DOCSLIB.ORG

ALL QUIET on the ISIS FRONT? British Secret Warfare in an Information Age

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
ALL QUIET on the ISIS FRONT? British Secret Warfare in an Information Age ALL QUIET ON THE ISIS FRONT? British secret warfare in an information age Emily Knowles and Abigail Watson This report has been written by Remote Control, a project of the Network for Social Change hosted by Oxford Research Group. The project examines changes in military engagement, with a focus on remote control warfare. This form of intervention takes place behind the scenes or at a distance rather than on a traditional battlefield, often through drone strikes and air strikes from above, with Special Forces, intelligence agencies, private contractors, and military training teams on the ground. Emily Knowles is Remote Control’s project manager. Abigail Watson is a Research Officer with Remote Control. We would like to extend our heartfelt thanks to the many people who have given up time and shared their knowledge with us for this report. Some of them, often still in serving or official positions, have preferred to remain anonymous and are not named here. None of them bear responsibility for any of the opinions (or errors) in this report, which are the authors’ own. In alphabetical order: Dapo Akande, Richard Aldrich, Malcolm Chalmers, Lindsay Clarke, Chris Cole, Rory Cormac, Ian Davis, Joseph Devanny, Anthony Dworkin, Frank Foley, Ulrike Franke, Chris Fuller, Jennifer Gibson, Anthony Glees, Michael Goodman, Jim Killock, Ewan Lawson, Peter Lee, Elizabeth Minor, Jon Moran, Michael Pryce, Julian Richards, Peter Roberts, Paul Rogers, Javier Ruiz Diaz, Paul Schulte, Namir Shabibi, Adam Svendsen, Jack Watling, Nicholas Wheeler, and Chris Woods. We would also like to acknowledge the expertise that was shared with us by the Institute for Conflict, Cooperation and Security at the University of Birmingham and the University of Oxford, which has been truly invaluable. Published by Remote Control, March 2017 Remote Control Oxford Research Group Development House 56-64 Leonard Street London EC2A 4LT United Kingdom +44 (0)207 549 0298 [email protected] http://remotecontrolproject.org The text of this report is made available under a Creative Commons license. Photographs remain the copyright of original holders. All citations must be credited to Remote Control. This report does not necessarily reflect the views of the experts consulted as part of the research process, and any mistakes that remain are categorically the authors’ own. Cover image: markusspiske Pixabay/ Creative Commons Contents Introduction 1 A golden age of remote warfare? 2 Secret warfare in an information age 4 The accountability gap 6 Case 1: the use of armed drones 8 Introduction 8 Faltering government transparency 9 Confusion over government policies 11 Conclusions 15 Case 2: the use of Special Forces 16 Introduction 16 The golden age of Special Forces 18 - Libya 19 - Somalia 19 - Yemen 20 - Afghanistan 20 - Syria 20 - Iraq 20 The blanket opacity policy 21 Lack of legislative oversight 22 Culture of no comment 24 Conclusions 27 Case 3: sharing capabilities with allies 28 Introduction 28 Providing capabilities outside areas of declared hostilities 28 - Syria 30 - Somalia 31 - Pakistan 32 - Yemen 32 - The UK’s role in aiding the Saudi-led coalition 33 Patchy government transparency 35 - Scrutiny of embedded troops 35 - Oversight of intelligence-sharing 36 - The role of the ISC 38 - Neither confirm nor deny 39 Conclusions 39 Conclusion: greater secrecy is not always good strategy 40 Policy recommendations 41 Armed drones 41 Special Forces 41 Embedded troops 42 Intelligence-sharing 42 Endnotes 43 Introduction armed drone fleet, intelligence agencies, and military advisers and trainers also In May 2016, the Secretary of State for playing important roles. This is light-footprint Defence, Michael Fallon, appeared to put remote warfare, which can take place on to bed rumours of a pending British troop the front lines or with the UK in a supporting deployment to Libya1 with the statement role. Consistently, however, there is only that: “we do not intend to deploy ground a low level of official public disclosure or forces in any combat role. Before engaging parliamentary scrutiny, even in the face of in any military operation in Libya, we would information leaks and media speculation. of course have to seek an invitation from This deniability may bring flexibility, which the Libyan Government, and would also creates opportunities when it comes to have to involve this Parliament.”2 dealing with fluid and complex security Unfortunately, this came three months threats. But our research suggests that after claims had begun to surface in the this is not a simple relationship whereby British media that Special Forces were more secrecy automatically brings greater spearheading a “secret war” against ISIS strategic advantages. Indeed, in an age in Libya, with British troops operating when leaks of information are seemingly alongside their US and French counterparts inevitable, demand for political accountability 7 on the ground.3 It was also two months after is high, and trust in politicians and the wider expert community is low,8 the leak of an official memo documenting today’s uneasy a conversation between US lawmakers coexistence of official opacity and sporadic and King Abdullah of Jordan, which leaks of information to the media may be indicated that British Special Forces had creating a host of unintended consequences. been operating in Libya since at least the The analysis in this report will argue that 4 beginning of 2016. the prevailing tendency towards secrecy These media revelations generated is creating an accountability gap that parliamentary rumblings about secret wars,5 challenges the UK’s democratic controls with the Chairman of the Commons Foreign over the use of force. In addition, it does Affairs Committee calling government not always appear to make strategic sense. responses to parliamentary requests In today’s information age, opacity both for more information: “so narrow as to restricts the government’s ability to set be wholly and deliberately misleading its own narrative for British military action to the uninformed reader.”6 They also overseas, while potentially fuelling popular feelings of distrust in government war- serve to illustrate the fact that today’s world of interconnectivity poses a distinct making when information about the UK’s challenge to the idea of secret warfare, secretive involvement in these conflicts with governments fast losing the ability to invariably surfaces. Our research shows that guarantee blanket opacity, even for the the UK is currently performing worse than special operators that are most prized for many of its allies when it comes to publicly their subtlety. commenting on its actions, or opening up its policies to scrutiny. In doing so, the While this is just one example, our research government is neglecting the strategic suggests that this is indicative of a rising advantages that greater transparency can trend in British defence and security policy – bring, in favour of narrowly looking at greater secretive yet growing military commitments access to information as a security concern. in areas where the UK is not generally considered to be at war, but where the There is of course a balance that needs to UK faces threats from groups like ISIS be struck between the need for secrecy to in Iraq, Syria and Libya, al-Shabaab in provide security and the need to open up Somalia, or AQAP (al-Qaeda in the Arabian the choices of government to the scrutiny Peninsula) in Yemen. Instead of deploying and debate that is so pivotal for a healthy regular British troops to the front lines, democracy. However, those who decide increasingly it is British Special Forces who that balance need to take into account the fact that, in today’s information age, building can be found on the ground, with the UK’s policies on the assumption of complete 1 | All quiet on the ISIS front? secrecy is increasingly untenable – and On 21st of September 2001, then-President government control over the timelines for of the United States, George W. Bush, stood increased access to information about the in front of a joint session of Congress and UK’s secretive military engagements is declared that America would “direct every slipping. resource at our command – every means of diplomacy, every tool of intelligence, This creates a need for change, whether every instrument of law enforcement, every it is the lack of oversight or the lack of financial influence, and every necessary control that alarms you the most. Warfare is weapon of war – to the disruption and to the changing, and the way that people access defeat of the global terror network.”10 information about warfare is changing. Government policy needs to keep pace. Declaring that “Americans should not expect one battle, but a lengthy campaign, unlike any other we have ever seen”, Bush ushered A golden age of remote warfare? in an era of war in Iraq and Afghanistan,11 “Western nations engage in which then broadened into the pursuit of “al 12 counterinsurgency for limited stakes, which Qaeda and its affiliates” in Yemen, Somalia, leads to inevitable tensions between what Libya, and now in Syria and Iraq against 13 the military thinks is required on the ground, ISIS. in terms of methods or resources, and In evidence given to a 2016 Joint Committee what the population is ready to accept back on Human Rights (JCHR) investigation, home.” UK government testimony confirmed that - Etienne de Durand, analyst at the Britain is “not in a generalised state of 14 French Institute of International Relations9 conflict with ISIL, except in Iraq and Syria.” Nevertheless, mapping reports of UK military ISIS Fighter (image credit: Voice of America/ Wikimedia Commons) Remote Control Project | 2 action over the last three years generates against Yemen,18 and the presence of UK a list of countries and activities with striking troops embedded in the US military at Camp similarities to those that the US has justified Lemonnier,19 none of the events on the map under its own war on terror.15 below have been officially acknowledged or independently verified.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Commonwealth Lawyers Association Amicus
    Nos. 15-1358, 15-1359, and 15-1363 In the Supreme Court of the United States JAMES W. ZIGLAR, Petitioner, v. AHMER IQBAL ABBASI, ET AL., Respondents. On Writs Of Certiorari To The United States Court Of Appeals For The Second Circuit BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE COMMONWEALTH LAWYERS ASSOCIATION IN SUPPORT OF RESPONDENTS GARY A. ISAAC Counsel of Record LOGAN A. STEINER JED W. GLICKSTEIN Mayer Brown LLP 71 S. Wacker Dr. Chicago, IL 60606 [email protected] (312) 782-0600 Counsel for Amicus Curiae (Additional Captions Listed on Inside Cover) JOHN D. ASHCROFT, ET AL., Petitioners, v. AHMER IQBAL ABBASI, ET AL., Respondents. DENNIS HASTY, ET AL., Petitioners, v. AHMER IQBAL ABBASI, ET AL., Respondents. i TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF AUTHORITIES...................................... ii INTEREST OF THE AMICUS CURIAE...................1 SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT...........................2 ARGUMENT ..............................................................4 I. The Court Should Consider The Prac- tices Of Other Western Democracies And The European Court Of Human Rights In Deciding Whether To Recog- nize A Bivens Remedy .....................................4 II. Barring Any Remedy In This Case Would Be At Odds With Foreign Deci- sions And Practice ...........................................8 A. Other Nations Provide Monetary Remedies For Human-Rights Abuses In Alleged Terrorism- Related Cases........................................9 B. The European Court Of Human Rights Likewise Provides Mone- tary Remedies For Human Rights Violations In Cases Implicating National Security................................15 C. Other Western Democracies And The European Court Of Human Rights Recognize Damages Ac- tions Even Where National Secu- rity Is Implicated ................................19 CONCLUSION .........................................................20 ii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page(s) Cases Agiza v. Sweden, Commc’n No.
    [Show full text]
  • The Civilian Impact of Drone Strikes
    THE CIVILIAN IMPACT OF DRONES: UNEXAMINED COSTS, UNANSWERED QUESTIONS Acknowledgements This report is the product of a collaboration between the Human Rights Clinic at Columbia Law School and the Center for Civilians in Conflict. At the Columbia Human Rights Clinic, research and authorship includes: Naureen Shah, Acting Director of the Human Rights Clinic and Associate Director of the Counterterrorism and Human Rights Project, Human Rights Institute at Columbia Law School, Rashmi Chopra, J.D. ‘13, Janine Morna, J.D. ‘12, Chantal Grut, L.L.M. ‘12, Emily Howie, L.L.M. ‘12, Daniel Mule, J.D. ‘13, Zoe Hutchinson, L.L.M. ‘12, Max Abbott, J.D. ‘12. Sarah Holewinski, Executive Director of Center for Civilians in Conflict, led staff from the Center in conceptualization of the report, and additional research and writing, including with Golzar Kheiltash, Erin Osterhaus and Lara Berlin. The report was designed by Marla Keenan of Center for Civilians in Conflict. Liz Lucas of Center for Civilians in Conflict led media outreach with Greta Moseson, pro- gram coordinator at the Human Rights Institute at Columbia Law School. The Columbia Human Rights Clinic and the Columbia Human Rights Institute are grateful to the Open Society Foundations and Bullitt Foundation for their financial support of the Institute’s Counterterrorism and Human Rights Project, and to Columbia Law School for its ongoing support. Copyright © 2012 Center for Civilians in Conflict (formerly CIVIC) and Human Rights Clinic at Columbia Law School All rights reserved Printed in the United States of America. Copies of this report are available for download at: www.civiliansinconflict.org Cover: Shakeel Khan lost his home and members of his family to a drone missile in 2010.
    [Show full text]
  • Ethical Foreign Policy’ Threat
    Kent Academic Repository Full text document (pdf) Citation for published version Blakeley, Ruth and Raphael, Sam (2014) Insulating Universal Human Rights from the ‘Ethical Foreign Policy’ Threat. In: European Consortium for Political Research Annual Conference, September 2014, Glasgow. DOI Link to record in KAR https://kar.kent.ac.uk/42794/ Document Version Draft Version Copyright & reuse Content in the Kent Academic Repository is made available for research purposes. Unless otherwise stated all content is protected by copyright and in the absence of an open licence (eg Creative Commons), permissions for further reuse of content should be sought from the publisher, author or other copyright holder. Versions of research The version in the Kent Academic Repository may differ from the final published version. Users are advised to check http://kar.kent.ac.uk for the status of the paper. Users should always cite the published version of record. Enquiries For any further enquiries regarding the licence status of this document, please contact: [email protected] If you believe this document infringes copyright then please contact the KAR admin team with the take-down information provided at http://kar.kent.ac.uk/contact.html ECPR Conference, Glasgow Sept 2014 Insulating Universal Human Rights E F P Threat Dr Ruth Blakeley Reader in International Relations University of Kent, UK [email protected] co-authored with: Dr Sam Raphael Senior Lecturer in International Relations Kingston University, UK Draft: Please seek permission from the authors before citing or circulating Abstract At the heart of the notion of an ethical foreign policy is the assumption that foreign policy can help deliver liberty and security around the globe.
    [Show full text]
  • Egypt and the Middle East
    Monitoring Study: British Media Portrayals of Egypt Author: Guy Gabriel - AMW adviser Contact details: Tel: 07815 747 729 E-mail: [email protected] Newspapers monitored: All British national daily broadsheets and tabloids, as well as the Evening Standard Monitoring period: May 2008 - May 2009 1 Table of contents: Egypt & the Middle East Regional Importance Israel Camp David Accords The Gulf Sudan Horn of Africa Diplomacy towards Palestine Before Gaza Conflict 2009 Gaza 2009 Diplomacy The Palestine Border Tunnel Economy Crossing Closures Domestic Egypt Food Religion in Society State Ideology Economy Miscellaneous Domestic Threats Emergency Rule & Internal Security Terrorism Egypt & the West Egypt as an Ally 'War on Terror' Suez Ancient Egypt Influence of Egyptian Art Other Legacies Tourism 2 Egypt & the Middle East Regional Importance Various other Middle Eastern countries are sometimes mentioned in connection with Egypt's regional influence, though very rarely those from North Africa. In terms of Egypt's standing in the Middle East as viewed by the US, a meeting in Cairo, as well as Saudi Arabia and Israel, are "necessary step[s] in the careful path Mr Obama is laying out," notes Times chief foreign affairs commentator Bronwen Maddox (29 May 2009). A "solid" Arab-Israeli peace deal "must include President Mubarak of Egypt," says Michael Levy in the same newspaper (14 May 2009). Regarding a divided Lebanon, the Arab League is "tainted by the commitment of the Saudis and Egyptians to one side rather than the other," according to an Independent editorial (13 May 2008). Egypt appointing an ambassador to Iraq generates interest "not only because it is the most populous Arab country but also because its chargé d'affaires in Baghdad was kidnapped and killed in 2005," writes Guardian Middle East editor Ian Black (2 July 2008).
    [Show full text]
  • The Virtues and Vices of Advocacy Strategies in the War on Terror
    Roger Williams University DOCS@RWU Law Faculty Scholarship Law Faculty Scholarship 4-2009 The etD ainees' Dilemma: The irV tues and Vices of Advocacy Strategies in the War on Terror Peter Margulies Roger Williams University School of Law Follow this and additional works at: http://docs.rwu.edu/law_fac_fs Part of the Criminal Law Commons, Human Rights Law Commons, International Law Commons, Law and Politics Commons, and the Legal Profession Commons Recommended Citation Peter Margulies, The eD tainees' Dilemma: The irV tues and Vices of Advocacy Strategies in the War on Terror, 57 Buff. L. Rev. 347, 432 (2009) This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Faculty Scholarship at DOCS@RWU. It has been accepted for inclusion in Law Faculty Scholarship by an authorized administrator of DOCS@RWU. For more information, please contact [email protected]. +(,121/,1( Citation: 57 Buff. L. Rev. 347 2009 Provided by: Roger Williams University School of Law Library Content downloaded/printed from HeinOnline Thu Nov 17 10:09:44 2016 -- Your use of this HeinOnline PDF indicates your acceptance of HeinOnline's Terms and Conditions of the license agreement available at http://heinonline.org/HOL/License -- The search text of this PDF is generated from uncorrected OCR text. -- To obtain permission to use this article beyond the scope of your HeinOnline license, please use: Copyright Information BUFFALO LAW REVIEW VOLUME 57 APRIL 2009 NUMBER 2 The Detainees' Dilemma: The Virtues and Vices of Advocacy Strategies in the War on Terror PETER MARGULIESt INTRODUCTION For detainees in the war on terror, advocacy outside of court is often the main event.' Analysis of advocacy through the prism of Supreme Court decisions 2 resembles surveying t Professor of Law, Roger Williams University School of Law; e-mail: [email protected].
    [Show full text]
  • Syria & the CNN Effect: What Role Does the Media Play in Policy
    Syria & the CNN Effect: What Role Does the Media Play in Policy-Making? Lyse Doucet Abstract: Syria’s devastating war unfolds during unprecedented flows of imagery on social media, test- ing in new ways the media’s influence on decision-makers. Three decades ago, the concept of a “CNN Effect” was coined to explain what was seen as the power of real-time television reporting to drive responses to humanitarian crises. This essay explores the role traditional and new media played in U.S. policy-making during Syria’s crisis, including two major poison gas attacks. President Obama stepped back from the targeted air strikes later launched by President Trump after grisly images emerged on social media. But Trump’s limited action did not shift policy. Interviews with Obama’s senior advisors underline that the me- dia do not drive strategy, but they play a significant role. During the Syrian crisis, the media formed part of what officials describe as constant pressure from many actors to respond, which they say led to policy failures. Syria’s conflict is a cautionary tale. The devastating conflict in Syria has again brought LYSE DOUCET is Chief Interna- into sharp focus the complex relationship between tional Correspondent for the bbc the media and interventions in civil wars in response and a Senior Fellow of Massey Col- to grave humanitarian crises. Syria’s destructive lege at the University of Toronto. war, often called the greatest human disaster of the She has been reporting on ma- twenty-first century, unfolds at a time of unparal- jor conflicts around the world for leled flows of imagery and information.
    [Show full text]
  • Extraordinary Rendition and Torture What the Narratives of Victims Reveal and Require
    Extraordinary Rendition and Torture What the Narratives of Victims Reveal and Require UNC School of Law Joshua R. Bennett Isabelle Chammas Siya Hegde Hillary Li Jeffrey S. Nooney Matt Norchi Seth Proctor Tyler J. Walters Deborah M. Weissman Reef C. Ivey II Distinguished Professor of Law Faculty Advisor http://www.law.unc.edu/documents/academics/humanrights/narrativethemes.pdf November 2017 Extraordinary Rendition and Torture What the Narratives of Victims Reveal and Require Table of Contents I. History of the Extraordinary Rendition Program 1 II. Torture and its Long-Term Effects 7 III. The Role of Islamophobia in the Extraordinary Rendition and Torture Program 15 IV. The Cost of Torture 23 V. The Link Between Domestic Criminal Justice Reform and International Human Rights 28 VI. Government Contractor Liability 37 VII. The United States’ Legal and Moral Obligations to Provide Fair and Adequate Compensation for Released Detainee 43 VIII. Relief for Torture Victims and its Barriers 52 I. History of the Extraordinary Rendition Program Extraordinary rendition, as it was practiced post-September 11, 2001, and as it is described in the pages that follow, connotes the latest iteration of a program that has a much longer history. Before briefly surveying the program’s history, it is helpful to consider its definition. According to the Open Society Justice Initiative, no official U.S. government definition of the program exists,1 despite the fact that it is the U.S. government that was responsible for designing and implementing it. The Open Society formulated its own definition as “the transfer—without legal process—of a detainee to the custody of a foreign government for purposes of detention and interrogation.”2 1 OPEN SOCIETY JUSTICE INITIATIVE, GLOBALIZING TORTURE: CIA SECRET DETENTION AND EXTRAORDINARY RENDITION 13 (2013), https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/sites/default/files/globalizing-torture-20120205.pdf.
    [Show full text]
  • “A Peace of Sorts”: a Cultural History of the Belfast Agreement, 1998 to 2007 Eamonn Mcnamara
    “A Peace of Sorts”: A Cultural History of the Belfast Agreement, 1998 to 2007 Eamonn McNamara A thesis submitted for the degree of Master of Philosophy, Australian National University, March 2017 Declaration ii Acknowledgements I would first like to thank Professor Nicholas Brown who agreed to supervise me back in October 2014. Your generosity, insight, patience and hard work have made this thesis what it is. I would also like to thank Dr Ben Mercer, your helpful and perceptive insights not only contributed enormously to my thesis, but helped fund my research by hiring and mentoring me as a tutor. Thank you to Emeritus Professor Elizabeth Malcolm whose knowledge and experience thoroughly enhanced this thesis. I could not have asked for a better panel. I would also like to thank the academic and administrative staff of the ANU’s School of History for their encouragement and support, in Monday afternoon tea, seminars throughout my candidature and especially useful feedback during my Thesis Proposal and Pre-Submission Presentations. I would like to thank the McClay Library at Queen’s University Belfast for allowing me access to their collections and the generous staff of the Linen Hall Library, Belfast City Library and Belfast’s Newspaper Library for all their help. Also thanks to my local libraries, the NLA and the ANU’s Chifley and Menzies libraries. A big thank you to Niamh Baker of the BBC Archives in Belfast for allowing me access to the collection. I would also like to acknowledge Bertie Ahern, Seán Neeson and John Lindsay for their insightful interviews and conversations that added a personal dimension to this thesis.
    [Show full text]
  • Shifting Faces of Terror After 9/11: Framing the Terrorist Threat
    SHIFTING FACES OF TERROR AFTER 9/11: FRAMING THE TERRORIST THREAT A dissertation submitted to Kent State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy by Elena Pokalova Dissertation written by Elena Pokalova B.A., Ural State Pedagogical University, 2002 M.A., Kent State University, 2010 Ph.D., Kent State University, 2011 Approved by Andrew Barnes, Ph.D., Co-Chair, Doctoral Dissertation Committee Landon Hancock, Ph.D., Co-Chair, Doctoral Dissertation Committee Steven Hook, Ph.D., Member, Doctoral Dissertation Committee Karl C. Kaltenthaler, Ph.D., Member, Doctoral Dissertation Committee Accepted by Steven Hook, Ph.D., Chair, Department of Political Science John R.D. Stalvey, Ph.D., Dean, College of Arts and Sciences ii TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS...................................................................................................iii LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................................ v LIST OF TABLES............................................................................................................. vi ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ................................................................................................ vii Note on Transliteration ....................................................................................................viii List of Frequently Used Abbreviations.............................................................................. ix 1. Introduction....................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • BRITISH COUNTERINSURGENCY in CYPRUS, ADEN, and NORTHERN IRELAND Brian Drohan a Dissertation Submitted to the Facu
    RIGHTS AT WAR: BRITISH COUNTERINSURGENCY IN CYPRUS, ADEN, AND NORTHERN IRELAND Brian Drohan A dissertation submitted to the faculty at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Department of History in the Graduate School. Chapel Hill 2016 Approved by: Susan D. Pennybacker Wayne E. Lee Klaus Larres Cemil Aydin Michael C. Morgan © 2016 Brian Drohan ALL RIGHTS RESERVED ii ABSTRACT Brian Drohan: Rights at War: British Counterinsurgency in Cyprus, Aden, and Northern Ireland (Under the direction of Susan D. Pennybacker) This study analyzes the role of human rights activism during three post-1945 British counterinsurgency campaigns in Cyprus (1955-1959), Aden (1963-1967), and the Northern Ireland “Troubles” (emphasizing 1969-1976). Based on material gathered from 15 archives in four countries as well as oral history records and personal papers, this study demonstrates that human rights activism shaped British operational decisions during each of these conflicts. Activists mobilized ideas of human rights to restrain counterinsurgency violence by defining certain British actions as illegal or morally unjustifiable. Although British forces often prevented activists from restraining state violence, activists forced government officials and military commanders to develop new ways of covering up human rights abuses. Focusing the analytical lens on activists and the officials with whom they interacted places rights activists on the counterinsurgency “battlefield”
    [Show full text]
  • The UK's Foreign Policy Approach to Afghanistan and Pakistan
    House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee The UK's foreign policy approach to Afghanistan and Pakistan Fourth Report of Session 2010–11 Volume I Report, together with formal minutes, oral and written evidence Additional written evidence is contained in Volume II, available on the Committee website at www.parliament.uk/facom Ordered by the House of Commons to be printed 9 February 2011 HC 514 Published on 2 March 2011 by authority of the House of Commons London: The Stationery Office Limited £23.00 The Foreign Affairs Committee The Foreign Affairs Committee is appointed by the House of Commons to examine the expenditure, administration, and policy of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and its associated agencies. Current membership Richard Ottaway (Conservative, Croydon South) (Chair) Rt Hon Bob Ainsworth (Labour, Coventry North East) Mr John Baron (Conservative, Basildon and Billericay) Rt Hon Sir Menzies Campbell (Liberal Democrats, North East Fife) Rt Hon Ann Clwyd (Labour, Cynon Valley) Mike Gapes (Labour, Ilford South) Andrew Rosindell (Conservative, Romford) Mr Frank Roy (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw) Rt Hon Sir John Stanley (Conservative, Tonbridge and Malling) Rory Stewart (Conservative, Penrith and The Border) Mr Dave Watts (Labour, St Helens North) The following Member was also a member of the Committee during the parliament: Emma Reynolds (Labour, Wolverhampton North East) Powers The Committee is one of the departmental select committees, the powers of which are set out in House of Commons Standing Orders, principally in SO No 152. These are available on the Internet via www.parliament.uk. Publication The Reports and evidence of the Committee are published by The Stationery Office by Order of the House.
    [Show full text]
  • Detainee Mistreatment and Rendition: 2001–2010
    The Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament – Detainee Mistreatment and Rendition: 2001–2010 The Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament Detainee Mistreatment and Rendition: 2001–2010 Chair: The Rt Hon. Dominic Grieve QC MP CCS0518746482 978-1-5286-0475-8 HC 1113 Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament Detainee Mistreatment and Rendition: 2001–2010 Chair: The Rt Hon. Dominic Grieve QC MP Presented to Parliament pursuant to section 3 of the Justice and Security Act 2013 Ordered by the House of Commons to be printed 28 June 2018 HC 1113 © Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament copyright 2018 The material must be acknowledged as Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament copyright and the document title specified. Where third party material has been identified, permission from the respective copyright holder must be sought. This publication is licensed under the terms of the Open Government Licence v3.0 except where otherwise stated. To view this licence, visit nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3 Any enquiries regarding this publication should be sent to us via our webform at isc.independent.gov.uk/contact This publication is also available on our website at: isc.independent.gov.uk ISBN 978-1-5286-0475-8 CCS0518746482 06/18 Printed on paper containing 75% recycled fibre content minimum Printed in the UK by the APS Group on behalf of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office THE INTELLIGENCE AND SECURITY COMMITTEE OF PARLIAMENT The Rt Hon. Dominic Grieve QC MP (Chair)* The Rt Hon. Richard Benyon MP The Rt Hon.
    [Show full text]