|
The War Profiteers - War Crimes,
Kidnappings & Torture |
|
December 16th,
2009 - “Shameful Evidence of Britain’s Torture Involvement Suppressed” |
|
“Shameful Evidence of
Britain’s Torture Involvement Suppressed”, Court Hears “Embarrassing and shaming” evidence of Britain’s involvement in
torture has been suppressed by the Government, the Court of Appeal heard. From Daily Telegraph December 16, 2009 Sensitive admissions by the
CIA to the British security service over the ill-treatment of terror suspect
Binyam Mohamed raised the prospect of both UK and US governments being
exposed to ''serious criminal liability for an international war crime'',
said a QC. Mr Mohamed, a 31-year-old
British resident, alleges he was tortured while held by US agents in Pakistan
before being taken to Guantanamo Bay. Lawyers for Foreign
Secretary David Miliband are asking the appeal court to block decisions of
two senior judges in the High Court to disclose sensitive and confidential
material received from the US relating to those allegations. Today, the second day of the
hearing, Mr Mohamed's legal team argued: ''Admissions of serious international
war crimes cannot properly be described as confidential.'' The judges plan to re-insert
a number of paragraphs into judgments already handed down giving details of
the secret intelligence that were redacted following the intervention of the
Foreign Secretary. Mr Miliband says disclosure
could jeopardise the UK's intelligence-sharing relationship with the US. His appeal is being heard by
three of the country's most senior judges - the Lord Chief Justice, Lord
Judge; the Master of the Rolls, Lord Neuberger; and the President of the
Queen's Bench Division, Sir Anthony May. In an unprecedented attack
on senior judges, lawyers for David Miliband accused Lord Justice Thomas and
Mr Justice Lloyd Jones of taking a stance that was "both, in many
respects, unnecessary and profoundly damaging to the interests of this
country". Jonathan Sumption QC,
appearing for the Government, said the judges were "irresponsible"
when they concluded that a statement by US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton
about the consequence of disclosure was based on a misunderstanding and lack of
analysis. He added: "Mrs Clinton
was clearly not mistaken - nor were the views she was expressing analytically
defective." Mr Sumption said what
appeared to have gone wrong with the case was a "a breakdown of
trust" between the court and the Foreign Secretary over the submissions
made on behalf of the secretary of state. The "corrosive"
effect of that "instinctive distrust" had "got in the way of
the proper performance of the Divisional Court's (High Court's) task But Dinah Rose QC, appearing
for Mr Mohamed, accused Mr Sumption of attacking the judges "in pretty
intemperate tones". Ms Rose said: "Lord
Justice Thomas is a senior judge of the Court of Appeal. "It would perhaps be
surprising if he, together with Mr Justice Lloyd Jones, had acted in the
irresponsible fashion that was claimed by Mr Sumption yesterday and
today." Ms Rose observed Mr Sumption
had only entered the case recently, at court of appeal level, like "the
Government's US cavalry coming over the hill". He had "misunderstood
and innocently misrepresented the factual history of this case" and the
circumstances in which the judges came to their conclusions. The judges had scrutinised
the national security case "with exceptional care". The information they wished
to publish in the public interest "consisted only of admissions of
torture or cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment" and did not pose a
threat to national security. The material which the UK
and US governments were seeking to suppress "exposes both the CIA, and
crucially our own Government, not only to serious embarrassment - indeed
shame is a better word - but also to the prospect of serious criminal
liability for an international war crime". Ms Rose said: "The US
must have have understood in sending such information to the UK that the UK
is a responsible democracy and must, in some circumstances, come under an
obligation further to disclose that material. "It could never have
expected admissions of such serious criminal conduct could be covered up in
all the circumstances." The High Court was entitled
to find the material had "no operational intelligence sensitivity at
all", said Ms Rose. "How can it make any
difference if the precise methods the CIA admitted using on Mr Mohamed are
made public? "This material is no
different in kind or in substance to material already made public by the US
administration. "It is difficult to see
how there could be any long-term consequences arising from this court's
decision. "Since the US has now
publicly gone on record foreswearing torture, including all enhanced
interrogation techniques formerly endorsed by the Bush administration, it is
very difficult to see how this situation could recur." Mr Mohamed was still being
held at Guantanamo Bay awaiting trial at the time of the High Court's
original judgment - the first of six - in August last year, but has since
been released and has returned to the UK. He is fighting to prove he
was tortured and that the British authorities facilitated his detention and
knew about the wrongdoing to which he was being subjected. External link: http://tinyurl.com/yblhbps |