SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
British Court Attacks US Refusal to Disclose Torture Evidence
Information is vital to UK resident's case • British judges say claims are unprecedented
Oct 23, 2008
LONDON - The high court yesterday condemned
as "deeply disturbing" a refusal by the US to disclose evidence that
could prove a British resident held at Guantanamo Bay was tortured
before confessing to terrorism offences.
The court said there was
"no rational basis" for the American failure to reveal the contents of
documents essential to the defence of Binyam Mohamed, who faces the
death penalty.
In a particularly damning passage, Lord Justice
Thomas and Mr Justice Lloyd Jones said claims by Mohamed's lawyers that
the US was refusing to release the papers because "torturers do not
readily hand over evidence of their conduct" could not be dismissed and
required an answer.
The judges said they were unaware of any
precedent for such serious allegations against "the government of a
foreign friendly state and our oldest and closest ally" as those made
in this case.
The US had not provided any explanation for its conduct, though it had had "ample time" to do so, the judges said.
Thomas
and Lloyd said the documents provided the "only independent evidence"
capable of helping Mohamed and his defence. Suppressing the material
"would be to deny him the opportunity of timely justice in respect of
the charges against him", which was a principle dating back to "at
least the time of Magna Carta and which is a basic part of our common
law and of democratic values".
They said David Miliband, the
foreign secretary, conceded there was an "arguable case" that Mohamed
had been subjected to torture and inhuman treatment. Yet Miliband also
wanted to suppress relevant documents, not because they would reveal
any intelligence operations but because the US claimed that if they
were disclosed serious harm would be done to "intelligence sharing"
between the UK and the US.
The judges said it was clear Britain
had "facilitated" Mohamed's interrogation when he was unlawfully
detained in Pakistan before being secretly rendered to Morocco,
Afghanistan, and then to Guantanamo. The US was using confessions made
after two years of unlawful "incommunicado detention" on charges where
the death penalty might be sought, the judges said yesterday.
They
noted that a military prosecutor at the US base had recently resigned
in protest against the treatment of prisoners, including the use of a
"frequent flyer programme". The judges described this as a "euphemism
for a sleep deprivation programme". They added: "This is a practice
which the United Kingdom expressly prohibits."
Charges against
Mohamed- including that he was involved in a dirty bomb plot - have
been dropped, allegedly to prevent the US from revealing torture
evidence. The US authorities now planned to charge him with other
offences, the judges noted yesterday.
The judges took the
extraordinary step of inviting the media to challenge previous
decisions to hold many of the case's hearings in camera. "Although the
argument took place in closed session," they said, "the issue is one of
considerable importance in the context of open justice [and] to the
rule of law."
They suspended proceedings pending a case in the US
courts, where defence lawyers are also trying to force disclosure. That
federal court, the British judges said yesterday, might be given
explanations about US conduct "denied to this court".
Clive
Stafford Smith, the director of the charity Reprieve, described
Mohamed's treatment by the US as a "litany of misconduct".
"First
they tortured him, then they held him for more than six years without
trial, now they want to cover up evidence that could set him free," he
said. "What is the point of a 'special relationship' if the UK
government cannot secure basic justice for Mr Mohamed?"
Richard
Stein, one of Mohamed's lawyers, said: "The grave concerns expressed by
the court about the dealings of the Americans in this case are not
surprising, given the torture Mr Mohamed has suffered. This underlines
the British government's duty to do more than gently nudge its ally
across the Atlantic when it comes to criminal acts taken against a
British resident."
Mohamed, 30, an Ethiopian national and British
resident, was held in Pakistan in 2002, when he was questioned by an
MI5 officer. He was later secretly rendered to Morocco, where he says
he was tortured by having his penis cut with a razor blade. The US
subsequently flew him to Afghanistan and he was transferred to
Guantanamo Bay in September 2004.
Backstory
Attempts to get the UK courts and parliament to take notice of the case of Binyam Mohamed began more than three years ago. Clive Stafford Smith, director of the charity Reprieve, told the Guardian about a hunger strike by Guantanamo Bay prisoners,
including Mohamed, who was rendered to the US base in Cuba. Mohamed's
case was taken up by the all-party parliamentary group on extraordinary
rendition, chaired by Andrew Tyrie MP
UK citizens and residents held at Guantanamo were released between
2005 and 2007, but Mohamed was kept. This summer, the high court heard
about the way the US and British governments tried to stop the release
of evidence about his case. Defence lawyers argued that MI5 misled MPs about his treatment. In August, in an interim judgment, the high court ruled that MI5 had participated in Mohamed's unlawful interrogation.
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
LONDON - The high court yesterday condemned
as "deeply disturbing" a refusal by the US to disclose evidence that
could prove a British resident held at Guantanamo Bay was tortured
before confessing to terrorism offences.
The court said there was
"no rational basis" for the American failure to reveal the contents of
documents essential to the defence of Binyam Mohamed, who faces the
death penalty.
In a particularly damning passage, Lord Justice
Thomas and Mr Justice Lloyd Jones said claims by Mohamed's lawyers that
the US was refusing to release the papers because "torturers do not
readily hand over evidence of their conduct" could not be dismissed and
required an answer.
The judges said they were unaware of any
precedent for such serious allegations against "the government of a
foreign friendly state and our oldest and closest ally" as those made
in this case.
The US had not provided any explanation for its conduct, though it had had "ample time" to do so, the judges said.
Thomas
and Lloyd said the documents provided the "only independent evidence"
capable of helping Mohamed and his defence. Suppressing the material
"would be to deny him the opportunity of timely justice in respect of
the charges against him", which was a principle dating back to "at
least the time of Magna Carta and which is a basic part of our common
law and of democratic values".
They said David Miliband, the
foreign secretary, conceded there was an "arguable case" that Mohamed
had been subjected to torture and inhuman treatment. Yet Miliband also
wanted to suppress relevant documents, not because they would reveal
any intelligence operations but because the US claimed that if they
were disclosed serious harm would be done to "intelligence sharing"
between the UK and the US.
The judges said it was clear Britain
had "facilitated" Mohamed's interrogation when he was unlawfully
detained in Pakistan before being secretly rendered to Morocco,
Afghanistan, and then to Guantanamo. The US was using confessions made
after two years of unlawful "incommunicado detention" on charges where
the death penalty might be sought, the judges said yesterday.
They
noted that a military prosecutor at the US base had recently resigned
in protest against the treatment of prisoners, including the use of a
"frequent flyer programme". The judges described this as a "euphemism
for a sleep deprivation programme". They added: "This is a practice
which the United Kingdom expressly prohibits."
Charges against
Mohamed- including that he was involved in a dirty bomb plot - have
been dropped, allegedly to prevent the US from revealing torture
evidence. The US authorities now planned to charge him with other
offences, the judges noted yesterday.
The judges took the
extraordinary step of inviting the media to challenge previous
decisions to hold many of the case's hearings in camera. "Although the
argument took place in closed session," they said, "the issue is one of
considerable importance in the context of open justice [and] to the
rule of law."
They suspended proceedings pending a case in the US
courts, where defence lawyers are also trying to force disclosure. That
federal court, the British judges said yesterday, might be given
explanations about US conduct "denied to this court".
Clive
Stafford Smith, the director of the charity Reprieve, described
Mohamed's treatment by the US as a "litany of misconduct".
"First
they tortured him, then they held him for more than six years without
trial, now they want to cover up evidence that could set him free," he
said. "What is the point of a 'special relationship' if the UK
government cannot secure basic justice for Mr Mohamed?"
Richard
Stein, one of Mohamed's lawyers, said: "The grave concerns expressed by
the court about the dealings of the Americans in this case are not
surprising, given the torture Mr Mohamed has suffered. This underlines
the British government's duty to do more than gently nudge its ally
across the Atlantic when it comes to criminal acts taken against a
British resident."
Mohamed, 30, an Ethiopian national and British
resident, was held in Pakistan in 2002, when he was questioned by an
MI5 officer. He was later secretly rendered to Morocco, where he says
he was tortured by having his penis cut with a razor blade. The US
subsequently flew him to Afghanistan and he was transferred to
Guantanamo Bay in September 2004.
Backstory
Attempts to get the UK courts and parliament to take notice of the case of Binyam Mohamed began more than three years ago. Clive Stafford Smith, director of the charity Reprieve, told the Guardian about a hunger strike by Guantanamo Bay prisoners,
including Mohamed, who was rendered to the US base in Cuba. Mohamed's
case was taken up by the all-party parliamentary group on extraordinary
rendition, chaired by Andrew Tyrie MP
UK citizens and residents held at Guantanamo were released between
2005 and 2007, but Mohamed was kept. This summer, the high court heard
about the way the US and British governments tried to stop the release
of evidence about his case. Defence lawyers argued that MI5 misled MPs about his treatment. In August, in an interim judgment, the high court ruled that MI5 had participated in Mohamed's unlawful interrogation.
LONDON - The high court yesterday condemned
as "deeply disturbing" a refusal by the US to disclose evidence that
could prove a British resident held at Guantanamo Bay was tortured
before confessing to terrorism offences.
The court said there was
"no rational basis" for the American failure to reveal the contents of
documents essential to the defence of Binyam Mohamed, who faces the
death penalty.
In a particularly damning passage, Lord Justice
Thomas and Mr Justice Lloyd Jones said claims by Mohamed's lawyers that
the US was refusing to release the papers because "torturers do not
readily hand over evidence of their conduct" could not be dismissed and
required an answer.
The judges said they were unaware of any
precedent for such serious allegations against "the government of a
foreign friendly state and our oldest and closest ally" as those made
in this case.
The US had not provided any explanation for its conduct, though it had had "ample time" to do so, the judges said.
Thomas
and Lloyd said the documents provided the "only independent evidence"
capable of helping Mohamed and his defence. Suppressing the material
"would be to deny him the opportunity of timely justice in respect of
the charges against him", which was a principle dating back to "at
least the time of Magna Carta and which is a basic part of our common
law and of democratic values".
They said David Miliband, the
foreign secretary, conceded there was an "arguable case" that Mohamed
had been subjected to torture and inhuman treatment. Yet Miliband also
wanted to suppress relevant documents, not because they would reveal
any intelligence operations but because the US claimed that if they
were disclosed serious harm would be done to "intelligence sharing"
between the UK and the US.
The judges said it was clear Britain
had "facilitated" Mohamed's interrogation when he was unlawfully
detained in Pakistan before being secretly rendered to Morocco,
Afghanistan, and then to Guantanamo. The US was using confessions made
after two years of unlawful "incommunicado detention" on charges where
the death penalty might be sought, the judges said yesterday.
They
noted that a military prosecutor at the US base had recently resigned
in protest against the treatment of prisoners, including the use of a
"frequent flyer programme". The judges described this as a "euphemism
for a sleep deprivation programme". They added: "This is a practice
which the United Kingdom expressly prohibits."
Charges against
Mohamed- including that he was involved in a dirty bomb plot - have
been dropped, allegedly to prevent the US from revealing torture
evidence. The US authorities now planned to charge him with other
offences, the judges noted yesterday.
The judges took the
extraordinary step of inviting the media to challenge previous
decisions to hold many of the case's hearings in camera. "Although the
argument took place in closed session," they said, "the issue is one of
considerable importance in the context of open justice [and] to the
rule of law."
They suspended proceedings pending a case in the US
courts, where defence lawyers are also trying to force disclosure. That
federal court, the British judges said yesterday, might be given
explanations about US conduct "denied to this court".
Clive
Stafford Smith, the director of the charity Reprieve, described
Mohamed's treatment by the US as a "litany of misconduct".
"First
they tortured him, then they held him for more than six years without
trial, now they want to cover up evidence that could set him free," he
said. "What is the point of a 'special relationship' if the UK
government cannot secure basic justice for Mr Mohamed?"
Richard
Stein, one of Mohamed's lawyers, said: "The grave concerns expressed by
the court about the dealings of the Americans in this case are not
surprising, given the torture Mr Mohamed has suffered. This underlines
the British government's duty to do more than gently nudge its ally
across the Atlantic when it comes to criminal acts taken against a
British resident."
Mohamed, 30, an Ethiopian national and British
resident, was held in Pakistan in 2002, when he was questioned by an
MI5 officer. He was later secretly rendered to Morocco, where he says
he was tortured by having his penis cut with a razor blade. The US
subsequently flew him to Afghanistan and he was transferred to
Guantanamo Bay in September 2004.
Backstory
Attempts to get the UK courts and parliament to take notice of the case of Binyam Mohamed began more than three years ago. Clive Stafford Smith, director of the charity Reprieve, told the Guardian about a hunger strike by Guantanamo Bay prisoners,
including Mohamed, who was rendered to the US base in Cuba. Mohamed's
case was taken up by the all-party parliamentary group on extraordinary
rendition, chaired by Andrew Tyrie MP
UK citizens and residents held at Guantanamo were released between
2005 and 2007, but Mohamed was kept. This summer, the high court heard
about the way the US and British governments tried to stop the release
of evidence about his case. Defence lawyers argued that MI5 misled MPs about his treatment. In August, in an interim judgment, the high court ruled that MI5 had participated in Mohamed's unlawful interrogation.
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.