Earlier today, former U.S. President George W. Bush called British conservative leader David Cameron to try to convince him to urge his allies in the Northern Irish Ulster Unionist party to support a deal that would give the government in Belfast control over police.

As one source told the Guardian, "This is the most active thing George W Bush has done in his post-presidency period." Declan Kelly , the U.S. economic envoy to Northern Ireland aparrently asked Bush to make the call after the White House became increasingly concerned over Belfast's inability to strike a deal. 

It might seem odd that Bush would choose break his radio silence on Northern Ireland, an issue on which his track record isn't well known. But as the Guardian's Henry Macdonald writes, his role in the peace process is more substantial than many realize: 

Nationalist Ireland has enjoyed a love affair with former US president Bill Clinton since the earliest days of the search for peace in Northern Ireland. His high profile post-ceasefire visits to Belfast were meant to set the seal on the process.

However, it was arguably his successor in the White House, George Bush, who drove the political process forward to the once unthinkable scenario of the Democratic Unionists sharing power with Sinn Féin.

The deal that led to power sharing between the DUP and Sinn Féin was sealed at the St Andrews negotiations in 2006. Central to that deal was Sinn Féin agreeing to drop its historic opposition to the police in Northern Ireland - a key DUP precondition before entering government with the republican party.

The key figure in the Americans persuading the DUP and Sinn Féin to come together was Bush's special envoy to Northern Ireland, Mitchell Reiss. Reiss, in the summer of 2006, won the confidence of the DUP by insisting Bush's ban on Sinn Féin raising funds in North America would remain in place.

Bush's intervention doesn't seem to have had much effect. The Unionists are still opposed to the deal. But coming after Obama sent Bush, along with Bill Clinton, on a mission to Haiti in January, it does seem like something of an olive branch to the former president. It's hard to imagine there are too many international constituencies that are looking forward to receiving a call from Bush -- Ulster Unionists, Kosovar nationalists, the Georgian government -- but there's no reason not to enlist his services when they may be of help.  

Deborah Solomon, the New York Times Magazine's Q&A writer, has an interview with John Yoo.

The Berkeley professor and law scholar worked in the Office of Legal Counsel during the George W. Bush administration and is the author of the infamous "torture memos" arguing that harsh interrogation, as long as it does not cause pain tantamount to organ failure, is legal.

It's worth a read in full -- he says Lincoln is the president who most overstepped his authority and that he has never met Bush -- but here's my favorite part: 

I see various groups are protesting a decision by a California government lawyer to teach a course with you that starts on Jan. 12, claiming he is legitimizing your unethical behavior.
At Berkeley, protesting is an everyday activity. I am used to it. I remind myself of West Berlin — West Berlin surrounded by East Germany during the Cold War.

Are you saying the citizens of Berkeley are Communists, reminiscent of those on the dark side of the Iron Curtain?
There are probably more Communists in Berkeley than any other town in America, but I think of them more as lovers of Birkenstocks than Marx.

When, exactly, did you become a conservative?
I’ve been one since I was a kid. I was 9 when Jimmy Carter took office. I can remember him giving a speech in a funny sweater and asking people to turn down thermostats. And then there was the malaise speech. I thought they meant mayonnaise.

You were born in South Korea and grew up in and around Philadelphia, the son of two doctors. What sort of doctors?
Psychiatrists.

What effect did that have on you?
I hope none.

Are they psychoanalysts?
I couldn’t tell you. I don’t actually know that much about their work. I’ve never really been interested.

A psychiatrist might say you are in denial.
I deny that I am in denial.

Center for Security Policy President Frank Gaffney's new Washington Times column arguing that after the Cairo speech "there is mounting evidence that the president not only identifies with Muslims, but actually may still be one himself," is not really worth much of a response.

But these two pieces of Gaffney's "evidence" did jump out at me:

Mr. Obama referred four times in his speech to "the Holy Koran." Non-Muslims -- even pandering ones -- generally don't use that Islamic formulation.

Mr. Obama established his firsthand knowledge of Islam (albeit without mentioning his reported upbringing in the faith) with the statement, "I have known Islam on three continents before coming to the region where it was first revealed." Again, "revealed" is a depiction Muslims use to reflect their conviction that the Koran is the word of God, as dictated to Muhammad. 

After about 30 seconds of Googling, I present the venerable Islamic theologian George W. Bush:

The Islam that we know is a faith devoted to the worship of one God, as revealed through The Holy Qu'ran. 

When I registered last week to attend Dick Cheney's speech today, I already knew it was going to be a big event, but with President Obama's Guantanamo speech immediately preceding it and the ensuing "dueling speeches" hype, AEI's Wohlstetter Conference Center took on the atmosphere of a prize fight, complete with the obligatory famous (for D.C.) attendees.

We watched Obama's speech on an overhead projector and when it ended, I half expected the room to go dark for Cheney's introduction. (AEI president Arthur Brooks makes a somewhat unsatisfying Don King figure.)

The "duel" theme felt especially strange since Cheney's speech wasn't really a rebuttal to Obama's in any real sense. Cheney's prepared remarks were passed out before Obama's speech had even ended and except for a shortened introduction, he didn't deviate from them at all.

In some sense, it would have been nice to hear actual dueling speeches in which the former vice president would actual respond to the points Obama made. For instance, Cheney repeated this currently popular talking point:

Attorney General Holder and others have admitted that the United States will be compelled to accept a number of the terrorists here, in the homeland, and it has even been suggested US taxpayer dollars will be used to support them.  On this one, I find myself in complete agreement with many in the President’s own party. Unsure how to explain to their constituents why terrorists might soon be relocating into their states, these Democrats chose instead to strip funding for such a move out of the most recent war supplemental.

But Obama had already denounced this argument as a scare tactic and made this point: 

We will seek to transfer some detainees to the same type of facilities in which we hold all manner of dangerous and violent criminals within our borders – highly secure prisons that ensure the public safety. As we make these decisions, bear in mind the following fact: nobody has ever escaped from one of our federal "supermax" prisons, which hold hundreds of convicted terrorists. 

I would have liked to hear Cheney's response to this point (Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid also can't be thrilled that Dick Cheney is now his highest profile ally in this fight).

As another example, Obama's point that "unlike the Civil War or World War II, we cannot count on a surrender ceremony to bring this journey to an end" was a fairly good rebuttal to Cheney's arument that because there has not been a repeat of the 9/11 attacks, the Bush administration's antiterrorism tactics should be "continued until the danger has passed." Of course, it's unlikely to ever be clear when the danger has passed, meaning that the extraordinary authority that Cheney believes the president should be afforded will only be afforded at the president's own discretion.

At the same time, Cheney made some points that it would have been enlightening to hear Obama respond to as well, such as the new study Cheney highlighted showing that one in seven released Guantanamo detainees returns to terrorism or his admonishment of the administration for revealing details of interrogation methods without releasing the information they were used to obtain.

But in the end, the "dueling speeches" set-up has to be counted as a victory for Obama. The format increased the attention paid to Cheney's speech and the fact that much of what Cheney said had already been answered by Obama, made the Republican position look out of touch with recent developments. The administration seems to have decided that the best way to make its case is to set up Dick Cheney as the face of the opposition. Still, a real debate between these two would have been pretty fascinating.

SAUL LOEB/AFP/Getty Images

U.S. President Barack Obama and former Vice President Dick Cheney are both giving national security speeches on Guantanamo Bay policy this morning -- Obama at 10:10 (he isn't on yet) and Cheney at 10:45. FP's Joshua Keating is at AEI to see Cheney, and he'll report back later today.

In the meantime, watch Obama streaming here and Cheney streaming here. 

Update: Here's the text of Obama's speech.

Tone-setting quote: 

On all of these matter related to the disclosure of sensitive information, I wish I could say that there is a simple formula. But there is not. These are tough calls involving competing concerns, and they require a surgical approach. But the common thread that runs through all of my decisions is simple: we will safeguard what we must to protect the American people, but we will also ensure the accountability and oversight that is the hallmark of our constitutional system. I will never hide the truth because it is uncomfortable. I will deal with Congress and the courts as co-equal branches of government. I will tell the American people what I know and don't know, and when I release something publicly or keep something secret, I will tell you why.

In all of the areas that I have discussed today, the policies that I have proposed represent a new direction from the last eight years. To protect the American people and our values, we have banned enhanced interrogation techniques. We are closing the prison at Guantanamo. We are reforming Military Commissions, and we will pursue a new legal regime to detain terrorists. We are declassifying more information and embracing more oversight of our actions, and narrowing our use of the State Secrets privilege. These are dramatic changes that will put our approach to national security on a surer, safer and more sustainable footing, and their implementation will take time.

With a hat-tip to our incoming intern Michael Wilkerson, here's tape of former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice defending the Bush administration enhanced interrogation policies -- which she insists never led to torture -- speaking off-the-cuff at a Stanford University dorm. Here's a really quick transcript [updated] -- will correct for word-errors:

 

How are we supposed to continue promoting America as this guiding light of democracy and how are we supposed to win hearts and minds in the world as long as we continue with these actions?

Well, first of all, you do what's right. That's the most important thing -- that you make a judgment of what's right.  And in terms of enhanced interrogation, and rendition, and all the issues around the detainees. Abu Ghraib is, and everyone said, Abu Ghraib was not policy. Abu Ghraib was wrong and nobody would argue with...

Except that information that's come out since then speaks against that.

No, no, no -- the information that's come out since then continues to say that Abu Ghraib was wrong. Abu Ghraib was. But in terms of the enhanced interrogation and so forth, anything that was legal and was going to make this country safer, the president wanted to do. Nothing that was illegal. And nothing that was going to make the country less safe.

And I'll tell you something. Unless you were there in a position of responsibility after September 11^th, you cannot possibly imagine the dilemmas that you faced in trying to protect Americans. And I know a lot of people are second-guessing now, but let me tell you what the second-guessing that would really have hurt me -- if the second-guessing had been about 3,000 more Americans dying because we didn't do everything we could to protect them.

If you were there in a position of authority, and watched Americans jump out of 80-story buildings because these murderous tyrants went after innocent people, then you were determined to do anything that you could that was legal to prevent that from happening again. And so I think people do understand that.

Now, as to Saudi Arabia and Kuwait and so forth -- I agree with you. We have tried to use the trafficking in persons and all of those measures, human rights reports and so forth, to put a spotlight on the kinds of problems that you have in places like Saudi Arabia or Kuwait or Oman or other places. But you can't -- you don't have the luxury in foreign policy of saying, alright, I won't deal with that country because I don't like its human rights record. You don't have that luxury. So if you need Saudi Arabia to fight al Qaeda internally -- which is by the way where al Qaeda came from -- or if you need Saudi Arabia to be part of a coalition that's going to help bring a Palestinian state, you can't decide not to deal with Saudi Arabia because of its problems with human rights. Or, if you need to make sure that the Gulf is safe from Iranian influence -- you want to talk about human rights abusers? -- Iran.

I'm well aware.

Excuse me?

I'm well aware.

So, foreign policy is full of tough choices. Very tough choices. The world is not a bunch of easy choices in which you get to make ones that always feel good.

I'm aware, but...[I'm sorry, we have to move]

Let him finish, let him finish.

Even in World War II, as we faced Nazi Germany -- probably the greatest threat that America has ever faced -- even then...

With all due respect, Nazi Germany never attacked the homeland of the United States.

No, but they bombed our allies...

No. Just a second. Three thousand Americans died in the Twin Towers and the Pentagon.

500,000 died in World War II, and yet we did not torture the prisoners of war.

And we didn't torture anybody here either. Alright?

We tortured them in Guantanamo Bay.

No, no dear, you're wrong. Alright. You're wrong. We did not torture anyone. And Guantanamo Bay, by the way, was considered a model "medium security prison" by representatives of the Organization of Security and Cooperation in Europe who went there to see it. Did you know that?

 Were they present for the interrogations?

No. Did you know that the Organization -- just answer me -- did you know that the Organization of Security and Cooperation in Europe said Guantanamo was a model medium security prison?

No, but I feel that changes nothing...

No -- Did you know that?

I did not know that, but that changes absolutely nothing.

Alright, no -- if you didn't know that, maybe before you make allegations about Guantanamo you should read.

Now, the ICRC also had access to Guantanamo, and they made no allegations about interrogations at Guantanamo. What they did say is that they believe indefinite detention, where people didn't know whether they'd come up for trial, which is why we tried with the military commissions system to let people come up for trial. Those trials were stayed by whom? Who kept us from holding the trials?

I can't answer that question.

Do your homework first.

I have a question...

Yes. The Supreme Court.

I read a recent report, recently, that said that you did a memo, you were the one who authorized torture to the -- I'm sorry, not torture, waterboarding. Is waterboarding torture?

The president instructed us that nothing we would do would be outside of our obligations, legal obligations, under the Convention Against torture. So that's -- and by the way, I didn't authorize anything. I conveyed the authorization of the administration to the agency. That they had policy authorization subject to the Justice Department's clearance. That's what I did.

Okay. Is waterboarding torture?

I just said -- the United States was told, we were told, nothing that violates our obligations under the Convention Against Torture. And so, by definition, if it was authorized by the president, it did not violate our obligations under the Conventions Against Torture.

Thank you.

Alright.

 

That's the most articulated defense of enhanced interrogation -- now, we call it torture -- we have from a high-ranking Bush official. 

Earlier today, I spoke with veteran Washington Post reporter Dana Priest. My question was simple: At what point did it become clear that the United States' treatment of detainees in overseas prisons was harsh, and possibly illegal? (For more FP torture coverage, see here.)

Allegations of detainee abuse first started trickling out in January 2002 -- in essence, as soon as detainees came into U.S. custody. But it wasn't until eleven months later that Priest and fellow Post reporter Barton Gellman wrote the first definitive account of such abuse. On the day after Christmas, 2002, the Post described "stress and duress" tactics, extraordinary rendition to countries like Syria, and the harsh treatment of al Qaeda operative Abu Zubayda. The article used the word torture -- saying that the United States harshly interrogated prisoners, and sent them to foreign prisons to gain the "fruits" of torture without having to do it themselves.

According to one official who has been directly involved in rendering captives into foreign hands, the understanding is, "We don't kick the [expletive] out of them. We send them to other countries so they can kick the [expletive] out of them."

Back then, the CIA was Priest's beat. She says her tip-off on the "stress and duress" story came when she noticed a separate, unmarked compound near the main Bagram holding facility. "It wasn't in the military compound," she says. "But it was surrounded with triple concertina wire," the type used in high-security prisons. "I thought -- they have a separate facility, so are they working under separate rules? I knew the CIA and military were working in teams together, but at what?"

She and a team of Post reporters, among them Rajiv Chandrasekaran and Barton Gellman, working in parallel and in competition to New York Times writers like Tim Golden and Carlotta Gall, started piecing the stories together. "Really, there were just a handful of reporters who could make inroads on the subject," she says.

The reporting was painstaking. "It was a very decentralized thing. You weren't even sure what the questions were," she says. "We couldn't connect it up. We couldn't see the big picture. And there was no past reporting to go on. Everyone was making it up. We'd follow these little reports from Afghanistan, about people disappearing. That was it."

Crucial to the success of the early reporting were the teams of lawyers at organizations like the Center for Constitutional Rights struggling to glean information on detainees. "We were all getting little teeny scraps and putting it together painstakingly," she says. "Nobody told you the whole story, or even a quarter of a story." One Post article on an extraordinary rendition came together because a someone happened to write down the number on the tail of an airplane. "You needed to keep those little scraps in your head," Priest notes.

Another big break -- for which she won a Pulitzer Prize -- came when she completed a story about the black sites, secret overseas prisons. The story took more than two years to report, and, she says, reporting on the subject still didn't get much easier -- it took years for Congress to devote as much attention to it as reporters and defense lawyers were.

"Congress did nothing," she says, "until political winds had changed, and the Democrats were feeling a little more at ease in the world. It's a new feeling for them. Because, before, there were Democrats in those meetings saying, ‘Do what you've got to do.'"

Alex Wong/Getty Images

One likely impact of the Bush adminstration interrogation policy that hasn't been widely discussed is that many U.S. partners are probably less likely to cooperate if they think their intelligence will be used for ill. And indeed, that seems to be the case. The Washington Post, in a must-read story today:

One of those present said that when asked, the CIA officers acknowledged that some foreign intelligence agencies had refused, for example, to share information about the location of terrorism suspects for fear of becoming implicated in any eventual torture of those suspects.

I asked Tom Malinowski, the Washington advocacy director for Human Rights Watch and a former Clinton administration official, to work through some of the foreign policy implications of the newly released torture memos with me.

We discussed whether the Bush administration memos encouraged other countries to torture, or led to any global uptick in "enhanced interrogation" practices. "I've always tried to be careful not to suggest that countries like Egypt or China or Uzbekistan would be torturing more because the United States was setting a bad example. Obviously, dictatorships torture for their own reasons, and they didn't need [former U.S. President] George W. Bush to show them how," he says.

But, the Bush administration torture of detainees and disavowal of the Geneva Conventions did preclude diplomacy on many occasions, Malinowski says. He testified before the Helsinki Commission in 2007 to make the point:

A couple of years ago, Human Rights Watch was meeting with the Prime Minister of Egypt, and we raised a case in which hundreds of prisoners rounded up after a terrorist bombing were tortured by Egyptian security forces.   The Prime Minister didn't deny the charge.  He answered, "We're just doing what the United States does."  We've had Guantanamo and the administration's interrogation policies thrown back in our face in meetings with officials from many other countries, including Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Pakistan and Lebanon.  U.S. diplomats have told us they face the same problem.  A U.S. ambassador to a leading Middle Eastern country, for example, has told us that he can no longer raise the issue of torture in that country as a result. 

Malinowski says the detainee abuse made it difficult for the White House to negotiate any human rights provisions or issues, broadly. "Issues beyond torture were effected, because it enabled authoritarian governments to say, ‘You have no right to lecture us,'" he says. "They were delighted to tweak the United States on it."

The biggest offender? Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, who Malinowski described as a "world champion" of chiding the United States via its own policies.

Nevertheless, Malinowski thinks that, despite the horrible details revealed by the Bush administration and International Committee of the Red Cross memos, ultimately their release is a very good thing for the Obama administration.

[Obama] can go to a country like Turkey or Indonesia or Egypt and say, "Look, I know what it's like to face real security threats, and we as Americans understand the temptation to give up some of our liberties and principles to defend ourselves against those threats. But what we've learned the hard way in the last eight years is that those liberties and principles actually make us stronger. You could learn from our example."

That's a much more effective way of arguing the point than going to those same countries and saying, look at our perfect system and our glorious morality, and maybe someday you can be as good as we are. So I think if he uses the experience as a cautionary tale, it will actually make our country a more effective and compelling champion of human rights around the world, ironically.

Here's to hoping so.

Photo: Entrance to Bagram Air Base by Spencer Platt/Getty Images

It's been a tense day for constitutional lawyers, national security reporters, and foreign policy wonks. Why? This afternoon, the Obama administration intends to release memos relating to the controversial "enhanced interrogation" policies of CIA officers in overseas prisons.

There have been careful negotiations between the CIA, Justice Department, and White House over the contents of the release, and it seems the officers involved have been granted immunity from prosecution as a result. 

The full set of documents should be released here sometime within the hour. 

Update: The only redactions are the officers' names. 

Update: Read the memos here. 

Preeti Aroon

"Scholars on the Sidelines," by Joseph S. Nye Jr. in the Washington Post. Referencing FP's "Inside the Ivory Tower," Nye argues that American academics are "paying less attention to questions about how their work relates to the policy world" and that more scholarship should have "real-world relevance."

Elizabeth Dickinson

David Gardner asks a provocative question in this weekend's Financial Times: Is the West's fear of political Islam condemning the Middle East to a generation of poor leadership? Political Islam is the new communism, he argues; the United States fears it so much that it prefers despots to even the most moderate Islamists. The Middle East, by implication, might be going through the same bout of poor leadership that afflicted Latin America and Africa as the Cold War contest played out in their regions.

Rebecca Frankel

"War By Any Other Name." Joe Queenan takes a look at the ripples of the Obama administration's "semi-official" move to revamp the vocabulary for "the war on terror" and the attempt to distance itself from the Bush administration's "fierce" rhetoric. Money quote: "From now on, the bad guys will be referred to as 'the ostensibly malefic.' We'll get back to you when we have a new term for 'the good guys.'"

(Bonus pick: Presidential Pets. Couldn't resist...)

Britt Peterson

Walter Benn Michaels's essay "Going Boom," in the February/March issue of Bookforum. According to Michaels, boom time for markets is bust time for literature, which turns back to unhappy but irrelevant periods of the past when there's not enough drama in the present day (the 1990s-2000s spike in popular fiction about the Holocaust), or focuses boringly inward (the memoir, anything Oprah's Book Club recommends). But, during an economic collapse, Western novelists will have enough material to deal relevantly with the present, and financial crisis fiction will blossom. (Hat tip: Paper Cuts)

Annie Lowrey

U.S. Office of Management and Budget Director Peter Orszag blogs that crime has fallen in New York City during the recession. Indeed, Orszag says economic bad-times tend to spur property crimes, but not violent crimes. "One reason may be that alcohol use tends to decline during recessions (another potentially surprising finding), and that the reduction in alcohol use reduces violent crime," he notes. (Hat tip: Tapped)

Andrew Polk

Nouriel Roubini puts a brake on all the sanguine predictions for China’s 2009 recovery prospects in a report titled "Outlook for China's Economy in 2009 and Beyond." In the analysis, Dr. Doom tells investors not to get ahead of themselves, as the Chinese economy has not seen a true rebalancing toward domestic consumption, but he also notes one major positive: The country's trade surplus might finally be shrinking.

Greg Shtraks

Today's big story on the high seas are the Somalian buccaneers, but the future of naval warfare may be developing in another part of the Indian Ocean. While India is taking measures to protect its vulnerable coast from terrorist attacks, China is preparing to make a major announcement at the 60th anniversary of the People's Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) on April 23rd. Writing in Time Magazine, Howard Chua-Eoan describes the brewing naval rivalry developing between Asia's two aspiring superpowers. 

In a wonderfully Onion-esque article, The Calgary Sun reports on former U.S. President George W. Bush's first public engagement since leaving office.  Bush is in Canada to address the Calgary Chamber of Commerce, but first stopped off in a local Italian joint.

The story nabs some on-the-ground impressions from intrepid locals: Bush was a "funny and a down-to-Earth kind of guy. We even got some pictures with him." Another notes, "I tried pointing him out to my mom but she didn't get to see him."

And the article duly reports on what's really important up in Canada: "Bush wasn't the only high-profile guest there last night...Calgary Flames forward Olli Jokinen happened to walk in minutes before."

Photo: Saul Loeb/AFP/Getty Images

In a press release, Attorney General Eric Holder and the Department of Justice announce the withdrawal of the "enemy combatant" definition of Gitmo detainees. The memo says that, under President Obama's orders, the department is reviewing detention policy:

In a filing today with the federal District Court for the District of Columbia, the Department of Justice submitted a new standard for the government’s authority to hold detainees at the Guantanamo Bay Detention Facility. The definition does not rely on the President’s authority as Commander-in-Chief independent of Congress’s specific authorization. It draws on the international laws of war to inform the statutory authority conferred by Congress. It provides that individuals who supported al Qaeda or the Taliban are detainable only if the support was substantial. And it does not employ the phrase "enemy combatant."

The Department also submitted a declaration by Attorney General Eric Holder stating that, under executive orders issued by President Obama, the government is undertaking an interagency review of detention policy for individuals captured in armed conflicts or counterterrorism operations as well as a review of the status of each detainee held at Guantanamo. The outcome of those reviews may lead to further refinements of the government’s position as it develops a comprehensive policy.

The memo states that the government will no longer detain combatants who provided "insignificant or insubstantial" support to al Qaeda or the Taliban. (The Bush administration came under fierce criticism for holding persons with little or no connection to the terrorist organizations.) More than 200 remain incarcerated at Camp Delta; it's unclear if any -- or how many -- will be released under the new legal standards. 

Photo: Paul J. Richards/AFP/Getty Images

In a report made public today in The Guardian, a U.N. watchdog castigates Britain for its role in facilitating the United States' torture of detainees in secret prisons: 

The Special Rapporteur remains deeply troubled that the United States has created a comprehensive system of extraordinary renditions, prolonged and secret detention, and practices that violate the prohibition against torture and other forms of ill-treatment. This system required an international web of exchange of information and has created a corrupted body of information which was shared systematically with partners in the war on terror through intelligence cooperation, thereby corrupting the institutional culture of the legal and institutional systems of recipient States.

While this system was devised and put in place by the United States, it was only possible through collaboration from many other States. There exist consistent, credible reports suggesting that at least until May 2007 a number of States facilitated extraordinary renditions in various ways. States such as Bosnia and Herzegovina, Canada, Croatia, Georgia, Indonesia, Kenya, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Pakistan and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland have provided intelligence or have conducted the initial seizure of an individual before he was transferred to (mostly unacknowledged) detention centres in Afghanistan, Egypt, Ethiopia, Jordan, Pakistan, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Syria, Thailand, Uzbekistan, or to one of the CIA covert detention centres, often referred to as “black sites”. In many cases, the receiving States reportedly engaged in torture and other forms of ill-treatment of these detainees.

The special rapporteur, Martin Scheinen, states that British intelligence officers interviewed detainees in "so-called safe houses where they were being tortured" and that they "conducted or witnessed just over 2,000 interviews in Afghanistan, Guantanamo Bay and Iraq." He calls for whistle-blower protections and the revision of numerous policies to safe-guard human rights. The revelations aren't that revelatory, given past reports on the participation of European countries in rendition and "enhanced interrogation." But the tone's especially fire-and-brimstone in this iteration.

And, the report comes as concern over the Britain'ss collusion in the mistreatment of detainees comes to a fever pitch. Last month, Binyam Mohammed, a British national arrested in Pakistan, returned to the U.K. after seven years of detention. He told papers, "Mentally right now, the result of my experience is that I feel emotionally dead....When I realised that the British were co-operating with the people torturing me, I felt completely naked. They sold me out."

Additionally, members of parliament are calling for the government to release classified documents which detail its cooperation and participation with U.S. interrogators. And the country is considering accepting more prisoners from Guantanamo Bay, to hasten its closure.

All in all, it's an issue that's received an extraordinary amount of attention and garnered extraordinary public debate in Great Britain -- even more so than in the United States. And it isn't good news for poor Prime Minister Gordon Brown, just coming off the worst week ever.

Photo by Dan Kitwood/Getty Images