Milly's Six Lies On Torture

Peter Oborne writes:

All five candidates for the Labour Party leadership have been scuttling to distance themselves from the record of Gordon Brown in power. But the odds-on favourite to win the leadership contest, former Foreign Secretary David Miliband, is finding it very hard indeed to disentangle himself from the most sordid and shameful aspect of New Labour rule - British involvement in the torture of numerous terror suspects overseas. Today, a special Mail investigation can reveal the depths of Miliband's embroilment in the torture scandal - and shows that Labour's latest golden boy is in complete denial about New Labour's record in sanctioning and then covering up British involvement in torture over the past decade.

Indeed, I can reveal that David Miliband uttered no fewer than six massive lies when grilled in an interview with BBC inquisitor Andrew Neil on the subject of torture for the first time since stepping down from office. The six lies came in the course of a nine-minute interview - that's a phenomenal strike rate of one lie every 90 seconds. Though outwardly confident and relaxed, Miliband told a series of falsehoods that cast a giant shadow over his personal integrity, and even his fitness to succeed Gordon Brown as Labour leader.

Lie number 1: The first lie was quickly produced when Neil asked whether Miliband believed there was 'any evidence' that British intelligence officials had been complicit in the use of torture on terror suspects when New Labour was in power. Back came the insouciant reply: an emphatic 'no'. Yet Miliband's response is bewildering. It suggests that he is completely unaware of the mountain of very troubling testimony which has emerged in recent years suggesting that Britain was 'complicit' in torture (i.e. that we received information from foreign intelligence services, even though we had grounds for suspecting it was supplied under duress: nobody suggests that British agents themselves took part in torture).

The grim truth is that there have been at least 15 cases of British nationals or residents who have claimed over the past two years to have been tortured with the complicity, knowledge and sometimes even in the presence of British intelligence officers. The combined circumstantial evidence of our complicity with torture is nothing short of overwhelming. It is also a matter of national shame. Some of the evidence has been provided by groups such as the humanitarian organisation Human Rights watch. Some has emerged in court testimony. Two parliamentary watchdogs, the Foreign Affairs Committee and the Joint Committee on Human Rights, regard it as troubling and serious. But not, apparently, our former Foreign Secretary.

Lie number 2: This came when Andrew Neil asked whether Britain has, at any stage, provided questions to be put by foreign intelligence agents to those who were being tortured. Miliband replied: 'we don't have evidence of that.' Unfortunately for Miliband, there is once again abundant evidence. Indeed, he himself as Foreign Secretary was obliged to submit documents to court which showed beyond doubt that British intelligence was involved in questioning terror suspects. This was during the hearing concerning the terror suspect Binyam Mohamed, since cleared on all charges. Miliband was obliged to confess that we were submitting questions for Binyam to answer even when he was being held (and cruelly abused) by the U.S. in a Pakistani prison.

Lie number 3: Miliband's third lie also concerns the Binyam Mohamed case. He told Andrew Neil that not one of the allegations of torture which have so far been taken to court in Britain involved torture carried out by the Americans.
In fact, the courts have indeed found that the U.S. authorities subjected Binyam to 'cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment'. By this stage of the TV interview, the lies and mis-statements were coming thick and fast.

Lie number 4: The fourth lie came when David Miliband absurdly told Neil that he had not tried to prevent public disclosure of court evidence in the Binyam Mohamed case. In fact, as Binyam's lawyer Clive Stafford Smith told me last night, Miliband 'fought us tooth and nail' to prevent vital documents being brought into the public domain. Miliband used every legal ruse - and spent some £213,000 in legal fees - in a battle to keep vital evidence secret from the public.

Lie number 5: This concerns David Miliband's troubled dealings with one of Britain's most senior judges, Master of the Rolls Lord Neuberger. Last year, in an utterly devastating judgment, Lord Neuberger stated that there were grounds for 'distrusting' legal statements made by Miliband based on advice from MI5 personnel about British involvement in torture. And yet when this was put to him by Andrew Neil, Miliband offered a bland and unruffled denial that such a thing had ever occurred. It is inconceivable that Miliband could have forgotten such a shattering verdict.

Lie number 6: Miliband's final lie came when Neil asked him why, as Foreign Secretary, he did not institute an inquiry to get to the bottom of the mass of evidence that Britain has been complicit in torture. In response, Miliband claimed that he took 'extensive measures inside the system' to get at the truth. Yet he once again denied that he had 'fought against an inquiry' - notwithstanding the fact that he faced down a barrage of pressure from newspapers like the Mail, human rights organisations and political parties (such as the Conservatives) for one to be held.

There can be only two explanations for Miliband's set of wildly inaccurate, partial and misleading answers. One is that he is exceptionally stupid and genuinely does not know what he is talking about. But this does not stand up. David Miliband is a well- trained and competent man who has held high office and aspires to be Prime Minister. As Foreign Secretary, he was obliged to deal almost daily with allegations about British complicity with torture. He knew the subject matter backwards.
So the only realistic conclusion is that Miliband was knowingly deceiving TV viewers. In other words, he was lying.

How he expected to get away with such a monumental deceit, however, is another matter. The best guess is that Miliband is in denial. He simply cannot accept that a New Labour government was responsible for what looks like a retreat into barbarism. To be fair to Miliband, the worst of the abuses would appear to have ended by the time he became Foreign Secretary in the summer of 2007. He was not personally responsible for the abuses - only the subsequent lying and cover-up.

So why didn't Miliband do the decent and sensible thing and order his officials to come clean? One answer may be a well-meaning, though morally damnable, desire to stick up for the intelligence agencies who mistakenly believed they were serving their country while tolerating the physical abuse of terror suspects. Another possible answer is that Miliband was simply being loyal to Tony Blair, his political mentor and friend. For almost every day we are learning new facts about how, under Blair, Britain turned her back on human decency when it came to torture and human rights.

Is Miliband about to throw away his reputation and perhaps his entire career in defence of Tony Blair?