British government discloses secret documents on ex-Guantanamo detainee’s treatment
By Jill Lawless, APWednesday, February 10, 2010
Britain discloses secret data on terror prisoner
LONDON — Britain’s government on Wednesday disclosed a once-secret description of “cruel, inhuman and degrading” U.S. treatment of a former Guantanamo Bay detainee, losing a long court battle to keep the material classified.
Judges rejected the government’s claim that revealing the information would damage U.S.-British intelligence cooperation.
The information disclosed is a judge’s seven-paragraph summary of U.S. intelligence information given to British spies about former detainee Binyam Mohamed’s treatment during interrogations by the Americans in Pakistan in May 2002.
Mohamed’s lawyers have long claimed the secret paragraphs prove he was mistreated and that the U.S. and British governments were complicit in his abuse. They have been fighting for access to the documents, along with The Associated Press and other news organizations.
The paragraphs say Mohamed was subjected to “cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment by the United States authorities,” including sleep deprivation, shackling and threats resulting in mental stress and suffering.
They conclude that the paragraphs given to the MI5 intelligence service, “made clear to anyone reading them that BM (Mohamed) was being subjected to the treatment that we have described and the effect upon him of that intentional treatment.”
British authorities have repeatedly denied complicity in torture.
“The wider point here is that we stand firmly against torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment. We don’t condone, collude in or solicit it,” Prime Minister Gordon Brown’s spokesman Simon Lewis told reporters following the decision.
Ethiopia-born Mohamed was arrested in Pakistan in 2002 and says he was tortured there and in Morocco before being flown to Guantanamo Bay. He was released without charge last year.
The Wednesday decision upholds an earlier High Court ruling ordering officials to make public the secret seven-paragraph summary of U.S. intelligence files. The Foreign Office appealed that ruling, but said Wednesday it would abide by the latest judgment and posted the paragraphs on its Web site.
Foreign Secretary David Miliband restated the government’s backing for the principle that “if a country shares intelligence with another, that country must agree before its intelligence is released.”
Miliband said the case “has been followed carefully at the highest level in the United States with concern,” and said he had spoken to U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton about the judgment on Tuesday.
Miliband told the House of Commons that a possible restriction of intelligence sharing between the U.S. and Britain was “of grave concern.”
“It is too early to come to this House and say there will be no such effect, we need to work to ensure that is the case,” Miliband said.
Miliband pointed out that a major reason for the judges’ ruling was that details of Mohamed’s abuse have already been made public in a U.S. court, during a hearing about another Guantanamo detainee.
Shami Chakrabarti, director of the rights group Liberty, said a “full and broad” public inquiry into British complicity in torture is needed in light of the information contained in the newly released paragraphs.
“It shows the British authorities knew far more than they let on about Binyam Mohamed and how he was tortured in U.S. custody,” she said. “It is clear from these seven paragraphs that our authorities knew very well what was happening to Mr. Mohamed. Our hands are very dirty indeed.”
She said it is now evident that British authorities were complicit in the use of torture and benefited from it.
The case began in 2008 when Mohamed was facing a military trial at Guantanamo. His lawyers sued the British government for intelligence documents they said could prove that evidence against him had been gathered under torture.
Mohamed, 31, moved to Britain as a teenager. He was arrested as a terrorist suspect in 2002 in Karachi by Pakistani forces and later transferred to Morocco, Afghanistan and in 2004 to Guantanamo Bay.
He says he was tortured in Pakistan, and that interrogators in Morocco beat him, deprived him of sleep and sliced his genitals with a scalpel.
It isn’t clear which country the interrogators were from, but Mohamed has alleged the questions put to him could only have come from British intelligence agents.
MI5 has said it did not know Mohamed was being tortured, or held in Morocco.
Mohamed was charged by the U.S. with plotting with al-Qaida to bomb American apartment buildings, but the charges were later dropped and in February 2009 he was sent back to Britain. That chain of events led to the lawsuit becoming a larger battle for access to information involving the AP, Guardian News and Media, the BBC, The New York Times, The Washington Post and other media organizations.
Mohamed is among seven former Guantanamo detainees suing the British government, accusing the security services of “aiding and abetting” their extraordinary rendition, unlawful imprisonment and torture.
Tags: Acts Of Torture, Africa, Asia, Europe, Geography, Hillary Clinton, London, Morocco, North Africa, North America, Pakistan, South Asia, United Kingdom, United States, Western Europe
|
March 13, 2010: 9:26 am
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Upon the invitation of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia, The Carter Center observed Ethiopia’s May 15, 2005 elections for the national and regional parliaments. The May elections marked an historic event in the country, as Ethiopia witnessed its first genuinely competitive campaign period with multiple parties fielding strong candidates. Unfortunately, what began with a comparatively open period of campaigning and an orderly voting process on election day, was followed by flawed counting and tabulation processes in many areas, repeated incidents of serious post-electoral violence including the killing of some many dozens of persons during electoral protests, a significant delay in finalizing election results, and an ineffective complaints review and investigation processes. In spite of the positive pre election developments, therefore, the Center’s observation mission concludes that the 2005 electoral process did not fulfill Ethiopia’s obligations to ensure the exercise of political rights and freedoms necessary for genuinely democratic elections. Background. As an international observer mission, The Carter Center sought to provide an impartial assessment of the election process by evaluating the pre-election period, the May 15 voting, counting, and tabulation processes, plus post-election phases including, the complaints investigation process, the August 21 re-elections and the Somali region elections. Throughout the observation, mission leaders, staff and observers met with government representatives, political party leaders, election officials, civil society members in the capital and at the regional and local levels. Field staff and observers coordinated with the election observation missions from the European Union and African Union in an effort to maximize observation coverage. Pre-election period. The pre-election period witnessed unprecedented participation by opposition parties and independent candidates, and an unmatched level of political debate in the state dominated electronic and print media and at public forums held across the country. Political parties agreed to a Party Code of Conduct, committing themselves to compliance with provisions calling for fair play and supporting peaceful political competition. Ethiopian civil society organizations were active in the pre-election period, observing election preparations and sponsoring a series of televised debates on public policy issues between government officials and opposition leaders. Domestic observation, however, was hampered by a late National Election Board (NEBE) decision to deny some civil society groups permission to observe polling day. Although the Supreme Court overturned this decision, the ruling came only days before election-day, thereby severely inhibiting domestic observers’ ability to deploy widely throughout the country. Election day. The May 15 voting process progressed relatively smoothly with Carter Center observers reporting that polling was calm and peaceful in the polling stations visited, with only limited incidents of disturbances reported. However, problems began to emerge during the counting and tabulation phases, with significant irregularities and delays in vote tabulation and a large number of electoral complaints. Preliminary but unconfirmed reports of election results from the political parties began to circulate on election night suggesting that the opposition parties had scored significant electoral gains, especially in Addis Ababa and other urban areas. On the night of the election, Prime Minister Meles Zenawi declared a one-month ban on public demonstrations in the capital and brought the Addis Ababa security forces (soon to be under the command of the opposition that won Addis Ababa) under the control of the office of the Prime Minister. Post-election results and violence. After unofficial reports circulated in May showing the opposition controlling the majority of seats, preliminary results released over remainder of May and through June indicated the ruling EPRDF controlled a majority of seats. Opposition parties claimed fraud and organized protests, including taxi strikes and student demonstrations at the University of Addis Ababa. On June 3, the Center released a statement (see appendix) on its post-election observation, noting observers’ reports of improperly secured ballot boxes, intimidation and harassment of opposition agents, and calling on all sides to pursue legal channels to investigate complaints and resolve disputes. Tensions continue to spread across Addis Ababa in the following days. On June 6-8, more than 40 people were reported killed by the security forces’ crackdown on post-election protestors. The Center released a short statement on June 9 (see appendix) expressing alarm about the death and violence, and calling on the government to curb the extreme measures of the security forces, and urging all sides to pursue peaceful means to resolve disputes. Complaints review processes. In light of the political violence and killings, controversies over the tabulation process, and the overall deterioration of the post-election environment, the NEBE decided to postpone any further announcement of official results for one month until July 8, to allow a cooling off period and provide space for the parties to agree on an ad hoc election complaints review process. Between June 10-14, the political parties negotiated a multi-phased review process, and after an initial disagreement they signed an agreement on June 14, which established ad hoc Complaints Review Boards (CRBs) and Complaints Investigation Panels (CIPs). Electoral complaints were to be submitted in writing to the NEBE, along with all available evidence and the CRBs would then rule on which complaints to submit to CIPs for further investigatation. During June and July, the Center observed the conduct of the review and investigation processes of the CRBs and CIPs. The first Complaints Review Board (CRB1) reviewed the entire body of complaints. A second review board (CRB2) allowed parties to lodge an administrative appeal of complaints rejected by CRB1. Following the reviews by the CRBs, the CIPs investigated complaints and recommended a course of action to the NEBE, which made the final decision over the appropriate course of action. During the CRB/CIP process, 383 complaints from the polling station, constituency level, and general complaints against the NEBE were submitted to the CRBs for consideration. The CRB1 deemed 151 of these to be worthy of further investigation by 26 CIPs. Complaints not approved by CRB1 were then appealed to the CRB2, which approved 29 more complaints for review by 18 new CIPs. 179 constituencies were affected. While the CRB/CIP process went forward, the NEBE’s tabulation processes continued simultaneously. At the start of the CRB/CIP process, the only official results had the opposition winning an unexpected 29 out of 40 seats. However, further into the complaint review process, preliminary results were released on July 26 which indicated that the opposition controlled 172 seats of the announced 435, a significant shift from percentages indicated by the early partial results. The delayed release of results and the problems that emerged during the complaints process combined to create further tensions in the political environment. Based on extensive observations of the CRB/CIP processes, the Center ultimately concluded that while the CRB/CIP processes provided important space for electoral dispute resolution processes, overall the NEBE’s complaints and review processes did not provide an adequate means for resolving serious disputes. (See Carter Center statement of September 15). August re-run and Somali region elections. Based on the results of the CRB/CIP processes, the NEBE decided to rerun elections in 31 constituencies on August 21, 2005, the same day as the Somali region elections. The Carter Center observed both elections. Although 26 of the 31 revotes were held in constituencies provisionally won by opposition candidates, the ruling EPRDF won all 31 seats. In addition to a few minor administrative problems, Carter Center observers reported a series of serious flaws in the August 21 polling process. These included credible reports of an unnecessarily large security force presence and intimidation of opposition candidates and supporter. Overall, it seemed clear that many opposition candidates surrendered the contested seats, resulting in a sweep by the EPRDF coalition, even overturning previous defeats in five constituencies. Voting in the Somali region was chaotic and disorganized, and included reports of significant irregularities. Individual clan leaders held complete authority to decide the political parties listed on the ballot in their constituencies. While this appears to have been common accepted practice in the region, Carter Center observers reported serious concerns about the integrity of the process. Final results. The NEBE announced final election results on September 5, 2005 with the ruling EPRDF winning 327 seats (60 percent of the total vote), government affiliated parties claiming an additional 45 seats (8 percent of the total vote) and opposition parties winning 174 seats (32 percent of the total vote). Opposition parties rejected the results, citing the various irregularities and the flawed complaints review process. On September 15, the Center released a final overall statement on the elections, which noted that while the pre-election process was laudable, the post-election period was marked by a series of problems, delays in vote tabulation, protests and violence, serious electoral complaints, and a prolonged dispute resolution process. The statement concluded that the CRB/CIP process did not provide an adequate means for a fair resolution of disputes. The statement also noted while a majority of the 547 individual constituency results appeared credible, there were a considerable number of the constituency results that had significant problems and whose credibility is in question. Whether this smaller group of constituencies was sufficient to change the outcome at the national or regional level could not be determined based on the evidence available to the Carter Center. Finally, the Center’s statement also called on dissatisfied parties to file appeals to the high court. Unfortunately, political tensions continued to increase, and some members of the opposition decided to boycott the seating of Parliament in October. This was followed by a series of protests and another outbreak of political violence throughout the country in early November. According to an independent commission appointed to investigate the post-electoral violence, the government response resulted in the death of 193 people at the hands of the security forces between June and November along with the arrest of opposition leaders and supporters. 1 >>>>>Read Full REPORT (pdf) Posted in Current News | |
wondesen hailemarayam