Detainees Demand Torture Evidence Heard in Public

[cal04]

Source: Associated Press

Seven former Guantanamo Bay detainees want Britain's High Court to publicly consider evidence of Britain's alleged complicity in their torture.

The men are among 11 people suing the British government over its alleged collusion in their mistreatment overseas.

Lawyers say the ex-detainees are asking the High Court on Tuesday to rule that previously secret evidence must be heard in public sessions.

Former detainee Binyam Mohamed is involved in the case and claims Britain was aware of his torture in Pakistan and Morocco.


Guantánamo torture: UK wants claims of complicity to be heard in secret
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/oct/26/guantanamo-torture-claims-court-case

Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2009/10/27/world/AP-EU-Britain-Guantanamo.html?_r=1

[Solly Mack]

1. K&R

Make it public!

[Torn_Scorned_Ignored]

2. K&R

I hope they are heard. And I hope they win their suit.
What happened to Binyam Mohamed is horrifying.




:kick:

[Soylent Brice]

3. K&R

[katsy]

4. k/r

As it should be.

[cal04]

5. Secrecy bid over detainees' case

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8328712.stm

Lawyers for MI5 and MI6 have launched an unprecedented attempt to stop secret material being disclosed during a case brought by ex-Guantanamo Bay detainees.

Seven men are suing the British government for damages, claiming it was complicit in their detention by the US.

They want the right to cross-examine intelligence officers in public, but they may be prevented from doing so if the High Court challenge is successful.

The damages case is likely to take at least a year to come to a full hearing.



Move to withhold evidence in torture collusion claim
Any evidence of MI5 and MI6 involvement in torture of Guantánamo Bay Britons now seeking damages must be heard in secret, court told
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/oct/27/torture-collusion-claim-evidence-secret

[EFerrari]

6. K&R

[JohnyCanuck]

7. Former UK diplomat's statement to the UK's Parliamentary Joint Committe on Human Rights

It became obvious to me after just a few weeks that the CIA material from Uzbekistan was giving precisely the same narrative being extracted by the Uzbek torturers – and that the CIA “intelligence” was giving information far from the truth.

I was immediately concerned that British ministers and officials were being unknowingly exposed to material derived from torture, and therefore were acting illegally.

I asked my Deputy, Karen Moran, to call on a senior member of the US Embassy and tell him I was concerned that the CIA intelligence was probably derived from torture by the Uzbek security services. Karen Moran reported back to me that the US Embassy had replied that it probably did come from torture, but in the War on Terror they did not view that as a problem.

In October or November of 2002 I sent the FCO a telegram classified Top Secret and addressed specifically for the attention of the Secretary of State. I argued that to receive this material from torture was:
• Illegal – Plainly it was a breach of UNCAT
• Immoral – To support such despicable practices undermined our claims to civilisation
• Impractical – The material was designed to paint a false picture
I received no reply, so in January or February of 2003 I sent a further telegram repeating the same points.

I was summoned back to a meeting which was held in the FCO on 7 or 8 March 2003. Present were Linda Duffield, Director Wider Europe; Matthew Kydd, Head Permanent Under Secretary’s Department; Sir Michael Wood, Legal Adviser.

snip

At the start of the meeting Linda Duffield told me that Sir Michael Jay, Permanent Under Secretary, wished me to know that my telegrams were unwise and that these sensitive questions were best not discussed on paper.

In the meeting, Sir Michael Wood told me that it was not illegal for us to obtain intelligence from torture, provided someone else did the torture. He added “I make no comment on the moral aspect” and appeared to me to be signalling disapproval.

snip

It was agreed that Sir Michael Wood’s view that it was not illegal to receive intelligence from torture would be put in writing. I attach a copy of his letter of 13 March 2003.
http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/documents/Wood.pdf

This meeting was minuted. I have seen the minute, which is classified Top Secret. On the top copy is a manuscript note giving Jack Straw’s views. It is entirely plain from this note that this torture policy was under his personal direction.

http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2009/03/trying_again_my.html