The Security State And Omerta

It goes something like this: we spy on you, we rendition and we torture - but we say to you that we don't. You must believe us. Trust us. And no - you can't compel us to provide you proof of anything we say to you. Now behave - or else. And the same goes to all of you who are our "allies".

Any questions? Anyone?

Well, I do have one: knowing that the U.S. threatened to stop sharing intelligence with the U.K. if it disclosed evidence of the torture Binyam Mohamed has endured, and considering the shocking Obama administration's stance to affirm Bush’s state secrets position with regards to extraordinary rendition and other such things, perhaps we can better "understand" the lack of gonads of Harper and his Harpies with regards to the Omar Khadr situation?

Welcome to the Security State ... and enjoy yourselves.

Here's more food for thought on the matter:

Omerta in state intelligence
By Tony Curzon Price

Cover-up or conspiracy of states? The case of Binyam Mohamed and the US/UK intelligence pact raises profound worries.

Who knew what in the UK about the use of torture on Guantanamo detainees? The question itself is very important. We tend to think that the power of the State in the UK has been civilised through centuries of vigilance and struggle. Has it? And are we losing it? We know what can become of a modern state that ignores the rule of law---think of the modern European totalitarianisms. I don't want anything to do with a government that facilitates torture, and I would do what I could not to live or bring up my children in a State that tortures.

And who can and should stop us from finding out who knew what about torture? John Jackson, in these three posts, takes us through the very troubling case of Binyam Mohamed. Two judges had to decide whether to make public in their judgment a summary of evidence provided by the US about the treatment of the UK-resident Ethiopian while in detention in Pakistan. It appears that David Miliband, the Foreign Secretary (and also the defendant in the case) succeeded in persuading the judges not to do so.

The case of Binyam Mohamed

Has David Miliband breached the rule of law?

Will International law help Binyam Mohamed?

Having read John Jackson's posts, it is hard to avoid the suspicion that the agents of the UK Government were guilty of contraventions of the Geneva Convention and that our Foreign Secretary is now involved in a cover-up in which he claims over-riding interests of state to save itself. The suspicion is fuelled partly by a strange misunderstanding of what David Miliband told the court. But we may be seeing an executive branch with no compunction in being disingenuous in its statements on a fundamental question of its respect for the rule of law.

Cover-up could be one explanation for the behavior we see.

(Keep reading ...)