Interesting letter to the Guardian about MI5 complicity in torture.

Let's suppose, against all the indignant protestations, that MI5 officers had been "complicit" in the torture of Binyam Mohamed, that is to say, knowingly took advantage of that torture. Is this denied by MI5 chief Jonathan Evans (Storm grows over MI5 torture claim, 13 February): "We did not practise mistreatment or torture and do not do so now, nor do we collude in torture or encourage others to torture on our behalf."? I think it is not denied. In the past tense, he denies that we practised torture, but is silent about whether we were complicit or colluded. Then in the present tense, it is denied that we now collude in torture, using the ambiguity of the continuous present, which affirms that we don't torture people, to suggest that we haven't colluded in torture in the past.

Alan Johnson's remarks are also carefully crafted: "The security services in our country do not practise torture, they do not endorse torture, they don't encourage others to torture on our behalf, they don't collude in torture". Leaving aside the "in our country" (which leaves open what they do abroad), Johnson's remarks say nothing about what we might have done at Bagram or Guantánamo in the past. Furthermore, you don't need to "encourage" others to torture to take advantage of their doing so, nor do you need to have colluded in it to be complicit.

Dr Michael McGhee

Acting head, department of philosophy, University of Liverpool