British torture in the ‘war on terror’
| Author | Ruth Blakeley,Sam Raphael |
| Date | 01 June 2017 |
| DOI | 10.1177/1354066116653455 |
| Published date | 01 June 2017 |
E
JR
I
https://doi.org/10.1177/1354066116653455
European Journal of
International Relations
2017, Vol. 23(2) 243 –266
© The Author(s) 2016
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1354066116653455
journals.sagepub.com/home/ejt
British torture in the ‘war on
terror’
Ruth Blakeley
University of Kent, UK
Sam Raphael
University of Westminster, UK
Abstract
Despite long-standing allegations of UK involvement in prisoner abuse during
counterterrorism operations as part of the US-led ‘war on terror’, a consistent narrative
emanating from British government officials is that Britain neither uses, condones nor
facilitates torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment and punishment.
We argue that such denials are untenable. We have established beyond reasonable
doubt that Britain has been deeply involved in post-9/11 prisoner abuse, and we can
now provide the most detailed account to date of the depth of this involvement. We
argue that it is possible to identify a peculiarly British approach to torture in the ‘war
on terror’, which is particularly well-suited to sustaining a narrative of denial. To explain
the nature of UK involvement, we argue that it can be best understood within the
context of how law and sovereign power have come to operate during the ‘war on
terror’. We turn here to the work of Judith Butler, and explore the role of Britain
as a ‘petty sovereign’, operating under the state of exception established by the US
executive. UK authorities have not themselves suspended the rule of law so overtly;
indeed, they have repeatedly insisted on their commitment to it. Nevertheless, they
have been able to construct a rhetorical, legal and policy ‘scaffold’ that has enabled
them to demonstrate at least procedural adherence to human rights norms while, at
the same time, allowing UK officials to acquiesce in the arbitrary exercise of sovereignty
over individuals who are denied any access to appropriate representation or redress in
compliance with the rule of law.
Keywords
Human rights, imperialism, prisoner abuse, torture, UK, war on terror
Corresponding author:
Ruth Blakeley, School of Politics and IR, University of Kent, Rutherford College, Canterbury, CT2 7NX, UK.
Email: r.j.blakeley@kent.ac.uk
653455EJT0010.1177/1354066116653455European Journal of International RelationsBlakeley and Raphael
research-article2016
Article
244 European Journal of International Relations 23(2)
Introduction
In October 2015, after 14 years’ detention without trial at Guantánamo Bay and repeated
torture by the US military, UK resident Shaker Aamer was finally freed and returned to
Britain. Almost immediately, his lawyers signalled that he would sue the British govern-
ment over its involvement in his abuse. Specifically, Aamer alleges that UK security and
intelligence officials were aware of his mistreatment at the hands of the Americans, and
were on one occasion present (Davies et al., 2015a). In an earlier set of legal proceed-
ings, Aamer had also alleged that British intelligence supplied ‘knowingly false informa-
tion’ to US interrogators, which led to his initial capture, detention and rendition from
Afghanistan to Guantánamo Bay (Swann, 2012). In return, the UK government has con-
sistently denied any involvement in, or responsibility for, Aamer’s abuse, stating on his
release that it ‘did not accept allegations of … complicity in his mistreatment’ (Davies
et al., 2015b). Statements by UK officials regarding his case have always emphasised
Britain’s commitment to human rights and the rule of law, and stressed the repeated rep-
resentations made to the US government to secure his release.
Although the time spent by Aamer in arbitrary detention surpasses all other British
citizens and residents known to have been caught up in the ‘war on terror’, neither the
nature of Aamer’s allegations nor the denials by the UK government in response are
particularly new. There have been literally hundreds of allegations concerning UK
involvement in prisoner abuse since September 2001, both within and outside the mili-
tary theatres in Iraq and Afghanistan. These cases have involved allegations of direct
participation in abuse by British personnel, as well as the provision of indirect support
for abuses carried out by foreign government agents (Gibson, 2013: 7). In response, the
UK government has consistently and categorically denied involvement in torture and
other prisoner mistreatment, while simultaneously working to block relevant informa-
tion from being released into the public sphere. This position has been sustained even as
the government has established, or engaged with, a number of parliamentary, police and
judicial investigations into allegations of British involvement.
In this article, we examine the allegations of involvement by the British intelligence
and security services in torture and other prisoner mistreatment, and the consistent strat-
egies of denial that the UK government has pursued in response. We also argue that such
denials are untenable. Our argument is underpinned by careful documentary analysis of
dozens of declassified documents, court proceedings, victim testimonies and investiga-
tive reports by a number of leading human rights organisations, as well as detailed analy-
sis of flight data relating to specific prisoner renditions. Our work with The Rendition
Project — an academic project at the forefront of investigations into the use of torture as
part of the ‘war on terror’ — has allowed us to establish beyond reasonable doubt that
Britain has been deeply and directly involved in post-9/11 prisoner abuse. Furthermore,
while many details remain unknown, we are now in a position to provide the first detailed
academic analysis of the depth and scope of this involvement.
Understanding the scope of British involvement in torture since 9/11 forms one
aspect of the research puzzle at the heart of this article. In addition, we want to under-
stand the characteristics of this involvement, and to account for these. In this light, we
argue here that it is possible to identify a peculiarly British approach to torture in the
To continue reading
Request your trial