In February of this year, Binyam Muhammed was released from Guantanamo after being held for six years without anything resembling due process, but experiencing several things resembling torture, including, according to one report: "Mr Mohamed’s genitals were sliced with a scalpel and other torture methods so extreme that waterboarding, the controversial technique of simulated drowning, “is very far down the list of things they did,” the official said."
Muhammed has been seeking justice in British courts, who have agreed that there is sufficient evidence that he was brutally tortured and he is also entitled to obtain evidence in the possession of the British government which detailed the CIA's treatment of him, with assistance from M16 officers.
The US government has threatened the British High Court not to release seven redacted paragraphs of their reports because they threaten "national security"- here defined as the ability of the internal state security apparatus to remain completely above the law.
You might wonder if the current administration would cut out the cancer left by the old administration, before the republic finally has be taken off life support. The short answer: No.
The Washington Times:
"The Obama administration says it may curtail Anglo-American intelligence sharing if the British High Court discloses new details of the treatment of a former Guantanamo detainee. A court filing from the British Foreign Office released recently includes a letter from the U.S. government, identified as the "Obama administration's communication."
...And what does the letter say?
The Letter Excerpts:
"If it is determined that [her majesty's government] is unable to protect information we provide to it, even if that inability is caused by your judicial system, we will necessarily have to review with the greatest care the sensitivity of information we can provide in the future... As a consequence, if foreign partners learn that information it has provided is publically disclosed, these foreign partners could take steps to withhold from the United Kingdom sensitive information that could be important to its safety and security."
"In other words: if you let your courts describe how we tortured Mohamed -- even if your laws compel such disclosure -- we may purposely leave your citizens vulnerable to future terrorist attacks by withholding information we obtain about terrorist plots. Smith re-iterated to Lake what he told me last month: that the Obama administration's actions in issuing these threats in order to hide evidence of torture is itself a criminal act."
Let that sink in- the current administration is threatening the safety of an ally in order to cover up the criminal activities of the past administration, and in the process committing a criminal act itself. And thus, the toxins of torture continue seeping into the blood stream of the republic.
Thankfully, some people still find this sort of thing shocking and disheartening...
The British High Court ruling:
"Indeed we did not consider that a democracy governed by the rule of law would expect a court in another democracy to suppress a summary of the evidence contained in reports by its own officials or officials of another state where the evidence was relevant to allegations of torture and cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment, politically embarassing though it may be."
Could we please redact the phrase: "governed by the rule of law"?
Update: And yesterday the Obama administration decided they're not going to release 44 pictures of detainee abuse after all. The reason? You guessed it: "the national security implications of such a release".