Friday
Oct162009
Britain, the US, and Torture: David Miliband is Still a Liar
Friday, October 16, 2009 at 18:51
Britain, the US, and Torture: Scott Lucas on BBC (16 October)
War on Terror/Torture Breaking News: David Miliband Is a Liar
Receive our latest updates by email or RSS SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FEED
Buy Us A Cup of Coffee? Help Enduring America Expand Its Coverage and Analysis
This afternoon a British court issued an important and long-awaited ruling in the case of Binyam Mohamed, a British resident tortured in Pakistan and then detained at Guantanamo Bay. The court ordered the British Government to present documents, demanded by Mohamed's lawyers, that established not only the torture but also US and British complicity in the "enhanced interrogation". The British Government had maintained that, because the documents contained information which originated with their US counterpart, its revelation could jeopardise the US-UK intelligence relationship.
In the last hour, I have heard British Foreign Secretary David Miliband maintain in two radio interviews that he would be happy to release the documents but that Washington has insisted they be withheld. Therefore, before getting into the details and implications of his argument --- for example, that any decision of a British court should be set aside because of the demands of the "intelligence" relationship, indeed that torture must not be investigated if there is a US-UK intelligence dimension --- let's re-state:
Miliband is lying.
Reprinted below is our entry from March 2009, after an earlier court decision reluctantly accepted the withholding of the documents. Then as now, Miliband trotted out the line that the decision was up to the Americans; unfortunately, his cover was blown by a State Department official who revealed that the Brown Government had asked Washington to make that statement to the court. That way, the material would still not see the light of day but the British Government could claim that it was not hiding evidence alleging London's own involvement in the torture of Mohamed.
----
Update (3 March): The Guardian reports....
David Miliband, the foreign secretary, is to be questioned by senior MPs over what he and his officials knew about the ill-treatment and secret interrogation of Binyam Mohamed, the former UK resident recently released from Guantánamo Bay. The move was announced yesterday by the Commons foreign affairs committee, which said it also intends to investigate other key issues where recent evidence has thrown up uncomfortable questions for ministers to answer. They are allegations of British complicity in torture in Pakistan, in the US practice of rendering terror suspects to countries where they risked being tortured, and in the transfer of prisoners in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The foreign secretary will not be able to refuse to testify before the Commons foreign affairs committee, which was set up to monitor the activities of his department.
I thought of using the English euphemism "economical with the truth", but that doesn't capture the brazen statement of the Foreign Secretary yesterday regarding alleged British complicity with the torture of detainees.
Having refused to appear before a Parliamentary committee invstigating the charges, Miliband and Home Secretary Jacqui Smith chose instead to write to The Observer of London. Here's a key extract from the letter:
Which would merely be a case of passing the buck rather than lying shamelessly, were it not for this revelation by a former State Department official in The Observer two weeks earlier. He commented on the American letter which asked for the Mohamed evidence to be kept secret:
Foreign Secretary, if you're going to lie while avoiding an inquiry into torture, could you at least give us enough respect not to do in the same newspaper which busted you in the first place?
War on Terror/Torture Breaking News: David Miliband Is a Liar
Receive our latest updates by email or RSS SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FEED
Buy Us A Cup of Coffee? Help Enduring America Expand Its Coverage and Analysis
This afternoon a British court issued an important and long-awaited ruling in the case of Binyam Mohamed, a British resident tortured in Pakistan and then detained at Guantanamo Bay. The court ordered the British Government to present documents, demanded by Mohamed's lawyers, that established not only the torture but also US and British complicity in the "enhanced interrogation". The British Government had maintained that, because the documents contained information which originated with their US counterpart, its revelation could jeopardise the US-UK intelligence relationship.In the last hour, I have heard British Foreign Secretary David Miliband maintain in two radio interviews that he would be happy to release the documents but that Washington has insisted they be withheld. Therefore, before getting into the details and implications of his argument --- for example, that any decision of a British court should be set aside because of the demands of the "intelligence" relationship, indeed that torture must not be investigated if there is a US-UK intelligence dimension --- let's re-state:
Miliband is lying.
Reprinted below is our entry from March 2009, after an earlier court decision reluctantly accepted the withholding of the documents. Then as now, Miliband trotted out the line that the decision was up to the Americans; unfortunately, his cover was blown by a State Department official who revealed that the Brown Government had asked Washington to make that statement to the court. That way, the material would still not see the light of day but the British Government could claim that it was not hiding evidence alleging London's own involvement in the torture of Mohamed.
----
Update (3 March): The Guardian reports....David Miliband, the foreign secretary, is to be questioned by senior MPs over what he and his officials knew about the ill-treatment and secret interrogation of Binyam Mohamed, the former UK resident recently released from Guantánamo Bay. The move was announced yesterday by the Commons foreign affairs committee, which said it also intends to investigate other key issues where recent evidence has thrown up uncomfortable questions for ministers to answer. They are allegations of British complicity in torture in Pakistan, in the US practice of rendering terror suspects to countries where they risked being tortured, and in the transfer of prisoners in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The foreign secretary will not be able to refuse to testify before the Commons foreign affairs committee, which was set up to monitor the activities of his department.
I thought of using the English euphemism "economical with the truth", but that doesn't capture the brazen statement of the Foreign Secretary yesterday regarding alleged British complicity with the torture of detainees.
Having refused to appear before a Parliamentary committee invstigating the charges, Miliband and Home Secretary Jacqui Smith chose instead to write to The Observer of London. Here's a key extract from the letter:
In the case of Binyam Mohamed, you imply that the government has refused to disclose material related to his case because it would embarrass the government. Again, this is not true. As Mr Mohamed's legal representatives have themselves said, it is through this government's efforts that this material was provided to them for use in Mr Mohamed's defence. We have no objection to this material being disclosed publicly. But we believe that the decision to do so is for the US, because the material is from the US.
Which would merely be a case of passing the buck rather than lying shamelessly, were it not for this revelation by a former State Department official in The Observer two weeks earlier. He commented on the American letter which asked for the Mohamed evidence to be kept secret:
Far from being a threat, it was solicited [by the Foreign Office]. The Foreign Office asked for it in writing. They said: "Give us something in writing so that we can put it on the record." If you give us a letter explaining you are opposed to this, then we can provide that to the court.
Foreign Secretary, if you're going to lie while avoiding an inquiry into torture, could you at least give us enough respect not to do in the same newspaper which busted you in the first place?