US Sends Threatening Letter To UK: Rat On Us About Torture & We Promise "serious and lasting damage"

[kpete]

US Threatens UK On Gitmo Case
By: Cernig @ 11:15 AM - PDT

Gitmo In a remarkable development at the High Court in London, an email from a senior US State Dept. official has been revealed, apparently threatening to curb co-operation with Britain on international intelligence sharing if details on a detainees interrogation are revealed. Lawyers for Binyam Mohamed, held at Gitmo, have taken legal action in the UK to force the release of details which, they say, will prove Mohamed was ilegally abducted and tortured into a confession. Mohamed claims that his torture included having his penis cut with a razor blade by Moroccan proxies for the US.

In an email to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, which was sent on to the court, Stephen Mathias, a legal adviser to the US state department, said that the disclosure of information would cause “serious and lasting damage to the US-UK intelligence-sharing relationship and thus the national security of the UK, and the aggressive and unprecedented intervention in the apparently functioning adjudicatory processes of a longtime ally of the UK, in contravention of well-established principles of international comity.”

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/08/28/us-threatens-uk-on-gitmo-case/
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/aug/27/guantanamo.humanrights?gusrc=rss&feed=worldnews

[fascisthunter]

1. Serious and Lasting Damage on You and Your Buddies....

enough with their threats. Can we get these nut bags behind bars....?

[gateley]

2. Whoa. Yikes. Now we're even threatening the UK? nt

[KansDem]

5. Yeah, weird, isn't it?

It's like the belligerent drunk who screams at and insults the patrons at the local bar, then goes home and screams at and insults his family.

Weird...

[SammyWinstonJack]

13. That sounds like Dubya.

:evilgrin:

[ba5500]

15. RE:

What stupidity

[Subdivisions]

3. What's the problem? If it didn't happen, there's no reason for the US to be skeered. n/t

[TomInTib]

4. Wow, that is pretty serious language from State.

That pretty much amounts to a threat.

[Solly Mack]

6. a few weeks ago it was hinted at that this would be the case

so now I wonder when the email was sent....

[panAmerican]

7. Isn't this akin to a terroristic threat? "You STFU or we'll leave you wide open for attack"?!

:shudder:

[bobthedrummer]

8. K&R, plus a related article

"In Contravention of Conventional Wisdom: CIA 'no touch' torture makes sense out of mind control allegations" by Cheryl Welsh (Mind Justice Jan. 2008)
http://www.mindjustice.org/wisdom.htm

[kestrel91316]

9. You know, I don't know exactly who, or where they are, but

in a perfect, hypothetical world, SOMEBODY, SOMEWHERE in this criminal excuse of a maladministration simply needs to be hauled out bodily from their rat hole and SHOT.

Obviously Bush and Cheney have nothing to do with this because, as we all know, they are as pure as the driven snow and by definition everything they do is perfectly legal and grounds for sainthood.

[Peace Patriot]

10. It certainly makes you wonder what ELSE the UK knows.

Moroccan slicing of penises while our guys watch (and, who knows? - live feed to the White House?) is bad enough. But who authorized it, why (I mean, why really), who participated in it, and what else they may have authorized, done or watched, and to whom, all immediately spring to mind when you read "serious and lasting damage to ...the national security of the UK."

Christ Almighty! I hope they're watching their busses!

Could it be any clearer how Bushites think, and what this implies--that, by use, misuse and withholding of intelligence, they can unleash terrorist attacks on anyone, even a close ally, even...ahem...us.

Also, if they would threaten the UK with this, how far is such thinking from their routine behavior in national security matters? Well, I guess their threat to sell our ports to the sheiks told us that. They don't given a goddamn about us or anyone else's security. How to use terrorism to make a buck, or billions of buck, is the only thing on their minds.

-------

I'm baffled by the second part of that sentence...

"...and the aggressive and unprecedented intervention in the apparently functioning adjudicatory processes of a longtime ally of the UK, in contravention of well-established principles of international comity.”

Huh?

I mean it's kind of funny--if I read it right--that the Bush junta now wants "international comity"--after all they've done--and is touting "well-established principles."

I can hear them at their own trials--if we should ever get our shit together as a lawful people again--whining about the Constitutional "principles" of habeas corpus and "innocent until proven guilty" and how execution is "cruel and unusual punishment." Their appeals to fairness. They reliance on "diminished capacity" and "temporary insanity." Their claims of inadequate counsel. Their cries of "kangaroo court" and "Star Chamber proceedings." And appealing to, oh, say, Colombia, for asylum from the "broken" U.S. judicial system. A great "jury of their peers" would be Katrina victims. They'd whine about that, too. How 'trailer trash' are in no way "the peers" of the "leaders of the free world." Can't you just hear Ann Coulter spitting that out?

Well, I'll leave that fantasy, and go to the links to see if I can figure out what this gobble-de-gook about "principles of international comity" and "the apparently functioning adjudicatory processes of a longtime ally" the fuck means.

[Peace Patriot]

11. "...the apparently functioning adjudicatory processes of a longtime ally" means Gitmo

and its military tribunals (kangaroo courts).

"Apparently" functioning? That's one of the strangest sentences I've ever read.

Let's break it down...

"the apparently functioning..." = Okay, we know Gitmo is bullshit, but we need some public hangings to apparently win the election (that Diebold is going to steal for us)...

"...adjudicatory processes..." = the kangaroo courts that are "apparently functioning."

"of a longtime ally" = The U.S. bailed them out in WW II, but the Bush's were helping Hitler, and they are the monarchs here now. So is it right for Bush Jr.'s minion to call upon the ghosts of our fathers who won WW II? What an insult! Yeah, Tony Poodle played along, to try to get a cut for BP, but they're talking "long time ally," pre-Poodle. Long time ally of the U.S., true; but recent ally of the Bush's, who aided the fuckwads who blitzkrieged London. Did the paper this was written on catch fire, or did its ink start disappearing, when it was read in court?

-----

Why "apparently" functioning? That one is sticking in my brain like a burr. Did someone in the UK tell the Bushites, "stick your phony trials where the sun don't shine!" And so this Bush asswipe had to answer: 'they ARE functioning, so they're not nothing.' Meaning: 'They are "functioning," if not valid, Constitutional, "adjudicatory processes" (sort of courts), of the at least nominally legitimate (two stolen elections, 20% approval rating) government of the United States--and boo-hoo-hoo about all that Bush money going to Hitler, we didn't really mean it.'

Really, sometimes I think we should have kept the first King George. At least our current King George would then be an acknowledged figurehead, without the power to create his own private hanging courts, where he gets to watch penises being cut, before the grand finale of the body twitching on the end of a rope. They called that King George crazy--and all he wanted was some obedient taxpayers. This one, I don't know...he seems to want to eat our souls.

:patriot:

[Peace Patriot]

12. The whole sentence...

So let's put it all together:

A Bush servant wrote to England that there will be “serious and lasting damage to the US-UK intelligence-sharing relationship and thus the national security of the UK, and the aggressive and unprecedented intervention in the apparently functioning adjudicatory processes of a longtime ally of the UK, in contravention of well-established principles of international comity.”

No, the sentence structure is all screwed up. There will be "serious and lasting damage...etc.," AND "the aggressive and unprecedented intervention...". But where does this go? What is the action word? He just wanted to SAY it, unconnected to anything. It was really on his mind--"the aggressive and unprecedented intervention" by snotty-ass England in the semi-legitimate (because Bush says so) sort of courts we've rigged up over here, and you're getting all that oil now and you're not grateful.

There will be "serious and lasting damage" (more bus bombs) if you nancy-boys don't stop with this "unprecedented" "aggression" against our lawless nazi life style.

That's about the gist of it: More spitballs and bus bombs, and we're gonna pants you sissies, and slice your penises, too, if you don't give us your lunch money.

It's juvenile.

And, you know what? I think the Corpos are going to let Obama win. I've been going back and forth about this (what I think will happen)--very worried about these likely phony 50/50 polls, as prep for Stolen Election II--and I just realized that the Corpos can't have this kind of incompetent, juvenile and plain crazy-ass behavior in their White House go-fers. It was fine for war profiteering and grabbing Iraq's oil, but it's now really curbing Corpo business opportunities on the world scene--in Russia, of course (and China may follow), in the EU, in South America, in Central America. The Bushwhacks have blown it, big time, now all they can do is huff and puff and try to blow other peoples' houses down. And, as their isolation settles upon them, the Bushfucks are getting weirder and weirder, and threatening the UK, for godssakes. This letter is evidence of UNSTABLE MINDS. I hope we survive it. I hope they exit peacefully. And I hope I am right.

[Ghost Dog]

17. May I opine that it could be a very good idea, from the UK's point of view,

to cease and desist forthwith in any kind of US-UK intelligence-sharing relationship. Full stop.

[Peace Patriot]

20. Really, that's the other thing. (I like your mind, Ghost Dog.) This MYTH that

the Bushwhacks do anything for the purpose of "keeping us safe." I've wondered this about their torture, actually. What is it for? I mean, what is it really for? Are there any among us who really believe that Bush and Cheney are torturing people to "keep us safe"? Their main goal seems to be total looting of the federal and state treasuries, perhaps to fund their post-White House mercenary wars worldwide. (C.H.A.O.S.) The torture could be for business purposes. Say, trying to gain control of the informal money economy in Islamic communities? Or keep control of the heroine trade out of Aghanistan? Or identify and have Blackwater whack anyone who presents serious opposition to the oil contracts in Iraq? Like that, corporate intel and elimination services. Or, to identify and kill anyone along the Bush Cartel-Al Qaeda money trail, who might know too much, or be a potential whistleblower on 9/11? Use of torture to cover up other crimes?

So-o-o, maybe that's the big bad secret that the Brits know, or that is revealed in the docs of this prisoner's torture, that the Bushites would get so exercised about, as to threaten the Brits with more bus bombs, if their court dares to demand the documentation.

Something's going on, for sure, with this. This is way weird. This just isn't done. We don't threaten England, for godssakes!

Could me just instability (the Bush junta going bonkers under stress). Could be a red flag regarding why they are so shaken up, on this particular issue.

It reminds me of them outing Plame, and then additionally outing her entire CIA network (and whacking David Kelly in the week between the two outings). Something had them very worried, and I don't think it was or is visible. It wasn't political or media worries. They had near total control of the media, and were just then gaining total control over the voting machines. Why would they worry about a little 'ol op-ed? Or Kelly's "sexed up" intel thing to the BBC? Their panicky reaction doesn't fit the known facts--the motives given.

Same here. Why would they be so hysterical about something everybody already knows--that they tortured prisoners--so hysterical as to issue such a threat? Why don't they just say, 'Oh, oops"--like they always do--"Oh, oops, yeah, the Morroccans tortured this guy, and we couldn't stop them, and it tainted his confession," and, to the guy, "here's a stipend for life, go live it up in Bali, get outa here"?

Nope. They want a lid on this. Why? Four months to go, and they can be off to the UAE forever. What do they care? Well, yeah, maybe they want to live in the U.S., and travel. Something so bad that the American political system would finally bend in the direction of justice, and pursue them. That's what it smells like. But I have to say that that's what everything they do smells like--like their are layers and layers of godawful crimes we don't even know about.

[Ghost Dog]

21. ... Something UK and Israeli (at least) intelligence already knows about...

... Something biochemical, perhaps?

[Psyop Samurai]

14. The State Department's role is that of mafia enforcer...

That became clear to anyone who really followed the run-up to Iraq.

Also, it must always be pointed out that criminals don't have "allies"... they have accomplices.

[Festivito]

16. Similar to how they threaten the press is it not. /nt

[Duppers]

18. what an EMPTY THREAT, given that the bushies have only 4 more months

to treat the UK as a non-ally. Obama's state dept. would quickly change that status.

[Duppers]

19. Rec.

I forgot to mention.

:thumbsup:

[Ghost Dog]

22. UK Neo-Lab Foreign Secretary supports Gitmo illegalities

Miliband fails in court bid to keep 'torture proof' secret
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/miliband-fails-in-court-bid-to-keep-torture-proof-secret-913317.html
By Robert Verkaik, Law Editor
Saturday, 30 August 2008

The Foreign Secretary, David Miliband, has failed to persuade the High Court that evidence which could help prove the innocence of a British resident held in Guantanamo Bay must remain secret.

Lord Justice Thomas and Mr Justice Lloyd Jones ruled yesterday that Mr Miliband had not properly considered allegations of "medieval" torture made by Binyam Mohamed against his captors.

Mr Mohamed, 30, an Egyptian national who came to Britain in 1994 seeking asylum, says MI6 intelligence supports his case that confessions he made were extracted under torture.

The court, which has already ruled that the Government possesses potentially vital evidence relating to Mr Mohamed's defence against terrorism allegations, gave the Foreign Office a further week to reconsider its application for an order banning disclosure of the information.

...

Andrew Tyrie MP, chair of the all-party parliamentary group on rendition, said the judges' ruling "confirmed the concern I have had for several years: that the UK is complicit in extraordinary rendition".

/... http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/miliband-fails-in-court-bid-to-keep-torture-proof-secret-913317.html