Espionage, Torture and those seven paragraphs

For a telling commentary on yesterdays Appeal Court decision in the Binyam Mohamed torture evidence case, have a look at Obsolete's Blog. The whole thing is worth reading but a couple of quotes:

Reading the seven paragraphs that have finally been released detailing the CIA's treatment of Binyam Mohamed after today's ruling by the Court of Appeal, it's initially difficult to know quite why the government was so determined that they should remain secret. They tell us absolutely nothing that we didn't already know: that the US was systematically mistreating almost anyone that came into their custody in either Afghanistan or Pakistan; that this was just the start of the torture regime which Binyam Mohamed found himself under; that the CIA, despite the claims of our security services, had been letting them know just what they were doing to individuals connected to this country; and that despite knowing full well that what the CIA was doing to Mohamed at this early stage would breach our obligations under the European Convention of Human Rights, as found during the 1970s when the "five techniques" were outlawed in Northern Ireland, they did absolutely nothing to intervene to stop his mistreatment

 And....

Indeed, the only reason why the Court of Appeal decided that seven paragraphs could today be published was that far more gruesome evidence of the torture which Mohamed underwent was released by a US court in a judgement in November of last year. Lord Neuberger quotes from it in his section of today's ruling (paragraph 126):

[Mr Mohamed's] trauma lasted for two long years. During that time, he was physically and psychologically tortured. His genitals were mutilated. He was deprived of sleep and food. He was summarily transported from one prison to another. Captors held him in stress positions for days at a time. He was forced to listen to piercingly loud music and the screams of other prisoners while locked in a pitch-black cell. All the while, he was forced to inculpate himself and others in various plots to imperil Americans.
...
At page 58, she said that "[t]he [US] Government does not challenge or deny the accuracy of [Mr Mohamed's] story of brutal treatment" and repeated that point at pages 62 and 64. On pages 61-2, she said that his "persistence in telling his story" and "very vigorous… and very public ... pursu[ance of] his claims in the British courts" indicated that his evidence was true and "demonstrates his willingness to test the truth of his version of events in both the courts of law and the court of public opinion". In the passage just quoted from page 70 of her Opinion, she referred to Mr Mohamed's "lengthy prior torture" as an established fact.

Compared to the seven paragraphs we have today, it doesn't really get much more damning.

It moved me to make the following comment:

This sort of stuff really is your forte Obsolete. That is one cracking analysis which I wouldn't presume to add to, other than with a rather apposite quotation from Joseph Persico's 'Roosevelt's Secret War: FDR and World War II Espionage' (hat tip to Cryptome)

Espionage involves peeking at the other fellow's hand, marking the cards, cooking the books, poisoning the well, breaking the rules, hitting below the belt, cheating, lying, deceiving, defaming, snooping, eavesdropping, prying, stealing, bribing, suborning, burglarizing, forging, misleading, conducting dirty tricks, dirty pool, skulduggery, blackmail, seduction, everything not sporting, not kosher, not cricket. In short, espionage stands virtue on its head and elevates vice instead.

- all to further our mission to do good in the world naturally - so that's OK then.

Some things never change eh? and despite all the pompous, ridiculous - not to say comical if it weren't so damned depressing - protestations of their apologists (well he would say that wouldn't he? - aka Mandy Rice Davies) the routine behaviour of our own SIS's are most certainly no exception.

Does ANYONE seriously believe that this will have ANY effect other than to make them and their political puppets - to whom offers may be made that simply cannot be refused - that much more careful, deceptive - and all the other attributes mentioned above - when going about their business of protecting us from their manufactured and calibrated milieu of TERROR?

After all, Robert Cecil is their archetype - and we STILL celebrate his brilliant 'just-in-time' capture and execution of those dastardly gunpowder plotters some 400 years later eh?

Indeed some thing never NEVER CHANGE and the Sheeple remain as credulous as ever.

Hat tip to 'Deep Politics Forum' for the picture 

Update: This post was prompted by 'Obsolete's' take on the '7 paragraphs'. His subsequent posts on the matter are well worth reading too:

Scum-watch: Whose side are you on? - This is one of his routine demolitions of our appalling tabloid press. The Sun in this case, though there is precious little to choose between them in the utter garbage stakes apart from contrived left-right biases. Of course, like the sheep-dog in the picture above, their real purpose is to herd the sheeple while dividing them over trivia.

The seven paragraphs fallout continues

Craig Murray - an Exchange of views

The following is taken from the comments section of a piece posted by Iain Dale on his Diary site on 11th July. I've posted it here to keep my thoughts straight as the thing develops further. The F&CO legal deadline is tomorrow 13th July although Craig is already in breach of the Treasury solicitors revised requirement by leaving the disputed documents on his site. There are links to further posts on this with further outbound links Here, Here, Here and Here .

Helen said... Craig Murray was a diplomat in a prestigious position. That carries duties as well as privileges. One of those duties is not making political statements, particularly, as in this case, he either cannot or will not produce any evidence.
2:18 PM

Sabretache said... Helen: - A pretty standard defence of establishment response if I may be so bold. He most certainly DOES have the proof for his allegations. They are in the documents that the government seems so determined to suppress. You clearly haven't read them - or know very much about the matter other than establishment-speak about the case.
3:08 PM

Anonymous said... I suppose it is because of this government (and the disastrous domination of academia by the left) that Murray & co fail to see how ridiculous their position is. The appearance of human rights is a consequence of civilisation, not its rerequisite.
3:34 PM

Sabretache said... anon 3:34. I suggest you read the the latest Treasury solicitor letter then tell us whose position is ridiculous. If you still claim it is 'Murray & Co', perhaps you'd care to tell us what you would do were you required to be complicit in obtaining intelligence information by, for example, boiling people alive. Understandably HMG do not want us knowing about such things, much less seeing government documents that prove it. That is what happens at the behest of our staunch ally, Islam Karimov of Uzbekistan. The regime is at least as bad, if not a whole lot worse than the dictator we affect such self-righteousness about removing in Iraq. Murray has the guts to stand up and cry foul - and is vilified for it. In the words of Jack Straw "Craig Murray has been (is and intends to remain??) a serious embarassment to the entire F&CO". HMG are doing their damndest to ensure he pays dearly for that.
5:05 PM

Helen said... Sabretache, Craig Murray is establishment. He can't have it both ways. And neither can people on this blog who keep complaining (not you, as far as I know) about the civil service becoming politicized. As long as it is against the Labour government it's OK? What happens when they do it against a Conservative government? And no, he has not produced the evidence but has climbed down rather fast when he was asked about it by such freedom-loving establishments as the European Parliament and the Council of Europe. Of course, if I had my way, I would simply shut down all the embassies and tell ambassadors to go and earn a decent penny.
6:07 PM

Anonymous said... Sabretache, my point was that it cannot be the primary
business of HMG to care about human rights abuses in other countries. Of course
they are being two faced because of all the "ethical foreign policy nonsense". But the business of diplomacy is to play the world, not to change it. Aside from these considerations, Murray ought to remember that the only reason why anyone was listening to him was because he was paid to be an HMA. And the job is to promote government policy not to undermine it, or to sell his own. If he wants to do that he is welcome to become a politician.
9:45 PM

Sabretache said... Helen: Murray WAS establishment; and while so, he obeyed the rules. He did NOT make political statements, he simply declined to be complicit in torture and worked damned hard to persuade his masters in London to recognise
what was going on. They in turn decided that his refusal to turn a blind eye rendered him unsound and a host of scurrilous accusations were levelled against him. He was cleared on all counts but nonetheless forced out (locked out of his own embassy whilst still the Ambassador no less). You clearly have (a bit of) one side of the story - the official one it seems. I suggest you get a copy of his book from Amazon before HMG succeed in suppressing that too. I have. I've read it and you are way off base.
As for declining to prove his case (ie HMG complicity in the grosses forms of torture for the purposes of fighting the intelligence 'war on terror): he does just that in the book with corroboration from the documents that HMG are so strenuously trying to keep you from seeing.

As I said earlier, the depressing thing is I have little doubt the major outline of the story would have been little different under any other government. But never mind eh? - we're the goodies - with guns in our hands and God on our side. The enemy of our enemy is our friend and never mind that he's the worst kind of dictator imaginable. The whole thing is going to end in tears - big time; and I am NOT being party political.
10:07 PM

Anonymous said... I tend to agree with Helen. craven behaviour towards the United States is appalling, particularly when it involves complicity with the scum they associate with. On the other hand, I don't think the FCO would be doing its job if it didn't realise that the choice for the moment is between a bloody dictatorship, or an Islamic state in Central Asia. That's an invidious choice, but that overall point is far more important than whether a few people are shot or tortured. The FCO is not a state-funded version of Amnesty International. The question ought to be: what's in the UK national interest? Murray may well be right to say that the US strategy in the region is likely to create more trouble rather than less in the long run. But they don't have "the long run" to find out, and they don't have many good options. None of that seems to have been reflected in his correspondence with London, or in his speeches.
11:22 AM

Sabretache said... Anon 11:22: There are two substantive issues here:
1. How UK Foreign policy objectives should be represented in Uzbekistan - or elsewhere
2. How a politicised Civil Service deals with people it regards (rightly or wrongly) as
'unsound'

Frankly your post, whilst theoretically reasonable, indicates that you have not read either the book or all those embargoed documents. Your expression "... whether a few people are shot or tortured" is an anodyne travesty worthy of a NuLab spin-doctor. The Uzbeks Security forces used the grossest forms of torture systematically to get 'dissidents' to confirm what the Karimov regime wanted, for their OWN purposes, the US/UK to believe - simple as that - and we lapped it up. Do you even know, or care that Karimovs troops killed over 600 pro-democracy demonstrators at Andijan on 13th May 2005 - just over 1 year ago? With allies like that + all the rest, is it any wonder the Muslim world hates us with a vengeance?

However, all that aside. What about 2?

There are reasonable procedures for removing any senior member of staff that is judged to be inadequate. But that is NOT how NuLab operate. The documents prove beyond reasonable doubt that there was a systematic campaign of dirty tricks and character assassination sanctioned at the highest level (including Jack Straw and Downing St) and directed against Craig Murray. The sort of behaviour that we have come to expect from NuLab against anyone who is effective in exposing their incompetence and duplicity. EXACTLY the same tactics were employed against James Cameron first secretary in Bucharest for exposing the visa scam that forced Beverly Hughes' resignation - ie 'granting visas for sex and having a 'love-nest' flat in town. They couldn't even think up something original.

The politicisation of the Civil Service is near complete. Is it any wonder they don't want us to see the evidence for ourselves?

Tags: Craig Murray, Rendition, F&CO, FOIA

Craig Murray: F&CO's Threat Developments

Hat-tip to Blairwatch & Craig Murray

Another message from Craig Murray together with the text of his latest correspondence with UK government solicitors. You really must read his reply to their latest letter. It reveals the motives of Margaret Beckett and the Foreign & Commonwealth Office for what they are: a crass attempt at supressing, for political purposes, information already released onder FOI and DPA provisions . It is also hilariously funny.

The MSM are also starting to take an interest:

The Register
The Guardian
Oh My News

Anyone with an interest in seeing the UK and US governments seriously embarrased over their continued policy of accepting intelligence known to have been obtained under torture will no doubt see to it that all this is circulated as widely as possible - including the mirroring of those documents.

From Craig Murray to the world at large:

The government's deadline has passed, the documents are still on the website and we await the court injunction... Thank you for all your support.

And the latest from the F&CO solicitor:

7 July 2006 second letter

Dear Mr Murray
You have requested more time to seek legal advice. I have my clients Instructions. We are prepared to extend the deadline for you to give an undertaking until 4pm on Thursday 13 July 2006 on condition that the documents referred to in my first letter are immediately removed from your website and not reproduced by you anywhere else whilst negotiations regarding the undertaking are ongoing. If you do not immediately remove the documents from your website the offer of an extension will be withdrawn and the original deadline of 4pm on Monday 10 July will apply. In the event that you fail to give the required undertaking by 4pm on 13 July, or if the documents reappear on the website during the course of negotiations, my client reserves the right to issue a claim against you without further notice. I should be grateful for your response by return.

Yours sincerely
Gareth Buttrill
For the Treasury Solicitor

====================
And Craig's reply: (The last couple of paras are absolute gems of humour - but with a laser accurate focus on the sheer ridiculous stupidity of it all)

To: Gareth Buttrill
Sent: Monday, July 10, 2006 8:43 AM
Subject: Re: Infringement of Crown Copyright: letter before claim

Mr Buttrill,
Thank you for this second letter. It is rather a peculiar request. You claim to be
willing to extend the deadline for me to be able to take legal advice, providing that I concede the principal point in the meantime. I cannot see the need for this haste. In copyright cases it is not my understanding that it is generally considered necessary to remove a publication from circulation pending a court decision. For example, there was a recent highly publicised copyright case over the Da Vinci code. Was it deemed necessary by the court to withdraw the Da Vinci Code from sale while the case was heard? No, it was not. Your peremptory demands reveal the motive behind your
actions in this case - the suppression of information for political purposes. I don't
believe it is right to use Crown Copyright in this way. Otherwise the government has an arbitrary power to keep secret absolutely anything that it does. Your contention in your letter of 7 July that the government can use Crown Copyright arbitrarily and politically to suppress material released under the Freedom of Information Act, would obviate the whole purpose of that Act in giving the public a "Right to know" what is being done in their name.

I have this morning contacted solicitors to take legal advice. I could not do so over the weekend as this is not a criminal matter, and copyright lawyers do not run 24 hour call out services. Unfortunately I must spend much of today at St Thomas' Hospital for treatment of serious medical conditions. The Foreign & Commonwealth Office's treatment of me, as detailed in the documents you are trying to suppress, was the direct cause of those medical conditions, a fact I would welcome the chance to discuss in court.

You have been free to advise me what I "Must" do. You must bear in mind what the content of the story is, that I am seeking to tell and the government is seeking to suppress. I accept your renewed deadline as reasonable, but will not be removing the documents in the interim - until I get advice, I shall go by what I know of the law, and all I know in this matter is the Da Vinci Code precedent. In the meantime, I should be grateful if, entirely without prejudice, you could furnish me with some practical advice. If the documents are, as you allege, Crown Copyright, where and how do I go about making a formal application for permission to reproduce them? Also, I am copying your letters to my website. Do you allege that to be also a breach of Crown Copyright? If I remove the documents but not your letters, would you still go for an injunction? If I am served an injunction and remove the documents, but put the injunction on my website to explain why, do you allege I am breaching Crown Copyright by publishing the injunction? Do you allege it to be a breach of Crown Copyright to reproduce on a weblog any document at all produced by government? The definition given in your letter of 7 July would plainly cover speeches given by Ministers and written by civil servants. Is it a breach of Crown Copyright to reproduce such ministerial speeches on a weblog? How long a quote could you make from a ministerial speech before breaching copyright? Does this cover, for example, letters from local authorities and health trusts, or just from central government? Does it cover parking tickets? What about quotes from the King James Bible? If all or any of these are, in your view, matters of discretion where the government can exercise Crown Copyright if it so chooses, then the following is perhaps the most important question of all. Are there any criteria of reasonable action which the government is obliged to consider when deciding whether to enforce claimed copyright or not, or is the Crown claiming a power which is solely arbitrary?

I apologise for my confusion. You can see why I need to take legal advice. I will revert to you.

Craig Murray

Tags: Craig Murray, Rendition, F&CO, FOIA

A transparent abuse of power

Well now. It's 16:45 on Monday 10th July and the documents over which Gareth Buttrill of HM Treasury Solicitors (strapline 'Law at the Heart of Government') claims Crown Copyright and has ordered removed under pain of a High Court action by 16:00 today, are still available on Craig Murray's web site.

So it looks like we are in for a court case seeking damages for publication of the documents without HM government permission. It should be interesting because these are the self-same documents that HMG initially claimed were false/forgeries; then tried to suppress under the Official Secrets Act; then released under the Freedom of Information Act and the Data Protection Act; and now, on the face of it, have decided are not to be disclosed after all. Amazing!

As Craig Murray himself put it in a comment on his blog:

"The provision to retain copyright under the Data protection Act and Freedom of Information Act was designed to protect the government's revenue interest. Was it the intention of the Freedom of Information Act that information divulged should be solely for the specific individual who requests it, and not for the public at large? No, plainly it was not the intention. The government is seeking to abuse the copyright provision to obtain a power to arbitrarily suppress information for political purposes. There is no excuse in this case because there is no revenue - the documents are freely available on the web. Nor are they seeking to protect their own revenue stream - they want to suppress the documents, not to publish them. So the question to ask is not does the government have the power to do this, but, in doing this are they abusing that power?"

Tags: Craig Murray, Rendition, F&CO, FOIA