lightcastle (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
lightcastle) wrote2009-10-17 03:35 pm
lightcastle) wrote2009-10-17 03:35 pm
Entry tags:
High Court to US - we're calling your bluff
Not exactly, of course.
But the high court in Britain has ruled that the collaboration by the US and UK governments to suppress evidence of the torture of Binyam Mohamed was harmful to the rule of law.
Glenn Greenwald has the whole history, which is ugly, btw.
Basically, the Bush administration (supposedly at the request of the UK government) told the court that if they didn't redact the details of the torture, the US would no longer share intelligence with the UK - even if it meant the UK got hit with a terrorist attack. After Obama took over, Obama's administration basically said the threat was still active.
The court decided to call that bluff, saying...
We cannot accept looking at the matter objectively on all the evidence (which is fully summarized in this judgment) and as a matter of reality, that there is a real risk that the United States will reassess its intelligence relationship or reduce its intelligence sharing if we made the 7 paragraphs public.
There is still an appeal to go, however. It is nice that someone is asking the US if it really means the threats it issued under Bush.
But the high court in Britain has ruled that the collaboration by the US and UK governments to suppress evidence of the torture of Binyam Mohamed was harmful to the rule of law.
Glenn Greenwald has the whole history, which is ugly, btw.
Basically, the Bush administration (supposedly at the request of the UK government) told the court that if they didn't redact the details of the torture, the US would no longer share intelligence with the UK - even if it meant the UK got hit with a terrorist attack. After Obama took over, Obama's administration basically said the threat was still active.
The court decided to call that bluff, saying...
We cannot accept looking at the matter objectively on all the evidence (which is fully summarized in this judgment) and as a matter of reality, that there is a real risk that the United States will reassess its intelligence relationship or reduce its intelligence sharing if we made the 7 paragraphs public.
There is still an appeal to go, however. It is nice that someone is asking the US if it really means the threats it issued under Bush.