It is in the interests of public protection to be kept aware of the various evils in the world. We like to know what the government is doing for our country in order to consider the impact it might have on us. If the intelligence services can commit such dramatic infringements of human rights and get away undetected, others will no doubt be encouraged to follow suit. If the state condones such treatment, the thought of torture may not be so far away. If the details were released following prosecution and immoral stigma of those involved, deterrence of general crime may be improved.

Though the charges were dropped, the torture victim Mohamed was suspected of involvement in terrorism, prevention of which is certainly in the interests of public protection. The torture was a means to an end, simply intended to catalyse the interrogation process. From a utilitarian perspective it is clear that the life of one individual should be sacrificed when those of an entire population are at risk. Clearly such torture is an exceptional last-resort, justified in particular circumstances. To circulate the facts among the public would be unnecessary and would hold disastrous consequences for the UK’s reputation. Furthermore, the judiciary have given reassurance that failure to disclose such information will not impede the prosecution of anyone complicit in torture. (1)

(1) http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/4525149/David-Miliband-says-Britain-right-on-torture-evidence-refusal.html

As Dicey suggested, no man is above the law. Equality is central; the legal system would have little effect if state officials were exempt from the law. The foreign secretary Miliband appears to have succumbed to pressure of the CIA not to disclose the 42 evidential documents and seems unlikely to shift his position. If everyone took this approach to reporting crimes, the law would have little function. Of all people, Miliband should be familiar with the object of putting pressure on others to get the desired result. The dominance of the rule of law has been recognised; to stop the cases surfacing is to pollute and politicise the justice system. (2) (2) http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article5682889.ece

The law makes exceptions in certain cases to act outside of rules; it would hardly be productive to stick to a rigid structure of law in all situations. This is exemplified by Article 15 of the European Convention on Human Rights which permits derogation in times of emergency. It could perhaps be argued that this justifies the use of torture. If this is so, the concealment of sensitive information seems a small price to pay in order to maintain a healthy alliance with the US. Evidence is not always revealed in cases involving general members of the public, so why should state officials be excluded from similar provision?

The image of the government is vital; their policies must appear conducive to the public good and in the interests of the public. Any blunder or damage to the reputation of the state is regarded as a scandal; a positive image must be projected at all times. The discovery of the UK’s involvement in the torture severely weakens such an image. Accountability is stressed within the government; it seems only fair they should face the humiliating consequences of their own decision to collude in such ill-treatment. The public, well aware of the events, would undoubtedly have more respect for a government who acknowledged their mistakes. As one commentator said, ‘Secrecy is there to protect the public, not the crimes of foreign governments.’ (3) 3) http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article5682889.ece

Embarrassment is not the issue here. Although the UK government has come out worse than that of the US who are trying to clear their name, concealment of such information is in the interests of national security alone.

According to Miliband, the incriminating evidence is to be kept confidential to protect the identity of those involved. Exposure of the full facts would compromise intelligence sharing with the US. Essentially the foreign secretary is concerned relationships may break down between the CIA and MI6 should such secrecy be breached. Miliband denied the US had threatened such action, though the ruling by two senior judged of the High Court suggests otherwise. (4) This is yet another example of the UK bowing down to the demands of the US. (4) http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/4525149/David-Miliband-says-Britain-right-on-torture-evidence-refusal.html

Rather than submitting to US instructions, Miliband is defending national security. An alliance with the US is more than just a working relationship; should it break down the UK would be confronted with a powerful enemy. Just as it is in the public interest to prevent terrorism, the UK population as a whole would again benefit from a sophisticated intelligence service; the UK’s methods of defence must be upheld.

It seems unlikely people will follow in the footsteps of the intelligence services, particularly with enormous controversy surrounding the issue. The facts of countless atrocious crimes have been publicised and the initial response is not usually to go and replicate them. Furthermore, rather than being concerned with what example the detail of specific facts will set to society, we should indisputably be worried as to what might happen if the information is concealed and those responsible unpunished.

The decision against revealing the identities of those involved affords the public greater protection. Publishing the explicit details simply provides those susceptible to crime with further ideas. Playground bullies are more likely to stick to taunts and fights (which are considered serious enough) if they are unaware that their own country condones torture. Similarly, prison guards may follow in such behaviour, perceiving the government to be setting a standard. Being surrounded by violent convicts causes the average prisoner sufficient distress. Furthermore, by making known such a significant breach of a fundamental human right by those who supposedly support them only serves to undermine the effect of the European Convention on Human Rights.

While the UK’s role in the torture is evident, revealing the identities of those involved would surely trigger a public apology or explanation. The intelligence services and the foreign secretary would no doubt attempt to justify their actions. While this may not seem possible, it is impossible to form a make a fully informed judgment about a situation until all the facts are made known. As members of the public we deserve to know what our government participates in; then we will have formed a reasoned opinion about them and can turn our support elsewhere.

Nothing is to be achieved by revealing the blacked out evidence containing details of how British intelligence officers supplied information to Mohamed’s captors and contributed questions for the purposes of interrogation. The majority of the public have assumed for some time that such behaviour was going on; it has effectively been confirmed. Details of the torturous procedures used have quite rightly been edited out; it would be inappropriate, unnecessary and morally offensive to make them public knowledge. There are many situations where we know or suspect something has happened yet do not seek an extensive account of the details. Why should it be any different here?

In committing a crime or serious breach of a fundamental human right, many risks are involved. The main danger is being caught and exposed, yet this is something that should be taken into account when considering one’s potential actions. Exposure and punishment are fundamental to deterrence; it would be wrong for such behaviour to go unnoticed, or be treated as if it had not occurred. Otherwise others would question their own rights and would begin to ask why they could not get away with the same activities. Moreover, in the present case the judge conclude that there were no security reasons against making the material public. (5) (5) http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/majornews/4518992/Torture-row-David-Miliband-denies-US-threatened-to-stop-sharing-intelligence.html

Rather than pointing out faults with our intelligence services, we should appreciate their positive functions. Identifying those involved could cause detrimental consequences for the whole of MI6, perhaps even rendering us defenceless. Intelligence is kept secret for a reason; we should not be concerned with how the intelligence services go about protecting us, as long as it is done. Society is naturally forgiving of those who make mistakes, often giving criminals a second chance. The killers of Jamie Bulger received protected identities in order to conduct normal lives and be rehabilitated back into society. Though the actions of the intelligence services have slightly more justification behind them, why should they not also be granted a second chance?