US Shamelessly Blackmails UK Over Torture Trial Evidence (Updated)

By Cernig

If you still had any hopes that the Obama administration would investigate and perhaps prosecute torturers and those who ordered torture, forget them.

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.

Miliband has since reversed himself and denied the judge's claims, saying that the UK was unable to release the information simply because it would have violated the intel-sharing agreement with the US. Miliband is just flat lying on this, though, as previous reporting I wrote about back in August makes clear:

In an email to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, which was sent on to the court, Stephen Mathias, a legal adviser to the US state department, said that the disclosure of information would cause "serious and lasting damage to the US-UK intelligence-sharing relationship and thus the national security of the UK, and the aggressive and unprecedented intervention in the apparently functioning adjudicatory processes of a longtime ally of the UK, in contravention of well-established principles of international comity."

Cutting through the BS, that's again a simple threat to stop treating the UK as a trusted ally in intelligence matters if the court forced disclosure. And it comes direct from the US government's legal representation in the case.

Gitmo detainee Binyam Mohamed claims that his torture included having his penis cut with a razor blade by Moroccan proxies for the US and that MI5 agents participated alongside US officers in interrogations which included "enhanced interrogation techniques". The case against him relies on confessions he says were made under torture and he cannot defend himself if he cannot prove he was tortured. The British courts' bowing to US blackmail has probably condemned him to a death sentence.

In the initial hearing of the case, the high court agreed with Mohaned's claim that MI5 had been involved, finding that "The relationship of the United Kingdom government to the United States authorities in connection with [Mohamed] was far beyond that of a bystander or witness to the alleged wrongdoing."

One MI5 officer was so concerned about incriminating himself that he initially declined to answer questions from the judges even in private, the judgment reveals. Though the judges say "no adverse conclusions" should be drawn by the MI5 officer's plea against self-incrimination, they disclose that the officer, Witness B, was questioned about alleged war crimes under the international criminal court act, including torture. The full evidence surrounding Witness B's evidence, and the judges' findings, remain secret.

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.

Update: "Stephen Mathias", who sent the original email threat, is 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.

I called that email back in August as a threat to stop intel co-operation if the UK kept interfering in the "apparently functioning adjudicatory processes" of torturing for evidence and kangaroo courts. British Foreign Secretary David Miliband took it that way and told the court so. Now Miliband is denying there was a threat but the spin is ridiculous.

Miliband told MPs in an emergency statement that the US had not after all made any "threat" - a term the judges used in their ruling in light of evidence from Miliband and his advisers. Instead, he said, the US had warned Britain that a high court order to disclose the torture evidence would be "likely to result in serious damage to US national security and could harm existing intelligence information-sharing between our two governments".

Miliband, diplomats, and intelligence sources yesterday insisted that such a warning did not constitute a "threat".

In their ruling the judges blamed the US, with British connivance, for keeping "powerful evidence" relating to Mohamed's ill-treatment secret. They quoted Miliband's claim that if the US stopped intelligence-sharing then the UK's national security would be at risk.

Yesterday the Obama administration made it clear that it maintained the Bush stance that preservation of intelligence material remained paramount.

Milliband said the attorney general was consulting the Director of Public Prosecutions about evidence of "possible criminal wrongdoing" by an MI5 officer related to Mohamed's case. He also said that Mohamed would be returning to the UK.

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."

Now the BBC reports (h/t commenter sfHeath) the Obama White House is sending thanks to Britain 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.

The White House said it "thanked the UK government for its continued commitment to protect sensitive national security information". It added that this would "preserve the long-standing intelligence sharing relationship that enables both countries to protect their citizens".

Given those statements, Obama can hardly use ignorance of the Bush administration's threat as a defense. Meanwhile, even on progressive blogs that have been consistently anti-torture...sound of crickets chirping.

Comments

[sfHeath]

Thank you for finding this. It's critical that Pres. Obama continues to act swiftly to end the stain of torture on our hands. I just e-mailed whitehouse dot gov pointing out the news story and requesting the administration lift the threat so that Binyam Mohamed can present his defense case. I'm hoping that this is a detail hidden underneath domestic priorities, and that the no-tolerance policy on torture so clearly outlined in his first week's executive orders will continue until Obama's administration has rooted out all the moral rot of the last eight years.

[Batocchio]

Binyam Mohamed's treatment was despicable and the full truth should come out. However, there are many details missing from this story. Do you have more? It's unclear who exactly is making this call. The British government does not want to release this information to the British media. The charge is that this is because of pressure from the U.S. government. Does this mean the British government would happily supply this information without such pressure? I'm not sure of that, given their track record. I doubt it's just an excuse, either, but wonder if Milliband's statements and the decision itself are also shots across the bow. The Bush administration's argument in every detention case has always been that revealing the truth (of their misconduct) would somehow endanger national security, and here it looks like they added Britain's security as well, along with a characteristic bully move. Charming.

But I'm unclear on the Obama administration's role here. On Democracy Now this morning, they pointed out that John Bollinger and other high-ranking Bushies are still in place at State and other agencies. In this case, is State doing the pushing? Is Defense? Is Justice? Is the CIA? State offered the initial threat in the piece you quote. Not all of the Obama team is even confirmed yet. You probably saw the reports on how horrible the Gitmo and related records were, and what a mess it is going through them. And courts move slowly, responding to actions from months or years ago. We have federal judges in the U.S. still ruling on Bush era cases, and that'll be the situation for some time. I'd be a bit surprised if British judges were talking directly with the new U.S. State Department. Has Miliband, as he suggests, and who has he been talking to? I'd be completely unsurprised if he received some sort of "we're reviewing the situation" response. I can condemn the situation, but this is too thin and premature for me to write off the Obama administration just yet.

The point is, it's a mess, and they need to clean it up. If the Obama administration didn't know about this, they should know now, and should take action. If they did know and allowed this to go on, they need to be pressured to stop it. The same goes for investigations and prosecutions into torture and other abuses. There is no scenario where public pressure on the Obama administration to investigate, reveal and then prosecute human rights abuses is a bad thing. So let's get to it, and this is a good case to push. The chattering class are one of the biggest threats to getting anything done domestically, but cleaning up the Binyam Mohamed mess would send a strong, positive message to Britain and the world.

[sfHeath]

As quoted in the BBC news report today, this sounds much more like it's originating with the Obama administration rather than held over from the Bush administration:

The White House said it "thanked the UK government for its continued commitment to protect sensitive national security information". It added that this would "preserve the long-standing intelligence sharing relationship that enables both countries to protect their citizens".

Disturbing.

[Steve Hynd]

Battochio, the UK govt wouldn't be happy if the court ordered it to make the evidence public, but it would have to comply or appeal to the Lords under the Brit system. It would get no joy from the Lords, is the general opinion.

sf: definitely disturbing. Given that statement, Obama can hardly use ignorance as a defense.

Regards, C

[Batocchio]

Aha. Yeah, that White House statement was what I was looking for. Threat or no, truth, accountability and justice are the big issues. Time to start pushing on this.

[Peter G.]

Playing devil's advocate here. If information is relayed betweens governments with the assurance that the information will remain confidential allowing courts to breach that confidentiality and make the information public, regardless of what that information might be, sets a very bad precedent. This is not unlike courts compelling journalists to reveal their sources. Pretty soon you don't have any sources.

[Batocchio]

I've also read that Bushie Bellinger was involved with the original threat sent by Mathias, and Bellinger is still at State, but that's just background – the White House statement remains the real kicker, along with the actual court statement that's since been quoted. (I think that Reuters story was pretty early, since I've seen much more detail come in since.)

There may be angles I'm not seeing, but if the Obama administration really wanted to pursue torture prosecutions, and bypass the Beltway's insistence that seeing justice done would be terribly immoral (and even worse, uncivil), letting this U.K. case proceed with the relevant info might be a great way to do that. As it is, the Obama team is (at best) trying to control that process if not outright block it, and they need to be pressured on both this specific incident and on an overall investigation. It's hard to believe there's a legitimate security issue here when the basic story is already known and certain details could likely still be withheld/redacted if that were actually necessary. This seems to be about avoiding reading evidence of torture and mistreating into the British court record. There are some sharp, anti-torture people (in other words, sane and reality-based) coming into OLC and Justice, and I wonder what they'll have to say to State and Obama.

[Chris]

A blog reaches its ‘originality’ zenith by posting a list of the Google search terms that bring in its random visitors. It’s the ‘freshest’ way to post transgressive material and maintain a comfortable remove, to safely remind regular visitors that a blog’s author is ‘crazy’/’out there’ and sexually attractive.

[Chris]

Eddie is retired, but “as an ex-cop I looked for crime everywhere,” including those who flinch from the breakfast buffet. But he finds real crime when he stumbles on a counterfeiting ring that doubles as an ecstasy lab that just happens to be run by the Russian mafia. Branded a “Boca Knight” by the local media, Eddie reinvents himself as a private detective. While trying to find out who killed a country club leader, Eddie becomes a target of the Aryan Army.