Did Hillary Clinton Threaten UK Over Binyam Mohamed Torture Disclosure?

[kpete]

Did Hillary Clinton Threaten UK Over Binyam Mohamed Torture Disclosure?

anonymous author: “If it is determined that (Her Majesty's Government) is unable to protect information we provide to it, even if that inability is caused by your judicial system, we will necessarily have to review with the greatest care the sensitivity of information we can provide in the future.”
Andy Worthington
26.5.09

I only ask because two weeks ago, as part of a long-running court case in which Binyam Mohamed, former Guantánamo prisoner and victim of “extraordinary rendition” and torture, is trying to persuade the British government to disclose evidence in its possession relating to his illegal imprisonment and torture, the government’s policy of resisting disclosure by whining that it would cause irreparable damage to the intelligence-sharing relationship between the US and the UK entered a critical new phase when a letter was delivered to the British government. Later revealed to Mohamed’s lawyers, it was marked as being the “Obama administration’s communication”, but had the names of the agency involved and the letter’s author blacked out.

.................

The letter then referred to President Obama’s release of four Justice Department memos purporting to redefine torture and defend its use by the CIA, stating, “Neither in (those four) memoranda, nor in any statements of the administration accompanying their release, was reference made to the identity of any foreign government that might have assisted the United States. Given the declassification of the highly sensitive information contained in the memoranda, the fact that the president refrained from providing any information about foreign governments is indicative that the United States continues to preserve the secrecy of such information as critical to our national security.”

The letter continued: “The seven paragraphs at issue (a summary of the UK documents, compiled by the judges) are based upon classified information shared between our countries. Public disclosure of this information, reasonably could be expected to cause serious damage to the United Kingdom’s national security. Specifically, disclosure of this information may result in a constriction of the US-UK relationship, as well as UK relationships with other countries.”

...............

The identity of the author was one of many questions that bounced around the High Court on Friday, as Mohamed’s lawyers sought once more to challenge the British government’s refusal to release the documents in its possession, but the most interesting little tidbit of information to emerge from these discussions was when one of Mohamed’s barristers referred to the author of the letter as “he,” and a ripple of knowing laughter followed from those who had been informed of the identity of the author, prompting speculation, of course, that “she” was none other than Hillary Clinton, the US Secretary of State.

more at:
http://www.andyworthington.co.uk/2009/05/26/did-hillary-clinton-threaten-uk-over-binyam-mohamed-torture-disclosure/

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

1. "Transparency in Government" = meaningless political slogan

[blm]

2. This is why I didn't want ANY Clintonites in this new WH. They were in tune with Bush's WH

and Bill, himself, helped Bush sell his decisions for war to other world leaders and to the DC Dems who depended on his advice based on what privileged intel Bill had accessed and had seen while in office. If Bush lied, then.....so did Clinton.


It is reasonable to suspect that HRC will likely be fashioning some of the policy dealing with past war strategy that ends up protecting Bush WH as she protects Bill's legacy, too.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

3. Yup. I thought the best thing about Obama was that he isn't a Clinton.

But, we are now stuck with a master of political expediency and CYA running the State Department.

[mod mom]

4. Hillary MUST follow Obama's policy/direction. If she acted w/o agreement from

the administration they should not only expose this fact but can her. She LOST overwhelmingly-it's Obama's foreign policy.

Of course I agree with you that I was leery about adding a Clinton but I see it as a way to neutralize her power so she couldn't continue to make trouble (think Nelson & Bayh) in the senate. She MUST follow Obama's direction , although she is free to offer advise just like anyone else.

[blm]

7. Yes, but she can certainly SHAPE the info that GETS to Obama and to other leaders in a way

that benefits the last two regimes.

I'll bet there is ALOT of that going on. I'm pretty sure Obama was keyed on community matters back in the 80s and 90s and let matters like IranContra, BCCI, etc.... slide past him the way the rest of the country did without a watchful broadcast media caring about the OUTCOME or the continuing coverups.

[mod mom]

8. I would think John Kerry would make the point of informing the Obama Administration

of what he found in his investigation and remember how early he expressed support for Obama over an established colleague whom he had known for a much longer time.

Obama found out about the Clinton MO during the primary. I believe he is smart enough to watch her like a hawk.

[blm]

9. I expect he did....but, there is also a matter of Rahm being the gatekeeper now...

and I don't trust his gatekeeping. I have heard thru a rock solid source that Rahm was key to pushing Clinton into Sec of State position.

[mod mom]

10. If you look at it from the angle of diffusing her power (ie as SOS she implement HIS policy)

it's actually a brilliant move as was adding Rahm who would have ganged up with the other corporate thugs to fight for the powerful. Some of the Clinton apologists here refuse to admit that it might have been about diffusing power, but let's face it how she handled herself during the primary, how she attempted to ram healthcare during her husband's tenure and how she was exposed as a liar over Bosnia, doesn't exactly speak higher for her being the most qualified person. I say her selection was about diffusion.

Believe me I don't like Rahm one iota (not even a tiny one -he's a weasel), but Obama is smart, as is his wife, and Senator Kerry. Where there is a will there is a way to deliver information if you are a fellow Dem senator.

[blm]

11. I'm sure he has discussed it by now....but, I'm quite certain that there hasn't been enough time

to go into 10% of the details. I did notice though, that Kerry went to the top hotspots before HRC did earlier this year. So, there must still be a matter of 'level of trust' that Obama has not yet bridged w/HRC, despite all the glowy perceptions we're fed by the corporate media.

[StevieM]

13. Oh please...."overwhelmingly?" Obama fell 350 pledged delegates short of clinching the nomination

It was a narrow victory, not the landslide you imagine. Obama won because the way the delegates were awarded benefited him. Under the GOP rules (or the old Dem rules) she would have won.

And you can dream of Hillary being canned, but it will never happen. Hillary has an enormous base of support and is not the irrelevant, unpopular figure you imagine her to be. Obama needed her--badly--on the campaign trail last year, and he is not about to alienate millions of Americans.

Fortunately, Hillary Clinton is a team player, who doesn't freelance. She has been a great asset to this administration and to our country.

Steve

[mod mom]

14. Don't forget the GOP effort to derail Obama w cross-over voting after McCain

became the nominee. Running against Hillary was there only chance.

"Hillary Clinton is a team player" yes if your team is the all powerful corporations.

She was 30 points ahead at the start with a huge war chest and name recognition. President Obama was underfunded and seen as having a slim chance of victory, but the people spoke very clearly that they didn't want the same, but change.

If you examine those who take the time to become well informed on following the issues and researching the facts (like here on DU, Daily Kos, Huff Po, Air America radio hosts and especially the GOTV activists around the country, you will find that those communities OVERWHELMINGLY supported Barrack Obama. those who live by MSM sound bites and still believe bill clinton worked for the little guy may have been fooled but those who delve into the facts whole heartedly rejected her.

[blm]

15. ANY Dem nominee was winning in 2008. Obama didn't 'need' HRC.

And if HRC was SO influential and such an asset to Dems, then why did she stay sided with Bush until Lieberman lost his primary race in 2006? Hillary and Bill were assets to BushInc from 2001-2007. They stayed supportive of his decisions on terrorism and Iraq war, even siding with him against the Dem nominee in 2004. They were traitors then and will still act to cover Bushes' asses along with their own as long as they are in a position to do so.

[mmonk]

5. We're not supposed to know such things. We have secret government

here in the US so there's no way we know the answer.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

6. "Informed citizenry" + government = oxymoron

But, that knowledge is only available in "Closed Door Meetings" of our "transparent government".

I regard "Closed Door Meetings" as akin to Mafia "sitdowns".

[mmonk]

12. Closed doors sessions nullifies knowledge and votes.