British High Court orders info about US torture kept secret citing 'threats' from U.S.

[bigtree]

from the NYT: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/05/world/europe/05london.html?ref=world&pagewanted=print

Citing U.S., British Court Blocks Data on Suspect

LONDON — A British court said Wednesday that it was unable to release information about a British terrorism suspect who says he was tortured in American custody, because of what the court called a threat from the United States to reconsider sharing intelligence with the country.

The court expressed dismay that a democracy “governed by the rule of law” would seek to suppress evidence “relevant to allegations of torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, politically embarrassing though it might be.”

At issue in Wednesday’s ruling were seven paragraphs that the court had redacted in an earlier opinion in the case, and that it suggested lent credence to the torture allegations by the suspect, Binyam Mohamed, who is now in prison at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. Mr. Mohamed is an Ethiopian who had become a legal resident of Britain.

The court said the paragraphs summarize reports by the United States to Britain’s intelligence services about the treatment of Mr. Mohamed. It said it had removed the text at the request of the British Foreign Office, which was responding to a “threat” from the Bush administration.

read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/05/world/europe/05london.html?ref=world&pagewanted=print


Former Shadow Home Secretary David Davis yesterday demanded a Commons statement on the judges' ruling, calling it a "matter of utmost national importance".

He said Foreign Secretary David Miliband should "explain what the devil is going on" and that US authorities should not interfere with UK courts.

The High Court judges said yesterday that they had been taken aback by the severity of the threat made by the US government . . .

report: http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/83461/Britain-clashes-with-U-S-over-torture-claims


*Update* Miliband responds . . .


3:11pm UK, Thursday February 05, 2009

Disclosing intelligence against the wishes of the US would "cause real and significant damage to the national security and international relations of this country", according to the Foreign Secretary.

David Miliband told MPs today that the US did not "threaten" to break off co-operation but had simply made a simple affirmation of the facts that information sharing could be damaged.

The Foreign Secretary insists there was no direct threat from the US to future intelligence-sharing, although there would have been implications for future exchanges of information if the material had been made public.

He told Sky News: "What there has been, and this is in the public domain, is the fact that if secrets are not safe when they are shared with other countries then there is serious and lasting harm to the fundamental principle of intelligence sharing, which is confidentiality."

A White House spokesperson said: "The US thanks the UK Government for its continued commitment to protect sensitive national security information and preserve the long-standing intelligence relationship."

read more: http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Politics/Torture-Blackmail-Claim-David-Miliband-Says-Disclosing-Intelligence-Would-Damage-National-Security/Article/200902115217127?lpos=Politics_News_Your_Way_Region_6&lid=NewsYourWay_ARTICLE_15217127_Torture_Blackmail_Claim%3A_David_Miliband_Says_Disclosing_Intelligence_Would_Damage_National_Security


. . . still not clear where the disclosures would "harm to the fundamental principle of intelligence sharing."

Sky News says the judges "urged the new US administration of Barack Obama to reconsider the decision."

[Subdivisions]

1. WTF??? n/t

[Aloha Spirit]

2. I disagree with the conclusion of that article, here are two others that are more

believable
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/article5661291.ece

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/05/world/europe/05london.html?_r=1

I conclude from these that the British Foreign Secretary has not actually had a detailed discussion with Clinton or Obama but concluded on his own that the threat made by Bush last year is still valid under our new President. It is that assumption by Milliband on which the judges are basing their conclusion.

[bigtree]

3. good point

I haven't seen any direct response from the Obama administration. I'll go with the NYT article instead.

Do you think the assumption is correct? If so, that would still constitute the 'threat' they perceive from this administration. I'd like to see this addressed.

[bigtree]

4. Miliband responds . . .

this smells . . .

David Miliband says Britain right on 'torture evidence' refusal

He told MPs that the American authorities did not want documents discussing the Binyam Mohamed case to be made public, and that defying their wishes would not be in Britain's national interest.

He denied that the US had threatened to ``break off'' intelligence co-operation with the UK if the intelligence was revealed - apparently contradicting a ruling by two senior High Court judges who accused the Americans of putting pressure on the court.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/4525149/David-Miliband-says-Britain-right-on-torture-evidence-refusal.html


Miliband denies US cover-up

In an emergency Commons statement, he denied a cover-up over allegations that Binyam Mohamed, 31, was tortured.

He said the High Court decision did not "prejudice" the case against Ethiopian-born British resident Mohamed, who has been charged with conspiring with members of al-Qaeda to murder and commit terrorism.

Mr Miliband told MPs: "The issue at stake is not the content of the intelligence material but the principle at the heart of all intelligence relationships - that a country retains control of its intelligence information and it cannot be disclosed by foreign authorities without its consent.

"That is a principle we neglect at our peril."

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article2208982.ece