the south-east of England, possibly the Ministry of Sound nightclub in London or the Bluewater shopping centre in
London. Each of them is serving life. The trial judge ruled that Amin's treatment had been "physically oppressive" but that
it fell short of torture. Human Rights Watch, among others, are dismissive of this ruling, insisting: "The UK has ... been
complicit in the illegal detention, forcible transfer to the UK and torture of some terrorism suspects. These have included
Salahuddin Amin." One of Scotland Yard's most senior counter-terrorism detectives has also said, privately, that he
accepts Amin was tortured. The MI5 officer who identified himself as Richard gave evidence at Amin's trial, but only in
camera, behind closed doors
.

http://www.expliciet.nl/index2.php?option=..._pdf=1&id=13808

QUOTE (Page 8)

When Salahuddin Amin lost his appeal against conviction for conspiracy to
cause explosions, long sections of the court's judgment were completely blacked out before it was made public.

http://www.expliciet.nl/index2.php?option=..._pdf=1&id=13808


The case notes of the appeal (showing the redactions in context) is here:
http://www.ikandp.co.uk/cms/documents/khyam.pdf

Sinclair - November 24, 2009 01:45 PM (GMT)
Quotes from Human Rights Watch report 'Cruel Britannia - British Complicity in the Torture and Ill-treatment of Terror Suspects in Pakistan'

http://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/rep...uk1109web_0.pdf


QUOTE
The case of
Salahuddin Amin, a British citizen convicted in the UK in 2007 for plotting attacks against targets including London’s Ministry of Sound nightclub, is illustrative. Amin says that while in Pakistani custody for ten months beginning in March 2004 he was met by British intelligence officials on almost a dozen occasions between sessions of torture.

Salahuddin Amin
Salahuddin Amin, a UK citizen from Edgware, was convicted in the UK in April 2007 in the socalled “Crevice” trial for plotting attacks against London’s Ministry of Sound nightclub and other sites. Amin was effectively deported to the UK in February 2005 after ten months of unlawful detention by the ISI in Pakistan. Amin’s first person account of his treatment was provided to Human Rights Watch through his lawyers.

Amin alleges that he was tortured repeatedly through 2004 and forced into making false confessions. While in Pakistan, he was never charged with an offense. On his release he was coerced into leaving Pakistan and then arrested upon arrival at Heathrow airport.
Pakistani intelligence officers told Human Rights Watch that Amin’s account of his detention, torture and meetings with alleged UK and US intelligence personnel are “essentially accurate.” These sources said that Amin’s was a “high pressure” case and that the UK and US governments’ desire for information from him was “insatiable.” The sources added that both governments’ agents who were “party” to Amin’s detention were “perfectly aware that we were using all means possible to extract information from him and were grateful that we were doing so.”17
Amin’s account of his treatment, including the role played by UK and US agents, is highly credible. His description of his torture is consistent with our findings in other cases involving the ISI. As described, it seems extremely unlikely that UK and US authorities were unaware of Amin’s torture and ill-treatment in ISI custody.
Amin handed himself in to the ISI in Rawalpindi in April 2004 after an ISI officer, a family friend, had approached members of his family to say that MI5 wanted him detained and questioned, and that if he didn’t hand himself in other relatives would be taken instead.
Amin was driven to a detention center in the Sadar district of the city, where, he says, he was hooded, handcuffed, and shackled.
Throughout his ordeal, Amin said, it was made clear to him that his detention was explicitly requested by the British and they were aware of the torture, something that was explained to him at his very first interrogation, by a man who described himself as the Inspector General (IG):

He (...) told me that the Pakistani government had nothing against me and I
was arrested at the request of the British authorities. He said that as soon as
the British cleared me they would let me go. For the next ten months I got a
constant reminder of this by different officers. Another thing that he said to
me was that they were taking much more from the British and Americans
than there were giving them
.18

For two days, between interrogation sessions, he was placed in a cell with five bright white lights permanently switched on, and the guards would rattle the padlock on the door from time to time to ensure he could not sleep. On the third day, after being shown photographs of a number of friends from Britain, he says his interrogators began to beat and whip him.
The IG spoke first of all and he said to me that they had been really nice with
me up to then but their behavior was going to change because all I had told
them were lies. I replied that I had told them the honest truth. The colonel
shouted in a really loud voice and said ‘You bloody choot piece’ [a woman’s
private part]. Do you think that you are the brigadier’s nephew and we will
leave you?’ He ordered a guard who was standing outside to get rubber
lashes.
When the guard brought the lashes, the colonel from the IG took the big one
and DIG [Deputy Inspector General] took the slightly smaller one, and they
both started hitting me around by back, shoulders and thighs with full force.
They were constantly hitting me and swearing at me. I was in extreme pain. I
felt as if my skin was ripping apart. I broke down and started crying...
They then threatened Amin with an electric drill.
I was told to face the wall, and one of the interrogators told the guard: ‘Drill
another hole in his buttocks.’
The guard switched on the drill, and touched Amin’s backside. At this point he appears to have passed out. When he came around the questioning continued, his interrogators whipping his head.
Amin said he was forced to write and rewrite confessions over many months in the light of these interrogations. Often the ISI used violence—lashing him and hitting him if they found “inconsistencies” in his account.
He first met British security officials some 15 days after he was detained. Amin described to Human Rights Watch being taken from his cell, blindfolded and handcuffed, and driven for around 20 minutes. He was led into a building and into an air-conditioned room. The individual who appeared to be directing his torture, a man called Major Rahman, was also in the room.
When my hood was taken off I saw two white men standing in front of me. I
got slightly nervous when I saw them because these two were the first two
white people I was seeing in ISI custody. I was trying to figure out if they were
Americans or British. One of them looked at major and asked if my handcuffs
could be taken off. The guard was told to take my cuffs off. I gathered he was
British and not American. He introduced himself as Matt from MI5 and his
colleague as Richard. His tone was very friendly. Matt was a senior officer but Richard seemed more like an office boy and he just took notes. After
introductions, they took their notebooks and pens out. Matt had a list of
questions which I [I]soon realized were from previous interrogations by the
major
. These questions were about all the false confessions I had made...[/I] [compiling 'evidence' for the Crevice trial?]

Amin told Human Rights Watch that he did not tell the British officials he was being tortured because the major was there. “I was frightened of him, of course, and it was pretty clear that they were all involved in it.”

Matt also had some new questions which the Major hadn’t asked me yet,
and once the British had gone the Major interrogated me about those
questions. No matter how much the British government and the agents
denied getting involved in the torture, and my mistreatment in any way, I
know for a fact that they were fully involved in it
. If all the notes from the
Major and all the notes from the British and the list of questions from the
British are put together, it wouldn’t take very long to see a pattern. Another
thing that would be helpful in completing this jigsaw puzzle is the notes
taken by the Americans.

Amin describes making many trips to that same building over the next four months to meet the British officers. In addition to “Matt” and “Richard,” he met a bearded man in his 30s who called himself “Chris,” and a long-haired woman in her 20s who did not give her name.
A pattern emerged—Pakistani interrogators would interrogate Amin under torture, and then he would be driven to the air-conditioned building, where MI5 would ask him the same questions again. Sometimes the MI5 officers would come to the ISI prison to question him there.

When there was enough information gathered by the Major the British would
come and confirm it, and put new questions to me, about which I would later
get interrogated about and beaten by the Major. The lashes weren’t present
in the presence of the British officers but the Major was present in every
single meeting.
19

Amin also describes an incident where he was tortured and threatened with rape:

I heard the Major’s voice. He asked me as usual, ‘Gulloo, how are you?’ I
said, ‘Fine,’ as usual. Then he asked me if I knew Abu Munzir’s friend or
cousin, Abu Anas [alleged al Qaeda operative] in Belgium. I was still cuffed,
shackled and hooded. I didn’t know anybody by that name, therefore I said
no. As soon as I denied knowing him the Major started shouting and
swearing. He said to me, ‘Bhen Chod [sister fucker], you started lying to us
again. Today we will really show you how we skin people alive.’
He told the guards to strip me naked and hang me. This was the scariest
moment of my life and I remember that I started shaking so badly with fear
that the guard who was trying to take my handcuffs off was having difficulties
to put the key in the slot and was telling me to keep my hand steady. Once
the cuffs were taken off the guard undid the buttons of my kameez and took
it off. My shalwar was pulled down to my ankles. I was almost dragged to one
end of the room and whilst I was facing the wall my arms were tied to leather
straps that were fixed on the wall. The straps were pulled up so much that my
feet were almost off the floor. The hood was still over my head and I was
beaten severely with lashes by two people and one of them was the Major...
The Major threatened to rape me with the wooden handle again but this time
I was in a more vulnerable situation and I thought he was really doing to do it
but thank God he didn’t. I broke down in tears and was screaming with the
pain of lashes and the humiliation. The Major was saying to me, ‘Would you
lie to us again?’ and I was just saying, ‘I’m sorry, I won’t lie to you.’


This session continued with further beatings until the major said to his colleagues,

‘Leave the Bhen Chod hanging here,’ and they all left. I was  in extreme pain, confused and terrified. I didn’t have a clue what I was going to say to them. I was constantly praying to God to help me. I was standing there for a very long
time and the pain in my shoulders was increasing by the second. My shoulder pain started to overtake the pain of lashes. I was feeling as if both my shoulders would soon be dislocated. Then two guards came in and untied me. They took my hood and blindfold off and told me to get dressed. Both arms had gone numb and had no strength left in them, and I was having difficulties getting dressed
.20

Salahuddin Amin also describes seeing another detainee who appeared to have been tortured:

The prisoner from Quetta was called Abu Musab al-Balochi and was the
nephew of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed [alleged mastermind of the 9/11
attacks]. He was treated very harshly from the first day. He was put in the last
cell away from everybody where he was left handcuffed and shackled. He
wasn’t given a mattress to sleep on and had to sleep on the bare floor. He
was taken away for interrogation every day. A few weeks after he arrived, he
was taken away in the morning and he didn’t come back in the evening. He
returned two days later, looking really weak and was almost dragging his feet
on the floor. He later told us he had been hung upside down and tortured
.21


^The prosecution case in the Crevice Trial was built using evidence obtained in this way^

amirrortotheenemy - March 10, 2011 04:02 PM (GMT)
QUOTE
Narrowing the definition of torture to the point of hypocrisy

The secret services, backed by a little-noticed judgment, have given the go-ahead to using torture-induced intelligence


Richard Norton-Taylor
guardian.co.uk, Thursday 3 March 2011 10.30 GMT

For a judgment described as landmark by Britain's intelligence agencies it has gone remarkably unnoticed. On 25 February, the court of appeal ruled on the case of Rangzieb Ahmed, a British citizen from Rochdale, serving a life sentence after being convicted of membership of al-Qaida and directing a terrorist organisation. He claimed he was tortured in Pakistan when he was held in custody there and that the UK authorities were complicit in his treatment.

The judges – Lord Justice Hughes, Mr Justice Owen and Mrs Justice Thirlwall, rejected his claim, as the trial judge had done, that British authorities had "outsourced" his torture. They then made two key points in important passages certain to be seized on by MI5 and MI6. "Torture is wrong", they said. "If it had occurred there could be no excuse for it, not even if Rangzieb was a suspected terrorist who might kill people". They added: "But the question was not whether it is wrong, but what consequences flow from it if it occurred". They agreed that "it is not, and cannot be, the law that every act of torture has the consequence that the tortured person becomes immune from prosecution in every country and for all time, whatever crime he may commit". There must be a connection between the torture and the prosecution. The necessary connection exists where the torture has an impact on the trial, but not otherwise. "Even if there had been torture whilst Rangzieb was in Pakistan, it had no bearing on the trial," the appeal court said.

In the second key passage, the judges, referring to an earlier case (A v Home Secretary [2004] UKHL 56; [2005] 2 AC 68); "A (No 1)" stated:

    "The Home Secretary is entitled to rely on material gathered from a foreign source, with which information and intelligence is shared, even if such material might be the product of torture. Likewise, the security services or the police are not required to close their eyes to information which helps to protect the public's safety [...] even if that information comes to them from a foreign source which has used torture. Moreover, if subsequently called upon to justify a person's detention or other actions to control him, the foreign material can be relied upon. What however cannot be done is to rely in court on the information to make a case against someone".

In other words, MI5 and MI6 – and the police – can use information obtained from torture for intelligence purposes, but not as court evidence. They can be in what security sources describe as "passive receipt" of information gained by torture but must not actually encourage torture.

Sir John Sawers, the head of MI6, has gone further, in the sense of distancing British authorities from torture. "Torture is illegal and abhorrent under any circumstances, and we have nothing whatsoever to do with it", he said last October in the first public speech given by the chief of the secret intelligence service.

Sawers continued: "If we know or believe action by us will lead to torture taking place, we're required by UK and international law to avoid that action. And we do, even though that allows the terrorist activity to go ahead". However, reflecting closely the words of the appeal court's judgment, he added: "We also have a duty to do what we can to ensure that a partner service will respect human rights. That is not always straightforward".

Sawers went on: "Yet if we hold back, and don't pass on that intelligence, out of concern that a suspect terrorist may be badly treated, innocent lives may be lost that we could have saved. These are not abstract questions for philosophy courses or searching editorials. They are real, constant, operational dilemmas."

The judgment, and Sawers's speech, raise serious questions. Our security and intelligence agencies can easily avoid action that "will lead to torture taking place". But they can use the product of torture-induced information in a "passive" way simply by not asking how it was obtained.

This significantly narrows the definition of complicity. It encourages hypocrisy. It is a recipe for turning a blind eye to practices, including CIA "extraordinary rendition", that, if disclosed, would be condemned. And there are those, even within the intelligence agencies, who publicly condemn torture on the grounds not only that it is morally wrong, but that it is ineffective – that it merely produces whatever the victim thinks the torturer wants to hear, but not the truth.




Gegenbeispiel

3 March 2011 11:52AM

BTW, this judgement appears to put the products of torture on exactly the same and equal legal basis in English law as RIPA2000-authorised communication intercepts by GCHQ and others: they can be legally used in everything except ordinary civil and criminal court proceedings.

It would be interesting to see what would happen if someone brought a wrongful arrest case against the police and the plods' only defence would be torture product data.

Source

Sinclair - March 10, 2011 04:16 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (Guardian)

For a judgment described as landmark by Britain's intelligence agencies it has gone remarkably unnoticed. On 25 February, the court of appeal ruled on the case of Rangzieb Ahmed, a British citizen from Rochdale, serving a life sentence after being convicted of membership of al-Qaida and directing a terrorist organisation. He claimed he was tortured in Pakistan when he was held in custody there and that the UK authorities were complicit in his treatment.

Link to a copy of the judgement, on the Rangzieb Ahmed/Cheetham Hill thread::

http://z13.invisionfree.com/julyseventh/in...post&p=15067341

There is very little coverage of the Salahuddin Amin (torture) case.

Remember that the 'Crevice' prosecution case was built on the evidence obtained from the torture of Salahuddin Amin & from the testimony of 'supergrass' Mohammed Junaid Babar.

Sinclair - May 7, 2011 11:31 AM (GMT)
Excerpts from
QUOTE
Case No: 2007/02682 C5
COURT OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL DIVISION) ON APPEAL FROM THE CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT
Sir Michael Astill
Date: 23rd July 2008
Before :
THE PRESIDENT OF THE QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
MR JUSTICE BEAN
and
MRS JUSTICE DOBBS
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Between :
R
- v -
Omar Khyam      Applicants
Salahuddin Amin
Jawed Akbar
Anthony Garcia
Waheed Mahmood

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Mr J Bennathan QC and Mr M Huseyin for Khyam
Mr P O’Connor[on July 7 inquest team for families] QC and Mr H. Mullen for [Salahuddin] Amin
Mr J. Wood QC and R Harvey for Akbar
Mr M. Ryder and Mr H. Zahir for Garcia
Mr M Massih QC and Mr R.M.T Price for Mahmood
Mr D.E. Waters QC, Mr M Heywood and Mr D Atkinson for the Prosecution
Hearing dates : 10th June – 17th June 2008
CODE
http://www.haguejusticeportal.net/Docs/NLP/UK/Khyam_et_al_23-07-2008.pdf


QUOTE

Disclosure Chronology

47. As we have already noted, [Salahuddin] Amin was arrested immediately on arrival at Heathrow on
8th February. He was charged on 12th February. He made his first appearance at the
Magistrates Court 2 days later. A preliminary hearing took place on 21st February.
The case was listed for mention before the trial judge on 22nd April. An extension of
time was granted for the serving of defence case statements. A directions hearing was
fixed for 30th June, and the trial fixed for 10th October.

48. On 3rd May Amin’s new solicitors wrote to the Crown Prosecution Service requesting
disclosure of a number of documents including “all records, documents and
communications between UK/US and Pakistan authorities concerning the
apprehension, detention, interrogation and treatment of the defendant whilst in
custody in Pakistan” and all such documents regarding his “deportation” to the UK.
Details were requested of any attendance notes made by members of the UK security
services (or any representative of the UK authorities), or any attendances on him by
US security agents while he was in custody in Pakistan. Information was also sought
to enable the defendant to prepare an argument on the admissibility of his interviews
in this country, and a request was made for “all records of …alleged confessions”,
“not least in order for the defence to be in a proper position to instruct any expert(s) to
advise on the question of the defendant’s psychiatric and psychological state …”.
Finally, any information/records “bearing upon the legality of the defendant’s
removal from Pakistan to UK in February 2005 must be disclosed before the defence
can properly prepare any abuse of process argument”.

49. The CPS responded a few days later. The written submission prepared by Mr
O’Connor for present purposes provides an adequate summary
. “The matters raised
were subject to PII
and ….material that might be in the hands of the Pakistani
authorities was included in a draft Letter of Request…it was necessary be “cautious”,
in not making a “tactless” approach to such an authority as it might “meet with a
blanket refusal””. The letter pointed out that communications between UK and
foreign government departments and prosecuting authorities were generally subject to
PII, and that there was no guidance, and comparatively little case law, on “the steps to
be taken where the material is in the hands of agencies outside the UK”. The CPS
intended to approach the problem as if it were similar to the one suggested in
guidance which applied to material in the hands of third parties.

50. On 13th June the defence case statement was served. Involvement in the conspiracy
was denied. It asserted that Amin was detained for many months, and treated
“inhumanely” and that he was “tortured in order to procure from him false
confessions”. The false confessions were “the creation of his interrogators who
forced him to adopt the content”
. His admissions in police interviews in the UK were
“false admissions which adopted part of previous false admissions that had been
extracted from him during his detention in Pakistan”. This formed the basis for the
application under sections 76 and 78 of the 1984 Act. The defence case statement
further asserted that Amin was “unlawfully removed from Pakistan…in order to
facilitate his detention and interrogation in UK custody”.

51. Shortly afterwards a further letter was sent from Amin’s solicitors to the CPS in
relation to disclosure, repeating the requests made in the letter dated 3rd May, and
seeking “additional clarification” of a number of points”. In preparation for a plea
and directions hearing on 30th June a defence skeleton argument highlighted a number
of matters in relation to Amin’s detention in and departure from Pakistan which
required scrupulous compliance with the prosecution’s duties in relation to disclosure
which applied particularly to “UK state involvement in and/or knowledge of Mr
Amin’s treatment in Pakistan, of which Mr Amin and his lawyers can have little or no
information”. The defence statement and skeleton argument led the prosecution to
conduct an extensive review of what is described as third party material
, seeking to
address the possibility that an abuse of process argument on the basis of the detention
and removal of Amin from Pakistan, and a separate submission that the evidence of
the interviews in the UK should be excluded, might both be available.

52. The judge made appropriate orders that the Crown should serve the material bearing
on these issues which was already in their possession within 7 days
. Thereafter notes
[REDACTION] were disclosed. [disclosure of the 'identity' of MSK & ST?] Shortly afterwards, the CPS confirmed that secondary
disclosure was incomplete and that no PII application had taken place
. On 10th
October a hearing took place
before the judge. He ordered that the hearing on
21st November would be a preparatory hearing. Complaint was made about the delay in
disclosure. The prosecution notified Amin’s advisers that there would be a PII
hearing on 24th October. When this took place the judge made an order for further
disclosure by the prosecution. One week later the prosecution confirmed that further
inquiries were being made in relation to material from Pakistan, and in response to a
letter from Amin’s solicitors seeking urgent disclosure, they were informed that a
further PII hearing would be taking place. This took place on 15th November. On the
following day, a directions hearing took place. It was backed up with a further
defence skeleton argument relating to disclosure. Thereafter there was legal argument
about whether those parts of the trial which referred to material disclosed by the
Crown [i.e. the 'identities' of MSK & ST]should take place in camera
. The judge’s decision that it should was subject to
an appeal to this court, which was dismissed in early January.[This is the appeal case noted here which deals with ..."… reasons of national security and the avoidance of harm to the due administration of justice, this court will sit in camera for those parts of the trial and the pre-trial process during which there is any evidence given or any reference made to evidence, information or argument which relates to the material disclosed by the prosecution by a notice dated …........"  Note that the date is not disclosed but we now know that this disclosure relates to the "formally proving that MSK and ST were involved and died in the events of 7th July(#14)]

53. On 5th January the prosecution disclosed “information [REDACTION]This document was
known as MS/1. [REDACTION] It set out a number of important facts, but although the
response from Amin’s legal advisers did not “cast doubt upon the difficulties that the
Crown claim to have encountered, or their good faith,…” the summary was said to be
“singularly disappointing and unhelpful”. Further clarification was sought, along with
further disclosure arising from the contents of “MS/1”. The prosecution prepared a
further document, “Further Disclosure re Amin”. After it was scrutinised and
eventually approved by the court during an ex parte hearing, it was disclosed on 25th
January as MS/2, which itself was 35 pages long, with 36 pages of annexes. The
response of Amin’s legal advisers was, in effect, to seek further and better particulars
of this material. A further review then took place. This produced a “Third disclosure
response re Amin”. This was MS/3.
The disclosure documents, all thereafter 13th January 2006, all issued under PII/'in camera' restrictions, then total up to MS/13.

QUOTE
Two major criticisms were made of these [Crevice Case] findings. First, the judge was wrong to
allow the Crown to cross examine Amin about the truth of the admissions he made
[redaction] in Pakistan. Second, the judge treated material found in the MS
documents as if they were “admitted”, when they had not been proved. In effect he is
said to have blurred the distinction between disclosure and evidence.

These (2) criticisms were raised by in the appeal, but were dismissed. Criticism 2 in paragraph 69:
QUOTE
69. The use of the admissions made by the Crown in the course of the disclosure process
was inevitable. The material was produced to comply with the Crown’s disclosure
obligations, and in answer to direct requests by the defence. They were used by Mr
O’Connor for the purposes of cross-examining the witnesses called by the Crown [no doubt Mohammed Junaid Babar] as if
they were indeed true facts. The subsequent skeleton submissions by Mr O’Connor
made reference to them in support of his argument. Indeed the admissions were
integral to and provided the structure for the submission. Accordingly, too, this
criticism is not sustained.



Note that, as corroboration, the court hearing document THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA v MOHAMMAD MOMIN KHAWAJA [2007 FC 490] Ottawa, Ontario, May 7, 2007 also refers in Paragraph 48 to the fact that the ruling of 13 Jan 2006 was centred around the PII coveted 'evidence' regarding the identities of MSK and ST:
QUOTE

48. The ruling was issued on Friday, January 13, 2006 and concerned the admissibility of
evidence identifying persons (Mohammed Siddique Khan and Shehzad Tanweer) who were alleged
to have associated with some of the Crevice defendants on occasions during 2003 and 2004.
CODE
http://www.icj.org/IMG/Khawaja-Evidence.pdf


The January 2006 hearing at which PII/'in camera' was decreed for the Crevice trial:
QUOTE

[2006] EWCA Crim 4
  Case No: 200506175 D5

COURT OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT
THE HON. SIR MICHAEL ASTILL

  Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
  13th January 2006

B e f o r e :

PRESIDENT OF THE QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
THE HON. MR JUSTICE OPENSHAW
and
THE RT HON. SIR PAUL KENNEDY
____________________
Between:
R
  - v -
The Crown Court at the Central Criminal Court Ex parte A
Times Newspapers Ltd
Guardian Newspapers Ltd
British Broadcasting Corporation
____________________

Mr Patrick O'Connor QC and Mr H. Mullan for A
Mr David [Murky] Waters QC, Mr M. Heywood and Mr D. Atkinson for the Crown
Mr Keir Starmer QC and Mr A. Hudson for the Times Newspapers Limited,
Guardian Newspapers Limited and the British Broadcasting Corporation
Hearing date: 16th December 2005
CODE
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2006/4.html

Sinclair - July 22, 2013 04:07 PM (GMT)
Note the large sections of REDACTED text:
QUOTE

Neutral Citation Number: [2013] EWHC 1579 (QB)
  Case No: HQ09X03332

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION


  Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
  26 June 2013

B e f o r e :

MR JUSTICE IRWIN
____________________

Between:
SALAHUDDIN AMIN Claimant

- and -


(1) THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF THE SECURITY SERVICE [MI5]
(2) THE CHIEF OF THE SECRET INTELLIGENCE SERVICE [MI6]
(3) THE FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE
(4) THE HOME OFFICE
(5) THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

Defendants


____________________

Patrick O'Connor QC and Danny Friedman QC (instructed by Bhatt Murphy) for the Claimant
Rory Phillips QC and Jonathan Hall (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) for the Defendants

Hearing dates: 12 and 13 December 2012
FURTHER SUBMISSIONS MADE IN WRITING: 21 December 2012 and 17 January 2013
____________________

OPEN HTML VERSION OF JUDGMENT

CODE
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2013/1579.html


QUOTE


The outcome if the Claimant were to succeed

#65 In the course of these proceedings I asked both parties to consider a question which seems to me arises squarely here, and to bear directly on whether re-litigation here would bring the administration of justice into disrepute. The question was as follows:

"If this claim were to proceed and succeed, what would prevent the Claimant from publicising the result, claiming in public that his conviction was tainted by mistreatment abroad, with which British agencies were complicit?"

#66 The Defendants' answer is essentially "nothing".

#67 The Claimant's answer is more extended. The result of a successful claim would be public, along with as much of the reasoning as can be made open, consistent with the public interest. There could be no limit as to the number of people who could comment on the outcome of litigation, and that includes the Claimant. The Claimant accepts that some of the comment would be accurate and responsible, and some not. Mr O'Connor submits that the court should be concerned with "objective disrepute" which he defines as whether the claim is properly to be regarded as inconsistent with the previous ruling and would, properly understood, bring the administration of justice into disrepute. In effect, Mr O'Connor submits the question in context becomes whether a successful outcome to the claim could reasonably serve to undermine and taint the Claimant's criminal conviction, in the minds of the reasonable and well-informed member of the public. Mr O'Connor says this could not arise.


Salahuddin Amin, the Claimant, did not suceed in his appeal and M15/M16/FCO etc. will not be faced with the prospect of publicity regarding the Crevice convictions [Waheed Mamood, Omar Khyam, Salahuddin Amin, Anothony Garcia and Jaward Akbar] being secured by 'evidence' extracted by the torture of Salahuddin Amin in Pakistan & the 'supergrass' evidence of Mohammed Junaid Babar (now a free man).

Exposing this miscarriage of justice would make the whole house of cards fall....

Sinclair - July 23, 2013 05:10 PM (GMT)
A copy of Salahuddin Amin's application to the European Court of Human Rights of January 2009
CODE
http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/eng/pages/search.aspx?i=001-112530#{"itemid":["001-112530"]}


QUOTE

ECHR
FOURTH SECTION

Applications nos 6610/09 and 326/12
Salajuddin AMIN against the United Kingdom
and Rangzieb AHMED against the United Kingdom
lodged on 21 January 2009 and 21 December 2011 respectively

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The first applicant, Mr Salajuddin Amin, is a joint British and Pakistan national who was born in Pakistan in 1975 and is currently detained in HMP Whitemoor. His application was lodged on 21 January 2009. He is represented before the Court by Mr R. Bhatt of Bhatt Murphy Solicitors, a lawyer practising in London.

The second applicant, Mr Rangzieb Ahmed, is a British national who was born in Lancashire in 1975 and is currently detained in HMP Full Sutton. His application was lodged on 21 December 2011. He is represented before the Court by Mr T. Ali of Irvine Thanvi Natas Solicitors, a lawyer practising in London.

A.  The circumstances of the case

The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows.

1. The first applicant

The first applicant was born in Pakistan in 1975. In 1994 he moved to the United Kingdom but he returned to Pakistan in November 2001.

On 30 March 2004 six men were arrested [Operation Crevice] in the United Kingdom and charged with conspiracy to cause explosions. The first applicant’s uncle, a Brigadier in the Pakistan army who had contacts with the Pakistan authorities, heard that the United Kingdom authorities were seeking the first applicant in connection with the arrest of these six men. He encouraged the first applicant to surrender voluntarily to the authorities in Pakistan.

On or about 3 April 2004, the first applicant handed himself in to the Pakistan authorities. He was detained for the next ten months by the Inter‑Service Intelligence Agency (“ISI”). He claims that during these ten months he was beaten, threatened and abused by ISI interrogators. He was also interviewed eleven times by British agents and questioned by American agents. He submits that the American agents threatened him with rendition to Guantanamo Bay. Although he does not claim to have been ill-treated by the British agents who interviewed him in Pakistan, he submits that when he was taken to meet them he was hooded and handcuffed.

While in detention in Pakistan the first applicant made certain admissions confirming his involvement in the terrorist conspiracy which had led to the arrest of the six men in London
.

The first applicant was flown from Pakistan to London on 8 February 2005 [the very same day that Mohammed Siddique Khan & Shezad Tanweer flew from Pakistan to London]. He claims to have been told by the authorities in Pakistan that the six men arrested in the United Kingdom had been convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment and that the United Kingdom would not seek to prosecute him in respect of any admissions made to the ISI.

The first applicant was arrested immediately upon his return to London and he was interviewed by the Metropolitan Police between 8 and 11 February 2005. The first applicant was legally represented throughout these interviews and had access to independent legal advice before any questioning began. It was subsequently noted by the domestic courts that the admissions made by the first applicant in Pakistan were never referred to and were never used by the interviewers in the United Kingdom. Nevertheless, the first applicant submits that the first pre-interview disclosure document stated that “in this interview, your client will be asked about admissions he has made in relation to terrorist training he has undertaken in Pakistan”.

During questioning in the United Kingdom, in the presence of his solicitor, the first applicant made further admissions regarding his role as an agent for British men coming to Pakistan to finance or train for jihadist activities, his attendance at explosives training with one of the six men arrested in the United Kingdom (“Khyam”), and the provision of information to Khyam on how to create a fertiliser based explosive. On 12 February 2005 he was formally charged with the offence of conspiracy to cause explosions.

On 3 May 2005 the applicant’s solicitor wrote to the Crown Prosecution Service (“CPS”) requesting disclosure of all records, documents and communications between the authorities of the United Kingdom and the United States of America and the authorities of Pakistan concerning the applicant’s apprehension, detention, interrogation and treatment while in custody in Pakistan and all documents concerning his “deportation” to the United Kingdom. Details were requested of any attendance notes made by members of the United Kingdom or United States security forces in Pakistan. A request was also made for a record of all confessions together with any information bearing on the legality of the first applicant’s removal from Pakistan to the United Kingdom.

The CPS replied that the material requested was subject to Public Interest Immunity (“PII”) and that there was no guidance and comparatively little case-law on the steps to be taken when material was in the hands of agencies outside the United Kingdom.

On 13 June 2005 the defence statement was served. The first applicant denied all involvement in the terrorist conspiracy and asserted that he had been “treated inhumanely” in detention in Pakistan and tortured to procure false confessions from him. He further alleged that admissions made in police interviews in the United Kingdom were “false admissions which adopted part of previous false admissions extracted from him during his detention in Pakistan”.

Shortly afterwards the first applicant’s solicitor wrote again to the CPS, repeating the request in the letter of 3 May 2005. A defence skeleton argument was also served which highlighted a number of matters in relation to the first applicant’s detention in and departure from Pakistan.

The judge subsequently made an order that the Crown should serve the material bearing on these issues which was already in their possession within seven days.

On 24 October 2005 the Crown made an ex parte application for a ruling that the disclosure of certain material in its possession would be injurious to the public interest. The defence were not informed of the substance of the application for PII or whether any order was in fact made.

On 14 November 2005 the Crown served a formal notice of an application for those parts of the evidence that related to the applicant’s treatment while in detention in Pakistan – with the exception of the first applicant’s own account – to be heard in camera, with no public reporting of these matters thereby permitted. The Crown submitted that if this evidence were to be heard in public, there would be a substantial risk to national security. In a decision dated 28 November 2005 the Court accepted that general publication of the evidence in question could give rise to a substantial risk to national security and granted the order sought. The first applicant’s appeal against this decision was dismissed on 13 January 2006 [see Case notes here]. Pursuant to Rule 67.2 of the Criminal Procedure Rules 2005, the appeal was determined without a hearing.

A further PII hearing took place on 15 November 2005. The defence were not told of the outcome of the hearing and no judgment or ruling has been produced to them.

On 5 January 2006 the prosecution disclosed a material summary entitled MS/1. It set out a number of important facts but the first applicant’s solicitors described it as “singularly disappointing and unhelpful”. On 25 January 2006 a further document entitled MS/2 was disclosed. The first applicant’s representatives sought further and better particulars of this document. This resulted in a third disclosure entitled MS/3.

The first applicant applied for the prosecution to be stayed as an abuse of process. In particular, he submitted that United Kingdom agents had been complicit in his torture and inhuman and degrading treatment in Pakistan and that the United Kingdom had made use of the “fruits of this abuse”. On 30 January 2006 a hearing into the abuse of process application commenced. This included the hearing of certain evidence from the first applicant by way of a voir dire. The first applicant submits that in the course of the voir dire the prosecution were permitted to cross-examine him on the basis of material obtained during his interrogation by the ISI in Pakistan.

In the course of the abuse of process hearing, the prosecution disclosed MS/4, MS/5, MS/6, MS/7 and MS/8.

During the course of the abuse of process application, the first applicant applied for the judge to recuse himself as he had already seen a number of documents not made available to the defence in the course of the PII applications. The application for the judge to recuse himself was dismissed on 31 January 2006. It was renewed in writing but dismissed again on 6 February 2006.

On 17 February 2006 the judge announced his decision not to grant a stay for abuse of process and not to exclude from the evidence under sections 76 and 78 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (“the 1984 Act”) confessions obtained from the first applicant in the United Kingdom.

On 23 February 2006 the judge gave his reasons for his decision not to include the confessions made in the United Kingdom. In summary, while he accepted that the first applicant had been treated in Pakistan in a manner that would be wholly unacceptable in the United Kingdom, and which amounted to “oppression” for the purposes of section 76 of the 1984 Act, he did not accept that his treatment was as severe as he had alleged. In particular, he considered it implausible that the nephew of a Brigadier would have been treated as badly as he claimed, that the first applicant would have shown no physical manifestation of such ill-treatment, or that he would have failed to mention such treatment to the British agents who interviewed him. Consequently, the judge did not accept that the severity of the applicant’s treatment in Pakistan would have prevented him from explaining at a very early stage that he had been forced into making the confessions made in Pakistan. Therefore, as the confessions made in the United Kingdom were neither directly nor indirectly the product of any abuse, the judge did not consider that it would be unfair to admit them in evidence.

In May 2006 the judge indicated that his reasons for refusing to grant a stay were the same as his reasons for admitting the first applicant’s confessions.

The substantive trial of the first applicant commenced in March 2006 [the 'Crevice' Trial]. At the close of the prosecution case before the jury, following a request by the first applicant’s solicitor that the United Kingdom authorities seek disclosure from Pakistan of any records relating to the detention and questioning of the first applicant, the prosecution disclosed MS/9. Two further documents, MS/10 and MS/11, were disclosed on 16 November 2006. Thereafter the first applicant gave evidence before the jury and no further disclosure was sought or given before the end of the trial.

On 30 April 2007, after a trial lasting fourteen months at the Central Criminal Court, the first applicant, together with four of the six men originally arrested, was convicted of conspiracy to cause explosions likely to endanger life or cause serious injury to property contrary to section 3(1)(a) of the Explosive Substances Act 1883. The first applicant was sentenced to life imprisonment with a recommended minimum term of seventeen years and six months.

The first applicant appealed against his conviction and sentence. He submitted, inter alia, that the trial judge should have allowed his abuse of process application. More particularly, he complained that the trial judge failed to conduct the pre-disclosure process in a way which minimised the restriction upon equality of arms, that he wrongly approved the outcome of the disclosure process, and that the defence was significantly hampered in investigating material relevant either to the issue of United Kingdom complicity in the applicant’s ill-treatment or to the admissibility in evidence of the first applicant’s London interviews.

For the purposes of the first applicant’s appeal to the Court of Appeal, documents MS/12 and MS/13 were disclosed by the Crown.

On 23 July 2008 the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal [case notes here]as it did not consider that the first applicant’s criticism of the trial process could be sustained and, consequently, there was no arguable basis for interfering with the judge’s decisions. With regard to the respondent Government’s complicity in the treatment of the first applicant in Pakistan, the Court of Appeal stated that:

“Mr O’Connor’s submission is that a significant contribution to every aspect of Amin’s detention in Pakistan, including, [redaction] can be attributed to [redaction] the authorities in the UK [redaction] Notwithstanding Mr O’Connor’s passionate advocacy, we notice that unlike in cases such as ex parte Bennett, Mullen and Latif UK officials did what they could, within the overall constraint which applied to them seeking to work with officials of a sovereign country, to uphold the principles which obtain in this jurisdiction. Their purpose [redaction] was the protection of the safety and right to life of people living in this country, not the obtaining of evidence to establish that he was guilty of any offence or to bring him to trial. At that time the process of the court was not envisaged, let alone engaged. They knew, as the judge found, and was common ground before him, that Amin’s surrender to the authorities in Pakistan resulted from the persuasive efforts of his uncle. In our view it cannot realistically be said that Amin’s uncle made himself complicit in the ill-treatment to which his nephew was subsequently exposed. In any event however this contention founders on the judge’s finding of fact.

Particular areas of concern, such as [redaction] might have justified an argument that the results of the interview process should be excluded, but would not constitute a sufficient basis for a successful abuse of process argument. As it is, no attempt was made to introduce the evidence obtained during the Pakistan interviews as part of the prosecution case.

[redaction]. Thereafter the interview processes with ISI were reduced and ended in October. Amin was then kept in detention in Pakistan. The authorities in Pakistan were responsible for it. Whether it was lawful or unlawful by the law of Pakistan, and it may well have been unlawful, there is no evidence to suggest that UK authorities sought or procured Amin’s continuing detention. He had, when all is said and done, made admissions to complicity in activities which were of direct and immediate concern to the authorities responsible for security in Pakistan: his admissions were far from limited to involvement in this conspiracy. Plainly, Amin’s return to this country was "arranged" in the sense that UK authorities must have known when and where he would arrive. Again, there is no shred of evidence that the UK authorities were complicit in any misconduct which may have attended the process which led to Amin’s flight to this country. Given the extent of his admissions in Pakistan, it would have been surprising if the authorities there would have been prepared to allow him to travel to the UK, knowing of his admitted involvement in terrorist activity, without informing the authorities in the UK that he was coming. If Amin was given a false impression of the consequences of being allowed to travel to the UK that did not take place at the behest of the UK authorities, who by February 2005 had a very serious legitimate interest in interviewing Amin in connection with this conspiracy. They did not procure his return to this country in disregard of proper extradition or similar processes. Indeed on any realistic assessment of the situation, it would have been entirely remiss of the UK authorities if they had failed to make themselves available at Heathrow in order to arrest Amin. They had ample justification for doing so.

After his close examination of the evidence, neither the careful analysis of the essential facts by the trial judge, nor his conclusion, is open to criticism. On the basis of his findings he was entitled to conclude that there were no transgressions by UK officials sufficient to justify an order that the proceedings against Amin should be halted.

We touch briefly on a linked criticism made by Mr O’Connor, namely that even on the judge’s findings of oppression and ill-treatment in Pakistan, which must implicitly, it is submitted, have involved treatment offending against article 3 of the ECHR, he should have stayed the case as an abuse of process. No arguable basis for interfering with the judge’s decision has been demonstrated.”


An unredacted version of this judgment and all of the documents disclosed to the defence were only seen by leading counsel in the domestic criminal proceedings. None of these documents, judgments or decisions have been seen by the first applicant’s representatives in the proceedings before this Court.

...

COMPLAINTS
The first applicant complains that the conduct of the criminal proceedings violated his rights under Article 6 of the Convention, read alone and together with Article 13. In particular, he claims that the decision to interview him in the United Kingdom was based on incriminating evidence which the British authorities knew or ought to have known was obtained through the use of torture and inhuman and degrading treatment and punishment. Moreover, he complains that he was denied access to all or a substantial portion of the relevant material that went to the United Kingdom authorities’ knowledge of the conditions of his detention. The first applicant further complains that the judge’s handling of the issue of disclosure not only hindered his defence case but also resulted in a situation where the prosecution and the judge had access to a substantial volume of material which was entirely kept from the defence. In fact, the first applicant submits that as some disclosure took place after the voir dire, he was deprived of the opportunity of making submissions on the basis of it. Finally, the first applicant complains under Article 6 of the Convention that the trial judge should have appointed a special advocate, which would have represented a less restrictive means of handling the PII procedure.

The first applicant further complains under Article 3 of the Convention that the United Kingdom authorities failed to carry out an effective investigation into his allegations of torture and ill-treatment.

...

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1.  Did the United Kingdom have jurisdiction over the applicants at the time of their alleged ill-treatment in Pakistan?

2.  Were the agents of the respondent State aware – or ought they to have been aware – of the applicants’ alleged ill-treatment? If so, did the agents’ continued co-operation with the authorities in Pakistan violate Article 3 of the Convention?

3.  Was the respondent State under a procedural obligation under Article 3 of the Convention to investigate the applicants’ allegations of complicity by British agents in their ill-treatment in Pakistan? If so, has the respondent State satisfied the requirements of this obligation?

4.  Did the grant of Public Interest Immunity in respect of evidence requested by the defence violate the applicants’ rights under Article 6 of the Convention?





* Hosted for free by zIFBoards