Quote:Government loses torture appeal



The foreign secretary has lost an Appeal Court bid to stop the disclosure of secret information relating to the alleged torture of a UK resident.

Ethiopian-born Binyam Mohamed says UK authorities knew he was tortured at the behest of US authorities during seven years of captivity.

David Miliband had said releasing the material would harm national security.

Judges ruled redacted paragraphs, which say his treatment was "cruel, inhuman and degrading", should be released.

The judgement was delivered by the three most senior Court of Appeal judges in England and Wales.

Commenting on the case, the prime minister's spokesman said the government stood firmly against torture and cruel and inhumane treatment.

The key details are contained in a seven-paragraph summary of what the CIA told their British intelligence officials about Mr Mohamed's treatment in 2002.

“ We remain determined to uphold our very strong commitment against mistreatment of any kind ”
Foreign Secretary statement
Following the ruling, Mr Miliband issued a statement in which he said "the government accepts the decision of the Court of Appeal".

The redacted paragraphs have now been published on the Foreign Office website.

BBC home affairs reporter Dominic Casciani said the seven-paragraph summary released by the court provides details of what London learnt about Mr Mohamed's treatment in 2002, following his detention in Pakistan.

At the time he was being held by Pakistani interrogators at the behest of the US, who suspected him of having received firearms and explosives training from al-Qaeda in Afghanistan.

The summary says that Mr Mohamed was intentionally subjected to continuous sleep deprivation during his initial period of captivity.

Along with the sleep deprivation, it says the interrogators subjected him to threats and inducements, including playing on his fears that he would be passed on to another country.

ANALYSIS
Dominic Casciani, BBC home affairs reporter This battle was about the control principle - that the UK does not have permission to reveal any intelligence that the US passes on in confidence.
But that position in relation to Binyam Mohamed's treatment was fatally undermined by two factors.

Firstly, the courts held that the secret seven paragraphs related to potentially criminal ill-treatment, rather than critical matters of national security.

The Lord Chief Justice makes plain in his judgement that he might have thought differently if the material had been genuinely secret.

Secondly, the Obama White House has been busy declassifying material and memos that covered what was done in America's name after 9/11.

Lawyers in this case now have a new question: What were the rules in 2002 for British intelligence officers who discovered a terrorism suspect was being ill-treated elsewhere?

The prime minister says the revised rules will be published soon but the old ones will remain secret.

London learnt that the stress brought on by these deliberate tactics was increased by him being shackled during his interviews and that Mr Mohamed was eventually placed on suicide watch.

The judgement continued: "We regret to have to include that the reports provided to the Security Service made clear to anyone reading them that BM was being subjected to the treatment that we have described and the effect upon him of that intentional treatment.

"The treatment reported, if it had been administered on behalf of the United Kingdom would clearly have been in breach of [a ban on torture].

"Although it is not necessary for us to categorise the treatment reported, it could be readily contented to be at the very least cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment of BM by the United States authorities."

Last year, the High Court ruled that the seven paragraphs should be published, with the judges saying that they did not believe the US would stop co-operating with British intelligence officials if the material was made public.

Lord Justice Thomas and Mr Justice Lloyd Jones ruled that the risk to national security was "not a serious one" and there was "overwhelming" public interest in disclosing the material.

However, the summary was kept secret to allow the foreign secretary to appeal.

BINYAM MOHAMED
Detained in Pakistan in 2002, questioned there by MI5 officer
Transferred to Morocco, claims he was tortured in US custody and asked questions supplied by MI5
Later interned in Guantanamo Bay and eventually released in 2009
Mr Miliband had said that the court had no authority to disclose US secrets that had been handed over to the British under a long-standing principle within the intelligence community that information can be shared, but never disclosed without permission.

In his statement, Mr Miliband said this principle was "at the heart of this case", adding: "This 'control principle' is essential to the intelligence relationship between Britain and the US.

"The government fought the case to preserve this principle and today's judgement upholds it."

The statement concluded: "We remain determined to uphold our very strong commitment against mistreatment of any kind."

Mr Mohamed, a 31-year-old Ethiopian granted refugee status in Britain in 1994, was arrested in Pakistan in 2002 over a visa irregularity and was handed over to US officials. He was secretly flown to Morocco in 2002.

There, he says he was tortured while interrogators asked him questions about his life in London.

He says these questions could only have come only from British intelligence officers.

Mr Mohamed was sent to the Guantanamo Bay detention facility, run by the US in Cuba, in 2004.

He was held there until his release without charges in February 2009, when he returned to the UK.

Quote:The following is quoted from the first judgment of the Divisional Court in the Binyam Mohamed case on 21 August 2008. We have alerted the Court to a typographic error.

"The following seven paragraphs have been redacted
[It was reported that a new series of interviews was conducted by the United States authorities prior to 17 May 2001 as part of a new strategy designed by an expert interviewer.

v) It was reported that at some stage during that further interview process by the United States authorities, BM had been intentionally subjected to continuous sleep deprivation. The effects of the sleep deprivation were carefully observed.

vi) It was reported that combined with the sleep deprivation, threats and inducements were made to him. His fears of being removed from United States custody and “disappearing” were played upon.

vii) It was reported that the stress brought about by these deliberate tactics was increased by him being shackled in his interviews

viii) It was clear not only from the reports of the content of the interviews but also from the report that he was being kept under self-harm observation, that the inter views were having a marked effect upon him and causing him significant mental stress and suffering.

ix) We regret to have to conclude that the reports provide to the SyS made clear to anyone reading them that BM was being subjected to the treatment that we have described and the effect upon him of that intentional treatment.

x) The treatment reported, if had been administered on behalf of the United Kingdom, would clearly have been in breach of the undertakings given by the United Kingdom in 1972. Although it is not necessary for us to categorise the treatment reported, it could readily be contended to be at the very least cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment by the United States authorities]"

Quote:US disappointed at torture ruling



The White House has expressed "deep disappointment" at a UK court ruling that information on the alleged torture of a UK resident had to be disclosed.

A spokesman added the judgement would "complicate" intelligence sharing.

Foreign Secretary David Miliband lost an Appeal Court bid on Wednesday to prevent the details being published.

Ethiopian-born Binyam Mohamed, 31, says UK authorities knew he was tortured at the behest of US authorities after his detention in Pakistan in 2002.

The ruling led to the publication of a summary of the torture of Mr Mohamed.

The information had been given to MI5 by the CIA - and suggested that British officials were aware of Mr Mohamed's ill-treatment.

Mr Miliband had repeatedly tried to stop its publication on the grounds that it could damage intelligence-sharing with America.

US Secretary of State Hilary Clinton is believed to be "understanding" about the UK government's position after talking with Mr Miliband, the BBC has learned.

But Ben LaBolt, a spokesman for President Barack Obama, said: "We're deeply disappointed with the court's judgment because we shared this information in confidence and with certain expectations.

[Guyatt's translation of above para: "we're pissed off because didn't expect to get caught breaking international law. It's embarrassing."]

"As we warned, the court's judgment will complicate the confidentiality of our intelligence-sharing relationship with the UK, and it will have to factor into our decision-making going forward."

The Federal Government is closed because of blizzard conditions and it is thought it will take some time for the American government to work out the implications of the lengthy judgement.

Vital paragraphs

Denis Blair, the US Director of National Intelligence, said: "The decision by a United Kingdom court to release classified information provided by the United States is not helpful, and we deeply regret it.

"The United States and the United Kingdom have a long history of close co-operation that relies on mutual respect for the handling of classified information."

Judges ruled that paragraphs which say Mr Mohamed's treatment was "cruel, inhuman and degrading" should be released.

Mr Miliband said the ruling was "not evidence that the system is broken".

The judgement was delivered by the three most senior Court of Appeal judges in England and Wales.

The key details are contained in a seven-paragraph summary of what the CIA told British intelligence officials about Mr Mohamed's treatment in 2002. These paragraphs have now been published on the Foreign Office website.

The paragraphs concern a period in which Mr Mohamed was being held by Pakistani interrogators at the behest of the US, who suspected him of having received firearms and explosives training from al-Qaeda in Afghanistan.

Suicide watch

They say Mr Mohamed was intentionally subjected to continuous sleep deprivation, as well as threats and inducements, including playing on his fears that he would be passed on to another country.

London learnt that the stress brought on by these deliberate tactics was increased by him being shackled during his interviews and that Mr Mohamed was eventually placed on suicide watch.

The Court of Appeal said recent events in the US courts were a key reason for releasing the UK summary of what had happened to Mr Mohamed.

Just before Christmas, a US Court ruled on a related case involving a different detainee, in which the judge provided pages of detailed information on how Mr Mohamed had been abused.

'Defend a principle'

The judge said his treatment was torture - and her reasoning was cleared for publication by the US security officials.

Following this week's ruling in London, Mr Miliband gave a statement to the House of Commons, saying he accepted the court's decision, but that the government's objection had never been about the seven paragraphs specifically.

"We have fought this case and brought the appeal to defend a principle we believe is fundamental to our national security - that intelligence shared with us will be protected by us," the foreign secretary said.

Mr Mohamed, an Ethiopian granted refugee status in Britain in 1994, was initially arrested in Pakistan in 2002 over a visa irregularity and was handed over to US officials. He was secretly flown to Morocco in 2002.

There, he says, he was tortured while interrogators asked him about his life in London - questions, he says, that could have come only from British intelligence officers.

Mr Mohamed was sent to the Guantanamo Bay detention facility, run by the US in Cuba, in 2004. He was held there until his release without charge in February 2009, when he returned to the UK.

Magda Hassan Wrote:..... They never foresaw any of the major events of the 20th century from Pearl Harbour, fall of the Berlin Wall, collapse of communism, 911, 7/7, fall of the Shah of Iran. I don't think the UK could do any worse on their own.

Quote:Paragraph 23:

The problem in this case is not that Mr Mohamed was tortured in the UK. He was, however, subjected to torture. In (US court case) Farhi Saeed Bin Mohamed v Barak Obama (Civil Action No 05-1347 (GK)), it is publicly recorded that "the Government does not challenge or deny the accuracy of Binyam Mohamed's story of brutal treatment (p58)…the account in Binyam Mohamed's diary bears several indicia of reliability (p61)." Note is taken of his "willingness to test the truth of his version of events in both the courts of law as well as the court of public opinion" (p62). Towards the end of its judgment two specific matters are recorded:

"(a)…[Mr Mohamed's] trauma lasted for 2 long years. During that time, he was physically and psychologically tortured. His genitals were mutilated. He was deprived of sleep and food. He was summarily transported from one foreign prison to another. Captors held him in stress positions for days at a time. He was forced to listen to piercingly loud music and the screams of other prisoners while locked in a pitch-black cell. All the while, he was forced to inculpate himself and others in various plots to imperil Americans. The Government does not dispute this evidence."(p64)

"(b) In this case, even though the identity of the individual interrogator changed (from nameless Pakistanis, to Moroccans, to Americans, and to special agent (the identity is redacted)), there is no question that throughout his ordeal Binyam Mohamed was being held at the behest of the United States (p68)…The court finds that [Mr Mohamed's] will was overborne by his lengthy prior torture, and therefore his confessions to special agent…do not represent reliable evidence to detain petitioner"

Quote:The work of MI5 has also been defended by the foreign secretary, David Miliband, and the home secretary, Alan Johnson.
In a joint letter to the Guardian, they said: "The allegation that the security and intelligence agencies have licence to collude in torture is disgraceful, untrue and one we vigorously deny."

Quote:MI5 denies Binyam case 'cover-up'


Jonathan Evans: Unprecedented rebuttal

The head of MI5 has denied officers withheld information over what it knew about the the torture of a UK resident.

In an unprecedented move, Jonathan Evans defended the security service against claims that it has misled an MPs' committee over Binyam Mohamed.

The Court of Appeal had ruled Mr Mohamed could learn what MI5 knew about his 2002 mistreatment at the behest of the US after his detention abroad.

The home secretary has attacked the media's "baseless" accusations.

Ethiopian-born Mr Mohamed, 31, alleges that UK authorities knew he was tortured after his detention in Pakistan in 2002.

On Wednesday, the Court of Appeal ruled that the government must publish a seven-paragraph summary of exactly what British intelligence officials were told about his treatment.

The summary revealed that his treatment was "cruel, inhuman and degrading" and included deliberate sleep deprivation.

'Culture of suppression'

It also emerged on Wednesday that a paragraph contained in the Court of Appeal's draft judgement was removed following complaints from a senior government lawyer.

“ The director-general has confirmed to us that no document concerning Binyam Mohamed has been withheld from us ”

Intelligence and Security Committee

Jonathan Sumption QC told the judges it would be "exceptionally damaging" if published because it would give the impression "that the Security Service does not in fact operate a culture that respects human rights or abjures participation in coercive interrogation techniques".

He said the paragraph would be read as meaning that "officials of the Service deliberately misled the Intelligence and Security Committee" in a way that "reflects a culture of suppression in its dealings with the committee, the foreign secretary and indirectly the court".

The words to which Mr Sumption objected did not appear in the version of the judgement that was eventually published.

But Channel 4 News reported on Thursday night that the redacted section related to US documents concerning Mr Mohamed's treatment which MI5 failed to disclose to the committee.

However in a joint statement, chairman of the committee Kim Howells and senior Conservative Michael Mates said: "The director-general has confirmed to us this evening that no document concerning Binyam Mohamed and his treatment by the US authorities has been withheld from us."

'Highly unusual'

BINYAM MOHAMED TIMELINE
April 2002: Mistreated by US and Pakistani interrogators - arrested in Pakistan over visa irregularities and handed to US authorities as suspected terrorist
May 2002: Washington gives British security officials details of treatment - interviewed by M15 officers sent from London
July 2002: Flown to Morocco and tortured for 18 months - says his interrogators received questions from London
January 2004: Transferred to Afghanistan and questioned by US agents
September 2004: Taken to Guantanamo Bay - lawyers demand British documents to prove confession extracted during abuse
October 2008: All charges against him dropped
February 2009: Returns to UK and continues fight for release of secret information
February 2010: UK Court of Appeal rules government must publish summary of what Washington told London about treatment in Pakistan - paragraph relating to M15 shown to have been removed after lobbying from government lawyer
The MPs said allegations that MI5 officers were "careless in their observance of their obligations towards the human rights of detainees" were very grave.

"These are extremely serious allegations which, if true, would call into question the trust that exists between between the committee and the intelligence services," they said.

Mr Evans said MI5 was protecting the country from "enemies" who would use "all the tools and their disposal", including propaganda.

He wrote in an article in the Telegraph: "We will do all that we can to keep the country safe from terrorist attack. We will use all the powers available to us under the law.

"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.

"Their freedom to voice extremist views is part of the price we pay for living in a democracy, and it is a price worth paying."

BBC home affairs correspondent Danny Shaw says it is a highly unusual intervention by the head of the security service that reflects deep concern at MI5 about the way the Appeal Court ruling has been reported and interpreted.

'Vigorously denied'

The work of MI5 has also been defended by the foreign secretary, David Miliband, and the home secretary, Alan Johnson.

In a joint letter to the Guardian, they said: "The allegation that the security and intelligence agencies have licence to collude in torture is disgraceful, untrue and one we vigorously deny."

Mr Mohamed, an Ethiopian granted refugee status in Britain in 1994, was initially arrested in Pakistan in 2002 over a visa irregularity and was handed over to US officials. He was secretly flown to Morocco in 2002.

There, he says, he was tortured while interrogators asked him about his life in London - questions, he says, that could have come only from British intelligence officers.

Mr Mohamed was sent to the Guantanamo Bay detention facility, run by the US in Cuba, in 2004, until being released without charge in February 2009.

Quote:Jonathan Sumption QC told the judges it would be "exceptionally damaging" if published because it would give the impression "that the Security Service does not in fact operate a culture that respects human rights or abjures participation in coercive interrogation techniques".

He said the paragraph would be read as meaning that "officials of the Service deliberately misled the Intelligence and Security Committee" in a way that "reflects a culture of suppression in its dealings with the committee, the foreign secretary and indirectly the court".

The words to which Mr Sumption objected did not appear in the version of the judgement that was eventually published.

(snip)

(MI5 head) Mr Evans said MI5 was protecting the country from "enemies" who would use "all the tools at their disposal", including propaganda.

He wrote in an article in the Telegraph: "We will do all that we can to keep the country safe from terrorist attack. We will use all the powers available to us under the law.

"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."