British government appeals court decision over alleged torture of Guantanamo detainee

more images

more images

UK appeals court decision over Guantanamo detainee

LONDON — A lawyer for the British government argued Monday that two judges acted irresponsibly when they ordered officials to disclose confidential documents relating to the alleged torture of a former Guantanamo detainee.

Britain’s Foreign Office is fighting a case brought by Ethiopian-born Binyan Mohamed. Mohamed, a British resident, claims he was tortured in Pakistan and Morocco and he wants Britain to release U.S. intelligence material about his detention — documents he claims proves Britain’s complicity in his alleged torture.

Foreign Secretary David Miliband has argued that the seven-paragraph summary of U.S intelligence files should not be released. He said that would harm Britain’s national security, and make the U.S. reluctant to share intelligence with Britain in the future.

Miliband’s lawyer, Jonathan Sumption, said a ruling last month by judges John Thomas and David Lloyd Jones ordering the government to disclose the information was “in many respects, unnecessary and profoundly damaging to the interests of this country.”

He added: ‘I would go so far as to say their views were irresponsible.”

Mohamed’s case began more than a year ago when he 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.

But later, the U.S. charges against Mohamed were dropped, President Barack Obama took office and Mohamed was sent back to Britain — a chain of events that led to the lawsuit in Britain becoming a larger battle for access to information.

Mohamed was released from Guantanamo in February, never having faced a trial.

Mohamed’s lawyers and several media organizations, including The Associated Press, have argued that the public has a right to know if Britain had colluded in Mohamed’s alleged torture — a possible violation of several international treaties — or if America used controversial interrogation practices.

Sumption said that, as Mohamed has now been released, the sensitive information, which relates to his treatment in custody, does not now need to be disclosed.

He argued that the case was no longer about justice for Mohamed, but was being seized upon by the media to “serve a wider political agenda.”

“The court is not, with respect, a branch of the media. It is not a pressure group,” he said.

Britain’s Foreign Office insisted Monday that the request for an English court to disclose another country’s intelligence material without its consent is unprecedented.

“It is vital that we maintain intelligence-sharing relationships with other countries which are integral to our efforts to keep the U.K. safe, and no other is more important to our security than our relationship with the US,” it said in a statement.

The hearing at London’s Court of Appeal continues until Wednesday.