The Binyam Mohamed Papers

Torture papers surrounding the treatment of British citizen Binyam Mohamed are the subject of acute controversy in both the United Kingdom and the United States. In February, the Obama administration released Mr Mohamed from Guantanamo Bay and threatened the British government with a reduction in intelligence sharing if the details of his internment are released. While the British High Court has ordered the surrender of said documents, the British Secretary of Foreign Affairs, David Milliband, is appealing the decision because of the American threat, something that is widely construed to be a weakness on Britain's part and illegal on the United States' part, not to mention immoral.

Truthout's Andy Worthington, Guardian's Clive Stafford Smith, and Salon's Glenn Greenwald all report and commentate on the information-control struggle between the United States, the British Department of Foreign Affairs, the British High Court, and Binyam Mohamed. Worthington provides a detailed history of the ordeal. Because of "national security concerns," the British High Court initially ruled that the documents ought not to be released, but have now reversed themselves and are emphasizing "democratic accountability and the rule of law." He writes primarily from the point of view of the two judges on the court and the bind that they have found themselves in, however he does not excuse them for their poor decisions of the past. Analogous to his judge-centric point of view, Worthington cites numerous statements made by the judges regarding the legal intricacies of the case. Mr Smith, however, provides a typically British scathing news article that roundly criticizes his government. He brings in another player, Karen Steyn, the barrister (lawyer) representing Mr Milliband and the dialogue between her and the judges. In this article, Ms Steyn emerges as the pathetic tool of an unscrupulous politician (Milliband) fighting against two honourable justices, one of whom, Lord Justice Thomas calls the American threat, "an exercise of naked political power," and remarks that it has no legal foundation whatsoever. If the British government is going to act legitimately and in line with the laws by which it is bound, the High Court, Smith argues, must stand up to the American threat and to Mr. Milliband's ugly opportunism. Glenn Greenwald, representing the perspective from across the Atlantic, accordingly makes frequent mention of President Obama in order to express his disdain for his government's perceived anti-human rights stance. He notes that the High Court made its initial ruling in favor of Mr. Milliband while the Bush administration still occupied the White House. When the Obama government assumed the mantle of power, Mr. Mohamed's lawyers reintroduced the case with the argument that President Obama would not interfere with intelligence sharing in the manner that President Bush had threatened to do. Mr. Mohamed's lawyers were wrong, but did manage to convince the High Court to reverse their ruling. Greenwald provides extensive quotations from the justices' opinions, but also quotes the CIA, the American government, Mr. Milliband, and Mr. Mohamed's lawyers.

This legal ordeal precedes a looming election in Britain in which the ruling Labour government is widely expected to lose its majority in Parliament. While the British and the Americans have historically cooperated on numerous issues (e.g. the Iraq War), British voters could easily perceive this event to be bullying coming from Washington. Indeed, threatening an ally to subvert the rule of law seems to ride roughshod over the concept of the sovereignty, and thus the legitimacy of the British state. The Mohamed trial also is a chief line in the narrative accompanying the figurative can of worms that Mr Obama opened upon his election and policy promises in which he promised transparency. He even made a speech in which he stated, "As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals." Mr. Milliband, the Lord Justice Thomas, and Mr. Justice Lloyd George have that very choice before them, and have not, as of now, completely rejected it as false.