Political Discussions
UK Law Lords condem Obama Administration for lack of principles
Posted by polybore • 2/04/09 • Subscribe to this Discussion [RSS] • Report This Topic
Topics: law lords, obama, UK, us
A day after Hilary Clinton spoke warm words about the relationship between the US and the UK we have this...
Furious UK Law Lords (Equivalent of US Supreme Court) accusing the Obama administration of using the threat to withdraw US intelligence co- operation from the UK in order to compromise the independence of UK law.
"Championing the rule of law, not suppressing it, is the cornerstone of a democracy," Lord Justice Thomas
www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article5661291.ece
Polybore is astonished by this. This withering judgement is unprecedented.
UK service personnel have given and are giving their lives in Afganistan and Iraq news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7799610.stm
The idea that the US would threaten to withhold intelligence and put their allies (UK) military personnel at risk is disgusting.
As you can imagine this is not going down well in the UK. Is this an Obama diplomatic slip up and can we expect this to be fixed?
User Comments
-
The article doesn't say who (or which agency) in the US govt is saying what, so it is hard to make anything at all out of this. Typical crappy reporting in an age of declining newspaper sales. Instead of doing some actual reporting, the piece merely parrots what the UK judges are saying.
Keeping in mind this caveat of my own ignorance on the subject, it seems to me perhaps premature (and immature) of the Law Lords (sounds like something out of Harry Potter) to be getting on the Obama administration's case when we only just got a new attorney general, and the Obama administration is still hammering out its policy on issues related to detainees, intelligence, and so on.
Be that as it may, until I see some real reporting on the issue, I'll have to look at this as a tempest in a teapot, especially because of that phrase at the beginning of the article, "still applied under President Barack Obama's Administration," as if this were some unfinished business from the Bush administration.-
Yep the Times can you believe they have been getting away with journalism like that since 1785? In their defence though it is a breaking news story.
The Law Lords have been on the go since 1399 (hence their rather Archaic title) and it is extremely unlikely that they would launch such a swinging attack on the US government without good reason.
The Obama administration continues to threaten to withdraw security intelligence so Bush can no longer be blamed for this one.
Detailed reporting is now becoming available. www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/senior-judges-attack-us-refusal-to-...
-
-
So...wait, they are accusing Obama et al of trying to compromise UK law by withholding information?
-
Bush, threathened to put Sweden on the terrorist nations list because our constitution doesn't allow us to extradite a prisoner if the Death Penalty is part of the punishments for the crime. -
Yes. That is exactly what the Judges are saying.
Lord Justice Thomas and Mr Justice Lloyd Jones said:
"In the light of the long history of the common law and democracy which we share with the United States it was in our view difficult to conceive that a democratically elected and accountable government could possibly have any rational objection to placing into the public domain such a summary of what its own officials reported, as to how a detainee was treated by them and which made no disclosure of sensitive intelligence matters." -
wrong spot
-
-
yes and No they are using the coin of intelligence. Which the UK relies on to prevent terrorist attacks, and strategic capabilities in Afghanistan / Iraq etc.
Basically, Obama is running Bushs old "if your not with us you're against us" notion. Threathening to damage the UK's ability to defend and prevent attacks unless they agree to change their laws so that they don't release the evidence agaisnt one of their citizens.
Sweden have something like 10 Naturalized citizens in Cuba, and its the same thing all around.-
Absolutely right it is disgraceful blackmail pure and simple.
It is going to be interesting how this pans out.
-
-
Oh, this is conjecture. From the article (emphasis mine):
Lord Justice Thomas and Mr Justice Lloyd Jones said lawyers for the Foreign Secretary had told them that the threat by the United States still applied under President Barack Obama's Administration.
This isn't Obama's policy. This is a BushCo policy holdover. No wonder I was confused.
news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/7870049.stm
But Foreign Secretary David Miliband said there had been no such threat and the UK "never condoned torture".
"There has been no threat from the US to break off intelligence co-operation," he said.
He stressed that the US-UK security relationship was built on trust and that depended on intelligence remaining confidential.-
Yes it is confusing. This is the best explanation Polybore has found so far.
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/majornews/4517343/Torture-row-Judges-accuse-US-of-...
Polybore is also afraid we might have to take what Mr Milliband says with a pinch of salt and that the Obama administration is definitely in the frame for with holding this information.
Wonder why? -
Anok
"Intelligence remaining confidential. "
Are you not reading that the way I am?
The UK Can't release the charges against him, Which they have to do according to UK law.
If the UK releases in accordance with their law the information provided, that is a breach of trust, and as such damages the "security relationship"
In other words, you break your laws, or you no longer have our trust.
Maybe a bush holdover, but sounds to me like Milbrand is offering some "more of the same" here..
How's that hope and change working for you? -
No I'm not reading that the same way as you.
Since Obama took a very clear stand on torture - I'm sure he will address this.
And the hope and change is working just fine for me. Salary caps, closure of Gitmo, reversal of union busting laws....I can't wait to see what he'll do next! -
So explain to me why Gitmo should be closed?
-
There is a massive debate on whether or not the use of gitmo is legitimate.
-
-
Legitimate?
It's been there for how long? And all of a sudden it has to be closed as a matter of PRIMARY importance?
Why?-
Because of all the allegations of torture, misuse, violations of the Geneva convention...
It's been there for so long and used in this purpose for as long as the politicians in power allowed it to be. Obama seems to have actually listened to the voice of his constituents, and decided to do something about it.
There is also, of course, debate on whetehr or not we should be allowed to have a military base there, but that's another thread entirely. -
Ok, so if a police station is subject to repeated abuse of suspects. We close the station?
Talk about over reacting. how about just stopping the torture?
It's an expensive popularism ploy that is completely unneccesary. Keep them there, well off US soil and improve the procedure instead.
But hey, saving money isn't important, we've got plenty to throw around apparently. -
Apples and oranges - between location, jurisdiction, and severity of the allegations.
They closed Alcatraz - which is a much better comparison.
-
-
Yeah, that was a great call too. The prisons being all but empty and everything.
Jusrisdiction can be imposed as needed. These are prisoners of war, guess who has jurisdiction.
Also, most of them don't fall under the geneva convention. Primarily because the way they operate. open carry of weapons, identifiable uniforms and other items are requirements to be a soldier and be included in the geneva convention.
Severity of the allegations, doesn't matter, see point 1.-
Yuo are incorrect about that, actually.
Way incorrect. If a prisoner of war doesn't fall under the Geneva convention, they cannot be held by the country who is at war with them, they must be transferred to a neutral country for detainment. I actually wrote a whole bit on that.
identitycheck-anok.blogspot.com/2007/11/reply-to-sonia.html
This was actually part of a larger blog debate, so there are some parts that have no bearing on he conversation here:
(Link to Geneva convention www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/FULL/375?OpenDocument)
In the Geneva Convention it states:
"Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof."
It continues to state:
"Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal."
And goes on to say (just in case the combatant may not be protected):
"When prisoners of war do not benefit or cease to benefit, no matter for what reason, by the activities of a Protecting Power or of an organization provided for in the first paragraph above, the Detaining Power shall request a neutral State, or such an organization, to undertake the functions performed under the present Convention by a Protecting Power designated by the Parties to a conflict."
Which, even if some of the detainees fall into this category, Bush has still not complied with Geneva Convention Laws.
And further states:
"No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever. Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted, or exposed to unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind."
And here's a WaPo piece: blog.washingtonpost.com/cheney/chapters/pushing_the_envelope_on_presi/ -
This situation is different than any war we've been engaged in previously since this is a "war on terror" rather than a war with a country. Most of the 9/11 attackers were Saudis, not Afghanies, but they were operating out of Afghanistan where it appears to be legal to carry weapons, so the fact that some of those at Gitmo were captured because they were armed, doesn't necessarily mean they were part of the attack. Also, Afghanistan is one of the poorest nations on earth and when you're poor and offered a job transporting weapons, you're going to take it, but that doesn't necessary mean you're a terrorist.
-
-
The alegations of torture which have led to this judgment go beyond "waterboarding". In this case it is alleged that a razor blade was used on the victims genitles.
Leon Panetta (Obama's choice for new head of CIA) supports limited prosecution of CIA officers who deliberately violated the law. But not for CIA opeeratives who conducted waterboarding. uk.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUKN05387888
The Obama administration must release this information.-
How about waiting for Panetta to get confirmed first? And then he needs maybe a minute or two in office before he can worry about the Law Lords. The State Department is also not fully staffed at the highest levels, as Republican committe members continue to drag their heels in the confirmation process.
Once everything is in place, you're also going to have to expect the US government to probably want to turn a new leaf without going on a witch hunt for past wrongs. But we'll have to wait and see. -
They need to get a move on with this case because the individual behind the story is likely to die in Guantanamo soon if not released. He is on hunger strike and despite being force fed by the US military is in immediate danger of death.
www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article5683691.ece
-
-
Accidental double submit.
-
Senior US Democrat has realised the importance of this case.
www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article5705127.ece -
"The judges also said the US threatened to withdraw intelligence help from the UK if details were released."
And this is true, but they are talking about a Bush policy and threat.
"Mr Davis said it appeared the Bush administration had "threatened" the UK government about the repercussions should details of the case be made public."
news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/7870049.stm
"Lawyers representing Mr Miliband had informed the judges that the threat had first been made while George W Bush was in office and was still in place under Barack Obama."
www.thenational.ae/article/20090206/FOREIGN/852204691/1002
It is going to take a while for a president who has been in office such a short time to be able to undo the policies of his predecessor, let alone change a threat made before he became president. One can't undo a threat someone else made, but hopefully this administration will have some time in between dealing with a crisis at home to undo the damage of such a threat and carve a new policy that is mutually acceptable. -
This story gets more and more odd. Sure you can accept that a new President will take a while to get up and running.
But how is the President going to make any sort of decision when the Presidents own military intelligence will not let him see this secret information. Astonishing, crazy, words fail Polybore.
Lawers acting for the detainee sent a letter to President Obama asking him to consider the case, however US security officials censored the letter blacking out paragraph after paragraph. This is madness, censoring the Presidents mail???
Full story and a copy of the censored letter here.
www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/feb/11/binyam-mohamed-release-torture-letter-
So the US military is censoring the president's mail?!
Hmmm....that's not good. Has there been any mention from Obama on this?
-
-
I agree about Obama's ethics. The most recent post at realworldnotpolitics.blogspot.com touched on his ethics really well - namely how he pledged changed but has ended up just magnifying what Washington was with such things as his tax-evading cabinet picks.
Add Your Comment
Login to leave a message.
