Maverick Tory MP David Davis today raised, in the House of Commons, an explosive question which requires immediate answers. It follows a High Court judgement in which British judges lamented they were unable to publish evidence of human rights abuses in the case before them, because the US had threatened it would cease cooperation with Britain.
Questions must also be raised as to the repeated assertions of Tony Blair, Jack Straw and numerous other Labour officials that Britain was not complicit in torture (as detailed, with sources, here).
It is suggested that the suppression of evidence comes because of a threat – first made under the Bush administration but sustained by President Obama’s – that the United States would cease to cooperate with British intelligence-sharing efforts if the High Court were to reveal these facts.
Meanwhile, in the USA, journalists should be asking the Obama administration why it maintains a veil of secrecy over British complicity in human rights violations, if these accusations are true. Why it would put British and American citizens at risk by ending information-sharing for counter-terrorism? It would seem bizarre to do so, given the Obama administration apparently rejects the forms of torture sanctioned by Bush in Guantanamo Bay.
UPDATE: Brown has denied Downing Street knew of the threats.
Further Update: The Government is denying that any threat of ending cooperation was made and refutes the suggestion they were complicit in torture.
Follow @LibDemVoice on Twitter
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Danny Chambers calls for penguins to be moved from "dark and cramped basement"
Failed State: why our government is broken and how to fix it
Unease grows within Labour ranks
Digital Skills Training for people over 65
David Rogers
Nonconformistradical
Mark
Jennie
Robin AG Bennett
6 Comments
Meet the new boss – same as … ?
The Americans were saying that they would always attempt to secure their intelligence and the British would do the same.
Except I’m sure there have been several instances of UK intelligence information coming to light as a result of US freedom of information legislation.
If Brown didn’t know of this then how was the fact communicated to the Judges. Given the comments of the Judges some senior minister must surely have signed off on the request.
now nulab is to the right of even david davis ?!!
Hywel,
As I understand it, a representative of the American government wrote to the judges. Extraordinary behaviour if that is true! Any lawyer could have told the US that the judges would be bound to disclose the letter to the parties in open court.
It’s not the first time something like this has happened.
Home Sec. John Reid asked to have a private dinner with senior judiciary whose reply was along lines of “er, no, we don’t have dinner with people aho are parties to cases we decide”.
Reid was quoted as “being very surprised” but that just shows the totally different mindset that politicians and judges generally have.
How do Judges have dinner with anyone in that case 🙂
I have heard that story – Reid also apparently wanted private meetings with the Law Lords to discuss some of the “problems” the government had with the HRA.
I can’t find this judgement on Bailii. Presumably it relates to the PII application followin http://tinyurl.com/63z72t
All rather irrelevant anyway – at least some of the details of Binyam Mohammeds torture are pretty much public domain – eg http://tinyurl.com/anp59s
Milliband claims that “”There has been no threat from the US to break off intelligence co-operation,” (BBC)
However the judgement (which I’ve now found http://tinyurl.com/cejel4) states that the Foreign Sec made a PII application that:
“make clear that the United States Government’s position is that, if the redacted paragraphs are made public, then the United States Government will re-evaluate its intelligence sharing relationship with the United Kingdom with the real risk that it would reduce the intelligence provided. It was and remains (so far as we are aware) the judgement of the Foreign Secretary that the United States Government might carry that threat out and this would seriously prejudice the national security of the United Kingdom.”
Either the Judges are lying, Milliband is lying or his lawyers were terribly instructed. The first and the third are pretty much inconceivable.
Milibands statement might be interesting!
(Anthony – I can’t see any reference to a letter from the US through unofficial channels – though it could well have supported the PII application)