Obama administration threatens Britain to keep torture evidence concealed

[kpete]

Source: Salon

Tuesday May 12, 2009 10:36 EDT
Obama administration threatens Britain to keep torture evidence concealed

Ever since he was released from Guantanamo in February after six years of due-process-less detention and brutal torture, Binyam Mohamed has been attempting to obtain justice for what was done to him. But his torturers have been continuously protected, and Mohamed's quest for a day in court repeatedly thwarted, by one individual: Barack Obama. Today, there is new and graphic evidence of just how far the Obama administration is going to prevent evidence of the Bush administration's torture program from becoming public.

In February, Obama's DOJ demanded dismissal of Mohamed's lawsuit against the company which helped "render" him to be tortured on the ground that national security would be harmed if the lawsuit continued. Then, after a British High Court ruled that there was credible evidence that Mohamed was subjected to brutal torture and was entitled to obtain evidence in the possession of the British government which detailed the CIA's treatment of Mohamed, and after a formal police inquiry began into allegations that British agents collaborated in his torture, the British government cited threats from the U.S. government that it would no longer engage in intelligence-sharing with Britain -- i.e., it would no longer pass on information about terrorist threats aimed at British citizens -- if the British court disclosed the facts of Mohamed's torture.

The Washington Times' Eli Lake reported this morning that "the Obama administration (said) it may curtail Anglo-American intelligence sharing if the British High Court discloses new details of the treatment of a former Guantanamo detainee." Last month, when I interviewed Mohamed's lawyer, Clive Stafford Smith, he made clear just how grave of an act -- a crime -- such threats are, but nonetheless expressed hope that the Obama administration would repudiate those threats:

http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/may/12/obama-threatens-to-limit-us-intel-with-brits/

Read more: http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/05/12/obama/index.html

---

That definitive evidence came, and it leaves no doubt that these threats to the British government are now being issued every bit as emphatically from Obama. I've obtained a copy of the letter excerpts submitted to the British court (.pdf - see pages 6-9), submitted by the British Government to prove that the U.S., under Obama, is continuing to make these threats. Here are key excepts from the Obama administration's letter; just marvel at what the U.S. is saying to Britian:









Here is what the British High Court said when reversing its decision to disclose the evidence in light of these threats from the U.S. government (click to enlarge):

[LaurenG]

1. Why?

"the Obama administration (said) it may curtail Anglo-American intelligence sharing if the British High Court discloses new details of the treatment of a former Guantanamo detainee."

This make no sense to me.

[keepCAblue]

3. To suppress the truth from coming out. n/t

[LaurenG]

4. Yes but why suppress it? nt

[keepCAblue]

2. All of which makes O. complicit in the crimes of the Bush admin. n/t

[TankLV]

23. Afraid so - Obama will be JUST AS GUILTY if he continues to SUPRESS EVIDENCE and continues bush*s

coverup...!

Sorry, but this looks like this is where I part company with Obama, IF, and I say again, IF Obama not only DOES NOTHING, but ENDEAVORS TO COVER THIS UP!!!

THis stinks to high heaven...

[Jefferson23]

5. I hope the UK calls their bluff. Obama is going to intentionally

withhold information and as a result Brits might die? Oh come on.

My question, is Obama doing this to prevent the CIA interrogators from being charged? They have been granted a pass from us but that doesn't mean the UK would have to agree so I wonder why all the threats.

edited to add: I keep thinking that Bush and Cheney and the others at the top are all that Obama is willing to consider for prosecution.

[katandmoon]

6. Bush 1, Obama 0

[Bragi]

7. Why suppress the evidence?

My guess is that U.S. military, security and intelligence personnel are so deeply implicated in torture that, if the evidence comes out, it will take down not dozens of people, but many hundreds, maybe more.

I deeply regret that Obama is doing his best to defend the torturers from legal trouble, but I don't think it will matter in the end, as the truth will eventually come out, and these people will be prosecuted.

- B

[clear eye]

24. Prosecuted by whom?

We found during the 8 years of Bush/Cheney that the truth always comes out, people like us blog in horror, but that doesn't mean anything is done about it. Ever.

[Torn_Scorned_Ignored]

8. WOW!

[Metta]

9. So, Obama's making terroristic threats. More New American Century on the march.

And, don't tell me that "It's his people that are doing this, not him." If he's not in control of this, then Intellingence and State are out of control.

Happy karma all.

[LaurenG]

10. Yep!

:hi:

[Metta]

11. Hey, now.

:hi: I salute the divine within you. :~~>

[Baby Snooks]

13. Happy karma indeed...

Apparently Obama, as opposed to the Obama Administration, only wants information that embarrasses the Bush Administration to come out and the only reason why he wants to embarrass the Bush Administration is to make it appear that he will hold it accountable. But of course he will not.

We again have an Emperor with no clothes. Along with an Empress with no clothes.

We are a falling empire. The world will not miss us. The world probably will rejoice in our demise.

[struggle4progress]

12. I want a better source than the Moonies' Washington Times for such claims

[Baby Snooks]

16. Okay...

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/05/12/obama/index.html

[struggle4progress]

17. Greenwald seems to be quoting the Washington Times. And if you read the pdf everyone is

quoting, it only contains an undated and unsigned fragment of a communication purportedly from the Obama administration. I think I'll withhold judgment until I know something more definitively

[Baby Snooks]

18. Well how much evidence of torture do you need?

And at what point do you accept that no matter how much evidence there is, no one will be held accountable for it?

[struggle4progress]

19. More than one question, more than one answer. I was writing Congress about torture

well before Abu Ghraib broke, based on a number of excellent posts here at DU about Maher Arar and similar stories. Of course, the criminal history of various US administrations does, indeed, suggest that it is difficult to hold the ruling elite accountable for their crimes: the corporate media will happily cooperate in cover-ups, and the general population is typically aware of only a small fragment of the available information. A number of different issues arise, and all require specific detailed accurate analysis: one such issue is the problem of excavating the information from the bowels of the executive branch; another issue is the problem of getting the information before the public; another issue is the problem of crafting the political strategy that will actually produce progress. None of these issues is trivial

For the purposes of the present thread, I merely observe that the executive branch is a large organization, that contains many permanent with different political views, and so it is not entirely under the control of the President: no one person has the energy or intelligence to survey it in its entirety. For this reason, I object to any view, that attributes everything arising from the executive as an indication of Obama's views: one would do better to inquire more carefully into the exact origins of documents, in order to determine who produced them, because only then does one have a really prospect for a useful analysis

[Luminous Animal]

25. Greenwald addressed that...

Lastly, just to address some typical excuses from Obama supporters that are arriving in my email and comment section: the letter that I've posted is one that the British Government submitted to the High Court and which lawyers for the British Government stated was authored by the Obama administration. It is part of the public filing in that case. That letter discusses disclosure of the 4 OLC letters, which occurred just last month, which means that the Obama letter must have been authored within the last several weeks, not in February. The whole point of this motion was to determine if the Obama administration re-iterates and embraces the threats previously made by the Bush administration, and the British government stated emphatically that the Obama administration does embrace those threats.

Those are just facts that won't disappear no matter how much one wishes them away. Here is a Guardian article detailing the hearing at which British government lawyers made these claims, and here is an Associated Press article detailing the time line and how the Obama administration just this last week reiterated the Bush threats.

[CrispyQ]

14. More of same.

k&r

[The Doctor.]

15. Someone tell KO to make Obama a 'Worst Person' over this.

"The buck stops here" after all.

[ima_sinnic]

21. like Obama could care.

if he CARED, we wouldn't even be having this conversation.

[ima_sinnic]

20. between this and the health insurance scam, I wash my hands of him

so kick me off DU already. who needs this kind of crap? "change" is a great campaign slogan--for SUCKERS.
we were told it was "too soon" to take care of stuff like this, that the "superhuman chess player" had some big trick up his sleeve that we mortal earthlings were just too dim to comprehend. I've seen all I care to see of corruption, corporate ass-kissing, illegal/unnecessary war, torture covered up--all this in only the first 100 days!
why did I vote for this again?

[ima_sinnic]

22. kick for the truth about continued cover-up of war crimes