Tory MP demands torture statement

[dipsydoodle]

Source: BBC News

A senior Conservative says ministers must urgently respond to allegations that Britain was complicit in torture.

David Davis said a High Court ruling on Wednesday alleged a British resident held in the Guantanamo Bay detention camp in Cuba had been tortured.

The ruling suggested the US threatened to withdraw intelligence help from the UK if details were released, Mr Davis claimed in the House of Commons.
>
The allegations relate to Binyan Mohamed, a British resident held in Guantanamo, who alleges he was tortured in Pakistan, Morocco and Afghanistan.

Read more: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7870049.stm

[Judi Lynn]

1. So very glad to hear this. I hope David Davis will keep right on this until he gets the truth.

Maybe he'll light a fire under the Democrats here to pursue real answers more vigorously, and swiftly.

Very, very sorry your country was coerced into assisting our idiot in his murderous assault on an entire country under the cover of a mega-dirty-common sleazy, murderous whopper concocted in order to get a power buzz, bring desperate suffering, intimidation, and terror to others, and line the pockets of the most sub-human scum posing as human beings in this country.

[nbcouch]

2. Absolutely right

No apologies can undo the incalculable damage that was done by BushCo over eight years. There is only one way we can rehabilitate ourselves as a nation, and that is to pursue with due diligence those who flouted the law and bring them to justice. We can show the world that we really do care about such things after all.

[totodeinhere]

3. The British were not coerced.

Very, very sorry your country was coerced.

Blair and company were not coerced into anything. They knew exactly what they were doing when they signed a devil's bargain with the neocons in the US to get involved in the illegal Iraq war. Let's not rewrite history. The British were our willing partners in this folly.

[kpete]

4. US threats mean evidence of British resident's Guantánamo torture must stay secret, judges rule

Source: Guardian UK

US threats mean evidence of British resident's Guantánamo torture must stay secret, judges rule

Evidence of how a British resident held in the Guantánamo Bay detention camp was tortured, and what MI5 knew about it, must remain secret because of serious threats the US has made against the UK, the high court ruled today.

The judges made clear they were deeply unhappy with their decision, but said they had no alternative as a result of a statement by David Miliband, the foreign secretary, that if the evidence was disclosed the US would stop sharing intelligence with Britain. That would directly threaten the UK's national security, Miliband had told the court.

This afternoon David Davis, the Conservative MP and former shadow home secretary, said ministers must urgently respond to the allegations that Britain was complicit in torture. He demanded a Commons statement from the government on the ruling, calling it "a matter of utmost national importance".

Davis said: "The ruling implies that torture has taken place in the Mohamed case, that British agencies may have been complicit, and further, that the United States government has threatened our high court that if it releases this information the US government will withdraw its intelligence cooperation with the United Kingdom.


Read more: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/feb/04/guantanamo-torture

[drm604]

5. This ruling itself is evidence.

The man was tortured, and MI5 was complicit. What other conclusion can we reach from this?

[Liberal Elitist]

6. How does this square with "we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals."?

The judgement makes interesting reading:

69. 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.

...

77. In short, the judgement of the Foreign Secretary has been made in good faith and is based on evidence that the threat is real; the motives of the United States Government are irrelevant. It is the actuality of the threat that is alone relevant to national security.

78. It was submitted to us by Mr David Rose that the situation had changed significantly following the election of President Obama who was avowedly determined to eschew torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment and to close Guantanamo Bay. We have, however, been informed by counsel for the Foreign Secretary that the position has not changed. Our current understanding is therefore that the position remains the same, even after the making of the Executive Orders by President Obama on 22 January 2009

Source: http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/docs/judgments_guidance/mohamed-judgment4-04022009.pdf

[dipsydoodle]

7. Do you read the subject of "that the threat is real"

to be the withdrawal of intelligence info ?

In our later TV news the USA apparently denied the threat of withdrawal of information.

[Peace Patriot]

8. Am I understanding this correctly--that Obama has now issued the threat of

denying intelligence to the UK if the judge does the right thing in this case, and releases information about US and UK torture of a prisoner?

The language is a little circumspect, but that's what it seems to say:

"It was submitted to us by Mr David Rose that the situation had changed significantly following the election of President Obama who was avowedly determined to eschew torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment and to close Guantanamo Bay. We have, however, been informed by counsel for the Foreign Secretary that the position has not changed. Our current understanding is therefore that the position remains the same, even after the making of the Executive Orders by President Obama on 22 January 2009."

-------

They were informed "by counsel for the Foreign Secretary." That person could be lying or misrepresenting Obama's position. It could be that Obama is REVIEWING it--so the position remains the same, until he changes it. By "the position," I presume they mean that the US will withhold intel from the British if this torture info is disclosed. Lots of questions, here. If it means what it appears to mean--that Obama has reaffirmed this position--then, like Bush, Obama may be blackmailing the British in order to protect the asses to the torturers (and those who gave them orders).

[IndianaGreen]

10. There's one President at a time

and this is happening during Obama's shift.

[Generator]

12. Oh snap!

You have to wonder what this country would have been like if we were post Hitler. Just time to move on. Nothing to see here. And with Goebbels still threatening us-that would be Cheney-can't think of any other top Hitler guy-vat a country! So much fun at parties.

[Peace Patriot]

14. UK Guardian: The UK Foreign Office CLAIMS that Obama reiterated the threat.

"Shami Chakrabarti, director of Liberty, said last night: "Despite best efforts to shine a light on the grubbiest aspects of the 'war on terror', the Foreign Office has claimed that the Obama administration maintained a previous US threat to reconsider intelligence sharing unless our judges kept this shameful skeleton in the closet. We find this Foreign Office allegation ... surprising." David Davis, the former shadow home secretary, said it implied that torture had taken place and British agencies may have been complicit."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/feb/04/guantanamo-bay-torture

This is still not proof that Obama (or Clinton) did it. The "Foreign Office" could be LYING, or misrepresenting.

If they did, it would likely be to protect torturers (and those who gave them orders). The UK judges said that there is NO national security issue at risk.

[IndianaGreen]

9. Senior judges attack US refusal to disclose evidence (The Independent)

Still nothing in our MSM.

Senior judges attack US refusal to disclose evidence

By Stephen Howard and Mike Taylor, Press Association

Wednesday, 4 February 2009

In another part of the ruling, the judges said they had been informed by lawyers for Foreign Secretary David Miliband that the threat to withdraw co-operation remained even under President Barack Obama's new administration.

The former shadow home secretary David Davis demanded a Commons statement from the Government on the ruling, calling it "a matter of utmost national importance".

He said the ruling implied that Mohamed had been tortured, and British agencies were complicit in that torture.

He said: "The ruling implies that torture has taken place in the Mohamed case, that British agencies may have been complicit, and further, that the United States Government has threatened our High Courts that if it releases this information, the US Government will withdraw its intelligence cooperation with the United Kingdom.

"The judge rules that there is a strong public interest that this information is put in the public domain even though it is politically embarrassing."

He told the BBC: "The Government is going to have to do some pretty careful explaining about what's going on."

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/senior-judges-attack-us-refusal-to-disclose-evidence-1545777.html

[IndianaGreen]

11. Obama set to allow Bush-era ‘torture flights’ (Times of India)

Comnrades, we have been lied to!

Obama set to allow Bush-era ‘torture flights’

3 Feb 2009, 0021 hrs IST, AGENCIE

Despite promises that torture would be history in the new administration with pulling the shutters on Guantanamo Bay detention centre, US President
Barack Obama has left intact a programme that gives the CIA authority to carry out rendition flights, media reports said on Monday.

In his first few days in office, Obama was lauded for rejecting policies of the Bush era, but it has emerged the CIA still has the authority to carry out renditions in which suspects are picked up and often sent to a third country for questioning, reports the Telegraph.

The practice caused outrage at the EU, after it was revealed the CIA had used secret prisons in Romania and Poland and airports such as Prestwick in Scotland to conduct up to 1,200 rendition flights. The European Parliament called renditions “an illegal instrument used by the United States”.

According to a detailed reading of the executive orders signed by Obama on January 22, renditions have not been outlawed, with the new administration deciding it needs to retain some devices in Bush’s anti-terror arsenal amid continued threats to US national security.

In the executive orders Obama merely promised a review of rendition policy, with the intention of ensuring that suspects were not sent to other countries “to face torture”.

“Obviously you need to preserve some tools — you still have to go after the bad guys,” an administration official told the Los Angeles Times.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Obama_set_to_allow_Bush-era_torture_flights/articleshow/4067338.cms

[Senator]

13. This "story" is a canard that has been dealt with...

...in recent days by Glenn Greenwald, http://www.harpers.org/archive/2009/02/hbc-90004332">Scott Horton, and others.

It's not that Obama hasn't been war-criminally complicit for years by his failure to even attempt to stop the ongoing torture. It's just that on this specific false charge it is unnamed bushcheney defenders who are trying to muddy the waters.

Obama is not "allowing torture fights."

---

[IndianaGreen]

15. Now that we know Obama supports amnesty for torturers

which makes him no different from those Germans that are always complaining about those calling for the prosecution of nazis, regardless of how old they are, here is a kick for the evening crowd.

[truebrit71]

16. Interesting to see David Davis take the lead on this one...

..He championed civil liberties about the National ID card recently by resigning his shadow cabinet position and running on that issue alone...

Very interesting when you consider just how conservative he really is...