British Torture in the 'War on Terror'

Despite longstanding allegations of UK involvement in prisoner abuse during counterterrorism operations as part of the US-led ‘war on terror’, a consistent narrative emanating from British government officials is that Britain neither uses, condones nor facilitates torture or other cruel, inhuman, degrading treatment and punishment. We argue that such denials are untenable. We have established beyond reasonable doubt that Britain has been deeply involved in post-9/11 prisoner abuse, and we can now provide the most detailed account to date of the depth of this involvement. We argue that it is possible to identify a peculiarly British approach to torture in the ‘war on terror’, which is particularly well-suited to sustaining a narrative of denial. To explain the nature of UK involvement, we argue that it can be best understood within the context of how law and sovereign power have come to operate during the ‘war on terror’. We turn here to the work of Judith Butler, and explore the role of Britain as a ‘petty sovereign’, operating under the state of exception established by the US Executive. UK authorities have not themselves suspended the rule of law so overtly, and indeed have repeatedly insisted on their commitment to it. They have nevertheless been able to construct a rhetorical, legal and policy ‘scaffold’ that has enabled them to demonstrate at least procedural adherence to human rights norms, while at the same time allowing UK officials to acquiesce in the arbitrary exercise of sovereignty over individuals who are denied any access to appropriate representation or redress in compliance with the rule of law

Manifiesto moral sobre Biafra

“Ahora se sabe: Los genocidios hitleriano se han hecho con la complicidad pasiva de los aliados. Sin embargo, la pasividad de las democracias y de la Unión Soviética –sus negativas a bombardear las vías férreas que conducían a los campos de concentración o de ayudar a las revueltas de los sub hombres- tenía al menos esta sombra de justificación: Era una guerra mundial y era una guerra total. Hoy, casi todas las naciones en paz, miembros de la ONU, algunas de las cuales revientan de riquezas, no son solamente cómplices por defecto del suplico pasado, sino también del suplicio futuro de las poblaciones biafreñas. Esas naciones han rechazado conscientemente todo procedimiento que hubiera permitido salvar etnias por las que tememos ya que hayamos de llevar luto. Esas naciones han tolerado que, para vencerlas, se procediese lentamente mediante el hambre y la enfermedad: Que la Gran Bretaña seudolaborista y la unión soviética seudosocialista rivalizasen en dar el personal más eficaz y las armas más mortíferas para que los asesinos pudiesen operar en las mejores condiciones. El fuego, las privaciones, el asesinato puro y simple, las mutilaciones, los bombardeos de hospitales y de mercados, un cordón sanitario casi perfecto, nada ha fallado. Y eso con la comprobación de casi todos los Estados africanos, de los Estados árabes, de los Estados del tercer mundo, de los Estados socialistas, democráticos, fascistas u otros. Y del secretario general U. Thant, que ha dado su bendición mortal a la gran causa de la unidad del Petróleo de Nigeria

Bringing the State Back into Terrorism Studies

Orthodox terrorism studies tend to focus on the activities of illiberal nonstate actors against the liberal democratic states in the North. It thus excludes state terrorism, which is one of a number of repressive tools that great powers from the North have used extensively in the global South in the service of foreign policy objectives. I establish the reasons for the absence of state terrorism from orthodox accounts of terrorism and argue that critical–normative approaches could help to overcome this major weakness