Binyam Mohamed is (was?) a UK resident held in Guantánamo Bay.
Lieutenant-Colonel Yvonne Bradley, an American military lawyer, will step through the grand entrance of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in London tomorrow and demand the release of her client - a British resident who claims he was repeatedly tortured at the behest of US intelligence officials - from Guantánamo Bay. Bradley will also request the disclosure of 42 secret documents that allegedly chronicle not only how Binyam Mohamed was tortured, but may also corroborate claims that Britain was complicit in his treatment.
But first, Bradley, a US military attorney for 20 years, will reveal that Mohamed, 31, is dying in his Guantánamo cell and that conditions inside the Cuban prison camp have deteriorated badly since Barack Obama took office. Fifty of its 260 detainees are on hunger strike and, say witnesses, are being strapped to chairs and force-fed, with those who resist being beaten. At least 20 are described as being so unhealthy they are on a "critical list", according to Bradley.
Mohamed, who is suffering dramatic weight loss after a month-long hunger strike, has told Bradley, 45, that he is "very scared" of being attacked by guards, after witnessing a savage beating for a detainee who refused to be strapped down and have a feeding tube forced into his mouth. It is the first account Bradley has personally received of a detainee being physically assaulted in Guantánamo.
Bradley recently met Mohamed in Camp Delta's sparse visiting room and was shaken by his account of the state of affairs inside the notorious prison.
She said: "At least 50 people are on hunger strike, with 20 on the critical list, according to Binyam. The JTF [the Joint Task Force running Guantánamo] are not commenting because they do not want the public to know what is going on.
"Binyam has witnessed people being forcibly extracted from their cell. Swat teams in police gear come in and take the person out; if they resist, they are force-fed and then beaten. Binyam has seen this and has not witnessed this before. Guantánamo Bay is in the grip of a mass hunger strike and the numbers are growing; things are worsening.
"It is so bad that there are not enough chairs to strap them down and force-feed them for a two- or three-hour period to digest food through a feeding tube. Because there are not enough chairs the guards are having to force-feed them in shifts. After Binyam saw a nearby inmate being beaten it scared him and he decided he was not going to resist. He thought, 'I don't want to be beat, injured or killed.' Given his health situation, one good blow could be fatal," said Bradley.
"Binyam is continuing to lose weight and he is going to get worse. He has been told he is about to be released, but psychologically and physically he is declining."
It is conceivable that Mohamed himself may shortly return to London, heralding yet another political embarrassment for Foreign Secretary David Miliband, who already faces a tumultuous week over claims that he was keen to suppress evidence of torture.
On Tuesday, the unprecedented dispute between Miliband and the judiciary is set to reignite when High Court judges Lord Justice Thomas and Mr Justice Lloyd Jones decide whether to reopen the case which Mohamed believes substantiates his torture claims.
Meanwhile, in San Francisco, a little-publicised court case into the treatment of Mohamed will open. American civil liberties lawyers are hoping to shine a light on the defence firm that allegedly carried out the practice of "rendition" on behalf of the CIA. Jeppesen Dataplan, a Boeing subsidiary, helped to arrange rendition flights for several terror suspects, including Mohamed, to nations where they claim they were tortured.
The case was originally dismissed after the Bush administration asserted "state secrets privilege", indicating that it would endanger national security - the same argument used by Miliband. However, Obama has repeatedly stressed his willingness to be less secretive than his predecessor and a similar decision would lead to claims that the current administration is bent on suppressing evidence of torture.
Closer to home, the Observer has found evidence suggesting a broader unwillingness by Britain to confront the US over its war on terror programme. The Attorney General says it is "actively considering" possible criminal wrongdoings against MI5 and the CIA, but sources claim the government's senior lawyer has failed, after almost four months of looking into the issue, to request material from the US that may substantiate allegations of MI5 complicity in Mohamed's torture.
Suspicion is also growing that some sections of the US intelligence community would prefer Binyam did die inside Guantánamo. Silenced forever, only the sparse language of his diary would be left to recount his torture claims and interviewees with an MI5 officer, known only as Witness B. Such a scenario would also deny Mohamed the chance to personally sue the US, and possibly British authorities, over his treatment.
But if Mohamed survives to come back to London, his experiences of the past six years promise a harrowing journey through the dark underbelly of the war on terror. For Miliband, the questions concerning Britain's role may have only just begun.
Also see:
David Miliband defends decision not to release Guantánamo torture evidence
5 Feb 2009:
Foreign secretary says publishing documents against wishes of the US would have caused 'real and significant damage' to national security and international relations of UK
Guantánamo: 2002-09?
guardian.co.uk © Guardian News and Media Limited 2009
Sunday, February 8, 2009
Freedom Exemplified
Former KKK member apologizes to John Lewis for beating
Confession and Finding forgiveness years later:
A link to the CNN video from Saturday, Feb 7, is here:
here
Confession and Finding forgiveness years later:
A link to the CNN video from Saturday, Feb 7, is here:
here
Palestinians: Steadfast before Goliath (nonviolent peaceful struggle against occupation)
here
By Dr. Mustafa Barghouthi, a physician, is general secretary of the Palestinian National Initiative. He is a member of the Palestinian Parliament and was a presidential candidate in 2005. He is a campaigner for grassroots democracy and internal reform as well as a leading figure in the nonviolent, peaceful struggle against the occupation.
By Dr. Mustafa Barghouthi, a physician, is general secretary of the Palestinian National Initiative. He is a member of the Palestinian Parliament and was a presidential candidate in 2005. He is a campaigner for grassroots democracy and internal reform as well as a leading figure in the nonviolent, peaceful struggle against the occupation.
Saturday, February 7, 2009
Various Just In: Journalists/Activists Beaten/War/Krugman/Two Cows
Various Just In: Journalists/Activists Beaten/War/Krugman
Israeli military beat up and threaten journalists - humanitarian aid personel
here
The Nation: Obama: no more escalation (NO MORE WAR!)
here
The Nation: Crash Landings: Paul Krugman's Depression Economics (a sweeping piece on Krugman's startling concerns over time until now)
here
TWO COWS: related to the Krugman topic above yet independent
Using a farmer with two cows is is a popular way to explain complex economic systems. Quite fitting to review these in light of the current worldwide economic crisis that seems to be hitting Iceland the worst.I suggest you take the time to seriously study these.21 Economic Models … explained with cowsSOCIALISM
You have 2 cows.
You give one to your neighbour.COMMUNISM
You have 2 cows.
The State takes both and gives you some milk.FASCISM
You have 2 cows.
The State takes both and sells you some milk.NAZISM
You have 2 cows.
The State takes both and shoots you.BUREAUCRATISM
You have 2 cows.
The State takes both, shoots one, milks the other, and then throws the milk away…TRADITIONAL CAPITALISM
You have two cows.
You sell one and buy a bull.
Your herd multiplies, and the economy grows.
You sell them and retire on the income.SURREALISM
You have two giraffes.
The government requires you to take harmonica lessonsAN AMERICAN CORPORATION
You have two cows.
You sell one, and force the other to produce the milk of four cows.
Later, you hire a consultant to analyse why the cow has dropped dead.VENTURE CAPITALISM - AN ICELANDIC CORPORATION
You have two cows.
You sell three of them to your publicly listed company, using letters of credit opened by
your brother-in-law at the bank, then execute a debt/equity swap with an associated
general offer so that you get all four cows back, with a tax exemption for five cows.
The milk rights of the six cows are transferred via an intermediary to a Cayman Island
Company secretly owned by the majority shareholder who sells the rights to all seven
cows back to your listed company. The annual report says the company owns eight cows,
with an option on one more. You sell one cow to buy a new president of the United States,
leaving you with nine cows. No balance sheet provided with the release. The public then
buys your bull.A FRENCH CORPORATION
You have two cows.
You go on strike, organise a riot, and block the roads, because you want three cows.A JAPANESE CORPORATION
You have two cows.
You redesign them so they are one-tenth the size of an ordinary cow and produce twenty
times the milk. You then create a clever cow cartoon image called ‘Cowkimon’ and market it worldwide.A GERMAN CORPORATION
You have two cows.
You re-engineer them so they live for 100 years, eat once a month, and milk themselves.AN ITALIAN CORPORATION
You have two cows, but you don’t know where they are.
You decide to have lunch.A RUSSIAN CORPORATION
You have two cows.
You count them and learn you have five cows.
You count them again and learn you have 42 cows.
You count them again and learn you have 2 cows.
You stop counting cows and open another bottle of vodka.A SWISS CORPORATION
You have 5000 cows. None of them belong to you.
You charge the owners for storing them.A CHINESE CORPORATION
You have two cows.
You have 300 people milking them.
You claim that you have full employment, and high bovine productivity.
You arrest the newsman who reported the real situation.AN INDIAN CORPORATION
You have two cows.
You worship them.A BRITISH CORPORATION
You have two cows.
Both are mad.AN IRAQI CORPORATION
Everyone thinks you have lots of cows.
You tell them that you have none.
No-one believes you, so they bomb you and invade your country.
You still have no cows, but at least now you are part of Democracy….AN AUSTRALIAN CORPORATION
You have two cows.
Business seems pretty good.
You close the office and go for a few beers to celebrate.A NEW ZEALAND CORPORATION
You have two cows.
The one on the left looks very attractive
Israeli military beat up and threaten journalists - humanitarian aid personel
here
The Nation: Obama: no more escalation (NO MORE WAR!)
here
The Nation: Crash Landings: Paul Krugman's Depression Economics (a sweeping piece on Krugman's startling concerns over time until now)
here
TWO COWS: related to the Krugman topic above yet independent
Using a farmer with two cows is is a popular way to explain complex economic systems. Quite fitting to review these in light of the current worldwide economic crisis that seems to be hitting Iceland the worst.I suggest you take the time to seriously study these.21 Economic Models … explained with cowsSOCIALISM
You have 2 cows.
You give one to your neighbour.COMMUNISM
You have 2 cows.
The State takes both and gives you some milk.FASCISM
You have 2 cows.
The State takes both and sells you some milk.NAZISM
You have 2 cows.
The State takes both and shoots you.BUREAUCRATISM
You have 2 cows.
The State takes both, shoots one, milks the other, and then throws the milk away…TRADITIONAL CAPITALISM
You have two cows.
You sell one and buy a bull.
Your herd multiplies, and the economy grows.
You sell them and retire on the income.SURREALISM
You have two giraffes.
The government requires you to take harmonica lessonsAN AMERICAN CORPORATION
You have two cows.
You sell one, and force the other to produce the milk of four cows.
Later, you hire a consultant to analyse why the cow has dropped dead.VENTURE CAPITALISM - AN ICELANDIC CORPORATION
You have two cows.
You sell three of them to your publicly listed company, using letters of credit opened by
your brother-in-law at the bank, then execute a debt/equity swap with an associated
general offer so that you get all four cows back, with a tax exemption for five cows.
The milk rights of the six cows are transferred via an intermediary to a Cayman Island
Company secretly owned by the majority shareholder who sells the rights to all seven
cows back to your listed company. The annual report says the company owns eight cows,
with an option on one more. You sell one cow to buy a new president of the United States,
leaving you with nine cows. No balance sheet provided with the release. The public then
buys your bull.A FRENCH CORPORATION
You have two cows.
You go on strike, organise a riot, and block the roads, because you want three cows.A JAPANESE CORPORATION
You have two cows.
You redesign them so they are one-tenth the size of an ordinary cow and produce twenty
times the milk. You then create a clever cow cartoon image called ‘Cowkimon’ and market it worldwide.A GERMAN CORPORATION
You have two cows.
You re-engineer them so they live for 100 years, eat once a month, and milk themselves.AN ITALIAN CORPORATION
You have two cows, but you don’t know where they are.
You decide to have lunch.A RUSSIAN CORPORATION
You have two cows.
You count them and learn you have five cows.
You count them again and learn you have 42 cows.
You count them again and learn you have 2 cows.
You stop counting cows and open another bottle of vodka.A SWISS CORPORATION
You have 5000 cows. None of them belong to you.
You charge the owners for storing them.A CHINESE CORPORATION
You have two cows.
You have 300 people milking them.
You claim that you have full employment, and high bovine productivity.
You arrest the newsman who reported the real situation.AN INDIAN CORPORATION
You have two cows.
You worship them.A BRITISH CORPORATION
You have two cows.
Both are mad.AN IRAQI CORPORATION
Everyone thinks you have lots of cows.
You tell them that you have none.
No-one believes you, so they bomb you and invade your country.
You still have no cows, but at least now you are part of Democracy….AN AUSTRALIAN CORPORATION
You have two cows.
Business seems pretty good.
You close the office and go for a few beers to celebrate.A NEW ZEALAND CORPORATION
You have two cows.
The one on the left looks very attractive
The Last of the Afghans and Six "Ghost Prisoners...(Intro)
The Guantánamo Files: Additional Chapters Online - The Last of the Afghans (Part One) and Six “Ghost Prisoners”
7.2.09
As part of my ongoing project to record the stories of all the prisoners held at Guantánamo, I’ve just posted the eleventh of 12 additional online chapters supplementing my book The Guantánamo Files: The Stories of the 774 Detainees in America’s Illegal Prison (published by Pluto Press, and available from Amazon here and here). This additional chapter complements Chapter 14 of The Guantánamo Files, looking at the stories of 23 prisoners not mentioned in the book, either because their stories were not available at the time of writing, or to keep the book at a manageable length. It also includes the stories of six prisoners not mentioned in Chapter 16 of The Guantánamo Files, which covers “extraordinary rendition” and secret prisons.
With just one more online chapter to complete, the mission I set myself three years ago — to record the stories of all the prisoners in Guantánamo — is now close to completion, and will be followed by the first definitive prisoner list, identifying not only those who are still held, and those who have been released (and the dates they were released), but also those who have been cleared for release, whose plight is one of the major stumbling blocks to Barack Obama’s promise to close Guantánamo within a year, as the majority of these prisoners cannot be repatriated because of fears that they will be tortured in their home countries.
Of the 779 prisoners who have been held at Guantánamo, the stories of around 10 percent are unknown, because they were released in 2003 or 2004, and the Pentagon has not been obliged to release and information relating to these prisoners, but the rest will be sourced and referenced in the definitive list. Links will be provided to the stories of half of these prisoners, and references will be provided for the other half, identifying where their stories can be found in The Guantánamo Files. The list will, I hope, be a useful research tool, not just in identifying the stories of those who have been released, but also as an aid to analyzing the stories of those who are still held, to compare the Bush administration’s long-standing assertions that the remaining prisoners are the “hardcore” with a more objective view, which, in the majority of cases, questions the quality of the so-called evidence against them.
This eleventh online chapter features the stories of 17 of the 220 or so Afghan prisoners who have been held at Guantánamo, revealing, as I also discussed at length in The Guantánamo Files, how the majority of the Afghans were seized not because they were a threat to the US or its allies, but largely because they were sold to US forces by their Afghan allies or were seized in raids based on dubious intelligence. Three of those discussed — including Mohamed Jawad, put forward for trial by Military Commission — were juveniles at the time of their capture. The chapter also includes the stories of half-a-dozen stray foreigners. In addition, I look at the stories of six of the 50 or so Guantánamo prisoners who were subjected to “extraordinary rendition” and detention in secret prisons before their transfer to Guantánamo, and cast an objective eye on the supposed evidence used to justify their extraordinarily brutal treatment.
To view these online chapters and more from Andy - GO
here
7.2.09
As part of my ongoing project to record the stories of all the prisoners held at Guantánamo, I’ve just posted the eleventh of 12 additional online chapters supplementing my book The Guantánamo Files: The Stories of the 774 Detainees in America’s Illegal Prison (published by Pluto Press, and available from Amazon here and here). This additional chapter complements Chapter 14 of The Guantánamo Files, looking at the stories of 23 prisoners not mentioned in the book, either because their stories were not available at the time of writing, or to keep the book at a manageable length. It also includes the stories of six prisoners not mentioned in Chapter 16 of The Guantánamo Files, which covers “extraordinary rendition” and secret prisons.
With just one more online chapter to complete, the mission I set myself three years ago — to record the stories of all the prisoners in Guantánamo — is now close to completion, and will be followed by the first definitive prisoner list, identifying not only those who are still held, and those who have been released (and the dates they were released), but also those who have been cleared for release, whose plight is one of the major stumbling blocks to Barack Obama’s promise to close Guantánamo within a year, as the majority of these prisoners cannot be repatriated because of fears that they will be tortured in their home countries.
Of the 779 prisoners who have been held at Guantánamo, the stories of around 10 percent are unknown, because they were released in 2003 or 2004, and the Pentagon has not been obliged to release and information relating to these prisoners, but the rest will be sourced and referenced in the definitive list. Links will be provided to the stories of half of these prisoners, and references will be provided for the other half, identifying where their stories can be found in The Guantánamo Files. The list will, I hope, be a useful research tool, not just in identifying the stories of those who have been released, but also as an aid to analyzing the stories of those who are still held, to compare the Bush administration’s long-standing assertions that the remaining prisoners are the “hardcore” with a more objective view, which, in the majority of cases, questions the quality of the so-called evidence against them.
This eleventh online chapter features the stories of 17 of the 220 or so Afghan prisoners who have been held at Guantánamo, revealing, as I also discussed at length in The Guantánamo Files, how the majority of the Afghans were seized not because they were a threat to the US or its allies, but largely because they were sold to US forces by their Afghan allies or were seized in raids based on dubious intelligence. Three of those discussed — including Mohamed Jawad, put forward for trial by Military Commission — were juveniles at the time of their capture. The chapter also includes the stories of half-a-dozen stray foreigners. In addition, I look at the stories of six of the 50 or so Guantánamo prisoners who were subjected to “extraordinary rendition” and detention in secret prisons before their transfer to Guantánamo, and cast an objective eye on the supposed evidence used to justify their extraordinarily brutal treatment.
To view these online chapters and more from Andy - GO
here
STARTLING items on TORTURE
PANETTA: NO TORTURE PROSECUTIONS
Pam Hess reports: The Obama administration will not prosecute CIA officers who participated in harsh interrogations that critics say crossed the line into torture, CIA Director-nominee Leon Panetta said Friday. Asked by The Associated Press if that was official policy, Panetta said, "That is the case."
Friday, February 06, 2009
Only Sorta Reality Based
by digby
At the insistence of semi-insane GOP senator Kit Bond, Panetta just retracted his statement from yesterday that the United States' extraordinary rendition program had kidnapped terrorists suspects and transferred them to other countries to be tortured. He wasforced to say that they had been transferred to be "questioned," and had to promise that he would never say such a thing again and would make sure that nobody who worked for him ever said anything else -- We're still in the up is down, black is white, "you can believe me or you can believe your lyin' eyes" era. In Washington, credibility is determined by how well you deny reality.
Yes, I get emotional about Torture! 2 Minute Very Effective Video
here
Bush intimidated Britain over letting out torture evidence
here
Various from US: Bill of Rights Defense Committee:
here
- catch these quick as there may as yet be no long archives - please help get this url out as it's a little known treasure of a link daily -- also here :
2/7, Kathy Gannon, Associated Press, Guantanamo prisoner returns, and is arrested again
2/7, Editorial, Los Angeles Times, Torture on trial?
2/7, Peter Finn & Dan Eggen, Washington Post, Obama Talks to Sept. 11, USS Cole Families About Guantanamo Prison
2/6, Corey McKenna, Government Technology, Homeland Security Intelligence Bill Aims to Improve Sharing
2/6, Agence France-Presse, Hearing on CIA rendition a test for Obama: rights group
Pam Hess reports: The Obama administration will not prosecute CIA officers who participated in harsh interrogations that critics say crossed the line into torture, CIA Director-nominee Leon Panetta said Friday. Asked by The Associated Press if that was official policy, Panetta said, "That is the case."
Friday, February 06, 2009
Only Sorta Reality Based
by digby
At the insistence of semi-insane GOP senator Kit Bond, Panetta just retracted his statement from yesterday that the United States' extraordinary rendition program had kidnapped terrorists suspects and transferred them to other countries to be tortured. He wasforced to say that they had been transferred to be "questioned," and had to promise that he would never say such a thing again and would make sure that nobody who worked for him ever said anything else -- We're still in the up is down, black is white, "you can believe me or you can believe your lyin' eyes" era. In Washington, credibility is determined by how well you deny reality.
Yes, I get emotional about Torture! 2 Minute Very Effective Video
here
Bush intimidated Britain over letting out torture evidence
here
Various from US: Bill of Rights Defense Committee:
here
- catch these quick as there may as yet be no long archives - please help get this url out as it's a little known treasure of a link daily -- also here :
2/7, Kathy Gannon, Associated Press, Guantanamo prisoner returns, and is arrested again
2/7, Editorial, Los Angeles Times, Torture on trial?
2/7, Peter Finn & Dan Eggen, Washington Post, Obama Talks to Sept. 11, USS Cole Families About Guantanamo Prison
2/6, Corey McKenna, Government Technology, Homeland Security Intelligence Bill Aims to Improve Sharing
2/6, Agence France-Presse, Hearing on CIA rendition a test for Obama: rights group
Thursday, February 5, 2009
ACT NOW to help save BINYAM MOHAMED, a British Resident at GTMO who's been tortured and is near death
ACTIONS SUGGESTED on behalf of Binyam Mohamed who is facing death or suicide in GTMO right now:
GO for letter model (Personalised best so rewrite in your own words if you have time)address for British & US, etc. here
Email Letter: AskDOJ@usdoj.gov
If you would like to send the letter by post, the address is: Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20530-0001 USA
For talking points: there have been a number of articles published in well-known periodicals today about Binyam's present dilemna:
here
here This one has a short video with British official's alibi...
here
Find more at Cage Prisoners: here
The following is one of a series featured by Andy Worthington, the author of the most concise and complete works on Guantanamo Prisoners (a number - like Binyam, have experienced torture through extraordinary renditions.)
There was a time, as two senior judges in the British High court reported on Wednesday (PDF), when “The suppression of reports of wrongdoing by officials (in circumstances which cannot in any way affect national security) would be inimical to the rule of law and the proper functioning of a democracy.” As the judges — Lord Justice Thomas and Mr. Justice Lloyd Jones — noted, correctly, “Championing the rule of law, not suppressing it, is the cornerstone of a democracy.”
However, in the 21st century, as Lord Justice Thomas and Mr. Justice Lloyd Jones reluctantly conceded, the right of a terror suspect to have any information revealed publicly about a two-year ordeal involving “extraordinary rendition” and torture could be overruled by the British government, on the basis that the US government had threatened to re-evaluate its intelligence sharing relationship with the UK, which “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.”
Binyam’s story
The case in question is that of Binyam Mohamed, a British resident, seized in Pakistan in April 2002, who was sent by the CIA to be tortured in Morocco in July 2002, and was then flown to Afghanistan in January 2004, where his torture continued, at a CIA facility known as the “Dark Prison,” until he finally resurfaced in May that year at the US prison at Bagram airbase. As a result of his gruesome two-year ordeal, he made two false confessions — at Bagram, and at Guantánamo, where he was transferred in September 2004 — that he had been a member of al-Qaeda and had been involved in a plot to detonate a radioactive “dirty bomb” in New York.
The confessions formed the basis for Binyam’s case being put forward for a trial by Military Commission at Guantánamo. This rigged system, conceived by Vice President Dick Cheney and his close advisers in November 2001, was designed to secure convictions, and was condemned by its own government-appointed military defense lawyers as unjust. Binyam was put forward for trial not once, but twice; firstly, in November 2005, until the entire system was ruled illegal by the Supreme Court in June 2006, and again, following the system’s shameful resuscitation by Congress, in June 2008.
Of course, torture, and the use of confessions obtained through the use of torture, are prohibited in all countries that claim to adhere to the rule of law, but since August 2005, when Binyam’s account of his torture was first revealed to the world (after being inexplicably cleared by US military censors), his lawyers at Reprieve, the London-based legal action charity, have struggled not only to hold the US administration accountable for its crimes, but even to persuade a single US official to admit anything about his whereabouts between July 2002 and May 2004, when, to all intents and purposes, he disappeared off the face of the earth.
Binyam’s quest for justice in the UK
In April last year, having hooked up with solicitors at Leigh Day & Co., Binyam’s lawyers decided, instead, to request information relating to Binyam’s rendition and torture from the British government. They knew from Binyam’s own account — and from limited information revealed by the UK authorities — that two British agents had visited him in May 2002, when he was being held in Pakistani custody (under US supervision), and Binyam claimed that one of the agents had threatened him if he did not cooperate, and had also indicated that he knew that he was going to be rendered to torture in a third country. They also knew that Binyam had said that in Morocco, where he endured horrors that would shock the conscience, he reached his lowest point not when his genitals were being cut with a razor or when he was being beaten senseless, but when his torturers asked him questions about his life in London that could only have been supplied by the British intelligence services, and he realized that he had been betrayed by the country that he called his home.
When the British government refused to supply this information, Binyam’s lawyers sued, and were rewarded with a judicial review, which took place over two weeks last summer. At the end of the review, which focused on whether or not Binyam’s lawyers should have access to 42 classified documents in the possession of the government, Lord Justice Thomas and Mr. Justice Lloyd Jones delivered a highly critical judgment, lambasting the intelligence services for sending agents to interrogate Binyam in May 2002, because he was being held illegally in Pakistan, and also for providing and receiving intelligence about him from July 2002 until February 2003, when they knew that he was being held incommunicado, and should not have been involved without receiving cast-iron assurances about his welfare. The relationship of the United Kingdom to the United States, they stated, “went far beyond that of a bystander or witness to the alleged wrongdoing.”
The judges also seized on an admission, made on behalf of the Foreign Secretary, David Miliband, that Binyam had “established an arguable case” that, until his transfer to Guantánamo, “he was subject to cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment by or on behalf of the United States,” and was also “subject to torture during such detention by or on behalf of the United States,” and ruled that, as a result, the British government was required to hand over the evidence in its possession to his lawyers.
A Transatlantic game of cat and mouse ensued, which would have been farcical had its outcome not been of such grave importance. In a series of concessions, the US State Department suggested that, in relation to Binyam’s forthcoming trial by Military Commission, the 42 documents would be made available to his lawyers (something that, in a startling insight into the lawless world of the Commissions, could not even be taken for granted). In response to the US concessions, the Foreign Secretary submitted a Public Interest Immunity Certificate, essentially pleading with the judges not to order disclosure of the documents, because it would “seriously harm the existing intelligence arrangements between the United Kingdom and the United States.”
Developments in the United States
This was at the end of August, and although the judges were not persuaded, as the Certificate “did not adequately cover the issue of torture,” they gave the Foreign Secretary six weeks to come up with a better reason. In the meantime, on October 6, the 42 documents — and the question of their disclosure — resurfaced in a US court, in relation to Binyam’s habeas corpus case, which involved his right to ask an impartial judge why he was being held. This had initially been filed in 2005, but its progress had been derailed by shoddy laws passed in the wake of the Supreme Court’s ruling, in June 2004, that the Guantánamo prisoners had habeas corpus rights, and could not be imprisoned indefinitely without charge or trial, and it was only reinstated in June 2008, when the Supreme Court revisited its habeas ruling and reinforced the prisoners’ right to seek an explanation for their seemingly endless detention.
Finally confronted by a US judge demanding proof of the charges against Binyam, and also demanding that the 42 documents be handed over to his lawyers, the US government responded by dropping the allegations about the “dirty bomb” plot, and disclosing seven of the 42 documents (in heavily redacted form), which led to another bout of judicial wrangling until finally, at the end of October, all the documents were handed over.
By this time, however, the charges against Binyam for his trial by Military Commission had also been dropped, primarily because his former prosecutor, Lt. Col. Darrel Vandeveld, had resigned spectacularly in September, cursing the Commissions for having turned “a true believer into someone who felt truly deceived,” and pointing out, with fearless conviction, that — as the furore over the 42 documents showed — the Commissions’ prosecution office was, both by accident and design, unwilling and incapable of providing defence attorneys with the information they required to mount an adequate defence.
British judges court the media
By November, therefore, the only outstanding issue facing Lord Justice Thomas and Mr. Justice Lloyd Jones related to “seven very short paragraphs amounting to about 25 lines,” written by the judges, which summarized US intelligence reports, sent to their British counterparts, relating to Binyam’s detention in Pakistan in April and May 2002. These had been cut from the judgment in August at the Foreign Secretary’s request, but even though they did not cover Binyam’s ordeal in Morocco or Afghanistan, the judges regarded their summary as being “highly material to [Binyam]’s allegation that he had been subjected to torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment and to the commission of criminal offences,” and they illuminated their remarks with reference to the potential prosecution of war crimes under the International Criminal Court Act of 2001, and of torture under the Criminal Justice Act of 1988, which implemented the provisions of the UN Convention Against Torture.
In an unusual move, the judges then invited representatives of the media to submit reasons why their summary should be made publicly available, citing numerous precedents — including, most pithily, Lord Shaw’s comment during a ruling in 1913, “Where there is no publicity there is no justice” — but based, fundamentally, on their “clear view” that “the requirements of open justice, the rule of law and democratic accountability demonstrate the very considerable public interest in making the redacted paragraphs public, particularly given the constitutional importance of the prohibition against torture and its historic link from the seventeenth century in this jurisdiction to the necessity of open justice.”
“Open justice” v. a “threat” from the United States
Wednesday’s ruling was, therefore, a response to the media submissions, and was supposed to bring an end to the High Court’s involvement with Binyam’s case, but the judges’ decision to let their desire for “open justice” be overruled by what was repeatedly described as a “threat” by the US government to derail the sharing of intelligence between the US and the UK paved the way for an extraordinary response in the media.
Largely overlooked was the judges’ expectation that, despite their decision to respect the Foreign Secretary’s request to prevent disclosure, the Intelligence Services Committee (ISC), an independent investigative committee that has already looked into Binyam’s case, in 2005 and 2007, will be able to follow up where they have chosen not to, and, with the 42 documents already in their possession, will be able to “ask searching and difficult questions” from witnesses in the intelligence services “on the very important issues raised.”
Instead, what was picked up on was the essence of the long legal struggle between Justice on the one hand, striving to disclose evidence of torture, and The Torturers on the other, bullying principled men into silence.
On Channel 4 News (transcript here), David Miliband played down talk of a “threat” by the United States, and attempted to defend his advice to the judges, repeatedly pointing out to Jon Snow that intelligence cooperation depends on a “fundamental principle of confidentiality” between both parties. Ignoring the argument that there was a compelling case to be made for revealing information about British complicity in torture, he described the material contained in the documents as “American information” and stated, “Imagine how we would feel if our secrets were displayed, or put into the public domain, by a foreign court.”
However, far from reassuring Jon Snow, Miliband’s stance led to further challenges. Snow asked, “Have you checked whether this threat — and it is a threat, because the judges call it a threat — still stands under the Obama administration?” and the Foreign Secretary came up with a careful response that did nothing to reassure anyone that justice would eventually be seen to be done, stating, “There’s no evidence that it doesn’t stand.”
In the most heated exchange, Snow asked whether the British government was “not perhaps as keen as the Americans” to keep the case secret because it revealed British complicity in torture, to which Miliband responded by calling Snow’s question a “really outrageous suggestion,” and insisting, “We never condone or authorize the use of torture.”
However, Jon Snow surely had a point. As the judges themselves declared, in two paragraphs in their judgment which contained a palpable air of bewilderment,
[T]here was nothing in the redacted paragraphs that would identify any agent or any facility or any secret means of intelligence gathering. Nor could anything in the redacted paragraphs possibly be described as “highly sensitive classified US intelligence,” It followed that it was (and remains) our view that the ordinary business of intelligence gathering would not be affected by putting into the public domain the redacted paragraphs as they contain only a short summary of what was reported to the United Kingdom authorities as to what they say happened to BM [Binyam] during his detention in Pakistan in April and May 2002.
Moreover, in the light of the long history of the common law and democracy which we share with the United States, it was in our view difficult to conceive that a democratically elected and accountable government could possibly have any rational objection to placing into the public domain such a summary of what its own officials reported, as to how a detainee was treated by them and which made no disclosure of sensitive intelligence matters. Indeed we did not consider that a democracy governed by the rule of law would expect a court in another democracy to suppress a summary of the evidence contained in reports by its own officials or officials of another State where the evidence was relevant to allegations of torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, politically embarrassing though it might be.
Conclusion: covering up war crimes
And there, perhaps, is the essential clue to the meaning of yesterday’s judgment. For the Bush administration officials who authorized whatever happened to Binyam in Pakistan in April and May 2002 — and the two years of torture that followed — disclosure of the judges’ summary would be “politically embarrassing.” In a more sane world, it would also, probably, constitute evidence of US complicity in war crimes, but the Bush administration did all in its power to redefine torture so that it could avoid ever being held accountable for its actions. For the British government, however, there was, and is, no escape clause, and despite David Miliband’s protestations, it seems clear that Jon Snow was correct to accuse the Foreign Secretary of a desire to keep the information hidden at all costs for selfish reasons.
It is not just because of the “special relationship” that parties on both sides of the Atlantic want to keep the details of Binyam Mohamed’s torture hidden; it is also because, in the UK, those who were complicit in it — or who turned a blind eye to it — could find themselves accused of complicity in war crimes. For Binyam, the grisly truth is that, despite the British government’s efforts to secure his release, which, as Miliband noted, had been mentioned and appreciated by the judges, the British authorities have been obliged to choose between opening the door to public knowledge of illegal British activities in the “War on Terror” or sacrificing Binyam Mohamed, and have chosen the latter.
See several other NEW items and plenty of others on Binyam at here
Andy Worthington is the author of The Guantánamo Files: The Stories of the 774 Detainees in America’s Illegal Prison (published by Pluto Press, distributed by Macmillan in the US, and available from Amazon — click on the following for the US and the UK). To receive new articles in your inbox, please subscribe to my RSS feed.
This article was written exclusively for Cageprisoners.
For a sequence of articles relating to Binyam Mohamed, see the following: Urgent appeal for British resident Binyam Mohamed, “close to suicide” in Guantánamo (December 2007), Guantánamo: Torture victim Binyam Mohamed sues British government for evidence (May 2008), Binyam Mohamed’s letter from Guantánamo to Gordon Brown (May 2008), Guantánamo trials: critical judge sacked, British torture victim charged (June 2008), Binyam Mohamed: UK court grants judicial review over torture allegations, as US files official charges (June 2008), Binyam Mohamed’s judicial review: judges grill British agent and question fairness of Guantánamo trials (August 2008), High Court rules against UK and US in case of Guantánamo torture victim Binyam Mohamed (August 2008), In a plea from Guantánamo, Binyam Mohamed talks of “betrayal” by the UK (September 2008), US Justice Department drops “dirty bomb plot” allegation against Binyam Mohamed (October 2008), Meltdown at the Guantánamo Trials (October 2008), Guilt By Torture: Binyam Mohamed’s Transatlantic Quest for Justice (November 2008), A History of Music Torture in the “War on Terror” (December 2008), Is Robert Gates Guilty of Perjury in Guantánamo Torture Case? (December 2008), British torture victim Binyam Mohamed to be released from Guantánamo (January
GO for letter model (Personalised best so rewrite in your own words if you have time)address for British & US, etc. here
Email Letter: AskDOJ@usdoj.gov
If you would like to send the letter by post, the address is: Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20530-0001 USA
For talking points: there have been a number of articles published in well-known periodicals today about Binyam's present dilemna:
here
here This one has a short video with British official's alibi...
here
Find more at Cage Prisoners: here
The following is one of a series featured by Andy Worthington, the author of the most concise and complete works on Guantanamo Prisoners (a number - like Binyam, have experienced torture through extraordinary renditions.)
There was a time, as two senior judges in the British High court reported on Wednesday (PDF), when “The suppression of reports of wrongdoing by officials (in circumstances which cannot in any way affect national security) would be inimical to the rule of law and the proper functioning of a democracy.” As the judges — Lord Justice Thomas and Mr. Justice Lloyd Jones — noted, correctly, “Championing the rule of law, not suppressing it, is the cornerstone of a democracy.”
However, in the 21st century, as Lord Justice Thomas and Mr. Justice Lloyd Jones reluctantly conceded, the right of a terror suspect to have any information revealed publicly about a two-year ordeal involving “extraordinary rendition” and torture could be overruled by the British government, on the basis that the US government had threatened to re-evaluate its intelligence sharing relationship with the UK, which “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.”
Binyam’s story
The case in question is that of Binyam Mohamed, a British resident, seized in Pakistan in April 2002, who was sent by the CIA to be tortured in Morocco in July 2002, and was then flown to Afghanistan in January 2004, where his torture continued, at a CIA facility known as the “Dark Prison,” until he finally resurfaced in May that year at the US prison at Bagram airbase. As a result of his gruesome two-year ordeal, he made two false confessions — at Bagram, and at Guantánamo, where he was transferred in September 2004 — that he had been a member of al-Qaeda and had been involved in a plot to detonate a radioactive “dirty bomb” in New York.
The confessions formed the basis for Binyam’s case being put forward for a trial by Military Commission at Guantánamo. This rigged system, conceived by Vice President Dick Cheney and his close advisers in November 2001, was designed to secure convictions, and was condemned by its own government-appointed military defense lawyers as unjust. Binyam was put forward for trial not once, but twice; firstly, in November 2005, until the entire system was ruled illegal by the Supreme Court in June 2006, and again, following the system’s shameful resuscitation by Congress, in June 2008.
Of course, torture, and the use of confessions obtained through the use of torture, are prohibited in all countries that claim to adhere to the rule of law, but since August 2005, when Binyam’s account of his torture was first revealed to the world (after being inexplicably cleared by US military censors), his lawyers at Reprieve, the London-based legal action charity, have struggled not only to hold the US administration accountable for its crimes, but even to persuade a single US official to admit anything about his whereabouts between July 2002 and May 2004, when, to all intents and purposes, he disappeared off the face of the earth.
Binyam’s quest for justice in the UK
In April last year, having hooked up with solicitors at Leigh Day & Co., Binyam’s lawyers decided, instead, to request information relating to Binyam’s rendition and torture from the British government. They knew from Binyam’s own account — and from limited information revealed by the UK authorities — that two British agents had visited him in May 2002, when he was being held in Pakistani custody (under US supervision), and Binyam claimed that one of the agents had threatened him if he did not cooperate, and had also indicated that he knew that he was going to be rendered to torture in a third country. They also knew that Binyam had said that in Morocco, where he endured horrors that would shock the conscience, he reached his lowest point not when his genitals were being cut with a razor or when he was being beaten senseless, but when his torturers asked him questions about his life in London that could only have been supplied by the British intelligence services, and he realized that he had been betrayed by the country that he called his home.
When the British government refused to supply this information, Binyam’s lawyers sued, and were rewarded with a judicial review, which took place over two weeks last summer. At the end of the review, which focused on whether or not Binyam’s lawyers should have access to 42 classified documents in the possession of the government, Lord Justice Thomas and Mr. Justice Lloyd Jones delivered a highly critical judgment, lambasting the intelligence services for sending agents to interrogate Binyam in May 2002, because he was being held illegally in Pakistan, and also for providing and receiving intelligence about him from July 2002 until February 2003, when they knew that he was being held incommunicado, and should not have been involved without receiving cast-iron assurances about his welfare. The relationship of the United Kingdom to the United States, they stated, “went far beyond that of a bystander or witness to the alleged wrongdoing.”
The judges also seized on an admission, made on behalf of the Foreign Secretary, David Miliband, that Binyam had “established an arguable case” that, until his transfer to Guantánamo, “he was subject to cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment by or on behalf of the United States,” and was also “subject to torture during such detention by or on behalf of the United States,” and ruled that, as a result, the British government was required to hand over the evidence in its possession to his lawyers.
A Transatlantic game of cat and mouse ensued, which would have been farcical had its outcome not been of such grave importance. In a series of concessions, the US State Department suggested that, in relation to Binyam’s forthcoming trial by Military Commission, the 42 documents would be made available to his lawyers (something that, in a startling insight into the lawless world of the Commissions, could not even be taken for granted). In response to the US concessions, the Foreign Secretary submitted a Public Interest Immunity Certificate, essentially pleading with the judges not to order disclosure of the documents, because it would “seriously harm the existing intelligence arrangements between the United Kingdom and the United States.”
Developments in the United States
This was at the end of August, and although the judges were not persuaded, as the Certificate “did not adequately cover the issue of torture,” they gave the Foreign Secretary six weeks to come up with a better reason. In the meantime, on October 6, the 42 documents — and the question of their disclosure — resurfaced in a US court, in relation to Binyam’s habeas corpus case, which involved his right to ask an impartial judge why he was being held. This had initially been filed in 2005, but its progress had been derailed by shoddy laws passed in the wake of the Supreme Court’s ruling, in June 2004, that the Guantánamo prisoners had habeas corpus rights, and could not be imprisoned indefinitely without charge or trial, and it was only reinstated in June 2008, when the Supreme Court revisited its habeas ruling and reinforced the prisoners’ right to seek an explanation for their seemingly endless detention.
Finally confronted by a US judge demanding proof of the charges against Binyam, and also demanding that the 42 documents be handed over to his lawyers, the US government responded by dropping the allegations about the “dirty bomb” plot, and disclosing seven of the 42 documents (in heavily redacted form), which led to another bout of judicial wrangling until finally, at the end of October, all the documents were handed over.
By this time, however, the charges against Binyam for his trial by Military Commission had also been dropped, primarily because his former prosecutor, Lt. Col. Darrel Vandeveld, had resigned spectacularly in September, cursing the Commissions for having turned “a true believer into someone who felt truly deceived,” and pointing out, with fearless conviction, that — as the furore over the 42 documents showed — the Commissions’ prosecution office was, both by accident and design, unwilling and incapable of providing defence attorneys with the information they required to mount an adequate defence.
British judges court the media
By November, therefore, the only outstanding issue facing Lord Justice Thomas and Mr. Justice Lloyd Jones related to “seven very short paragraphs amounting to about 25 lines,” written by the judges, which summarized US intelligence reports, sent to their British counterparts, relating to Binyam’s detention in Pakistan in April and May 2002. These had been cut from the judgment in August at the Foreign Secretary’s request, but even though they did not cover Binyam’s ordeal in Morocco or Afghanistan, the judges regarded their summary as being “highly material to [Binyam]’s allegation that he had been subjected to torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment and to the commission of criminal offences,” and they illuminated their remarks with reference to the potential prosecution of war crimes under the International Criminal Court Act of 2001, and of torture under the Criminal Justice Act of 1988, which implemented the provisions of the UN Convention Against Torture.
In an unusual move, the judges then invited representatives of the media to submit reasons why their summary should be made publicly available, citing numerous precedents — including, most pithily, Lord Shaw’s comment during a ruling in 1913, “Where there is no publicity there is no justice” — but based, fundamentally, on their “clear view” that “the requirements of open justice, the rule of law and democratic accountability demonstrate the very considerable public interest in making the redacted paragraphs public, particularly given the constitutional importance of the prohibition against torture and its historic link from the seventeenth century in this jurisdiction to the necessity of open justice.”
“Open justice” v. a “threat” from the United States
Wednesday’s ruling was, therefore, a response to the media submissions, and was supposed to bring an end to the High Court’s involvement with Binyam’s case, but the judges’ decision to let their desire for “open justice” be overruled by what was repeatedly described as a “threat” by the US government to derail the sharing of intelligence between the US and the UK paved the way for an extraordinary response in the media.
Largely overlooked was the judges’ expectation that, despite their decision to respect the Foreign Secretary’s request to prevent disclosure, the Intelligence Services Committee (ISC), an independent investigative committee that has already looked into Binyam’s case, in 2005 and 2007, will be able to follow up where they have chosen not to, and, with the 42 documents already in their possession, will be able to “ask searching and difficult questions” from witnesses in the intelligence services “on the very important issues raised.”
Instead, what was picked up on was the essence of the long legal struggle between Justice on the one hand, striving to disclose evidence of torture, and The Torturers on the other, bullying principled men into silence.
On Channel 4 News (transcript here), David Miliband played down talk of a “threat” by the United States, and attempted to defend his advice to the judges, repeatedly pointing out to Jon Snow that intelligence cooperation depends on a “fundamental principle of confidentiality” between both parties. Ignoring the argument that there was a compelling case to be made for revealing information about British complicity in torture, he described the material contained in the documents as “American information” and stated, “Imagine how we would feel if our secrets were displayed, or put into the public domain, by a foreign court.”
However, far from reassuring Jon Snow, Miliband’s stance led to further challenges. Snow asked, “Have you checked whether this threat — and it is a threat, because the judges call it a threat — still stands under the Obama administration?” and the Foreign Secretary came up with a careful response that did nothing to reassure anyone that justice would eventually be seen to be done, stating, “There’s no evidence that it doesn’t stand.”
In the most heated exchange, Snow asked whether the British government was “not perhaps as keen as the Americans” to keep the case secret because it revealed British complicity in torture, to which Miliband responded by calling Snow’s question a “really outrageous suggestion,” and insisting, “We never condone or authorize the use of torture.”
However, Jon Snow surely had a point. As the judges themselves declared, in two paragraphs in their judgment which contained a palpable air of bewilderment,
[T]here was nothing in the redacted paragraphs that would identify any agent or any facility or any secret means of intelligence gathering. Nor could anything in the redacted paragraphs possibly be described as “highly sensitive classified US intelligence,” It followed that it was (and remains) our view that the ordinary business of intelligence gathering would not be affected by putting into the public domain the redacted paragraphs as they contain only a short summary of what was reported to the United Kingdom authorities as to what they say happened to BM [Binyam] during his detention in Pakistan in April and May 2002.
Moreover, in the light of the long history of the common law and democracy which we share with the United States, it was in our view difficult to conceive that a democratically elected and accountable government could possibly have any rational objection to placing into the public domain such a summary of what its own officials reported, as to how a detainee was treated by them and which made no disclosure of sensitive intelligence matters. Indeed we did not consider that a democracy governed by the rule of law would expect a court in another democracy to suppress a summary of the evidence contained in reports by its own officials or officials of another State where the evidence was relevant to allegations of torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, politically embarrassing though it might be.
Conclusion: covering up war crimes
And there, perhaps, is the essential clue to the meaning of yesterday’s judgment. For the Bush administration officials who authorized whatever happened to Binyam in Pakistan in April and May 2002 — and the two years of torture that followed — disclosure of the judges’ summary would be “politically embarrassing.” In a more sane world, it would also, probably, constitute evidence of US complicity in war crimes, but the Bush administration did all in its power to redefine torture so that it could avoid ever being held accountable for its actions. For the British government, however, there was, and is, no escape clause, and despite David Miliband’s protestations, it seems clear that Jon Snow was correct to accuse the Foreign Secretary of a desire to keep the information hidden at all costs for selfish reasons.
It is not just because of the “special relationship” that parties on both sides of the Atlantic want to keep the details of Binyam Mohamed’s torture hidden; it is also because, in the UK, those who were complicit in it — or who turned a blind eye to it — could find themselves accused of complicity in war crimes. For Binyam, the grisly truth is that, despite the British government’s efforts to secure his release, which, as Miliband noted, had been mentioned and appreciated by the judges, the British authorities have been obliged to choose between opening the door to public knowledge of illegal British activities in the “War on Terror” or sacrificing Binyam Mohamed, and have chosen the latter.
See several other NEW items and plenty of others on Binyam at here
Andy Worthington is the author of The Guantánamo Files: The Stories of the 774 Detainees in America’s Illegal Prison (published by Pluto Press, distributed by Macmillan in the US, and available from Amazon — click on the following for the US and the UK). To receive new articles in your inbox, please subscribe to my RSS feed.
This article was written exclusively for Cageprisoners.
For a sequence of articles relating to Binyam Mohamed, see the following: Urgent appeal for British resident Binyam Mohamed, “close to suicide” in Guantánamo (December 2007), Guantánamo: Torture victim Binyam Mohamed sues British government for evidence (May 2008), Binyam Mohamed’s letter from Guantánamo to Gordon Brown (May 2008), Guantánamo trials: critical judge sacked, British torture victim charged (June 2008), Binyam Mohamed: UK court grants judicial review over torture allegations, as US files official charges (June 2008), Binyam Mohamed’s judicial review: judges grill British agent and question fairness of Guantánamo trials (August 2008), High Court rules against UK and US in case of Guantánamo torture victim Binyam Mohamed (August 2008), In a plea from Guantánamo, Binyam Mohamed talks of “betrayal” by the UK (September 2008), US Justice Department drops “dirty bomb plot” allegation against Binyam Mohamed (October 2008), Meltdown at the Guantánamo Trials (October 2008), Guilt By Torture: Binyam Mohamed’s Transatlantic Quest for Justice (November 2008), A History of Music Torture in the “War on Terror” (December 2008), Is Robert Gates Guilty of Perjury in Guantánamo Torture Case? (December 2008), British torture victim Binyam Mohamed to be released from Guantánamo (January
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)