Miliband’s Torture Cover Up Faltering

The High Court has announced that it will re-open its original judgment that details of the torture of former Guantanamo Bay detainee Binyam Mohamed should remain secret in the interests of national security. In February the High Court refused the application of Mr Mohamed and a coalition of media organisations seeking public disclosure of details of his ill-treatment at the hands of the CIA and Pakistani intelligence services. The Court had already found that the British Security Services had colluded in his illegal treatment. After the Foreign Secretary informed the Court that US had threatened to down-grade intelligence sharing with the UK if details were made public, the Court judged that it had no choice but to refrain from publishing details.

However after judgment was delivered, David Miliband immediately went on public record to deny that the statements made by the US Government constituted a threat. It also transpired that no-one had even asked the new Obama administration whether it took the same view as its Bush predecessor. Mr Mohamed, represented by Leigh Day & Co and Reprieve, and backed by a coalition of media organisations, immediately applied to the Court to re-open its judgment on the basis that the Court, deliberately or otherwise, had been misled as to the consequences of disclosing details of the criminal acts against Mr. Mohamed.

Despite repeated requests, Mr Miliband refused to clarify the situation and following oral argument at a hearing on 22 April, Lord Justice Thomas and Mr Justice Lloyd Jones have now announced that they will re-open their judgment. They will publish full reasons for their decision shortly. Mr Miliband is to be given a final opportunity to present evidence to the Court of the true situation if he wishes to continue to seek to suppress the details of Mr Mohamed’s treatment. The Court will then reconsider the question of whether it will publish those details. It is anticipated that the issue will finally be determined in June.

Clive Stafford Smith, Director, of Reprieve, said: “It is long past time that this evidence was made public. How can it be that two governments that purport to uphold the rule of law be working together to cover up crimes committed against Binyam Mohamed?”

6 Responses to “Miliband’s Torture Cover Up Faltering”

  1. libhomo Says:

    Imperial ambitions certainly bring out the worst in people.

  2. libhomo Says:

    Why do the unions put up with Labor’s leadership? I don’t get it. US unions don’t have the numbers or power to control the Democratic Party, but I thought UK unions did.

  3. harpymarx Says:

    I think Siliband could be next leader with rank (operative word) outsider James Purnell maybe lurking around or…. he could be 1. In a cushy nice little earner in some vile multinational. 2. Tory cabinet minister…. Or both….

    libhomo: the reason the TUs say sod all about the politics of NL is that mirror a similar kind of bureaucracy, historically they have, nothing has changed. They put up with it cos there is a symbiotic relationship between the two, not always of the cosy kind as there’s tensions and pressures they have to react to (Visteon workers went in occupation without . The demands put on NL are blunted instigated by the bureaucracy. The ‘big three’ trade unions (Unite, Unison, GMB) in the UK are run by sell-out bureaucrats who ‘talk left’ when it suits them. And again, there’s tensions and pressures from the trade union activists from the base, demands made on Woodley/Kenny/Simpson/Prentis to attack NL’s policies and to defend the members. It is one big contradictory relationship. But I know as TU activist you constantly put these bureaucrats under pressure, work collectively and fight for your members. And sometimes defeat the bureaucrats. Historically, this has always been the relationship between the LP and TUs, it is symbiotic. And we have to fight that and put forward our own demands. It is a bloody uphill struggle from your own TU is against you fighting for what’s right!

  4. harpymarx Says:

    Sorry my ‘puter decided to die a grand death…. What I meant to say about Visteon is that the workers went into occupation without the leadership backing them, eventually they did but it was the rank and file who did took on the management of Fraud…opps…Ford…not the Woodley/Simpson combo.

  5. RickB Says:

    Good answer HM!


Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: