May 14, 2009
No matter how you dress it up, the question on the table is whether the Obama administration should continue to cover-up
evidence of the criminal offence of torture, committed by US personnel.
It is a truly remarkable notion that evidence of crimes should be
suppressed because it might provoke anger around the world. Try telling
the victim of child abuse that it would be better if we all hushed the
facts up, and let the paedophile go free, because news of what happened
might spark outrage among the readers of the Sun - who, in turn, might
go on a vigilante raid against some innocent paediatrician.
Yet this is basically the argument advanced by Michael Tomasky today. Tomasky is probably correct when he suggests that the photographs
of prisoners being abused by American soldiers will inflame passions.
It is possible that this might even put entirely innocent Americans in
danger. I carry an American passport, and I might be the victim. I
certainly hope none of this happens. But can these fears really justify
the continued cover-up?
I got off a plane this morning from
Washington DC where - sadly - President Obama continues to suppress the
evidence of the torture committed against British resident Binyam Mohamed.
Binyam is suffering badly these days, the bitter consequences of the
years of torture he endured in American custody, in Pakistan, in
Morocco, in the dark prison
in Kabul, and in Guantanamo Bay. So far, the United States has not only
refused to apologise, but will not even admit what American personnel
did to him. Bizarrely (and, as the high court said, the approach of a
totalitarian state rather than a democracy), the US won't even admit where Binyam was for at least two of the seven years he was held without trial.
Binyam
does not want revenge; he is not even calling for people to be locked
up for what they did to him. But he does want the truth to come out, so
that others can be spared his fate next time our politicians respond to
a terrible crime like September 11. We cannot, as he says, expect to
learn from history if we don't know what that history is.
Crimes
have been committed in the recent past against Binyam and others.
Unfortunately, another crime is currently being committed when
politicians suppress evidence of torture. As the judges noted in
Binyam's case, section 52 of the International Criminal Court Act 2001 makes it an offence to assist in concealing a crime such as torture.
We
might all have more sympathy for those keen to sweep all this under the
carpet - to "look forward rather than backwards" as the sloganeering
suggests - if the American and British officials concerned would put
their hands up, admit that they did wrong, and apologise. Sad to say,
this has not happened. Without truth, there is unlikely to be any
reconciliation.
Join Us: News for people demanding a better world
Common Dreams is powered by optimists who believe in the power of informed and engaged citizens to ignite and enact change to make the world a better place. We're hundreds of thousands strong, but every single supporter makes the difference. Your contribution supports this bold media model—free, independent, and dedicated to reporting the facts every day. Stand with us in the fight for economic equality, social justice, human rights, and a more sustainable future. As a people-powered nonprofit news outlet, we cover the issues the corporate media never will. |
© 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.
No matter how you dress it up, the question on the table is whether the Obama administration should continue to cover-up
evidence of the criminal offence of torture, committed by US personnel.
It is a truly remarkable notion that evidence of crimes should be
suppressed because it might provoke anger around the world. Try telling
the victim of child abuse that it would be better if we all hushed the
facts up, and let the paedophile go free, because news of what happened
might spark outrage among the readers of the Sun - who, in turn, might
go on a vigilante raid against some innocent paediatrician.
Yet this is basically the argument advanced by Michael Tomasky today. Tomasky is probably correct when he suggests that the photographs
of prisoners being abused by American soldiers will inflame passions.
It is possible that this might even put entirely innocent Americans in
danger. I carry an American passport, and I might be the victim. I
certainly hope none of this happens. But can these fears really justify
the continued cover-up?
I got off a plane this morning from
Washington DC where - sadly - President Obama continues to suppress the
evidence of the torture committed against British resident Binyam Mohamed.
Binyam is suffering badly these days, the bitter consequences of the
years of torture he endured in American custody, in Pakistan, in
Morocco, in the dark prison
in Kabul, and in Guantanamo Bay. So far, the United States has not only
refused to apologise, but will not even admit what American personnel
did to him. Bizarrely (and, as the high court said, the approach of a
totalitarian state rather than a democracy), the US won't even admit where Binyam was for at least two of the seven years he was held without trial.
Binyam
does not want revenge; he is not even calling for people to be locked
up for what they did to him. But he does want the truth to come out, so
that others can be spared his fate next time our politicians respond to
a terrible crime like September 11. We cannot, as he says, expect to
learn from history if we don't know what that history is.
Crimes
have been committed in the recent past against Binyam and others.
Unfortunately, another crime is currently being committed when
politicians suppress evidence of torture. As the judges noted in
Binyam's case, section 52 of the International Criminal Court Act 2001 makes it an offence to assist in concealing a crime such as torture.
We
might all have more sympathy for those keen to sweep all this under the
carpet - to "look forward rather than backwards" as the sloganeering
suggests - if the American and British officials concerned would put
their hands up, admit that they did wrong, and apologise. Sad to say,
this has not happened. Without truth, there is unlikely to be any
reconciliation.
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.
No matter how you dress it up, the question on the table is whether the Obama administration should continue to cover-up
evidence of the criminal offence of torture, committed by US personnel.
It is a truly remarkable notion that evidence of crimes should be
suppressed because it might provoke anger around the world. Try telling
the victim of child abuse that it would be better if we all hushed the
facts up, and let the paedophile go free, because news of what happened
might spark outrage among the readers of the Sun - who, in turn, might
go on a vigilante raid against some innocent paediatrician.
Yet this is basically the argument advanced by Michael Tomasky today. Tomasky is probably correct when he suggests that the photographs
of prisoners being abused by American soldiers will inflame passions.
It is possible that this might even put entirely innocent Americans in
danger. I carry an American passport, and I might be the victim. I
certainly hope none of this happens. But can these fears really justify
the continued cover-up?
I got off a plane this morning from
Washington DC where - sadly - President Obama continues to suppress the
evidence of the torture committed against British resident Binyam Mohamed.
Binyam is suffering badly these days, the bitter consequences of the
years of torture he endured in American custody, in Pakistan, in
Morocco, in the dark prison
in Kabul, and in Guantanamo Bay. So far, the United States has not only
refused to apologise, but will not even admit what American personnel
did to him. Bizarrely (and, as the high court said, the approach of a
totalitarian state rather than a democracy), the US won't even admit where Binyam was for at least two of the seven years he was held without trial.
Binyam
does not want revenge; he is not even calling for people to be locked
up for what they did to him. But he does want the truth to come out, so
that others can be spared his fate next time our politicians respond to
a terrible crime like September 11. We cannot, as he says, expect to
learn from history if we don't know what that history is.
Crimes
have been committed in the recent past against Binyam and others.
Unfortunately, another crime is currently being committed when
politicians suppress evidence of torture. As the judges noted in
Binyam's case, section 52 of the International Criminal Court Act 2001 makes it an offence to assist in concealing a crime such as torture.
We
might all have more sympathy for those keen to sweep all this under the
carpet - to "look forward rather than backwards" as the sloganeering
suggests - if the American and British officials concerned would put
their hands up, admit that they did wrong, and apologise. Sad to say,
this has not happened. Without truth, there is unlikely to be any
reconciliation.
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.