Accountability, denial and the future-proofing of British torture

Abstract

When powerful liberal democratic states are found to be complicit in extreme violations of human rights, how do they respond, and why do they respond as they do? This article explores the various responses of the British state to revelations that UK intelligence and security services colluded in the secret detention, rendition and torture of terror suspects during the first years of the 'war on terror'. These responses, by successive governments, have been characterized by denial, obfuscation and systematic attempts to obstruct appropriate investigation and avoid accountability. Initially, they flatly denied torture ever took place. As evidence mounted, they prevaricated and downplayed the severity of the extent of the torture, or rationalized and justified its use in relation to what they argued was an existential threat posed by terrorism. Sometimes, they partially admitted the facts; but for the most part, their response was to obstruct investigation and limit accountability. Here, we examine these responses and attempt to account for them within the broader context of British security practices, both historically and today.