
Big Wullie
|
Full Dossier Must Be ReleasedWhat pathetic excuses not to reveal torture dossier.
Perhaps we are seeing more openness from our courts.
Perhaps we should test the water with appeals for our documents about our cases when Crown Office refuse to hand over documents pertinent to our appeals.
http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/l...orture-dossier-must-be.5742460.jp
Full torture dossier must be revealed, judges rule
Published Date: 17 October 2009
By Andrew Woodcock and Mike Taylor
FOREIGN Secretary David Mili-band is to appeal against a High Court ruling that United States intelligence material on former Guantanamo Bay inmate Binyam Mohamed be made public.
Mr Miliband said yesterday the government was "deeply disappointed" by the judgment. US authorities have strongly resisted the material's release.
The Foreign Secretary warned that the US may no longer be willing to share intelligence if it feared it might later be disclosed on the orders of a foreign court.
In a statement, he said: "The government is deeply disappointed by the judgment handed down today which concludes that a summary of US intelligence material should be put into the public domain against their wishes. We will be appealing in the strongest possible terms."
Last night, the US government said it was "not pleased" by the court's decision.
US State Department spokesman Ian Kelly said the information surrounding the alleged treatment of UK citizen Binyam Mohamed was "sensitive" to national security. However, he refused to speculate on what implications the court ruling could have on Anglo-American relationships.
He said: "We're pleased the Foreign Secretary has stated in strong terms that they plan to pursue a vigorous appeal."
When asked his reaction to today's High Court judgment in London, Mr Kelly said: "We are not pleased – and this has nothing to do with due process here."
Mr Mohamed, an Ethiopian, was granted refugee status in Britain in 1994. He was detained in Pakistan in 2002 on suspicion of involvement in terrorism and then "rendered" to Morocco and Afghanistan.
After allegedly being subjected to torture by his US captors, he was sent to Guantanamo Bay in 2004. The government has come under pressure to allow disclosure of material which could indicate how much MI5 and government officials knew about Mr Mohamed.
Mr Mohamed, 31, was still being held at Guantanamo Bay awaiting trial at the time of the court's original judgment in August 2008, but has since been released and returned to the UK.
He is still fighting to prove he was tortured and that UK authorities facilitated his detention and knew of the treatment to which he was subjected.
In yesterday's ruling , Lord Justice Thomas and Mr Justice Lloyd Jones said there was "overwhelming" public interest in now disclosing the seven paragraphs of material redacted from their original judgment on the Mohamed case last year.
"As the risk to national security, judged objectively on the evidence, is not a serious one, we should restore the redacted paragraphs to our first judgment," they said.
|
scotkaz
|
| Quote: | | US authorities have strongly resisted the material's release. |
I am sure they are strongly resisting BUT I hope they do not win this.
Are our courts now getting some guts? Looks like it to me!
| Quote: | | US State Department spokesman Ian Kelly said the information surrounding the alleged treatment of UK citizen Binyam Mohamed was "sensitive" to national security. However, he refused to speculate on what implications the court ruling could have on Anglo-American relationships. |
It is in the UK public interest and that of Mr Mohamed that this information is released. Maybe once it is then the alleged torture will become torture plain and simple. Then maybe they will have to compensate the poor man for what they put him through. Not wanting to pay compensation to him and not wanting to admit to torture is probably what is at the bottom of the objections.
They can release information without revealing sensitive national security information.
Below is the 8th Amendment about torture and cruel and inhumane treatment in the US. This is their own rules!
The Eighth Amendment (Amendment VIII) to the United States Constitution is the part of the United States Bill of Rights which prohibits the federal government from imposing excessive bail, excessive fines or cruel and unusual punishments. The phrases employed are taken from the English Bill of Rights of 1689. In Louisiana ex rel. Francis v. Resweber 329 U.S. 459 (1947), the Supreme Court assumed that the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause applied to the states. In Robinson v. California, 370 U.S. 660 (1962), the Court ruled that clause did apply to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court has not ruled on whether the Excessive Bail or Excessive Fines Clauses apply to the states.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eigh..._United_States_Constitution[/url]
|
|
|
|