torture-abu.thumbnail.jpgIn 2002, the Bush administration seized a British national, Binyam Mohammed, in Pakistan, and sent him to Morocco, then Afghanistan, then Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. He was held incommunicado and says he was tortured. Official inquiries in Britain into his treatment have met the Bush administration’s stone wall.

Mr. Bush is so concerned that word not leak out about how he treats his prisoners that he threatened to cut off all intelligence cooperation with Britain if a British High Court (akin to a US federal district court), released information about it. As the UK’s Guardian reports, the High Court is perplexed (emphasis mine):

The judges said today that they found it "difficult to conceive" the rationale for the US’s objections to releasing the information, which contained "no disclosure of sensitive intelligence matters" about how US officials treated detainees.

"Indeed, we did not consider that a democracy governed by the rule of law would expect a court in another democracy to suppress a summary of the evidence contained in reports by its own officials … relevant to allegations of torture and cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment, politically embarrassing though it might be," they said.

The judges said they had been taken aback by the severity of the threat made by the US government.

The Cheney-Bush-Rove cabal has gone to enormous lengths to avoid creating a public record of its actions. It is even willing to sever all intelligence ties with the UK — our most trusted and supportive ally — in order to enforce silence about what it did to a single, low-level prisoner.

That’s not the response of a rational responsible government. It is the response of guilty men who know they have committed or authorized the commission of heinous crimes, and who want to stay out of jail and someday return to power. Will Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Holder and their boss have more rational and balanced priorities?

In 2002, the Bush administration seized a British national, Binyam Mohammed, in Pakistan, and sent him to Morocco, then Afghanistan, then Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. He was held incommunicado and says he was tortured. Official inquiries in Britain into his treatment have met the Bush administration’s stone wall.

Mr. Bush is so concerned that word not leak out about how he treats his prisoners that he threatened to cut off all intelligence cooperation with Britain if a British High Court (akin to a US federal district court), released information about it. As the UK’s Guardian reports, the High Court is perplexed (emphasis mine):

The judges said today that they found it "difficult to conceive" the rationale for the US’s objections to releasing the information, which contained "no disclosure of sensitive intelligence matters" about how US officials treated detainees.

"Indeed, we did not consider that a democracy governed by the rule of law would expect a court in another democracy to suppress a summary of the evidence contained in reports by its own officials … relevant to allegations of torture and cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment, politically embarrassing though it might be," they said.

The judges said they had been taken aback by (more…)

Oxdown Diaries

Oxdown Diaries