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
An Admission of Torture?
After yesterday's judgment on Binyam Mohamed, the UK and US governments may now have to admit to suppressing evidence
Feb 05, 2009
At a cursory glance, it may seem that the British court's decision in Binyam Mohamed's case yesterday reached a horrifying result: the evidence of Binyam's torture will be kept secret.
The
judges emphasised that there is a "very considerable public interest in
making the [proof of abuse] public, particularly given the
constitutional importance of the prohibition against torture". Despite
this, they ruled that the foreign secretary has the power to suppress the evidence by claiming "national security".
Yet
the judgment is canny. If the judges had ordered the material to be
revealed, over the government's objection, there would have been a
protracted appeal and nobody would have learned anything for months or
years. Instead, they have placed both the British government and the
Obama administration in the immediate and uncomfortable position of
having to confess whether they want to cover up evidence of torture.
A little background: Binyam, the Guantanamo prisoner represented for years by Reprieve,
has described how he was abused in Pakistan, then rendered to Morocco
where a razor blade was taken to his genitals. We know - from the
judgment - that the UK has documents authored by the Americans
themselves that would help prove some of his mistreatment.
I have seen this evidence, as I have a security clearance in the US. You can't see it. Why not?
The
judges repeat no fewer than eight times that the Bush administration
threatened the British that if the judges made this evidence public,
the US would retaliate with sanctions.
Since when do friends
level threats at friends to prevent them from revealing evidence of
crimes? To be sure, in The Godfather, the mafia might have threatened
to put some cement shoes on an informer, but one hardly expects the
same approach to be taken by the White House.
In this case, there are a multitude of crimes
that have been committed. The first was the torture. The second, the
failure to reveal it. These threats represent a third independent
offence - an attempt to blackmail the British into hiding evidence that
they have a legal duty to reveal. And, because the British apparently
have jelly for a backbone, the threats have worked. The judges were shocked:
We
did not consider that a democracy governed by the rule of law [the US]
would expect a court in another democracy [the UK] to suppress ...
evidence contained in reports by its own officials ... where the evidence
was relevant to allegations of torture ... politically embarrassing
though it might be.
The British government led the
court to believe that the Obama administration has adopted the same
line as its predecessor. But is this really true? Certainly, President
Obama needs to speak for himself.
Indeed, the judges conclude
with something close to a plea for common sense: "It must now be for
the United States government to consider changing its position or
itself putting that information into the public domain."
When
history reviews the past eight years, the most lasting concern will not
be ill-advised experiments such at Guantanamo Bay. Rather, it will be
the creeping tendency of democratic governments to use "national
security" as an excuse to keep the truth from those who have elected
them. After all, if the US and the UK can conspire to suppress evidence
of torture, what other dark secrets can they hide?
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 |
© 2023 The Guardian
Clive Stafford Smith
Clive Stafford Smith is the founder of Reprieve and has spent 25 years working on behalf of defendants facing the death penalty in the USA.
At a cursory glance, it may seem that the British court's decision in Binyam Mohamed's case yesterday reached a horrifying result: the evidence of Binyam's torture will be kept secret.
The
judges emphasised that there is a "very considerable public interest in
making the [proof of abuse] public, particularly given the
constitutional importance of the prohibition against torture". Despite
this, they ruled that the foreign secretary has the power to suppress the evidence by claiming "national security".
Yet
the judgment is canny. If the judges had ordered the material to be
revealed, over the government's objection, there would have been a
protracted appeal and nobody would have learned anything for months or
years. Instead, they have placed both the British government and the
Obama administration in the immediate and uncomfortable position of
having to confess whether they want to cover up evidence of torture.
A little background: Binyam, the Guantanamo prisoner represented for years by Reprieve,
has described how he was abused in Pakistan, then rendered to Morocco
where a razor blade was taken to his genitals. We know - from the
judgment - that the UK has documents authored by the Americans
themselves that would help prove some of his mistreatment.
I have seen this evidence, as I have a security clearance in the US. You can't see it. Why not?
The
judges repeat no fewer than eight times that the Bush administration
threatened the British that if the judges made this evidence public,
the US would retaliate with sanctions.
Since when do friends
level threats at friends to prevent them from revealing evidence of
crimes? To be sure, in The Godfather, the mafia might have threatened
to put some cement shoes on an informer, but one hardly expects the
same approach to be taken by the White House.
In this case, there are a multitude of crimes
that have been committed. The first was the torture. The second, the
failure to reveal it. These threats represent a third independent
offence - an attempt to blackmail the British into hiding evidence that
they have a legal duty to reveal. And, because the British apparently
have jelly for a backbone, the threats have worked. The judges were shocked:
We
did not consider that a democracy governed by the rule of law [the US]
would expect a court in another democracy [the UK] to suppress ...
evidence contained in reports by its own officials ... where the evidence
was relevant to allegations of torture ... politically embarrassing
though it might be.
The British government led the
court to believe that the Obama administration has adopted the same
line as its predecessor. But is this really true? Certainly, President
Obama needs to speak for himself.
Indeed, the judges conclude
with something close to a plea for common sense: "It must now be for
the United States government to consider changing its position or
itself putting that information into the public domain."
When
history reviews the past eight years, the most lasting concern will not
be ill-advised experiments such at Guantanamo Bay. Rather, it will be
the creeping tendency of democratic governments to use "national
security" as an excuse to keep the truth from those who have elected
them. After all, if the US and the UK can conspire to suppress evidence
of torture, what other dark secrets can they hide?
Clive Stafford Smith
Clive Stafford Smith is the founder of Reprieve and has spent 25 years working on behalf of defendants facing the death penalty in the USA.
At a cursory glance, it may seem that the British court's decision in Binyam Mohamed's case yesterday reached a horrifying result: the evidence of Binyam's torture will be kept secret.
The
judges emphasised that there is a "very considerable public interest in
making the [proof of abuse] public, particularly given the
constitutional importance of the prohibition against torture". Despite
this, they ruled that the foreign secretary has the power to suppress the evidence by claiming "national security".
Yet
the judgment is canny. If the judges had ordered the material to be
revealed, over the government's objection, there would have been a
protracted appeal and nobody would have learned anything for months or
years. Instead, they have placed both the British government and the
Obama administration in the immediate and uncomfortable position of
having to confess whether they want to cover up evidence of torture.
A little background: Binyam, the Guantanamo prisoner represented for years by Reprieve,
has described how he was abused in Pakistan, then rendered to Morocco
where a razor blade was taken to his genitals. We know - from the
judgment - that the UK has documents authored by the Americans
themselves that would help prove some of his mistreatment.
I have seen this evidence, as I have a security clearance in the US. You can't see it. Why not?
The
judges repeat no fewer than eight times that the Bush administration
threatened the British that if the judges made this evidence public,
the US would retaliate with sanctions.
Since when do friends
level threats at friends to prevent them from revealing evidence of
crimes? To be sure, in The Godfather, the mafia might have threatened
to put some cement shoes on an informer, but one hardly expects the
same approach to be taken by the White House.
In this case, there are a multitude of crimes
that have been committed. The first was the torture. The second, the
failure to reveal it. These threats represent a third independent
offence - an attempt to blackmail the British into hiding evidence that
they have a legal duty to reveal. And, because the British apparently
have jelly for a backbone, the threats have worked. The judges were shocked:
We
did not consider that a democracy governed by the rule of law [the US]
would expect a court in another democracy [the UK] to suppress ...
evidence contained in reports by its own officials ... where the evidence
was relevant to allegations of torture ... politically embarrassing
though it might be.
The British government led the
court to believe that the Obama administration has adopted the same
line as its predecessor. But is this really true? Certainly, President
Obama needs to speak for himself.
Indeed, the judges conclude
with something close to a plea for common sense: "It must now be for
the United States government to consider changing its position or
itself putting that information into the public domain."
When
history reviews the past eight years, the most lasting concern will not
be ill-advised experiments such at Guantanamo Bay. Rather, it will be
the creeping tendency of democratic governments to use "national
security" as an excuse to keep the truth from those who have elected
them. After all, if the US and the UK can conspire to suppress evidence
of torture, what other dark secrets can they hide?
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.