Hiding Torture And Freeing Binyam Mohamed From Guantánamo

12.2.09

This has been an extraordinary week for British resident, torture victim and Guantánamo prisoner Binyam Mohamed. Last Thursday, his lawyers’ ten-month campaign to secure the disclosure of documents in the possession of the British government, which apparently confirm details of his “extraordinary rendition” and torture, sparked a crisis when the High Court judges in his case, Lord Justice Thomas and Mr. Justice Lloyd Jones, bowed to pressure from the foreign secretary, David Miliband, not to make public a summary of the evidence because 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.”

This was in spite of the fact that, since last August, the judges have made it clear that they believe that a summary of what happened to Binyam should be made available in the interests of “open justice, the rule of law and democratic accountability,” and also because “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.”

Hiding torture in the UK

In response to the judges’ capitulation, the media seized on a particular passage in the judgment — which stated that one of the main reasons that the judges had made their decision was because they had “been informed by counsel for the Foreign Secretary that the position had not changed” with the inauguration of Barack Obama — to confront the foreign secretary about the nature of these threats. On Channel 4 News, David Miliband played down the talk of a “threat” — even though the judges had mentioned it no less than eight times in their judgment — and explained,

What there is is a simple fact, which is that intelligence cooperation depends on confidentiality. We share our secrets with other countries, and they share their secrets with us, and the founding principle, for us and for them, is that we can trust the confidentiality of that relationship. In this case, the United States made clear, in documents that have been published, that there would inevitably be lasting harm if that fundamental principle was breached.

This was undoubtedly true — although it also conveniently allowed the British government to avoid having to deal with the revelation, in public, of its own agents’ complicity in war crimes — but Miliband then appeared to back up his counsel’s claim that the situation had not changed with the arrival of a new administration in the White House. After Jon Snow asked him, “Have you checked that this threat — and it is a threat, because the judges call it a threat — still stands under the Obama administration?” Miliband responded by stating, “There’s no evidence that it doesn’t stand.”

This was in marked contrast to a statement earlier that day by a spokesman for Prime Minister Gordon Brown, who maintained, as the Daily Mail described it, that Downing Street “was unaware of any threat from the Obama administration to withdraw intelligence sharing.” The spokesman stated, explicitly “We have not engaged with the new administration on the detail of this case.”

On Thursday, in a response to the furore in the House of Commons, David Miliband dropped his carefully worded response to Jon Snow’s question about the Obama administration, and contented himself with repeating the mantra about the “fundamental principle” of confidentiality between governments regarding the disclosure of intelligence information. However, the gulf between what the judges had been led to believe, and the statement from the Prime Minister’s spokesman, prompted Binyam’s solicitors, at Leigh Day & Co., to prepare a new submission (PDF), asking the High Court to reconsider its judgment.

Binyam’s lawyers request the High Court to reconsider its judgment

The submission included a witness statement from the journalist David Rose, who reported that, in addition to the comments made on behalf of the Prime Minister, a spokesman for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office had stated on February 4, “We haven’t made any representations to the court regarding the new administration’s approach to this case. We have not approached the new administration about these paragraphs. We haven’t made any representations about their attitude and we haven’t been asked by the court to do so, despite the new executive orders and the attitude that may now prevail in Washington.”

The demands made in the submission were stark. In light of the fact that “No threat was made by the US Government,” and “No approach had been made by the UK Government to the new US administration of President Obama, and no representations had been made to the Court about the attitude of the new administration,” Dinah Rose QC and Ben Jaffey declared that “these statements call seriously into question the accuracy and completeness of the evidence and submissions given by the Defendant [David Miliband] on which the Court relied in reaching its judgment,” and asked the Court “to reopen its judgment in this matter, and to order the Defendant to swear evidence setting out the complete and accurate factual position as to the making of a threat; and the maintenance of any threat by the Obama administration.”

Hiding torture in the US: Obama’s first great failure

Just five days after David Miliband’s successful intervention to prevent the disclosure of evidence of Binyam’s rendition and torture in the UK, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), following up on a case it had first pursued in May 2007 (PDF), which was dismissed in February 2008, embarked on its first test of President Obama’s commitment to addressing the crimes of the Bush administration in a Ninth Circuit appeals court in San Francisco.

The case, which involves Jeppesen Holdings Inc., a Boeing subsidiary responsible for managing the Bush administration’s “extraordinary rendition” program (“The CIA’s Travel Agent,” as Jane Mayer described them in 2006), centered on five well known cases of rendition of torture. In addition to Binyam, who was seized in Pakistan in April 2002, and was then rendered by the CIA to Morocco for 18 months of torture, followed by another five months of torture in the CIA’s “Dark Prison” near Kabul, the ACLU’s suit was also filed on behalf of Ahmed Agiza, Abou Elkassim Britel, Mohamed Farag Ahmad Bashmilah and Bisher al-Rawi, whose stories, in brief, are as follows:

Ahmed Agiza, an Egyptian national, was an asylum seeker in Sweden. In December 2001, with the cooperation of the Swedish authorities, he was seized by the CIA and rendered to Egypt, where, after being tortured, he was subjected to a show trial and given a 25-year sentence (which was reduced to 15 years on appeal).

Abou Elkassim Britel, an Italian citizen, was seized in Lahore in 2002 and rendered by the CIA to Morocco, where he was tortured. Released without charge in February 2003, he was seized by the Moroccan authorities in May 2003, as he attempted to fly back to Italy, and was subjected to a show trial and given a 15-year sentence (which was reduced to nine years on appeal).

Mohamed Farag Ahmad Bashmilah, a Yemeni citizen, was seized by Jordanian intelligence agents in October 2003 and tortured for five days. He was then rendered to the US prison at Bagram airbase in Afghanistan, where he was tortured for six months, and was then moved to a secret black site run by the CIA, where his torture continued. In May 2005, he was secretly flown to Yemen, where he was imprisoned until he was finally released without charge in March 2006.

Bisher al-Rawi, a British resident, was kidnapped in the Gambia in November 2002, and rendered by the CIA to Afghanistan, where he was tortured for two months in two secret prisons. He was flown to Guantanamo in February 2003, and was released in March 2007.

Although there were high hopes that the Obama administration would take this opportunity to move beyond its commitment to outlaw torture, “extraordinary rendition” and the use of secret prisons — as laid out in a series of executive orders issued on Obama’s second day in office — and would start to pursue those responsible for those crimes, what happened instead, as the New York Times described it, was that “a lawyer for the Obama administration seemed to surprise a panel of federal appeals judges” by “pressing ahead with an argument for preserving state secrets originally developed by the Bush administration.”

As the Times explained, Judge Mary M. Schroeder, a Carter appointee, “coyly referring to the recent election,” asked the lawyer, Douglas N. Letter, “Is there anything material that has happened” that might have caused the Justice Department to shift its views? “No, your honor,” came the reply. Judge Schroeder tried again. “The change in administration has no bearing?” she asked. Once again, Letter replied, “No, Your Honor,” and added that his position on the case had been “thoroughly vetted with the appropriate officials within the new administration.” “[T]hese,” he declared emphatically, “are the authorized positions.”

The position taken by Justice Department was, in theory at least, in direct contrast to the position taken by the new Attorney General, Eric Holder, both at his confirmation hearing and in a statement that he made the day before the case, when he pledged to review all assertions of the state secrets privilege that had been exercised by the Bush administration. As the Washington Post described it, Matt Miller, a spokesman for the Justice Department, “declined to discuss the ACLU’s suit in San Francisco, citing ongoing litigation,” but insisted that the Department was still committed to a review of the Bush administration’s use, or misuse of the state secrets privilege.

“The attorney general has directed that senior Justice Department officials review all assertions of state secret privilege to ensure that it is being invoked only in legally appropriate situations,” Miller explained, adding, “It is vital that we protect information that if released could jeopardize national security, but the department will ensure the privilege is not invoked to hide from the American people information about their government’s actions that they have a right to know.”

This was, however unintentionally, a rather provocative statement, as there are many people, in the United States and beyond, who believe that information about the Bush administration’s global policy of kidnapping, rendition and torture is exactly the sort of topic about which “they have a right to know,” and Anthony D. Romero, the executive director of the ACLU, responded angrily to the Justice Department’s stance. “This is not change,” he stated, throwing President Obama’s campaign pledge back at him. “This is definitely more of the same. Candidate Obama ran on a platform that would reform the abuse of state secrets, but President Obama’s Justice Department has disappointingly reneged on that important civil liberties issue. If this is a harbinger of things to come, it will be a long and arduous road to give us back an America we can be proud of again.”

However, bitter though the truth may be, when it came down to it President Obama and his team must, I think, have been literally besieged by supplicants — from the CIA, from Boeing, from Jeppesen, and from countless other government departments and contractors involved in “extraordinary rendition” and torture in the last seven years — urging them not to open up the floodgates to what David Miliband has been striving, on a smaller scale, to prevent in the UK: prosecution for complicity in war crimes.

Quite where this leaves the struggle for the disclosure of evidence relating to “extraordinary rendition” and torture is unclear, although from my point of view, the most appropriate course of action would be for those directly responsible for implementing America’s “War on Terror” policies — a list that includes George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, David Addington, John Yoo, Alberto Gonzales, and William J. Haynes II, to name but a few — to be pursued for the prosecutions that President Obama is obliged to follow up on, after the admission in February 2008 by Gen. Michael Hayden, the director of the CIA, that waterboarding — a form of torture — was used on a number of “high-value detainees,” and last month’s confession by Susan Crawford, the Convening Authority of the Military Commission trial system at Guantánamo, that she had dropped the charges against Mohammed al-Qahtani, the alleged 20th hijacker for the 9/11 attacks, because “His treatment met the legal definition of torture.”

The US and the UK come up with a logical, but quietly desperate compromise

In the meantime, both the US and UK governments appear to have come up with a way of removing the fear of the disclosure of evidence of “extraordinary rendition” and torture in Binyam Mohamed’s case by arranging — as has been suggested since the end of last year — that he will be returned in the near future to Britain, where, without wishing to be at all cynical, his precarious status will ensure that he breathes a word to nobody about his experiences until the British government renews his residency at some unspecified point in the future.

The last straw for David Miliband may well have been the arrival in the UK of Lt. Col. Yvonne Bradley, Binyam’s military defense attorney for his proposed trial by Military Commission (which was dropped last October and has not, unsurprisingly, been reinstated), who flew in at the weekend in an attempt to ramp up the pressure on both governments, bearing bleak news about how Binyam is “close to death” after two months on a hunger strike, wooing the media with her ability to present the issues with an understated directness, and — no doubt to the government’s dismay — hooking up with the Tory MP David Davis, who leapt on the US “threat” last week, for a press conference on Wednesday morning. Soon after, Lt. Col. Bradley met with David Miliband, who explained in a subsequent statement,

I met Binyam Mohamed’s US military defence counsel Lt Col Yvonne Bradley today. I wanted to hear her views personally, particularly following her recent visit to Guantánamo. We have long been concerned by reports of Mr. Mohamed’s medical condition, and her account underlined those concerns.

As I made clear in parliament last week we are working as fast and hard as we can to secure Mr. Mohamed’s release from Guantánamo and return to the UK. We want him to be released as soon as possible. FCO officials and the embassy in Washington have held further talks at senior level in recent days with the US administration.

Miliband then indicated that Binyam’s release was dependent not on the collapse of the charges against him — even though the “dirty bomb” plot allegations were dropped by the Justice Department last October, when the judge in his habeas corpus review ordered the government to provide evidence of the plot — but was, instead, dependent on the outcome of the review of the cases against the remaining 242 prisoners that President Obama had instigated in his executive orders on his second day in office. This was a twist that, sadly, seemed designed to allow both Obama and David Miliband to distance themselves once more from the troublesome truth about the case against Binyam. As the foreign secretary explained:

President Obama’s executive orders of 22 January established a review of the cases of all those detained at Guantánamo. Following our representations, the US administration have now agreed that Mr. Mohamed’s case should be treated as a priority in this process. We continue to work with the US to achieve a swift resolution.

He also explained, in another passage that appeared to have been carefully scripted on both sides of the Atlantic, that British officials would soon be visiting Binyam to prepare for his return to the UK, if Obama’s expedited review of his case — which is surely a foregone conclusion if the lid is to be held firmly shut on the details of his torture — approves his release:

The US administration yesterday also agreed that Foreign Office officials should visit Mr. Mohamed as soon as possible. The visit will help us make preparations for his return, should the review confirm a decision to release him. The team will include a Metropolitan police service doctor, who would take part in any return, so that he may assess Mr. Mohamed’s condition himself and report back.

This has not, in truth, been a good week for justice, but it may just have been a life-saver for Binyam Mohamed.

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.

As published exclusively on Cageprisoners.

Note: The photo at the top of the article, of a member of the London Guantánamo Campaign, during a demonstration outside Downing Street on Binyam’s 30th birthday in July 2008, is © Peter Marshall, and is taken from an article on Indymedia.

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 2009), Don’t Forget Guantánamo (February 2009), The Betrayal of British Torture Victim Binyam Mohamed (February 2009), Binyam Mohamed’s Coming Home From Guantánamo, As Torture Allegations Mount (February 2009), Binyam Mohamed’s statement on his release from Guantánamo (February 2009), Who Is Binyam Mohamed, the British resident released from Guantánamo? (February 2009), Seven Years of Torture: Binyam Mohamed Tells His Story (March 2009), Binyam Mohamed’s Plea Bargain: Trading Torture For Freedom (March 2009), Guantánamo, Bagram and the “Dark Prison”: Binyam Mohamed talks to Moazzam Begg (March 2009), Obama’s First 100 Days: Mixed Messages On Torture (includes the Jeppesen lawsuit, May 2009), UK Government Lies Exposed; Spy Visited Binyam Mohamed In Morocco (May 2009), Daily Mail Pulls Story About Binyam Mohamed And British Spy (May 2009), Government Bans Testimony On Binyam Mohamed And The British Spy (May 2009), More twists in the tale of Binyam Mohamed (in the Guardian, May 2009), Did Hillary Clinton Threaten UK Over Binyam Mohamed Torture Disclosure? (May 2009), Outsourcing torture to foreign climes (in the Guardian, May 2009), Binyam Mohamed: Was Muhammad Salih’s Death In Guantánamo Suicide? (June 2009), Miliband Shows Leadership, Reveals Nothing About Torture To Parliamentary Committee (June 2009).

23 Responses

  1. Andy Worthington says...

    Someone who is intimately involved in the legal side of Binyam’s case just made my day. I’m not at liberty to divulge their identity, but they wrote to say:

    I just wanted to write to express my admiration for your articles on Binyam Mohamed … [Y]our account of the legal process is by some distance the most accurate and lucid that I have read. Thank you!

  2. Frances Madeson says...

    My head is spinning. There’s so much to respond to in this post. Obama influenced against his own stated principles because he was “besieged by supplicants?” This is not credible. He’s been besieged by plenty of supplicants on our side of the issue. He’s being strategic (in a good way). He’s saving the life of a man that must be saved “by whatever means necessary.” The policy can always be revisited once Mr. Mohamed is safe.

    I also disagree with your parsing of justice and the fate of Mr. Mohamed. They are one and the same. Maybe justice has gotten a bit more complicated than your previous assumptions and needs to be reconceptualized in your thinking?

    In my mind, there can be no notion of justice that does not include saving Mr. Mohamed’s life. Maybe I am result oriented, but it’s probably not a bad idea to start with the desired outcome and work our way back to process.

  3. Andy Worthington says...

    Hi Frances,
    I see what you mean, and I agree absolutely that saving Binyam’s life is of the utmost importance.
    I maintain, however, that on both sides of the Atlantic our leaders are doing all they can to address the crimes but not to implicate the criminals, which, unfortunately, is only going to make it a longer and more difficult task to locate all the other victims of rendition and torture who never even made it to Guantanamo.
    It’s why I proposed that senior officials should be prosecuted for authorizing torture. If we don’t keep our focus on the principles, these countless other men will have far too long a wait for justice.
    Best,
    Andy

  4. Lee Griffin says...

    Andy, reading through your accounts of what has been going on is some of the most enlightening stuff I’ve read online, especially in the subject of justice. It would be a shame after all this if no-one gets brought to justice themselves over the way some of these people have been treated, but to have them free would be a great first step

  5. the talking dog says...

    Let me just say it: Binyam had his genitals sliced open with a razor blade on an ongoing basis for over a year, by Moroccan torturers, operating under contract to the American government with the connivance of the British government. This amongst the other more “usual” tortures of starvation, sleep deprivation, darkness, light, noise, beatings, waterboarding and you name it.

    And for what? So that he might shout out and wrongly implicate whatever name was suggested to him by his Moroccan torturers as whispered to by CIA… pretty much the same playbook as used in inquisitions and witch-hunts of old.

    Say what you will about “water-boarding”: no one on Earth can credibly deny that Binyam was tortured, and that the torture he received was so barbaric that it warrants the prosecution of anyone involved at any stage of it.

    Which is why the case has become such an immediate stumbling block for both the Obama and Brown governments: there’s just no wiggle room. No jury anywhere will find that what Binyam was subjected to wasn’t torture, and that it wasn’t deliberate. And with Binyam at the bar, it becomes difficult to defend the comparably brutal actions taken against his four co-plaintiffs. That’s the very problem: these are not hard cases.

    Which is why both governments have been caught flat-footed that this came up so early in the Obama Administration… before Obama could complete “his review” and implement his executive orders and make nice nice. This was an early test of first principles, before Obama had a chance to build up any capital, by, say, accepting a few Uighur detainees stateside, distributing a few more in Europe, scheduling a few releases here and there, dropping the commissions and so forth. Right now, all we have is his pretty rhetoric… kind of like what (IIRC) Clemenceau said of Woodrow Wilson at Versailles: “he talks like Jesus, but he acts like Lloyd George.”

    And this is the problem with proceeding by “Executive Orders” instead of legislation or Constitutional policy: they can be rescinded by whim… such as the whim of abusing the state secrets privilege not merely to suppress certain evidence of a national security nature, but to close down entire litigations on the grounds of simple embarrassment to the regime, all the more galling in this case because it’s the former regime about who the current President promised to bring to some accountability.

    And so here we are. It seems that the Obama Administration may have quickly bitten off more than it can chew… and has to de-fuse yet another time-bomb handed to it by its predecessor. Not a happy position to be sure. But the whole problem with “first principles” is that they have to apply when things are hard, as well as when things are easy.

    Godspeed to Binyam… hopefully someone in power will have the good sense to at least repatriate him to the UK before it’s too late; and hopefully, the new President’s actions will soon start to mirror his rhetoric.

  6. Frances Madeson says...

    Here’s a principle for you: Safety first!

  7. Elena says...

    Thank you for tracking Binyam’s story and writing about these issues in such lucid detail. I think I am not alone in being deeply disappointed by the positions being taken by the new Obama administration.

    Accountability for the crime of torture and rendition is key. Thus, it is very troubling to reflect on your point that by transferring Binyam to the UK, the government will in essence silence him.

    It’s our job to keep this issue in the public mind and to keep pressuring our governments about investigations and prosecution.

    Thanks again.

  8. Seven Years of Torture: Binyam Mohamed Tells His Story « Israelis wars on muslims indicates the beginning of the fall of the American Empire! says...

    [...] Guantánamo (February 2009), The Betrayal of British Torture Victim Binyam Mohamed (February 2009), Hiding Torture And Freeing Binyam Mohamed From Guantánamo (February 2009), Binyam Mohamed’s Coming Home From Guantánamo, As Torture Allegations Mount [...]

  9. Andy Worthington: Justice Extends To Bagram, Guantanamo’s Dark Mirror | BlackNewsTribune.com says...

    [...] the state secrets privilege to quash a lawsuit against Boeing subsidiary Jeppesen for its role as the CIA’s travel agent in a case brought by a number of prisoners subjected to “extraordinary rendition,” [...]

  10. Andy Worthington: Justice Extends To Bagram, Guantanamo’s Dark Mirror | Dailycensored.com says...

    [...] the state secrets privilege to quash a lawsuit against Boeing subsidiary Jeppesen for its role as the CIA’s travel agent in a case brought by a number of prisoners subjected to “extraordinary rendition,” although this [...]

  11. Justice Extends to Bagram by Andy Worthington -- Antiwar.com says...

    [...] the state-secrets privilege to quash a lawsuit against Boeing subsidiary Jeppesen for its role as the CIA’s travel agent in a case brought by a number of prisoners subjected to "extraordinary rendition," [...]

  12. Justice extends to Bagram, Guantánamo’s Dark Mirror by Andy Worthington « Dandelion Salad says...

    [...] the state secrets privilege to quash a lawsuit against Boeing subsidiary Jeppesen for its role as the CIA’s travel agent in a case brought by a number of prisoners subjected to “extraordinary rendition,” although [...]

  13. Justice Extends to Bagram, Guantánamo’s Dark Mirror « From The Wilderness says...

    [...] the state secrets privilege to quash a lawsuit against Boeing subsidiary Jeppesen for its role as the CIA’s travel agent in a case brought by a number of prisoners subjected to “extraordinary rendition,” although [...]

  14. Walwyn M. Trezise says...

    Waterboarding – Smorgasborging. Mr. Wothington you have not done your homework. But you may be forgiven You fail to understand American law. In that you stand with Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, the 6 legal dwarfs, (who believed that by preparing silly quasi-legal memos they could build a “Wall of Gold” around the junta and thereby insure the future of their wealth), along with any number of other Bushees who are complicit.
    See: OPINION: MOHAMED; et al, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. JEPPESEN DATAPLAN, INC.,
    Defendant-Appellee, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Intervenor-Appellee. (Incidentally, Mr. Worthington, the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit is not some po-dunk court. It is one of the three most respected appellate courts in the United States, next only in priority to the United States Supreme Court. Its justices and its opinions are not to be taken lightly). I cite the opinion because you can read it in its entirety if you make the effort to look it up on the ACLU internet site. It has to do with State Secrets, something you and your government apparently believe the United States possessing in abundance.
    These are interesting times. The New York Times and Washington Post have done their best to keep the American public ignorant of what this was all about. Water boarding was made to sound like a dip in the pool. Well, Worthington, Old Sod, as I believe you say, the cat is out of the bag. The only people left in the dark were the people. We didn’t know they had done it to some guy 89 straight times. We didn’t know that they needed a physician next to the guy, taking blood-oxygen content tests to make sure the victim was still alive, while the CIA was trying to asphyxiate him. Nor did we known of all the sexual taboos these homo-erotic CIA cut-up, those secret agent men and women were expending upon tactics they call torture. Now I grant you that the American public really seldom pays attention to matters like this. They may be like your young lady reader who thought Mohamed’s life was in danger. Not so. He’s been out and about in London for some time now. This is a civil suit for damages brought on this behalf of Mohamed by the hated American Civil Liberties Union, of which I am, as the Bushies like to say, “a card carrying member.” It’s really against Boeing Aircraft, whose identity is hidden behind its subsidiary, Jeppson Dataplan. Yes, sometimes U.S. law is a little strange. And if your Young Lady reads the opinion, as I suggested she do, she may not conclude that Mohamed won. Indeed, the dred, distained ACLU achieved a great victory before the court, which, in fact, breathed life again into Mohamed’s case. Not good news for Mr. Bush and his minions. Obama will understand. He is, you should not ever forget, a Chicago politician.
    I have only two questions for you, Mr. Worthington. I cannot understand how a country as sanctimonious as Sweden could have gotten themselves mixed up in such an outright felonious sadistic scheme as this kind of torture with Bush and the CIA. What ever happened to their righteous
    neutrality while Hitler was moving heaven and earth to exterminate the Jews? What ever happened to their brains?
    And, Mr. Worthington, would you please explain to me why your foreign secretary, David Miliband, went to any effort whatsoever, “not to make public a summary of the evidence because 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.” How in the world could a guy this dumb get where he’s at. Is he so stupid as to believe that the ever-sensitive young George W. Bush gave a wit or, worse yet, had any idea who or what David Miliband was, other than a man with a very silly name. We’re talking Young Bush here, the ultimate arrogant, illiterate aristocrat. And, sir, why would any soul on earth be interested in “secrets” of the CIA. Pull yourself together, Mr. Worthington, and come out from under the rock where you’ve been living for eight past years. Disabuse yourself of this notion that the CIA gets or keeps any secrets. Read, Mr. Worthington. Read “Legacy of Ashes. The History of the CIA,” by Tim Weiner, (Doubleday, 2007. New York, London, Toronto,Sydney, Auckland). Doubleday went to a lot of trouble to make sure you received the word of what I am about to tell you. Our CIA, Mr. Worthington, doesn’t get, or keep secrets. They just electro-shock people’s private parts until the people tell them what they want to hear! Walwyn M. Trezise, B.S., J.D., retired, Dubois, Wyoming 82513

  15. turning the page on tyranny « seeking spirit says...

    [...] those same lines, my Administration is also confronting challenges to what is known as the “State Secrets” privilege. This is a doctrine that allows the government to challenge legal cases involving secret programs. [...]

  16. Will Eric Holder Be The Anti-Torture Hero? by Andy Worthington « Dandelion Salad says...

    [...] source of tension was the Justice Department’s apparently unilateral decision, in February, to contest a lawsuit brought by the ACLU against Jeppesen Dataplan, Inc., a Boeing subsidiary known in human rights [...]

  17. UK Judges Order Release Of Details About The Torture Of Binyam Mohamed By US Agents by Andy Worthington « Dandelion Salad says...

    [...] a result — unaware that the government’s assertions had been challenged — the judges issued a fourth judgment on February 4, 2009, in which, yet again, they reluctantly defended the government’s position. [...]

  18. Liberal Conspiracy » A war-criminal comes to London says...

    [...] relationship between the U.S. and U.K.“. As relationships go, that’s one of the most wholly unhealthy since Caligula first hit puberty. Fox, Gove, Osborne, Hague and Grayling all sit on the [...]

  19. A Stroll Across The Atlantic Bridge « Back Towards The Locus says...

    [...] bother for me – I’m no friend to the EU – but considering the violence, lies and secrecy that an ox-strong U.S./U.K. alliance has wrought these fellows might end up replacing one corrupt [...]

  20. Caution: foreign policy principles at work « Polygonic says...

    [...] wants Khadr out of their hair and back in Canada. Britain, among all other Western nations with citizens formerly occupying Gitmo cells, have openly and [...]

  21. Transcript Of President Obama’s Speech About Guantánamo And Terrorism « Covering Delta says...

    [...] those same lines, my Administration is also confronting challenges to what is known as the “State Secrets” privilege. This is a doctrine that allows the government to challenge legal cases involving secret programs. [...]

  22. US Torture Under Scrutiny In British Courts by Andy Worthington | Dandelion Salad says...

    […] Ahmed Agiza, Abou Elkassim Britel, Mohamed Farag Ahmad Bashmilah and Bisher al-Rawi (profiled here). This was in spite of the fact that Sean Belcher, a former Jeppesen employee, stated that Bob […]

  23. My Message To Obama: Great Speech, But No Military Commissions and No “Preventive Detention” by Andy Worthington | Dandelion Salad says...

    […] the President’s speech, which dealt with broader questions of national security — including the “State Secrets” doctrine, the release of the torture memos issued by the Office of Legal Counsel, and the decision not to […]

Leave a Reply

Back to the top

Back to home page

Andy Worthington

Investigative journalist, author, filmmaker, photographer and Guantanamo expert
Email Andy Worthington

The Guantánamo Files book cover

The Guantánamo Files

The Battle of the Beanfield book cover

The Battle of the Beanfield

Stonehenge: Celebration & Subversion book cover

Stonehenge: Celebration & Subversion

Outside The Law DVD cover

Outside the Law: Stories from Guantánamo

RSS

Posts & Comments

World Wide Web Consortium

XHTML & CSS

WordPress

Powered by WordPress

Designed by Josh King-Farlow

Please support Andy Worthington, independent journalist:

Archives

In Touch

Follow me on Facebook

Become a fan on Facebook

Subscribe to me on YouTubeSubscribe to me on YouTube

Andy's Flickr photos

Campaigns

Categories

Tag Cloud

Afghans Al-Qaeda Andy Worthington Bagram British prisoners CIA torture prisons Clive Stafford Smith Close Guantanamo David Cameron Force-feeding Guantanamo Hunger strikes Lewisham London Military Commission NHS NHS privatisation Photos President Obama Reprieve Save Lewisham A&E Shaker Aamer Taliban Torture UK austerity UK protest US Congress US courts WikiLeaks Yemenis