Torture has no place in Obama’s US and now is the time to say so

There is no dispute about the basic details of Binyam Mohamed, currently on hunger strike in the legal limbo of Guantanamo.

He was born in 1978, and moved with his father, an Ethiopian Airlines official to Washington DC. He then moved to London with his father when he was 16 and was resident in Britain for six years. He is believed to have travelled to Afghanistan in 2001 and was later alleged by the US authorities to have attended Al Qaeda training camps. US investigators believe he moved to Pakistan after 9/11. He was arrested in Karachi in April 2002, when attempting to board an airliner bound for Europe. It is claimed that he was using a false passport. Mohamed claims that he was tortured while imprisoned in Pakistan until July 2002 when he was placed on a CIA ‘rendition’ flight to Rabat, Morocco. He claims that he was subjected to even worse torture in Morocco, and that in January 2004 he was taken on another CIA ‘rendition’ flight to Kabul, where he claims he was again subjected to serious abuse in a covert prison. It was only when he was eventually moved to Guantanamo that he was able to relate his experiences to a British human rights lawyer, Clive Stafford Smith.

It is important to note that, although serious allegations claiming that Binyam Mohamed was involved in plotting a ‘dirty’ (i.e. radioactive) bomb attack in the United States were made by the US authorities, he has never been indicted for any crime. It is also significant that Mohamed’s former US military prosecutor has stated that he does not pose a threat to the US or the UK. The UK authorities apparently concur with this assessment. The Foreign Secretary has told parliament that the government has been working strenuously for his release.

Mohamed’s defence lawyers have been attempting to get the High Court in London to make public a document giving an account of their client’s treatment in detention. Lord Justice Thomas and Mr Justice Lloyd Jones ruled that they could not make public a document concerning the allegations that a British resident had been tortured by American agents and those acting on their behalf. The reason for the High Court’s ruling was an alleged threat by the US government to ‘break off’ intelligence co-operation if the material the US authorities had supplied to the lawyers was made public.

The Foreign Secretary in a Commons statement denied that there had been any ‘threat’ to break off intelligence co-operation, but he emphasised the ‘principle’ of intelligence co-operation between the US and the UK. He stated:

‘It is essential that the ability of the US to communicate material in confidence to the UK is protected. Without such confidence they will simply not share that material with us’.

David Miliband did make clear, however, that in his judgement;

‘.. the disclosure of the intelligence documents at issue by order of UK courts against the wishes of the US authorities would indeed cause real and significant damage to the national security and international relations of this country’.

It is difficult to see much difference between this warning and a ‘threat’. Furthermore, Channel 4 News disclosed that in August 2008 the Foreign Office received a message from the US State Department declaring that making public classified US documents relating to the Mohamed case was ‘likely to result in serious damage to US national security’.

In the debate following the Foreign Secretary’s statement in the Commons it was made clear that the opposition shared the UK government’s view that it was vital to maintain intelligence co-operation with Britain’s most powerful ally, and hence the principle of non-disclosure of classified intelligence information without the permission of the originating government had to be upheld.

Many commentators voiced the suspicion that the US government’s official position, stated last August by the Bush administration, was not based on a genuine threat to US national security but rather was aimed at covering up embarrassing details of the methods of interrogation and treatment of suspects condoned by the Bush administration. They are surely right to do so. It is the endangering of intelligence sources, not the avoiding of embarrassment to foreign governments that underlies the principle of non-disclosure of intelligence.

The prime minister has firmly reiterated the UK’s position regarding torture. At a joint press conference with Palestinian President Mohumed Abbas he states:

‘Our policy is not to support torture and not to condone any form of torture anywhere’.

President Obama made it very clear in the course of his election campaign that if elected his administration would take the same view: the use of torture would be outlawed by the US authorities. It is because of the major change in US policy resulting from the election of Mr Obama that there is a powerful case for the UK to make fresh approach to the new US administration on the problem of how the US is going to deal with the remaining inmates in Guantanamo prior to the closure of the detention centre which President Obama has pledged will happen a year from his inauguration. By asking the US government to look again at Binyam Mohamed’s case, the UK government will be doing all it can to speed the release of Mohamed who has been detained without charge for six years. It will also provide the new US administration with an excellent opportunity to demonstrate that it has the will to follow a new vision in foreign and security policy.

In a speech delivered at an international conference in Munich, Joe Biden, the new US Vice-President emphasised multilateralism, closer co-operation, more stress on diplomatic efforts, and the need for strong partnerships.

The new team in the White House is well equipped with foreign and security policy advisers, all of whom are well aware that if Washington appears to be following the policies of President George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld it will totally undermine President Obama’s repeated public pledges during his long and arduous election campaign. It would adversely affect President Obama’s international credibility and image and it would give fresh ammunition for anti-US propaganda to America’s enemies.

President Obama cannot be held responsible for his predecessor’s policies and actions. Moreover any Democrat hopes that the Republican Party has become won over to a bipartisan approach on key national issues will have been dispelled by the Republicans' stubborn opposition in Congress to President Obama’s rescue package to stimulate the US economy.

Guantanamo is one of the many skeletons in the cupboard left to the new administration in George W. Bush’s legacy. The UK government, like a candid friend and ally, should quietly and persuasively urge the new president to take actions demonstrating that the US is determined to turn over a new leaf in foreign and security policy. This will be a big help in mending troubled relations with European allies, strengthening the special relationship with the UK, and stemming the tide of anti-Americanism promoted and exploited by America’s enemies.

The Mohamed case offers yet another example of the way in which US counterterrorism policy has tried to sidestep the rule of law and the upholding of human rights so fundamental to an operative democracy and the damage this can do in the media and long term to the struggle against the Al Qaeda network and other dangerous forms of terrorism. As I have argued elsewhere, it is our adherence to the rule of law, human rights and democratic freedom that I believe will ultimately prevail over the petty tyranny and fanatical hatred of the incorrigible terrorist movements which seek to undermine and ultimately destroy democracy. Projects such as Guantanamo only help the terrorists in the long run.