One of the odd afflictions of those who comment on politics and those who actually conduct it, is that whenever a scandal erupts we demand an inquiry.

This isn’t because either of the two groups have any great faith in the inquiry getting to the bottom of what actually happened – it’s because neither know what else to do other than ask some independent grandee to investigate. Strangely though, this initial cynicism and scepticism is often forgotten once the report is published and the conclusion fails to satisfy.

History seems unlikely to repeat itself when it comes to the coalition’s purposely crippled inquiry into the security services’ alleged collusion in torture.

After a year of trying to make the government see sense, the 10 involved NGOs, including Liberty, Amnesty and Human Rights Watch amongst others have withdrawn their cooperation from the Peter Gibson helmed inquiry.

From the very beginning it seemed unlikely to meet even the smell test: Gibson was already the intelligence services commissioner, a position you aren’t offered if there’s even the slightest fear you might be anything other than slavishly establishment.

Instead it seems Gibson’s powers will largely resemble those already wielded by the discredited and supine Intelligence and Security Committee, the toothless parliamentary panel which whitewashed rendition and was almost certainly lied to by a former head of MI5.

He cannot order any particular witness to submit to appearing before the inquiry, nor can he demand to see all the evidence the security services hold on rendition. It’s instead up to MI5/6 what they decide to graciously provide.

Those who claim to have been mistreated will also go unrepresented, with their lawyers unable to question any witnesses.

Why they continue to be quite so wedded to such tight secrecy when so much of what they’re likely to go over is public knowledge is made clear by the Guardian obtaining the official security service policy document on dealing with foreign intelligence agencies over detainees of interest.

In itself it makes clear that despite their insistence they knew nothing of how the United States was mistreating detainees until the Abu Ghraib scandal, MI5/6 had already developed a strategy at the beginning of 2002 in an attempt to remain above the depths the US was sinking to.

It even admits that disclosure of such collusion could in itself lead to further radicalisation of those they were meant to be monitoring and preventing from launching attacks, or damage the reputation of the agencies

It doesn’t matter that as they themselves predicted, the reputation of MI5/6 has been damaged by the allegations, and that the only way to repair a sullied reputation is as near to complete disclosure as can be provided by what have to remain semi-secret organisations, the default response remains stonewalling, backed up by those armed with the black pen of the censor.

—
A longer version is at Septicisle’s blog

Reader comments

1. Liberal Conspiracy

   This torture inquiry is now utterly discredited http://bit.ly/o6mShG

2. Mabel Horrocks

   This torture inquiry is now utterly discredited http://bit.ly/o6mShG

3. Derek Bryant

   This torture inquiry is now utterly discredited http://bit.ly/o6mShG

4. Aaron Chandra

   This torture inquiry is now utterly discredited http://bit.ly/o6mShG