Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community  

Go Back   Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community > The Academy > Tilted Politics


 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 08-22-2008, 02:59 AM   #1 (permalink)
 
roachboy's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: essex ma
guantanomo redux

Quote:
MI5 criticised for role in case of torture, rendition and secrecy
• MI5 criticised for role in torture case
• UK intelligence agent questioned about alleged war crimes


MI5 participated in the unlawful interrogation of a British resident now held in Guantánamo Bay, the high court found yesterday in a judgment raising serious questions about the conduct of Britain's security and intelligence agencies.
Link to this audio
Richard Norton Taylor on the ruling against MI5

One MI5 officer was so concerned about incriminating himself that he initially declined to answer questions from the judges even in private, the judgment reveals. Though the judges say "no adverse conclusions" should be drawn by the MI5 officer's plea against self-incrimination, they disclose that the officer, Witness B, was questioned about alleged war crimes under the international criminal court act, including torture. The full evidence surrounding Witness B's evidence, and the judges' findings, remain secret.

The MI5 officer interrogated the British resident, Binyam Mohamed, while he was being held in Pakistan in 2002. Mohamed, 30, an Ethiopian national, was later secretly rendered to Morocco, where he says was tortured by having his penis cut with a razor blade. The US subsequently flew him to Afghanistan and he was transferred to Guantánamo Bay in September 2004 where he remains.

In a passage which appears to contradict previous assurances by MI5, Lord Justice Thomas and Mr Justice Lloyd Jones concluded: "The conduct of the security service facilitated interviews by or on behalf of the United States when [Mohamed] was being detained by the United States incommunicado and without access to a lawyer." They added: "Under the law of Pakistan, that detention was unlawful."

Asked last month about unrelated allegations involving detainees held in Pakistan, the Home Office said on behalf of MI5: "All security service staff have an awareness of the Human Rights Act 1998, and are fully committed to complying with the requirements of the law when working in the UK and overseas."

It added that the security and intelligence agencies "do not participate in, solicit, encourage or condone the use of torture or inhumane or degrading treatment".

In their ruling yesterday, the judges found that MI5 "continued to facilitate" the interviewing of Mohamed at the behest of the US even after he was secretly flown out of Pakistan. It did so, they said, by providing information to America although its officers "must also have appreciated" he was being detained and questioned in a facility which was "that of a foreign government". That government is believed to be Morocco.

The judgment contains two particularly stinging passages. The judges said Witness B worked with the US "to the extent of making it clear to [Mohamed] that the United Kingdom government would not help [him] unless he cooperated fully with the United States authorities". They added: "The relationship of the United Kingdom government to the United States authorities in connection with [Mohamed] was far beyond that of a bystander or witness to the alleged wrongdoing."

Mohamed is due to be tried for terrorist offences before a US military commission in Guantánamo Bay as a result of confessions he says were extracted by torture. He faces the death penalty if found guilty. Without information held by the British government, he could not have a fair trial "as he will not be able to try to establish the only answer he has to the confessions - namely that they were involuntary and abstracted from him by wrongful treatment", the judges said.

Richard Stein, of Leigh Day, Mohamed's lawyer, said outside the court that the government was clearly committed to a fair trial and opposed to the practices of torture and extraordinary rendition. He added: "However, unfortunately when faced with the choice between the rule of law and upsetting its allies the Americans, it waivers in this commitment".

David Miliband, the foreign secretary, has provided the US with documents about the case, though the US has so far refused to release them. Miliband has declined to release further evidence about the case on grounds of national security, arguing that disclosure would harm Britain's intelligence relationship with the US.

The judges will decide which documents about the case must be released after a private court hearing next week.

A Foreign Office spokesman said the implications of the judgment were being considered very carefully. He added: "For strong reasons of national security, to which the court accepted we were entitled to give the highest weight, we could not agree to disclose this information voluntarily."

Clive Stafford Smith, director of Reprieve, the legal rights group also defending Mohamed, said: "The British government may have been accused of being Bush's poodle, but the British courts remain bulldogs when it comes to human rights."

Senior security sources said last night that the judgment was being carefully looked at to see whether changes should be made in MI5's procedures.

They added that the court recognised that Mohamed in 2002 was regarded as someone potentially significant. "Talking to people who could provide life-saving intelligence is MI5's bread and butter," they said.
Guantnamo: MI5 criticised for role in case of torture, rendition and secrecy | UK news | The Guardian

there's a 4 minute audio clip embedded in and a .pdf of the court decision appended to the original

so the crux of this court decision was that the crime committed by MI5 was (a) a war crime the substance of which was (b) co-operating with the americans at guantanomo--so the implication is that what the bush people have set into motion at guantanomo is in itself criminal.

i keep wondering when and how the bush administration is going to be held to account for this and the extraordinary rendition program, and the routinised use of torture....i keep asking myself when this is going to surface as the Problem that it is....and i wonder why it is that, despite the rulings against the system of kangaroo tribunals handed down by the supreme court, no further legal or political questions have arisen.

at what point did stuff like this become routine?
at what point did we decide to think about something else?
how is it that a system which condones this sort of action remains politically legitimate?

at what point did we loose the ability to question the legitimacy of the american political order?
if we cannot question the legitimacy of the order, then it seems to me that we are not free. not in any meaningful way. this because we have *no* power.

this kind of thing is why i have trouble seeing in the primary election charade-coverage more than a sporting event designed to distract by setting up a sense of continuity in the moving-away-from-the-bush-period while at the same time leaving aside the various Problems that these people have created, not just internationally, but for the political order in the united states itself.

or maybe anything does, in fact, go now.
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite
roachboy is offline  
Old 08-22-2008, 03:42 AM   #2 (permalink)
has all her shots.
 
mixedmedia's Avatar
 
Location: Florida
I think the disconnect between American 'life' and what goes on outside of it has been demarcated so broadly that, as long as there are no immediate controversies or implications (especially - maybe even solely - those being played out in the media) it doesn't have to be real for us. Even the increasingly dire economic crisis we are in doesn't seems to be playing out on the other side of this divide with any weight. We're always waiting to be told how to react, without realizing that it is not in the interest of media or governmental entities for us to react appropriately.

I think by the time we realize what has been done it will be too late to realize that it is different.

But then, I get real pissy and dour whenever I try to talk about anything political anymore...
__________________
Most people go through life dreading they'll have a traumatic experience. Freaks were born with their trauma. They've already passed their test in life. They're aristocrats. - Diane Arbus
PESSIMISM, n. A philosophy forced upon the convictions of the observer by the disheartening prevalence of the optimist with his scarecrow hope and his unsightly smile. - Ambrose Bierce
mixedmedia is offline  
Old 08-22-2008, 12:47 PM   #3 (permalink)
All important elusive independent swing voter...
 
jorgelito's Avatar
 
Location: People's Republic of KKKalifornia
I dunno Roachie, but I do believe it will all culminate into something of note. We as bystanders are watching the process. Perhaps the next administration will resolve this once and for all.

Mixed, I agree with your Allegory of the Cave analogy. But there has to be a tipping point. With each subsequent level of noise increase, people start to turn away from the wall and demand "truth". It may be a slow process but I believe it has to happen. A critical mass has to be reached otherwise it will die down and "go away". Keep in mind, it could happen in the next 4 years, or not for another 30.

It's good you get pissy and dour. We should all be bumped from our comfort zones from time to time. It's what we do next that's significant.
__________________
"The race is not always to the swift, nor battle to the strong, but
to the one that endures to the end."

"Demand more from yourself, more than anyone else could ever ask!"

- My recruiter
jorgelito is offline  
Old 08-24-2008, 03:54 PM   #4 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Location: San Antonio, TX
There are two schools of thought here in the US. The first is that we should be a nation of laws, and then everyone, even government officials and the government as an entity, should have to obey them.

The second school of thought is that whatever the current administration does is fine with us.

Unfortunately, most Republicans seem to belong to the second school of thought...at least until a Democrat is elected president.
robot_parade is offline  
Old 08-24-2008, 04:42 PM   #5 (permalink)
let me be clear
 
ottopilot's Avatar
 
Location: Waddy Peytona
Quote:
Originally Posted by robot_parade View Post
There are two schools of thought here in the US. The first is that we should be a nation of laws, and then everyone, even government officials and the government as an entity, should have to obey them.

The second school of thought is that whatever the current administration does is fine with us.

Unfortunately, most Republicans seem to belong to the second school of thought...at least until a Democrat is elected president.
And then there's the Democratic Presidential school of thought...

""Torture Like on 24 Is OK" Bill Clinton

Do you believe some form of torture or extreme coercive techniques have not been condoned or employed under every administration since Washington? It would be convenient to sweep this issue under the Republican floor mat, but history just doesn't agree with your assumption.
__________________
"It rubs the lotion on Buffy, Jodi and Mr. French's skin" - Uncle Bill from Buffalo
ottopilot is offline  
Old 08-25-2008, 03:21 AM   #6 (permalink)
 
roachboy's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: essex ma
so what you're saying, otto, is that the claim "the united states should be a country of laws" is itself a partisan claim?

so by that logic, if you are on the right, you should not see law as an important matter?
so torture should not matter, because law does not matter, because the claim that it does matter is partisan.

nicely played.
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite
roachboy is offline  
Old 08-25-2008, 05:03 AM   #7 (permalink)
let me be clear
 
ottopilot's Avatar
 
Location: Waddy Peytona
Quote:
Originally Posted by roachboy View Post
so what you're saying, otto, is that the claim "the united states should be a country of laws" is itself a partisan claim?

so by that logic, if you are on the right, you should not see law as an important matter?
so torture should not matter, because law does not matter, because the claim that it does matter is partisan.

nicely played.
Come on roachie... I was addressing the blanket statement
Quote:
Unfortunately, most Republicans seem to belong to the second school of thought...at least until a Democrat is elected president.
I absolutely do not condone torture.

and no... the claim that "the US should be a country of laws" is not a partisan idea. How and why a partisan may attempt persuasion by wrapping themselves with such claims is another story.

thanks for the compliment
__________________
"It rubs the lotion on Buffy, Jodi and Mr. French's skin" - Uncle Bill from Buffalo

Last edited by ottopilot; 08-25-2008 at 05:05 AM..
ottopilot is offline  
Old 08-26-2008, 05:51 AM   #8 (permalink)
 
dc_dux's Avatar
 
Location: Washington DC
Quote:
Originally Posted by ottopilot View Post
It would be convenient to sweep this issue under the Republican floor mat, but history just doesn't agree with your assumption.
No need to generalize and blame all Republicans...just Bush/Cheney with the complicity of their Attorneys General and the failure of the Republican majority Congress (at the time) to meet its oversight obligations.

I cant speak to all of history, but I know of no other recent president who used the Dept of Justice to attempt to rationalize actions that are counter to the Constitution, US laws and international treaty obligations. Specifically, the DoJ torture memo that claims a president can unilaterally define torture outside of the context of the Geneva Conventions or the UN Convention on Torture....or the DoJ memo rationalizing the use of an Authorization of Use of Military Force to justify the NSA wiretapping Americans w/o a warrant or holding foreign nationals indefinitely w/o any access to basic legal rights under US and international law.

One can only hope that the next DoJ will return to performing its primary function of enforcing the laws of the land rather than devoting its time and resources to providing "legal" justifications for questionable ideological acts of a sitting president.

What continues to keep me perplexed is the "see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil" position of many conservative guardians of the Constitution in response to the Bush administration actions noted above.
__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

Last edited by dc_dux; 08-26-2008 at 06:25 AM..
dc_dux is offline  
Old 08-26-2008, 04:07 PM   #9 (permalink)
let me be clear
 
ottopilot's Avatar
 
Location: Waddy Peytona
Quote:
Originally Posted by dc_dux View Post
What continues to keep me perplexed is the "see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil" position of many conservative guardians of the Constitution in response to the Bush administration actions noted above.
Agreed... it seems that the most "faithful" tend to cling to their political ideals or leadership regardless of facts that may prove contrary.
__________________
"It rubs the lotion on Buffy, Jodi and Mr. French's skin" - Uncle Bill from Buffalo
ottopilot is offline  
 

Tags
guantanomo, redux

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 08:16 AM.

Tilted Forum Project

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
© 2002-2012 Tilted Forum Project

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360