|
The War Profiteers - War Crimes,
Kidnappings & Torture |
|
October 26th,
2009 - Gitmo Torture: UK Wants Claims of Complicity to be Heard in Secret |
|
Guantánamo Torture: UK Wants
Claims of Complicity to be Heard in Secret By Vikram Dodd & Richard Norton-Taylor The Guardian October 26, 2009 The government wants
allegations that it was complicit in the torture by the US of Britons held as
terrorism suspects to be heard in secret. In documents seen by the
Guardian, lawyers for the government argue it must be allowed to present
evidence to the high court with the public excluded, otherwise Britain's
relations with other countries and its national security could be damaged.
The government also wants its evidence kept secret from defence lawyers. Lawyers for seven men who
are now all back in the UK after the US released them without charge will
tomorrow go to the high court in London to fight the government's attempt,
which they say is designed to cover the embarrassment of ministers and the
security services. The attempt to have
unprecedented secret hearings comes as part of a case brought by four British
residents and three UK citizens who were held in Guantánamo Bay. They are
suing and allege the government and the security services were complicit in
their rendition, unlawful detention and torture. In documents presented as
part of its case, the government has admitted: - One Briton, Martin
Mubanga, was repeatedly interviewed by security service officers while
"restrained with plastic leg cuffs"; - That the British security
services provided questions to be put to the detainees by others during
interrogation sessions. The detainees maintain the questioning followed
ill-treatment. The case is being brought
against the domestic security service, MI5, the foreign intelligence service,
MI6, the home and foreign offices and the attorney general. The seven men bringing the
lawsuit include Binyam Mohamed, who says he was tortured with the knowledge
of the British security and intelligence agencies. In a separate but parallel
case, the high court is locked in a fierce row with David Miliband, the
foreign secretary, over his refusal to disclose CIA information. Earlier this month, two
senior judges dismissed the foreign secretary's claims that disclosing evidence
of unlawful treatment would harm national security and threaten the UK's
vital intelligence-sharing arrangements with the US. Miliband is appealing
against the ruling. In the high court, lawyers
acting for the seven will urge Mr Justice Silber to reject MI5 and MI6
arguments that they should be able to rely on secret "closed
evidence" to make their case. The government filed a
witness statement from the Treasury solicitor David Mackie outlining its
defence. In it he explains the damage ministers and their lawyers believe
could be caused if information held by the security services is publicly
released. Mackie says in his witness statement that informants and the
agencies methods would be jeopardised: "Disclosure of the information …
would be likely to assist those whose purpose is to injure the security of
the UK and whose actions in the past have shown that they are willing to kill
innocent civilians." Mackie then details the
damage the government believes could be caused if material held by the Foreign
Office is disclosed: "The disclosure of some of the information held by
the FCO could prejudice the United Kingdom's bilateral relationships. The
effective conduct of international relations depends on maintaining trust and
confidence between governments." In its defence to Mubanga's
claim, the government admits that the security services provide questions to
be put by others during interrogation. Government lawyers, in
documents seen by the Guardian, said: "The security service interviewed
a number of these detainees and provided questions to be put to detainees who
were being interviewed by others. The security service undertook this role
because, as the UK agency with the most experience of running
intelligence-led counter-terrorist investigations in the UK, it was best
placed to understand and utilise the information received about threats
against the UK, or involving British nationals. At times these interviews
were facilitated by SIS officers and on occasions SIS officers conducted
interviews themselves." The documents show British
intelligence officers interrogated Mubanga in Guantánamo at least five times
while he was held in leg cuffs: "It is admitted that during all security
service interviews at Guantánamo Bay, Mr Mubanga was restrained with plastic
leg cuffs." The government denies,
saying "it would have been obvious", that Mubanga "was
malnourished or in great distress", as his lawyers suggest, and says
that while in US detention he received welfare visits from the Foreign
Office. Louise Christian, a lawyer
who represents Mubanga, said: "We believe the government is not trying
to protect national security but trying to protect itself from embarrassment
and from being sued for complicity in torture." Sapna Malik, a solicitor
acting for Mohamed said: "That the government is seeking to introduce
such unconstitutional and unfair measures by the back door only serves to
further raise suspicions about what they are trying to hide." Gareth Peirce, who is acting
for five of the seven claimants, including Moazzam Begg, who alleges he was
repeatedly tortured by the US, said: "The claimants' response to the
defendants' application for the introduction of closed procedures is one of
principle - an absolute and resounding 'No, not in our courts'." External link: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/oct/26/guantanamo-torture-claims-court-case |