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
Court Rejects David Miliband Bid to Suppress CIA Evidence
• Sixth damning ruling in Binyam Mohamed case • Foreign secretary's claims of security risk dismissed
Nov 20, 2009
The high court today flatly rejected claims by David Miliband, the foreign secretary, that releasing evidence of the CIA's inhuman and unlawful treatment of UK resident Binyam Mohamed would harm Britain's relations with the US by giving away intelligence secrets.
Evidence that the foreign secretary also wants to suppress is believed to reveal what British intelligence officers knew about Mohamed's treatment. Mohamed, 31, an Ethiopian, says he was tortured in Pakistan, Morocco, Afghanistan, and Guantanamo Bay.
In the sixth in a string of damning rulings, the high court accused Miliband of wanting to suppress information about CIA activities even though details had already been disclosed by the Obama administration. Dismissing Miliband's claims, Lord Justice Thomas and Mr Justice Lloyd Jones insisted they were not trying to give away "American secrets". They said: "Of itself, the treatment to which Mr Mohamed was subjected could never properly be described in a democracy as 'a secret' or an 'intelligence secret' or 'a summary of classified intelligence'."
The judges revealed that seven paragraphs in a key document Miliband insists must remain secret "relate to admissions of what officials of the US did to BM during his detention in Pakistan". They repeated their earlier finding that "what is contained in those seven redacted paragraphs gives rise to an arguable case of torture or cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment".
The court has heard that a British security service officer interrogated Mohamed in Pakistan and officials passed information about him to the CIA. It was clear, the judges said, that the relationship of the UK to the US in connection with Mohamed "was far beyond that of a bystander or witness to the alleged wrongdoing".
In one stinging passage, the judges said yesterday the foreign secretary "was not prepared either to produce evidence or address argument to us".
Evidence that Miliband still wanted kept secret related to the question why "it was impossible to believe that President Obama would take action against the United Kingdom", and "why publication ... is necessary to uphold the rule of law and democratic accountability", the judges said.
They revealed that one passage the foreign secretary had now agreed could be disclosed referred to a memo from Jay Bybee, US assistant attorney general, to John Rizzo, acting CIA general counsel, which, the judges said, "made clear that the techniques described were those employed against Mr Zubaydah, alleged to be a high-ranking member of al Qaida." The judges said the remainder of the paragraph, which remains redacted from public versions of their rulings, was a "verbatim quote" from a memo made public in the US seven months ago.
The Bybee memo was written in 2002, the year Mohamed was arrested. It sought to justify as legal, and not regarded as torture, such treatment meted out to Abu Zubaydah as temperature extremes, music played at debilitating volumes, and sexual humiliation. Zubaydah was also subjected to beatings, isolation, wall standing, continuous cramped confinement, sleep deprivation, and waterboarding.
The judges yesterday appeared to invite a comparison between the treatment of Zubaydah and Mohamed. They referred to another piece of evidence Miliband wanted kept secret which, they said, was "consistent with the publication of the CIA interrogation technique memoranda".
It was necessary to stand back and ask "whether President Obama would curtail the supply of information to the United States' oldest ally when what was put into the public domain was not intelligence".
The judges added: "It is difficult ... to see any grounds for rejecting the submission of Mr Mohamed, the UK media and the international media that there is no evidence of any real risk of serious harm to the national security of the UK."
The legal charity Reprieve tonight accused Miliband of using "Alice in Wonderland" argument to suppress the details of the torture of Mohamed even though those details were in the public domain. "The high court judges were scathing about the foreign secretary's view that publishing torture methods poses a risk to national security," it said.
A Foreign Office spokesperson said: "We are appealing the judgments ... The issues go to the heart of the UK's intelligence sharing relationship with other countries and efforts to defend UK security."
The judges revealed that the foreign secretary had so far agreed to pay Mohamed's costs up to September last year amounting to more than PS189,000.
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.
The high court today flatly rejected claims by David Miliband, the foreign secretary, that releasing evidence of the CIA's inhuman and unlawful treatment of UK resident Binyam Mohamed would harm Britain's relations with the US by giving away intelligence secrets.
Evidence that the foreign secretary also wants to suppress is believed to reveal what British intelligence officers knew about Mohamed's treatment. Mohamed, 31, an Ethiopian, says he was tortured in Pakistan, Morocco, Afghanistan, and Guantanamo Bay.
In the sixth in a string of damning rulings, the high court accused Miliband of wanting to suppress information about CIA activities even though details had already been disclosed by the Obama administration. Dismissing Miliband's claims, Lord Justice Thomas and Mr Justice Lloyd Jones insisted they were not trying to give away "American secrets". They said: "Of itself, the treatment to which Mr Mohamed was subjected could never properly be described in a democracy as 'a secret' or an 'intelligence secret' or 'a summary of classified intelligence'."
The judges revealed that seven paragraphs in a key document Miliband insists must remain secret "relate to admissions of what officials of the US did to BM during his detention in Pakistan". They repeated their earlier finding that "what is contained in those seven redacted paragraphs gives rise to an arguable case of torture or cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment".
The court has heard that a British security service officer interrogated Mohamed in Pakistan and officials passed information about him to the CIA. It was clear, the judges said, that the relationship of the UK to the US in connection with Mohamed "was far beyond that of a bystander or witness to the alleged wrongdoing".
In one stinging passage, the judges said yesterday the foreign secretary "was not prepared either to produce evidence or address argument to us".
Evidence that Miliband still wanted kept secret related to the question why "it was impossible to believe that President Obama would take action against the United Kingdom", and "why publication ... is necessary to uphold the rule of law and democratic accountability", the judges said.
They revealed that one passage the foreign secretary had now agreed could be disclosed referred to a memo from Jay Bybee, US assistant attorney general, to John Rizzo, acting CIA general counsel, which, the judges said, "made clear that the techniques described were those employed against Mr Zubaydah, alleged to be a high-ranking member of al Qaida." The judges said the remainder of the paragraph, which remains redacted from public versions of their rulings, was a "verbatim quote" from a memo made public in the US seven months ago.
The Bybee memo was written in 2002, the year Mohamed was arrested. It sought to justify as legal, and not regarded as torture, such treatment meted out to Abu Zubaydah as temperature extremes, music played at debilitating volumes, and sexual humiliation. Zubaydah was also subjected to beatings, isolation, wall standing, continuous cramped confinement, sleep deprivation, and waterboarding.
The judges yesterday appeared to invite a comparison between the treatment of Zubaydah and Mohamed. They referred to another piece of evidence Miliband wanted kept secret which, they said, was "consistent with the publication of the CIA interrogation technique memoranda".
It was necessary to stand back and ask "whether President Obama would curtail the supply of information to the United States' oldest ally when what was put into the public domain was not intelligence".
The judges added: "It is difficult ... to see any grounds for rejecting the submission of Mr Mohamed, the UK media and the international media that there is no evidence of any real risk of serious harm to the national security of the UK."
The legal charity Reprieve tonight accused Miliband of using "Alice in Wonderland" argument to suppress the details of the torture of Mohamed even though those details were in the public domain. "The high court judges were scathing about the foreign secretary's view that publishing torture methods poses a risk to national security," it said.
A Foreign Office spokesperson said: "We are appealing the judgments ... The issues go to the heart of the UK's intelligence sharing relationship with other countries and efforts to defend UK security."
The judges revealed that the foreign secretary had so far agreed to pay Mohamed's costs up to September last year amounting to more than PS189,000.
The high court today flatly rejected claims by David Miliband, the foreign secretary, that releasing evidence of the CIA's inhuman and unlawful treatment of UK resident Binyam Mohamed would harm Britain's relations with the US by giving away intelligence secrets.
Evidence that the foreign secretary also wants to suppress is believed to reveal what British intelligence officers knew about Mohamed's treatment. Mohamed, 31, an Ethiopian, says he was tortured in Pakistan, Morocco, Afghanistan, and Guantanamo Bay.
In the sixth in a string of damning rulings, the high court accused Miliband of wanting to suppress information about CIA activities even though details had already been disclosed by the Obama administration. Dismissing Miliband's claims, Lord Justice Thomas and Mr Justice Lloyd Jones insisted they were not trying to give away "American secrets". They said: "Of itself, the treatment to which Mr Mohamed was subjected could never properly be described in a democracy as 'a secret' or an 'intelligence secret' or 'a summary of classified intelligence'."
The judges revealed that seven paragraphs in a key document Miliband insists must remain secret "relate to admissions of what officials of the US did to BM during his detention in Pakistan". They repeated their earlier finding that "what is contained in those seven redacted paragraphs gives rise to an arguable case of torture or cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment".
The court has heard that a British security service officer interrogated Mohamed in Pakistan and officials passed information about him to the CIA. It was clear, the judges said, that the relationship of the UK to the US in connection with Mohamed "was far beyond that of a bystander or witness to the alleged wrongdoing".
In one stinging passage, the judges said yesterday the foreign secretary "was not prepared either to produce evidence or address argument to us".
Evidence that Miliband still wanted kept secret related to the question why "it was impossible to believe that President Obama would take action against the United Kingdom", and "why publication ... is necessary to uphold the rule of law and democratic accountability", the judges said.
They revealed that one passage the foreign secretary had now agreed could be disclosed referred to a memo from Jay Bybee, US assistant attorney general, to John Rizzo, acting CIA general counsel, which, the judges said, "made clear that the techniques described were those employed against Mr Zubaydah, alleged to be a high-ranking member of al Qaida." The judges said the remainder of the paragraph, which remains redacted from public versions of their rulings, was a "verbatim quote" from a memo made public in the US seven months ago.
The Bybee memo was written in 2002, the year Mohamed was arrested. It sought to justify as legal, and not regarded as torture, such treatment meted out to Abu Zubaydah as temperature extremes, music played at debilitating volumes, and sexual humiliation. Zubaydah was also subjected to beatings, isolation, wall standing, continuous cramped confinement, sleep deprivation, and waterboarding.
The judges yesterday appeared to invite a comparison between the treatment of Zubaydah and Mohamed. They referred to another piece of evidence Miliband wanted kept secret which, they said, was "consistent with the publication of the CIA interrogation technique memoranda".
It was necessary to stand back and ask "whether President Obama would curtail the supply of information to the United States' oldest ally when what was put into the public domain was not intelligence".
The judges added: "It is difficult ... to see any grounds for rejecting the submission of Mr Mohamed, the UK media and the international media that there is no evidence of any real risk of serious harm to the national security of the UK."
The legal charity Reprieve tonight accused Miliband of using "Alice in Wonderland" argument to suppress the details of the torture of Mohamed even though those details were in the public domain. "The high court judges were scathing about the foreign secretary's view that publishing torture methods poses a risk to national security," it said.
A Foreign Office spokesperson said: "We are appealing the judgments ... The issues go to the heart of the UK's intelligence sharing relationship with other countries and efforts to defend UK security."
The judges revealed that the foreign secretary had so far agreed to pay Mohamed's costs up to September last year amounting to more than PS189,000.
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.