U.K. Judges: U.S. Threatened Them in Guantanamo Torture Case
This is just crazy. I'd like to think there's a logical explanation:
LONDON (Reuters) - Two senior British judges accused the United States on Wednesday of threatening to end intelligence cooperation if Britain released evidence about the alleged torture of a Guantanamo detainee.
The judges quoted lawyers for British Foreign Secretary David Miliband as saying the U.S. government, by reviewing intelligence cooperation, "could inflict on the citizens of the United Kingdom a very considerable increase in the dangers they face at a time when a serious terrorist threat still pertains."
According to the ruling from High Court judges Lord Justice Thomas and Lord Justice Lloyd Jones, Miliband's lawyers said the threat had existed for some time and was still in place under President Barack Obama's administration.
British media had applied to the court for the release of full details of the evidence the British government held about the treatment of Binyam Mohamed, an Ethiopian-born British resident who is held in Guantanamo Bay.
The judges ruled it would not be in the public interest to expose Britain to the "real risk" outlined by the foreign secretary's lawyers.
hate us for our freedom?
I don't think hate comes any where close.
After the amount of ignorance and stupidity that the US populace has unleashed on any person from the UK (or any where) who gives criticism or observations of the US over the years.
I've been blessed enough to witness yanks being thrown out of bars & restaurants for the usual self obsessed shouting "We saved the world in WW2, we were doing it all while you just sat back, you'd speak German if it wasn't for us, blah blah blah" ......... as it is I speak German anyway, as I have a strange thing we have in Europe, it's called an education ....
Give what actually happened in WW2 with the proffering that went on as well .....
The sooner the US passport is revoked the world over the better, stay in your own country I say.
This is the type of stuff that needs to be reported on.
on who in the U.S.government ordered this threat to be given?
All paths of evil point to Cheney.
I blogged the beginning of this for C&L back in August. Now the BBC reports:
Given that statement, Obama can hardly use ignorance as a defense.
Color me disgusted that the judges bowed to such blatant high-stakes blackmail. Color me just as disgusted that the Obama administration didn't nix the Bush administration's threat. That it didn't is proof positive that it has abolutely no interest in unearthing the truth and is thus complicit, as an accessory after the fact, in those crimes it is trying to hide.
This issue is a central one for me. I had always been sceptical about Obama's promise of change, writing often that he might be a Tony Blair for America - willing to say the right things to get elected then turn on a dime afterwards. I'm very sorry indeed to have been correct about that. No matter how much I may agree with other Obama administration policies, I will now feel they are tainted by torture. I can support some of their policies, but not the Obama administration overall.
Regards, C
My god, this is the one thing Obama must turn around on now! He can't think he will be supported if he let's the Bush administration's policies become his own, can he?
One part of me thinks (hopes) that there is SO much crap in the pipeline that it is being overlooked whilst this economic crises is being dealt with. The other part says Obama is just another lying pol.
that even read in full does not make sense.
"I mean Romney is the most conservative on illegal immigration and I don't think Ronald Reagan could get elected in California today."
Ann "Clipped" Coulter
I went back and read it 2 more times and still can't comprehend. Very poorly substantiated, if at all.
you seem to have a very keen sence of the illusion of obama! as i keep saying, repig lite!
You keep saying that. It's not helpful. It's not new. It's not accurate. Now that we've all seen your repeated posts, how about you stop now? Otherwise, at best you're irrelevant and at worst you're assisting Rush, Hannity, O'Reilly, Cheney, Bush, Palin et al.
or is America the country showing signs of being psychotic?
"Anyone that makes less than $150K in this country, has no business voting Republican."
That ship has sailed.
This is just crazy. And there must be a logical explanation. But having read the entire article from Reuters you linked, I cannot find it. Nor can I find the accusation in the form of a ruling. Nor can I find the cited quotes from the lawyers representing the British Foreign Secretary Miliband. I do see a quote from Miliband denying such a threat was made.
It is crazy if the US did it, But the article is so poorly written and documented I cannot figure out whether there is really any there there.
"I mean Romney is the most conservative on illegal immigration and I don't think Ronald Reagan could get elected in California today."
Ann "Clipped" Coulter
Ricky, follow my links.
The C&L post references a guardian article in which the following quote appears. I'll bold it for emphasis:
I called that as a threat back in August. The judges agreed. For Miliband to deny what was in the possession of the court was just a stupid attempt at spin.
Now the BBC reports the Obama WH sending thanks (my link above) for bowing to the Bush administration's threats - which were to stop intel co-operation if the UK kept interfering in the "apparently functioning adjudicatory processes" of torturing for evidence and kangaroo courts.
Jeebus, please.
Regards, C
Appears to be Prof. D. Stephen Mathias of Georgetown, currently serving as General Counsel of the Multinational Force and Observers which is an independent international peacekeeping organization so he's no longer officially part of the administration. He previously served as Assistant Legal Adviser for United Nations Affairs as well as in other positions at the Legal Adviser’s Office at the U.S. Department of State. He was still appearing on State's behalf at meetings as late as mid-November and was listed as being from the "Legal Adviser's Office, U.S. State Department Legal Adviser's Office" when he co-chaired a conference of the American Society of International Law in May.
Regards, C
and they certainly help clarify what Reuters seemed to deliberately confuse. However, I think you have taken a leap too far in assessing what this means vis a vis the Obama administration and maybe even the Bush administrtation.
You see this as a sinister key link in a sordid history of U.S. torture. Apparently the U.S. and British governments view is that the concern was whether is was right for a British Court to make public a classified document provided to the court by the U.S. Government specifically on the grounds that it not be made public.
Absent seeing the document I cannot say whether it reveals the man was tortured in Morroco by Moroccans acting at the behest of the U.S. and Britain. Neither can you, but my impression from your earlier post in August is that you were certain it would. The key point to me is this from the BBC:
"The High Court was supplied with information, described as a "short summary" of his treatment, on the condition that it not be released publicly.
'No prejudice'
Mr Miliband told MPs there would be "no prejudice" to Mr Mohamed's case as a result of the ruling as the information was available to his US legal counsel."
The judges and some in Britain call the U.S. position that its secrets shared with Britain should not be made public by Britain "blackmail." I tend to think if the U.S shares secrets with the U.K. and their government makes those secrets public, we should not share information with them in the future if we want it to be secret.
If the information were about nuclear weapons construction and not torture and detention I do not think there would be much argument.
And the fact that the investigation will continue and the information is in the posession of the plaintiff's lawyer is not something any of these posts or your links took me to. I do not think that was deliberate, but its absence is noted.
"I mean Romney is the most conservative on illegal immigration and I don't think Ronald Reagan could get elected in California today."
Ann "Clipped" Coulter
why when the judges found out what the evidence consisted of they started asking the MI5 guy who was present for some of Mohamed's interrogations about war crimes...and he refused to answer on the grounds of self-incrimination?
Regards, C
As I said, I cannot explain what was done to Mohamed nor condone it. My point is that the actions of the U.S. as it relates to the documents in the case have apparently not prevented Mohamed from pressing his claimn or the British officials from being called into account by the Court. The information has not been kept from Mohamed's attorney. They have not been released to the public. If the lack of their release makes you think Obama is complicit in war crimes, as you strongly suggest, then I think you are overreacting.
"I mean Romney is the most conservative on illegal immigration and I don't think Ronald Reagan could get elected in California today."
Ann "Clipped" Coulter
War crimes charges against Mohamed were dropped, quietly, in October. The only reason to halt the publication of this information is to shield torturers and those who ordered torture - crimes - from possible prosecution. I don't think it's over-reacting at all to call that complicity.
Regards, C
how any of this shields torturers from prosecution.
Explain how this works in terms of the nEnglish legal system.
The Court I presume was not detered from taking whatever action they felt it was necessary to take in the case before them. As best I can see the issue is public disclosure, not disclosure to the parties in the legal case.
As for complicity, if charges were dropped in October, Obama administration had nothing to do with that.
"I mean Romney is the most conservative on illegal immigration and I don't think Ronald Reagan could get elected in California today."
Ann "Clipped" Coulter
this can only come from the bastards known
as cheney/bush crap. what a wonderful moral
image the world has of us because of these two
jackasses. if the obama administration is to
be transparent, then the truth must be revealed
about what happened at gitmo. maybe then our
new AG can investigate the crimes commited by
bush/cheney or at least another country will do
what we are not.......trying criminals for the
irag war bush/cheney lied us into.
I need to know who to send one of my patented rants to! I don't know who to complain to, reassurances that the times for rendition, torture and gitmo have past makes me hope that it is just someone down the line who hasn't gotten "the memo" like those sec scumbags on the hill yesterday. I guess I'll start with White House - they got a new website for this kind of thing don't they?
update
US made no threat over Guantanamo
Miliband remarks on cspan
The conclusion of the Guardian article:
Miliband isn't disputing the Mathias email exists (it was entered as evidence, after all) he's saying he was wrong in believing it was a threat and telling the court so. It sure reads like one to me. And the Obama administration has said not releasing intel containing details of torture remains "paramount."
Regards, C
Blair obeyed Bush without question....
Pres Obama needs to redefine the Bush administration's warped concept of an ally- Allied countries were seen as nations that obeyed, and served American interests, and those that didn't obey us were punsihed. The French were right about Iraq, and the right wing still hates France.
Britian needs to stand up and say no, if the well being of their own citizens are threatened- And if the US threatens the UK in any way, there are ways the Brits could reciprocate.
Despite the British government backing Bush every step of the way, when reports revealed most Britons opposed the war in Iraq, Fox's Billo angrily declared 'Why should Americans give a damn what the British think'? A caller asked Billo 'Then why should the British give a damn what the americans think'?
To which Billo arrogantly bellowed 'BECAUSE WE'RE AMERICA!!
Under Bush, the US behaved as an ill tempered pentulant child- but I hope and suspect that will change under pres. Obama.
The Obama White House sent the British government a thank you for bowing to blackmail and not releasing details of a detainees torture, which the Brit court has seen and then began asking witnesses about war crimes!
As for the progressive blogs...other than Suzie here and me at Newshoggers today...sound of crickets chirping.
Regards, Disgusted C
I spent a good part of my afternoon sleeping (residual effects of that flu bug), but I too am disappointed that Obama seems to be toeing the dubya/blair line.
I get tired of people here saying 'give him time', blah, blah, blah. It's getting old fast. Obama is in charge now and nothing seems to be changing in regards to the wars and war crimes he has inherited.
for reasons I stated earlier. Your statement "The Obama White House sent the British government a thank you for bowing to blackmail and not releasing details of a detainees torture" is a leap far beyond the facts.
"I mean Romney is the most conservative on illegal immigration and I don't think Ronald Reagan could get elected in California today."
Ann "Clipped" Coulter
That has to be BS... Israel is in charge and performs the spying on/for our country. They even spy on our military and intelligent agencies. They were even in place before 911 to record the event...
The citizens of this country do not even know who really runs this government,, for it is certainly not the people...
Them anymore then I do Bush... Tony Blair and Britain had their hand in just as much Sh.. as Bush and Cheney...
H... Britain owns how much of our businesses and land in our country..
If fact the foreign countries own more of our country and the have the hear of our elected officials , more then the citizen of the country.. In fact this government is stone deaf to the citizens of this country.
This country was suppose to be run by the people , of the people and for the people... That has long gone and started before Bush and Cheney.. They just accelerated it in the 8 years where they stole the elections...
None
Okay - now we should be talking about the Hague without any reservations at all.
*
going to have to disagree with Cernig on this one. No one knows what information was passed between governments on the matter of torture or any other intelligence matter. If confidentiality can be breached by a court and information made public that was conveyed with assurance of confidentiality then it would make little sense to exchange any information at all. This is more a matter of principle then a threat.
Hasa Diga Eebowai
while laboring over mine which I posted later in response to Cernig.
You make the same point with greater clarity and brevity.
"I mean Romney is the most conservative on illegal immigration and I don't think Ronald Reagan could get elected in California today."
Ann "Clipped" Coulter
upthread.
Peter, not revealing official secrets has been key to the Bush defense on torture all along. Who should rightly decide what should be kept secret if those secrets are alleged to be evidence of crimes, the alleged criminals or the judges? If the judges, should they be allowed to decide without political interference?
Regards, C
David Miliband defends decision
Back to the Guardian
3:33 mins
.
R E M E M B E R:
It's not TORTURE when the USA does it.
.
Starve the WAR Beast...
... Feed Americans.
Oh heck no let's not reveal any evidence of torture, because that might lead to, to... the truth, heaven forbid. Too bad for so many powerful people the truth means doom.
Let me just add that what they did is disgraceful, and they're doomed.
Who are the people responsible for this disgraceful blackmail? Aw man...
"Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob"
-= Franklin Delano Roosevelt =-
...and it really has very little to do with torture.
While it is true that the information in question revolves around torture and the potential prosecution of a case in civil and criminal law, it isn't the content of the information that is causing this issue - it's its nature that is the crux of this problem.
The UK and the US share thousands of pieces of intelligence on an almost daily basis. What the two governments' intel agencies are concerned over is the legal precedent that might be set. If one government's judiciary (or any body, for that matter) can compel the revelation of classified intelligence provided by the other government's gathering apparatus, such potential revelation could jeopardize or destroy valuable assets to that apparatus. Such a threat would chill or negate some or possibly all of the exchange, and that would have an immediate and overwhelmingly negative impact to the security of both countries.
So while this particular element of "intelligence" is vile and reprehensible, the problem is that it remains classified as a state secret under the aegis of the US intelligence agencies. So long as that classification remains and the US expresses a desire for it to be so, the UK won't act on it for fear of threat to the many hundreds and thousands of other exchanges that take place so often. If the US were to declassify it and enter the information into the public domain, this obstacle would be removed.
When you hear the officials discussing this and you hear them saying that such a move would threaten the security of their respective countries, in this particular example, they're actually being truthful. It's still a lie when such claims are made against a wholly-domestic case, but in this instance the international implications make such a statement of threat true.
Hope this helps -
T
should supersede agreements on keeping intelligence secrets, at least in cases where crimes of this nature are alleged, and it should be the courts' job to decide when release is proper without political interference.
Jeebus, I can hardly believe there's any debate about this on a progressive blog. That's what liberals have been saying about FISA secrets, torture secrets, Iraq lie secrets and a whole lot more for eight years - and were right to do so. Now Obama's White House is impplicated, some want to turn on a dime.
Regards, C
you have yet to supply sufficient information to indicate why non-publication of this report impedes any prosecution. Presumably this report was in possession of the US and they gave it to the UK for purposes of satisfying this legal proceeding. Why would it not also be made available in any other legal proceeding? If you have such an explanation you would go a long way to making the leap you have made. If you don't then you are asking us to accept you on faith and some of us are scratching our heads and asking why. That is not turning on a dime, it is simply not leaping to the same conclusion you have.
"I mean Romney is the most conservative on illegal immigration and I don't think Ronald Reagan could get elected in California today."
Ann "Clipped" Coulter
David Milliband needs to resign immediately, not only for allowing a UK citizen to be tortured, but for allowing himself and the UK Government to be steamrolled.
This is absolutely inexcusable.
The question is whether the international criminal court will now look at the UK's cooperation in torture. And whether the U.S. will be tried in absentia here and there in European courts.
"Lord Justice Thomas and Mr Justice Lloyd Jones said the [British] attorney general would be investigating the issues of "torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment"."
Don't hold your breath waiting for the US AG to follow suit.
This is the kind of stuff that makes me ashamed to be an american. I hope republicans open their eyes to the abuses of the Bush administration. There definately needs to be an investigation and if it leds to Bush and Cheney by god they should be thrown in jail.
Southern Yankee
Comments are closed on this entry