Gitmo 8 to sue Mi5.

[Park Life 71]

Guantanamo Britons to sue MI5 over ‘illegal interrogation’

The eight men were detained in Afghanistan and Pakistan at various times

 

Fiona Hamilton

The three men from Tipton launched a lawsuit against the American authorities two years ago, alleging they were mistreated during their time in captivity. The US Court of Appeal dismissed their action earlier this year but they are appealing to the Supreme Court.

 

Eight men freed from Guantanamo Bay are suing the British Government for millions of pounds, claiming that it was complicit in the process in which they were detained and sent for interrogation at the detention camp.

 

The group have issued writs against MI5 and MI6 and said that the British authorities had knowledge of their illegal abduction, treatment and interrogation.

 

The eight men were detained in Afghanistan and Pakistan at various times. It is understood that they claim that the British authorities were aware that they would be removed to Guantanamo but nonetheless continued to co-operate with the Americans. The Daily Mail last night reported that two separate writs had been lodged by the group, with five Britons and three foreign citizens naming “The Security Services”, “The Secret Intelligence Agency” and “The Attorney-General” as defendants.

 

 

'I told FBI about ringleader before 7/7 bombings'

No extradition for Guantanamo two

The first writ was issued at the High Court in London by lawyers acting for Omar Deghayes, a Libyan, Jamil el-Banna, a Jordanian — both released last December — and Bisher al-Rawi, an Iraqi, released this year. All three men live in Britain but are foreign nationals.

 

The second names five Britons as claimants: Moazzam Begg, released in 2005, Richard Belmar, and the so-called “Tipton Three” — Ruhal Ahmed, Shafiq Rasul and Asif Iqbal. All were released in previous years.

 

The newspaper reported that one of the eight men claimed that the group were put on CIA “torture flights” to the prison camp in Cuba.

 

The Government has faced calls recently to order an independent inquiry into the process, known as “extraordinary rendition”, in which terrorism suspects are sent for interrogation in states where they have no legal protection."

 

 

Similar legal battle going on in Germany with regard to innocent bloke picked up on holiday can't remember the details....

 

I didn't think you could sue Mi5 as such..

Edited April 19, 2008 by Park Life

[Howay 12496]

I didn't think you could sue them either, anyway I thought all this nasty stuff was ok for agencies like them to do with all them CIA blacksites.

They'll probably 'disappear' before the trial .

[Park Life 71]

I didn't think you could sue them either, anyway I thought all this nasty stuff was ok for agencies like them to do with all them CIA blacksites.

They'll probably 'disappear' before the trial .

 

 

Yeah it's a strange one this...Pretty much can abduct and 'interrogate' anyone on the planet and keep it secret.

[Fop 1]

Well they are just saying our intelligence services knew they were being moved to Guantanamo and suing.

 

Just a money grab is all.

 

As much as I don't really agree with Guantanamo for several reason, very few of the people taken in Afghanistan (the "tipton 3" were, and in fact admitted to attending Islamic terror training camps there, and refused to take lie detector tests about their "intent" there after release ) had any genuine reason for being there.

 

Very similar to the pay out this week to convicts for being made to go cold turkey really.

[Park Life 71]

Well they are just saying our intelligence services knew they were being moved to Guantanamo and suing.

 

Just a money grab is all.

 

As much as I don't really agree with Guantanamo for several reason, very few of the people taken in Afghanistan (the "tipton 3" were, and in fact admitted to attending Islamic terror training camps there, and refused to take lie detector tests about their "intent" there after release ) had any genuine reason for being there.

 

Very similar to the pay out this week to convicts for being made to go cold turkey really.

 

The Birmingham lot got off cause it was clear they were in Pakistan for a wedding as they maintained all along. Not sure if these are the same lads you're on about...?

[Howay 12496]

I didn't think you could sue them either, anyway I thought all this nasty stuff was ok for agencies like them to do with all them CIA blacksites.

They'll probably 'disappear' before the trial .

 

 

Yeah it's a strange one this...Pretty much can abduct and 'interrogate' anyone on the planet and keep it secret.

Worrying stuff like

[Fop 1]

Well they are just saying our intelligence services knew they were being moved to Guantanamo and suing.

 

Just a money grab is all.

 

As much as I don't really agree with Guantanamo for several reason, very few of the people taken in Afghanistan (the "tipton 3" were, and in fact admitted to attending Islamic terror training camps there, and refused to take lie detector tests about their "intent" there after release ) had any genuine reason for being there.

 

Very similar to the pay out this week to convicts for being made to go cold turkey really.

 

The Birmingham lot got off cause it was clear they were in Pakistan for a wedding as they maintained all along. Not sure if these are the same lads you're on about...?

 

Aye there's some that were taken in Pakistan (and some poor bastards that were quite clearly completely erroneously taken in Pakistan - that taxi driver that was taken and held for 2 years for example ), but a significant proportion held there were taken in Afghanistan in combat or in areas where they could be little else other than enemy combatants.

 

So there's quite a few (perhaps the majority) in Guantanamo that pretty much were either active Islamic fighters or training to be, and I must admit I don't really see a way for the USA to morally contain those people (they are effectively POWs, but in war that cannot be won, so you can't just hold them until after the war al la WW2 etc., because it may be 30 year before there is no chance they will return to the fight, yet there is likely not enough evidence to convict them legally either. Huge catch 22 which just causes all sorts of problems no matter what).

 

 

Certainly the Tipton lot from the UK were there in Afghanistan (the had no links to Afghanistan or other reason to be there) to train in the terror camps there, as their admittance to visiting one and refusing to take lie detectors tests about their intent clearly shows (logically if not legally, anyway). But the UK Government will probably end up paying them off anyway.

 

 

 

 

 

Which is one of the problems when talking about Guantanamo, there were/are massive miscarriages of justice there, issues of human rights and torture, but also quite a lot of genuinely nasty and quite murderous people.

 

The thing I'll never understand is you have supposedly peaceful people quite willing to apologise for the kidnapping and live, filmed beheading of a completely innocent civil engineer, yet many of those same people equally seem to think everyone in Guantanamo is utterly innocent......... when in reality many in there might well have been the people beheading innocents if they'd not been put in there.

 

Somewhere like China wouldn't have had the USA's problem though, they'd just have shot them all immediately, or taken them off somewhere unknown, interrogated them and then shot them.

[Howay 12496]

The thing I'll never understand is you have supposedly peaceful people quite willing to apologise for the kidnapping and live, filmed beheading of a completely innocent civil engineer, yet many of those same people equally seem to think everyone in Guantanamo is utterly innocent......... when in reality many in there might well have been the people beheading innocents if they'd not been put in there.

 

Somewhere like China wouldn't have had the USA's problem though, they'd just have shot them all immediately, or taken them off somewhere unknown, interrogated them and then shot them.

Agree totally, I think the country's attitude to this sort of thing really does need to harden up a bit. It is awful when people are wrongfully killed or captured and interrogated for years (like the taxi driver you mention) however alot of the extremists we are encountering quite rightly think we are soft touches at this sort of thing, which is why the Americans are taking it a step further with Interrogations and things of this nature. I hope those wrongfully captured are compensated but those like the Tipton 3 do not deserve compensation. This war doesn't seem to have an end in sight there seems to be no end to young Muslims being radicalized and there is no way of identifying them from normal innocent Muslims unless they are caught in the act, doesn't look good at all. It's ok now though as Blair thinks himself some sort of peace envoy to the middle east after starting two wars there and Brown, after seeing how well the USA looks after their military has decided that rather than increasing funding, research and military hospital quality a new medal based on the American purple heart would be great.

[LeazesMag 0]

Well they are just saying our intelligence services knew they were being moved to Guantanamo and suing.

 

Just a money grab is all.

 

As much as I don't really agree with Guantanamo for several reason, very few of the people taken in Afghanistan (the "tipton 3" were, and in fact admitted to attending Islamic terror training camps there, and refused to take lie detector tests about their "intent" there after release ) had any genuine reason for being there.

 

Very similar to the pay out this week to convicts for being made to go cold turkey really.

 

The Birmingham lot got off cause it was clear they were in Pakistan for a wedding as they maintained all along. Not sure if these are the same lads you're on about...?

 

Aye there's some that were taken in Pakistan (and some poor bastards that were quite clearly completely erroneously taken in Pakistan - that taxi driver that was taken and held for 2 years for example ), but a significant proportion held there were taken in Afghanistan in combat or in areas where they could be little else other than enemy combatants.

 

So there's quite a few (perhaps the majority) in Guantanamo that pretty much were either active Islamic fighters or training to be, and I must admit I don't really see a way for the USA to morally contain those people (they are effectively POWs, but in war that cannot be won, so you can't just hold them until after the war al la WW2 etc., because it may be 30 year before there is no chance they will return to the fight, yet there is likely not enough evidence to convict them legally either. Huge catch 22 which just causes all sorts of problems no matter what).

 

 

Certainly the Tipton lot from the UK were there in Afghanistan (the had no links to Afghanistan or other reason to be there) to train in the terror camps there, as their admittance to visiting one and refusing to take lie detectors tests about their intent clearly shows (logically if not legally, anyway). But the UK Government will probably end up paying them off anyway.

 

 

 

 

 

Which is one of the problems when talking about Guantanamo, there were/are massive miscarriages of justice there, issues of human rights and torture, but also quite a lot of genuinely nasty and quite murderous people.

 

The thing I'll never understand is you have supposedly peaceful people quite willing to apologise for the kidnapping and live, filmed beheading of a completely innocent civil engineer, yet many of those same people equally seem to think everyone in Guantanamo is utterly innocent......... when in reality many in there might well have been the people beheading innocents if they'd not been put in there.

 

Somewhere like China wouldn't have had the USA's problem though, they'd just have shot them all immediately, or taken them off somewhere unknown, interrogated them and then shot them.

 

is the correct answer

[Park Life 71]

Well they are just saying our intelligence services knew they were being moved to Guantanamo and suing.

 

Just a money grab is all.

 

As much as I don't really agree with Guantanamo for several reason, very few of the people taken in Afghanistan (the "tipton 3" were, and in fact admitted to attending Islamic terror training camps there, and refused to take lie detector tests about their "intent" there after release ) had any genuine reason for being there.

 

Very similar to the pay out this week to convicts for being made to go cold turkey really.

 

The Birmingham lot got off cause it was clear they were in Pakistan for a wedding as they maintained all along. Not sure if these are the same lads you're on about...?

 

Aye there's some that were taken in Pakistan (and some poor bastards that were quite clearly completely erroneously taken in Pakistan - that taxi driver that was taken and held for 2 years for example ), but a significant proportion held there were taken in Afghanistan in combat or in areas where they could be little else other than enemy combatants.

 

So there's quite a few (perhaps the majority) in Guantanamo that pretty much were either active Islamic fighters or training to be, and I must admit I don't really see a way for the USA to morally contain those people (they are effectively POWs, but in war that cannot be won, so you can't just hold them until after the war al la WW2 etc., because it may be 30 year before there is no chance they will return to the fight, yet there is likely not enough evidence to convict them legally either. Huge catch 22 which just causes all sorts of problems no matter what).

 

 

Certainly the Tipton lot from the UK were there in Afghanistan (the had no links to Afghanistan or other reason to be there) to train in the terror camps there, as their admittance to visiting one and refusing to take lie detectors tests about their intent clearly shows (logically if not legally, anyway). But the UK Government will probably end up paying them off anyway.

 

 

 

 

 

Which is one of the problems when talking about Guantanamo, there were/are massive miscarriages of justice there, issues of human rights and torture, but also quite a lot of genuinely nasty and quite murderous people.

 

The thing I'll never understand is you have supposedly peaceful people quite willing to apologise for the kidnapping and live, filmed beheading of a completely innocent civil engineer, yet many of those same people equally seem to think everyone in Guantanamo is utterly innocent......... when in reality many in there might well have been the people beheading innocents if they'd not been put in there.

 

Somewhere like China wouldn't have had the USA's problem though, they'd just have shot them all immediately, or taken them off somewhere unknown, interrogated them and then shot them.

 

is the correct answer

 

We either respect international law or we don't. I don't really mind if we don't but lets just make it clear to everyone and not hide behind rubbish like 'enemy combatants' etc.(This will make us no better than them). As with all scenarios involving high pressure and life and death situations mistakes are going to happen I'd prefer it if when these issues are highlighted the Govt. take some responsibility as in some scenarios we are dealing with our own citizens. Belmarsh is being investigated by the EU and has already been declared illegal (holding without charge over long periods). Ultimately we will win this war with hearts and minds and to those watching lets show some clear blue water and if we are on the side of righteousness lets act like it, cause in every instance we can show fair play we give 'them' less chance to recruit.

[Fop 1]

Well they are just saying our intelligence services knew they were being moved to Guantanamo and suing.

 

Just a money grab is all.

 

As much as I don't really agree with Guantanamo for several reason, very few of the people taken in Afghanistan (the "tipton 3" were, and in fact admitted to attending Islamic terror training camps there, and refused to take lie detector tests about their "intent" there after release ) had any genuine reason for being there.

 

Very similar to the pay out this week to convicts for being made to go cold turkey really.

 

The Birmingham lot got off cause it was clear they were in Pakistan for a wedding as they maintained all along. Not sure if these are the same lads you're on about...?

 

Aye there's some that were taken in Pakistan (and some poor bastards that were quite clearly completely erroneously taken in Pakistan - that taxi driver that was taken and held for 2 years for example ), but a significant proportion held there were taken in Afghanistan in combat or in areas where they could be little else other than enemy combatants.

 

So there's quite a few (perhaps the majority) in Guantanamo that pretty much were either active Islamic fighters or training to be, and I must admit I don't really see a way for the USA to morally contain those people (they are effectively POWs, but in war that cannot be won, so you can't just hold them until after the war al la WW2 etc., because it may be 30 year before there is no chance they will return to the fight, yet there is likely not enough evidence to convict them legally either. Huge catch 22 which just causes all sorts of problems no matter what).

 

 

Certainly the Tipton lot from the UK were there in Afghanistan (the had no links to Afghanistan or other reason to be there) to train in the terror camps there, as their admittance to visiting one and refusing to take lie detectors tests about their intent clearly shows (logically if not legally, anyway). But the UK Government will probably end up paying them off anyway.

 

 

 

 

 

Which is one of the problems when talking about Guantanamo, there were/are massive miscarriages of justice there, issues of human rights and torture, but also quite a lot of genuinely nasty and quite murderous people.

 

The thing I'll never understand is you have supposedly peaceful people quite willing to apologise for the kidnapping and live, filmed beheading of a completely innocent civil engineer, yet many of those same people equally seem to think everyone in Guantanamo is utterly innocent......... when in reality many in there might well have been the people beheading innocents if they'd not been put in there.

 

Somewhere like China wouldn't have had the USA's problem though, they'd just have shot them all immediately, or taken them off somewhere unknown, interrogated them and then shot them.

 

is the correct answer

 

We either respect international law or we don't. I don't really mind if we don't but lets just make it clear to everyone and not hide behind rubbish like 'enemy combatants' etc.(This will make us no better than them). As with all scenarios involving high pressure and life and death situations mistakes are going to happen I'd prefer it if when these issues are highlighted the Govt. take some responsibility as in some scenarios we are dealing with our own citizens. Belmarsh is being investigated by the EU and has already been declared illegal (holding without charge over long periods). Ultimately we will win this war with hearts and minds and to those watching lets show some clear blue water and if we are on the side of righteousness lets act like it, cause in every instance we can show fair play we give 'them' less chance to recruit.

 

 

Some actually were "enemy combatants" though, they were actually captured in fighting (others capture after fighting in situations where they could be little else other than the combatants engaged trying to flee).

 

Whilst some like that taxi driver were certainly massive miscarriages, quite a few (most?) were taken in ways that left the US with no real "good" or "legal" outcome.

 

Which leads back to the same situation of letting people that most likely ARE a real danger go, or holding them in a legal limbo. No good outcome for the USA (as I said countries like China in that situation you'd never even have known they were taken in the first place, just taken, killed and vanished, or taken, interrogated, killed and vanished with no one the wiser).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Also you can see how difficult and problematic they are to contain, as the tipton 3 demonstrate.

 

If they'd been allowed their chosen path they would have been trained at those camps and at least put on the path to terrorism (whether they would have taken it no one can know for sure). And yet despite being willing and committed enough to leave the UK and go to Afghanistan for that reason, they are also quite happy to pretend it was all a big mistake and cash in.

 

Furthermore none of what they actually did was likely enough for them to be convicted of anything in the UK, so they are "innocent" legally yet clearly morally and in reality quite guilty of at least going to be trained in those terror training camps (and you don't do that with the intent of just rounding out your education, I'm afraid).

 

People like that can (and indeed have in the opposite way) turn in a second....... although maybe if they get £1,000,000 a piece they'll be happy enough...... not a great way of dealing with terrorists really though.

[Park Life 71]

One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter. The U.S. has been training really evil and nasty 'freedom fighters' in camps in Panama for at least 3 decades to be let loose in various parts of South and Central America (more recently Afghanistan). In Iraq currently there are thousands of 'mercenaries' from all over the world getting paid by our side who have no legal standing to be fighting or taking part logistically in a war of any kind.

 

Let's not start pretending some nutters from wherever caught in war zones who happen to be 'on the other side' is anything new or unique.

 

What troubles me personally is where there is clear evidence of people who are our citizens taking part in scenarios against us. That is what we need to look at and get some consistency on how we deal with it. I agree it needs dealing with.

Edited April 20, 2008 by Park Life

[Fop 1]

One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter.

 

Nah, that's just an easily misrepresented platitude.

 

When you actually aim to kill innocent people you're a terrorist. Just because a few people might agree with your methods to achieve an end doesn't mean you aren't a murderous bastard.

 

 

Admittedly the end result can be indistinguishable, but the intent is always quite clear.

 

 

 

 

 

The U.S. has been training really evil and nasty 'freedom fighters' in camps in Panama for at least 3 decades to be let loose in various parts of South and Central America (more recently Afghanistan). In Iraq currently there are thousands of 'mercenaries' from all over the world getting paid by our side who have no legal standing to be fighting or taking part logistically in a war of any kind.

 

Let's not start pretending some nutters from wherever caught in war zones who happen to be 'on the other side' is anything new or unique.

 

That's a different issue (although related at least in that Al-qaeda comes in part from US funded resistance against the USSR in Afghanistan).

 

The largest issue with Guantanamo is what does a country do with combatants taken in what is effectively "war" when there isn't actually a "war" to end or win?

 

Although I do suspect that IF the people been detained in Guantanamo were say mainly white Nazis there'd not be anything like the outcry there has been..... or indeed as I said if it had been China in the USA's position (China gets very little to no shit for being the main supplier of arms to African wars for example).

 

 

 

 

What troubles me personally is where there is clear evidence of people who are our citizens taking part in scenarios against us. That is what we need to look at and get some consistency on how we deal with it. I agree it needs dealing with.

 

That basically goes back to immigration and non-assimilation, but that's something which will never be grasped politically (as 7/7 clearly shows).

 

The thing is when our citizens do take part in activities like that abroad there's actually not a lot we can do (apart from pay them off), although again I suspect if we were talking about white racists that had planed to murder say black people abroad they'd be getting much less support for the same actions and intent.

 

Legally the tipton 3 have no case to answer in the UK. And yet effectively we're letting people that were willing to train to be people ready to kill and die for a (Islamo)fascist cause which brooks no argument, compromise or opposition at all.

 

Although part of the problem with the UK is that certain groups and lobbies will use and excuse anything if they think it will further their own agenda. This had been seen repeatedly in the last few years.

 

 

Both those issues are unavoidable downsides to democracy though, I guess.

[Happy Face 29]

We either respect international law or we don't. I don't really mind if we don't but lets just make it clear to everyone and not hide behind rubbish like 'enemy combatants' etc.(This will make us no better than them). As with all scenarios involving high pressure and life and death situations mistakes are going to happen I'd prefer it if when these issues are highlighted the Govt. take some responsibility as in some scenarios we are dealing with our own citizens. Belmarsh is being investigated by the EU and has already been declared illegal (holding without charge over long periods). Ultimately we will win this war with hearts and minds and to those watching lets show some clear blue water and if we are on the side of righteousness lets act like it, cause in every instance we can show fair play we give 'them' less chance to recruit.

 

 

We don't.....

 

Cheyney says "I was a big supporter of waterboarding"

 

Cheyney can go on national TV and gloat of the war crimes he supported while in office safe in the knowledge that attorney general Eric Holder will do fuck all about it.

 

As Andrew Sullivan notes...

 

In fact, the attorney general of the United States is legally obliged to prosecute someone who has openly admitted such a war crime or be in violation of the Geneva Conventions and the UN Convention on Torture. For Eric Holder to ignore this duty subjects him too to prosecution. If the US government fails to enforce the provision against torture, the UN or a foreign court can initiate an investigation and prosecution.

 

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_...erboarding.html

 

Who's got the Cojones to start legal proceedings?

Edited February 17, 2010 by Happy Face

[manc-mag 1]

We either respect international law or we don't. I don't really mind if we don't but lets just make it clear to everyone and not hide behind rubbish like 'enemy combatants' etc.(This will make us no better than them). As with all scenarios involving high pressure and life and death situations mistakes are going to happen I'd prefer it if when these issues are highlighted the Govt. take some responsibility as in some scenarios we are dealing with our own citizens. Belmarsh is being investigated by the EU and has already been declared illegal (holding without charge over long periods). Ultimately we will win this war with hearts and minds and to those watching lets show some clear blue water and if we are on the side of righteousness lets act like it, cause in every instance we can show fair play we give 'them' less chance to recruit.

 

 

We don't.....

 

Cheyney says "I was a big supporter of waterboarding"

 

Cheyney can go on national TV and gloat of the war crimes he supported while in office safe in the knowledge that attorney general Eric Holder will do fuck all about it.

 

As Andrew Sullivan notes...

 

In fact, the attorney general of the United States is legally obliged to prosecute someone who has openly admitted such a war crime or be in violation of the Geneva Conventions and the UN Convention on Torture. For Eric Holder to ignore this duty subjects him too to prosecution. If the US government fails to enforce the provision against torture, the UN or a foreign court can initiate an investigation and prosecution.

 

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_...erboarding.html

 

Who's got the Cojones to start legal proceedings?

 

I reckon you should lay a complaint and summons down South Shields Mags. Granted it might have to be transferred to Newcastle if it gets up and running, but you can claim bus fares back.

[Happy Face 29]

We either respect international law or we don't. I don't really mind if we don't but lets just make it clear to everyone and not hide behind rubbish like 'enemy combatants' etc.(This will make us no better than them). As with all scenarios involving high pressure and life and death situations mistakes are going to happen I'd prefer it if when these issues are highlighted the Govt. take some responsibility as in some scenarios we are dealing with our own citizens. Belmarsh is being investigated by the EU and has already been declared illegal (holding without charge over long periods). Ultimately we will win this war with hearts and minds and to those watching lets show some clear blue water and if we are on the side of righteousness lets act like it, cause in every instance we can show fair play we give 'them' less chance to recruit.

 

 

We don't.....

 

Cheyney says "I was a big supporter of waterboarding"

 

Cheyney can go on national TV and gloat of the war crimes he supported while in office safe in the knowledge that attorney general Eric Holder will do fuck all about it.

 

As Andrew Sullivan notes...

 

In fact, the attorney general of the United States is legally obliged to prosecute someone who has openly admitted such a war crime or be in violation of the Geneva Conventions and the UN Convention on Torture. For Eric Holder to ignore this duty subjects him too to prosecution. If the US government fails to enforce the provision against torture, the UN or a foreign court can initiate an investigation and prosecution.

 

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_...erboarding.html

 

Who's got the Cojones to start legal proceedings?

 

I reckon you should lay a complaint and summons down South Shields Mags. Granted it might have to be transferred to Newcastle if it gets up and running, but you can claim bus fares back.

 

Milliband has Shields sewn up man, he's not averse to pressuring judges. I'll get Bridget on it down in mackem land

[Happy Face 29]

On the subject of Miliband, I tend to concentrate on the US because they sponsor the torture, but the news last week of the UK's complicity is shameful...

 

The political fallout over revelations of Britain’s complicity in the torture by US forces of former Guantanamo Bay detainee Binyam Mohamed has embroiled the Brown government and MI5 in equal measure.

 

Following confirmation by the Court of Appeal last week of Mohamed’s claim that the MI5 intelligence agency was fully aware of the brutal treatment he received, and even provided information and questions to be asked by his torturers, senior political figures, including the attorney general at the time, have demanded that the government provide answers.

 

Ethiopian-born Mohamed, a British resident, was arrested in Pakistan on April 10, 2002 as he was about to board a flight to Britain. After being imprisoned and tortured in Pakistan, he was turned over to the FBI. A victim of extraordinary rendition at the hands of the CIA, he was flown to Morocco, where he was again tortured, including being slashed with scalpels or razor blades on his chest and penis. He was moved to Afghanistan, where he was frequently tortured in the infamous “Dark Prison” before being finally detained in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Held at Guantanamo for four years, he again suffered torture and abuse.

 

Mohamed was finally released in February 2009 without charge, after nearly seven years in captivity. He is now suing the British government.

 

After the failure of a challenge by Foreign Secretary David Miliband, the Court of Appeal made public seven redacted paragraphs from its earlier findings based on 42 still classified documents, handed over by US intelligence to MI5 and confirming that Mohamed had been tortured. The judgement found that Mohamed’s treatment had been “at the very least cruel, inhuman and degrading.” The court said that Mohamed’s account of his torture had already been acknowledged as fact in a US court in November.

 

Miliband and Home Secretary Alan Johnson, in a joint open letter, immediately denied that the UK was complicit with the CIA in torture. Johnson accused the media of publishing “ludicrous lies” about MI5.

 

Richard Evans, the head of MI5, writing in the Daily Telegraph, implied that the court was acting as an unwitting tool of terrorists. He stated, “For their part, our enemies will also seek to use all tools at their disposal to attack us. That means not just bombs, bullets and aircraft but also propaganda and campaigns to undermine our will and ability to confront them.”

 

Mindful of what could yet be revealed as a result of the Binyam Mohamed case and others yet to be heard in court, Evans claimed that the “British intelligence community was merely slow to detect the emerging pattern of US mistreatment of detainees after September 11.”

 

He was supported by the parliamentary Intelligence and Security Committee (ISC) chairman, Kim Howells. Howells stated that any assertion to the effect that the intelligence services had colluded in torture was “a calumny and a slur and it should not be made.” The Intelligence and Security Committee supposedly exists to monitor and supervise the policies of MI5 .

 

Such was the naked defence of MI5 by the ISC that senior Labour MP David Winnick said it had become a “mouthpiece for MI5.” “The impression given is that this committee, which reports directly to the prime minister, is in danger of being open to the accusation that it has gone native,” he added.

 

Shami Chakrabarti, the director of civil rights group Liberty, said, “The implication is that all of us are enemies of the state—just for trying to find out what happened.”

 

Several members of Parliament, including the leader of the Liberal Democrats, Nick Clegg, demanded that the government reveal what it knew about Mohamed’s torture, stating, “Knowledge of Britain’s potential complicity in torture looks likely to have gone to the very top of government.” Conservative former shadow home secretary David Davis and Andrew Tyrie, the Conservative chair of the all-party parliamentary group on extraordinary rendition, have both called for the establishment of a judicial inquiry.

 

Home Secretary Johnson accused Davis of a “gross and offensive misrepresentation of the truth,” after Davis stated he believed there were further cases where MI5 and MI6 had been involved in torture.

 

Lord Goldsmith, the former attorney general, said of the Mohamed case, “I believe it needs to be clarified in the interests of the public and the intelligence agencies. However that clarification comes about, I look forward to hearing how the government proposes that that should be done.”

 

Responding to the intervention of MI5 chief Evans, Clive Stafford Smith, the lawyer for Binyam Mohamed and director of the legal charity Reprieve, warned that Evans could face criminal charges for his own responsibilities relating to the torture of his client. In 2002, when Mohamed was first arrested in Pakistan, Evans was the director of international counterterrorism at MI5.

 

In a Guardian article, “A Green Light for Torture,” published Monday, Stafford Smith wrote that Evans was implicated in formulating any policies at the time connected to torture. Stafford Smith said, “If [Evans] did not issue the policy directive himself, then he had to be closely involved in its promulgation.”

 

Writing of MI5 operative “Witness B,” who helped interrogate Mohamed in Pakistan in 2002, Stafford Smith said, “The villain of the piece was not the functionary, but the person who sat at the desk setting the rules.”

 

He continued, “It is not permissible to act the ostrich in the face of medieval mistreatment of prisoners. The Convention Against Torture is explicit that it is a crime to commit ‘an act… which constitutes complicity… in torture’. The courts have long since concluded that British officers were, indeed, deeply enmeshed in the abuse.”

 

The consequences flowing from the illegal character of the practices of the US and British authorities, including collusion in torture, are critical. On February 7, 2002, then-President George Bush suspended from US law the application of the Geneva Convention to those picked up by the US on or near battlefields and designated as “enemy combatants.” Under the new designation, those detained were to be treated as “criminals” and were stripped of their rights under international law.

 

The Geneva Convention does not allow the use of torture, stating unequivocally that it is illegal. This applies to “non-combatants” and “combatants” alike. In order for the US government to carry out the torture of those detained, it was necessary to overturn such fundamental legal precedents.

 

The UK, however, did not suspend the application of the Geneva Convention, and in light of the US action would have necessarily had to formulate policies for its own intelligence agencies to follow. According to journalist and broadcaster Jon Snow, “This disconnect between two allies over the convention must have sent shock waves though Whitehall. Indeed, my informant... tells me they immediately began to work on the implications for British forces. And so they should have done.”

 

The content of such policies, guiding the work of MI5 at the time, have still not been revealed by the government.

 

The case has revealed that MI5 has been operating as a law unto itself. Supposedly accountable to the government and overseen by parliament’s secretive Intelligence and Security Committee, the documents released in court attest to MI5 having lied to the ISC regarding what it knew about Mohamed’s torture.

 

According to a Guardian report on Monday, Jonathan Evans admitted to the ISC “in the middle of 2008” that its previous assurances of MI5 non-involvement in torture “had in fact been false.”

 

The Guardian said, “The committee, which was supposed to supervise MI5’s policies, had already published a reassuring report on the basis of what it had been told. That report, based on testimony from Eliza Manningham-Buller, Evans’s predecessor, informed the world that MI5 had been unaware of any ill-treatment dished out by its US allies to Binyam Mohamed.”

 

The article reports that the CIA files relating to the treatment of Mohamed were kept from the ISC by MI5 and their existence was disclosed only as a result of a court order in legal action by Mohamed’s lawyers.

 

The Guardian continued, “The MI5 head finally felt obliged to confess to the ISC in 2008 and hand over the documents, because disclosure orders obtained by Mohamed’s lawyers and enforced by the courts had led to the discovery of 42 incriminating files.”

 

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2010/feb2010/biny-f17.shtml

[NJS 4386]

My usual reaction to lies of this magnitude are to ask who the fuck do they think they are actually talking to when they spout them?

 

I can remember years ago watching Geoffrey Howe on Question Time stating that the UK had no chemical or biological weapon capability or facilities and thinking the same.

 

I can take politicians being economical with the truth, sometimes with complete honesty and ignorance, but when their lies are so stupidly brazen I don't think they realise how daft they look.

[Park Life 71]

There is scant oversight on the security services....I mean scant....Very little....

[LeazesMag 0]

There is scant oversight on the security services....I mean scant....Very little....

 

I reckon they should just take him out.

 

There are times when MI5 should not be accountable........

 

[see what this starts.......]

 

[Happy Face 29]

There is scant oversight on the security services....I mean scant....Very little....

 

I reckon they should just take him out.

 

 

 

The judge?

[LeazesMag 0]

There is scant oversight on the security services....I mean scant....Very little....

 

I reckon they should just take him out.

 

 

 

The judge?

 

sorry, I meant those who think they can sue them

[Happy Face 29]

There is scant oversight on the security services....I mean scant....Very little....

 

I reckon they should just take him out.

 

 

 

The judge?

 

sorry, I meant those who think they can sue them

 

The bloke wrongly arrested, jailed for 7 years, tortured throughout and released without charge is to blame and deserves to be punished?

 

[LeazesMag 0]

There is scant oversight on the security services....I mean scant....Very little....

 

I reckon they should just take him out.

 

 

 

The judge?

 

sorry, I meant those who think they can sue them

 

The bloke wrongly arrested, jailed for 7 years, tortured throughout and released without charge is to blame and deserves to be punished?

 

 

tell him he's lucky to be out and fuck off. If he wants to sue anybody, he should sue those who imprisoned him. Another example of how soft and stupid we are.

[Guest alex]

Traditional British values like justice are a somewhat ironic casualty of the so-called War on Terror.