July 27, 2009 1:17 PM

Detainee Documents Point To Abuse

By
Sheila MacVicar
(CBS)  The Guantanamo quandary for the Obama Administration goes beyond what to do with the remaining detainees, all of whose cases are now under review per an executive order signed by the President in January.

There could also be long-term and troubling legal implications for the United States and its allies, reports CBS News correspondent Sheila MacVicar.

Of immediate concern is the case of British resident Binyam Mohamed.

His U.S. military-appointed defense lawyer, Air force Lt. Col. Yvonne Bradley has been in London, pressing the British government to push the Americans for Mohamed's release from Guantanamo, where's he's been held since 2004.

Mohamed was a legal resident of Britain when he was arrested in Pakistan in 2002. He has told his lawyers he was flown to secret prisons in Morocco and Afghanistan before finally arriving in Guantanamo.

He was charged there with terror offenses, including planning a dirty bomb attack. All charges were dropped last October following the resignation of the chief prosecutor in his case, who left claiming exculpatory evidence was not being made available to detainees' defense lawyers. Four other cases were also dropped after the resignation. A threat to immediately bring new charges has never materialized.

Mohamed claims he confessed to being a terrorist only after he was brutally abused and tortured, and that both American and British intelligence officers were at least complicit in the torture.

Lt. Col. Bradley says there is evidence to support his claims of torture and that it is in 42 classified documents held by the British government.

Mohamed's lawyers and British media have sued in the British High Court to make those documents public.

The British - and American - governments are fighting that on national security grounds. As the British Foreign Secretary David Miliband told Parliament that Britian's intelligence relationship with the United States is vital to the security of the United Kingdom.

"It is essential that the ability of the U.S. to communicate such material in confidence to the UK is unaffected," Miliband said.

Miliband pointed to a letter received from the U.S. State Department, authored by The Legal Advisor, John Bellinger III, on Aug. 21, 2008, to bolster his argument. The letter said, "…the public disclosure of these documents or of the information contained therein is likely to result in serious damage to U.S. national security and could harm existing intelligence information arrangements between our two governments". "

That last sentence was interpreted as a threat by the British media and by the British High Court, which ruled that Mohamed's lawyers, with security clearances, could have access to the documents, but that they must not be made public. The court harshly criticized the American government for what it characterized as U.S. interference in British affairs.

But a former Bush administration official with specific knowledge of the case, who requested anonymity, has told CBS News the letter was written at the request of the British government and that both the U.S. and British government wanted to ensure the documents remained secret. The British Foreign Office declined to comment on the record.

The British court also said the documents contained "evidence of serious wrongdoing by the United States which had been facilitated, in part, by the UK government."

Lt. Col. Bradley has a security clearance, and has seen the documents. She cannot say what's in them. But she did say, "this is not a matter of national security, this is a matter of national embarrassment. The U.S. and other countries may not want to be embarrassed by what happened to Mr. Mohamed and the full story and information and account coming out of what happened to Mr. Mohammed."

The British government's public position on torture has always been that it does not practice or condone it. The existence of the letter, and the court's statement, raise the question of what the British knew about torture in Guantanamo and other secret prisons, including some run by the CIA, when they knew it, and what, if any, concerns were raised with the American government.

British lawyer Philippe Sands, who has written about torture, concurs.

"The issue is one of complicity. Were foreign governments and their leaders complicit in the abuses that took place? The Obama administration finds itself stuck between a rock and a hard place," Sands said. "It wants to move forward but increasingly material is emerging from outside the United States that indicates that foreign governments may have had a role'.

And, perhaps, a case to answer. The British attorney general has already been asked to start a criminal investigation into the actions of members of the British Secret Services in the case of Binyam Mohamed.

Copyright 2009 CBS. All rights reserved.
Add a Comment See all 28 Comments
by rusure5 February 17, 2009 11:37 PM EST
But what ever became of Cheney''s rape-rooms?
Reply to this comment
by mjlewis6 February 17, 2009 4:03 PM EST
Not enough evidence to try him, but more than enough evidence of torture in violation of the Geneva Conventions regarding treatment of either POWs or civilians in wartime.

There is no 5th Amendment protection against "self incrimination" for the former members of the Bush Administration upon the filing of a proper complaint at the Hague with the evidence presently existing.

There is no "Executive Immunity" for American Leadership for kidnappings, torture, and renditions across international boundaries and the infamous torture memos presented by Bush/Gonzales and defended by Cheney....

Let''s hear the whole Bush story now about the 2000 Campaign of bringing Honor and Dignity to the White House and Transparency to the Government and the truth behind the original 2001 Budget for a Disinformation Bureau to the Dod in July of 2001 and the Cheney meetings with Energy Advisors from the private sector in April of 2001.
Reply to this comment
by babooph February 16, 2009 2:15 PM EST
The tears of torture have won their hearts & minds,for sure-those billion Islamics worldwide now love & respect us for it-God that Bush was brilliant !
Reply to this comment
by walt1944-2009 February 16, 2009 12:14 PM EST
We have, it is believed, some 300 "terrrrrrorists" in Gitmo. We have been fighting a war against "terrrrrror" for 7 years with no end in sight. We invaded a country that had nothing to do with 9/11 and destroyed it, simply because George W. Bush saw it as "unfinished business" and D-I-C-K Cheney''s war profiteer buddies made a "killing" on it.

We are in danger of losing Afghanistan back to the Taliban. We are in danger of LOSING Pakistan with its 100 NUKES to the Taliban AND Al Qeada! Our military is ill equipped, worn out, and morale is LOW!

And we have over $3 TRILLION in debt that we never had before!

After all this, the guy who attacked us on 9/11 is still running around free in Pakistan, Al Qeada and the Taliban are stronger than ever, our allies are PO''d at us, and we are in the worst "recession" since 1929.

WAY TO GO, NEOCON FASCIST NAZI REPUBLICANS EVERYWHERE!!!!!

HAIL, OBAMA!!!!
Reply to this comment
by omnibus66 February 16, 2009 11:22 AM EST
The Bush Administration is like an ugly tattoo. You can do everything possible to remove it, hide it, but a trace of it will always remain. Forever a reminder of a stupid decision.
Reply to this comment
by newfunkypres February 16, 2009 11:00 AM EST
gravyboat63, yes you are wrong, The Saudi attackers had fast tracked visas and were being watched by NSA and partially by CIA and even the military for many years. Also, OBL declared war on the US in 1996.
Reply to this comment
by newfunkypres February 16, 2009 10:57 AM EST
Sorry for the typos, point being: how do you decide with is the enemy when both sides are working with torture and terror?

As an american -both are my sworn enemy.
Reply to this comment
by newfunkypres February 16, 2009 10:54 AM EST
Here''''s a question for gravyboat63 and reimer211......

How do you know who is Taliban and who isn''''t? .....Posted by hower4

Gravyboat63..I am a liberal who does not condone torture., However, I have to totally agree with your posts. Wea are engaged in a real war of terror which we MUST win. Posted by reimer211

You''ve already lost it, because you are CREATING the terror.
Posted by hower4


I agree, we lost what we were fighting for when we gave up our priciples and used theire tactics. Tortre you read about here. Now do a search for our support of M.E.K. and M.I.L.F muslim insurgents -yes milf- it''s not a joke. One is on the state dept of terror orgs and both are our allies.
Reply to this comment
by newfunkypres February 16, 2009 10:45 AM EST
His potential as a witness in any future War Crime trial would prevent his execution if found guilty of something for many decades!
Reply to this comment
by newfunkypres February 16, 2009 10:42 AM EST
They will have to drop all charges on this guy and possibly settle.
The UK letter was ment to sway courts in both countries that this is a natioanal security issue and should not be in court other that FISA. And im sure there will be some loophole to avoid that. I say declassify it, lets see if we Do torture I as I have been saying for years as impeach__W. I''m praying we soon have some war crimes trails for Bush and Co. plus anyone with a presidential medal of freedom.
Reply to this comment
See all 28 Comments
.
Scroll Left
Scroll Right More »
CBS News on Facebook