Downing Street Says » Iraq/Abuse Allegations

Asked if the Prime Minister had been aware in February of the Red Cross report into allegations of mistreatment of Iraqi prisoners and what action had been taken as a result of the report, the PMOS said that the Prime Minister had dealt with the first part of the question in his press conference this morning. Questions about who knew what, when would be dealt with by the Defence Secretary in his Statement to the House this afternoon. In answer to further questions, the PMOS said that it was important to put this issue into context. He pointed out that ICRC reports had always been confidential. This was not at the request of the UK Government – it was the way that the ICRC worked worldwide. It made its reports to prison authorities, and that was the way in which it operated. Secondly, the report in February had not been UK specific. It had been about the issue of prisoner detentions in Iraq in general. It had therefore been addressed to the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq and had been copied to the UK Government. Thirdly, where it had raised concerns or allegations, those which related to UK procedures were already being addressed or had been addressed as a result of the report. The PMOS underlined the importance of keeping this issue in perspective. He reminded journalists of Adam Ingram’s Statement to the House last Tuesday in which he had said that thirty three cases relating to allegations of mistreatment by British troops had been investigated. Of those, twenty one had been completed, fifteen had been found to have no case to answer and six were being considered for further legal processes. The remaining twelve were still being investigated. He added that it was a mistake to suggest that the ICRC report was in some way a sweeping condemnation of UK procedures. It was not. He pointed out that an ICRC report into the new UK detention centre at Shaiba in April had contained few significant criticisms. Asked for further detail about this particular report, the PMOS said that he was unable to provide further information because the ICRC worked under strict rules of confidentiality and did not want their reports published. Indeed, that was a limitation under which Geoff Hoon would have to operate this afternoon.

Pressed repeatedly as to when the Prime Minister had become aware of the Red Cross’s February report, the PMOS said that as the Prime Minister had told journalists in his press conference today, he had not known about it. The issues had been dealt with at an operational level, as was the case with all ICRC reports. The detail of who knew what, when would be dealt with by the Defence Secretary in his Statement this afternoon. Put to him that the Prime Minister’s insistence in his press conference today that he hadn’t been aware of ‘specific’ allegations meant that he had been aware of ‘general’ allegations, the PMOS said that the Prime Minister had been asked if he was aware of the Red Cross report, to which he had given his response. Journalists could check his words for themselves. Asked if he was implying that the Prime Minister had not been aware of the Red Cross report at the time because it had been dealt with on an operational level, but had become aware of it since then as a result of media reports, the PMOS said that that was an accurate summary of the position as it currently stood. However, questions relating to who knew what, when would be dealt with by the Defence Secretary this afternoon. Asked if the Government had been aware of an Amnesty International report alleging mistreatment of Iraqi prisoners, the PMOS repeated that any concerns which were raised were obviously investigated. However, this was usually done at an operational level. Asked if the Prime Minister had known about the thirty three cases relating to allegations of mistreatment of Iraqi prisoners by British troops, the PMOS said not as far as he was aware. Asked if all the cases had been highlighted in a Red Cross report, the PMOS said that as he understood it, some of them had included Red Cross cases. Asked if the Prime Minister had been aware over the last few days of a ‘general climate’ of allegations concerning mistreatment by British troops, the PMOS said that if the Prime Minister had been aware of any allegations, he would have obviously insisted that they were investigated. The Red Cross report had shown that we had acted on concerns whenever they had been brought to our attention.

Asked if the Prime Minister was satisfied with the information he had been given by the MoD up to this point knowing what he now knew, the PMOS said the Prime Minister believed that these issues were being dealt with in the proper way. Any allegations that were made were investigated. Any concerns which were raised were addressed.

Asked if the Prime Minister believed that the mistreatment had been carried out by a few ‘bad apples’ or whether he agreed with the suggestion put forward by the CIA Director that the ‘gloves had come off’ post September 11 and that the military had decided to deal with prisoners in a different way, the PMOS said that the Prime Minister had made it absolutely clear on several occasions since the allegations had first appeared that we would in no way tolerate abuse. The way in which we had responded to the concerns raised by the Red Cross in February underlined that point precisely. If concerns were raised, we would address them. We would not tolerate any mistreatment of prisoners.

Asked why the Prime Minister had chosen to issue an apology for the mistreatment of Iraqi prisoners on French television yesterday, the PMOS said that the Prime Minister had been asked a direct question. Following his comments to the House last Wednesday, his position was very clear. We had gone to Iraq to stop this sort of thing happening. At the moment, however, we were still dealing with allegations of mistreatment. In fairness to those being investigated, it was therefore important not to jump to conclusions. If mistreatment was found to have taken place, then obviously that was something for which we would apologise. Put to him that the US authorities had already accepted that abuse of prisoners had taken place, the PMOS said that he was not a spokesman for the US Government. Put to him that there were suggestions that British officials had ‘interrogated’ prisoners in jails where the Americans had accepted that mistreatment had taken place, the PMOS said that those Britons who had been involved in the detention centre had not been aware of any abuses. The Prime Minister continued to believe that prisoners should not be mistreated in any way by anyone.

Put to him by BBC News 24 that it was “slightly incredible” that, having gone to all the trouble of protecting the Iraqi people from torture, the Prime Minister “couldn’t even be bothered” to find out from the Red Cross and Amnesty International how Iraqi prisoners were being treated, the PMOS said that he would leave it to others to comment on the pejorative way the question had been put. Put to him that the question was being asked in factual terms, the PMOS said it was not factual to suggest that the Prime Minister could not be bothered with the Red Cross and Amnesty International. He believed that it was right and proper for those with responsibility for these matters to deal with them. It was completely 100% wrong to suggest that he was not ‘bothered’ about these issues. As he had made very clear in the House and elsewhere, he was very bothered about the impact of the allegations and concerns which had been raised. It went without saying that he took these matters very seriously. Put to him that the Prime Minister could have known a year ago about the concerns of mistreatment had he only asked, the PMOS said that the concerns which had been raised had been raised with the appropriate people and had been dealt with by them. Asked if the Prime Minister was concerned that no one had seen fit to pass the relevant information on to him last year when he had spoken about freeing the Iraqi people from torture, the PMOS said the Prime Minister believed that there should be no tolerance of mistreatment whatsoever. Consequently, allegations that were drawn to the attention of those concerned at an operational level were dealt with. However, that should not be translated into a general condemnation of what British troops were doing in Iraq. Asked if the Prime Minister believed that he should have been told about the ICRC report, the PMOS said that the Prime Minister could not be in charge of every prison in this country nor in charge of every detention centre elsewhere. These were matters which were dealt with at the appropriate level. Asked if the Prime Minister had been asked to be “kept up to speed” on any future allegations of this nature relating to British soldiers, the PMOS declined to be drawn into a discussion about hypothetical scenarios. Obviously the Prime Minister would want to be assured that procedures were operating properly. Questioned as to whether the Prime Minister had asked for, or been offered, any Ministerial resignations, the PMOS said that the answer to both questions was no.

Asked if the Prime Minister believed that the allegations would have an impact on the possible deployment of further troops to Iraq, the PMOS said the Prime Minister recognised that allegations caused damage. However, he also believed that it was important to maintain a sense of perspective. It was important for people to recognise that the objective of the majority of Coalition soldiers was not to mistreat Iraqis, but to try to safeguard Iraq’s transition to a democracy. The overall aims of the Coalition should not be obscured by the actions of a minority – allegations which, if found to be true, should be condemned absolutely. Since we had gone to Iraq to stop this sort of activity, it was important for the Coalition to be seen to uphold our values. That meant not only condemning mistreatment but taking action against those who carried it out.

2 Comments »

As I recall TB was too dim to ask questions about what the 45 min claim meant.

Now his PMOS is claiming that TB was too dim to ask about the well-being of prisoners.

What next possibly – PMOS ="I’m sorry I couldn’t possibly comment on TB being too dim to ask about the real meaning of the results of GM crop trials"?
or
"TB is not a technologist and couldn’t possibly be expected to ask about the validity of radiation threshold levels for mobile phone emissions".

Is there a difference between sins of omission and sins of commision where politics is concerned?
Comment by Roger Huffadine — 10 May 2004 on 6:04 pm | Link
Odd how the truth changes over time, isn’t it?

"Asked why the Prime Minister had chosen to issue an apology for the mistreatment of Iraqi prisoners on French television yesterday, the PMOS said that the Prime Minister had been asked a direct question. Following his comments to the House last Wednesday, his position was very clear. We had gone to Iraq to stop this sort of thing happening."

And here was me thinking it was all to do with an ‘active detailed and growing’ program of WMD.
Comment by Colin Williams — 10 May 2004 on 6:53 pm | Link

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Post a public comment

Name (required)
E-mail (required)
(You must give an email address, but it will not be displayed to the public.)
Website
(You may give your website, and it will be displayed to the public.)

Comments:

This is not a way of contacting the Prime Minister. If you would like to contact the Prime Minister, go to the 10 Downing Street official site.

Privacy note: Shortly after posting, your name and comment will be displayed on the site. This means that people searching for your name on the Internet will be able to find and read your comment.

Original PMOS briefings are © Crown Copyright. Crown Copyright material is reproduced with the permission of the Controller of HMSO and the Queen's Printer for Scotland. Click-use licence number C02W0004089. Material is reproduced from the original 10 Downing Street source, but may not be the most up-to-date version of the briefings, which might be revised at the original source. Users should check with the original source in case of revisions. Comments are © Copyright contributors. Everything else is © Copyright Downing Street Says.

» Monday, May 10, 2004

Iraq/Abuse Allegations

2 Comments »

Post a public comment

Search

Supported by

Recent Briefings

Archives

Links

Syndicate (RSS/XML)

Credits

Enquiries