The case of Binyamin Mohamed - the truth will out

Of all the verifiable cases of abuse and cover-up coming out of the fight against Islamic terrorism, this is the one that has continued to chap my tookus the most - and that is saying something. This is the one where in response to a released, i.e. innocent, Guantanamo detainee's attempts to sue the British government for their complicity in his torture and rendition, the United States government has threatened our closest historic ally with a "reassessed intelligence relationship" should the British High Court release to the public the relevant facts of what we did.

Recent reports have confirmed that the US "threat" may actually have been solicited by the Brits themselves - David Milband, the foreign secretary, is now accused of requesting that the Americans say exactly what we said, so as to apply pressure to the High Court to keep the facts of Mohammed's torture under wraps and protect the British officials involved. I'm encouraged to think that we weren't actually serious about letting citizens of the U.K. die just to cover up government crimes, but it's still an abhorrent, reckless game to play with the rule of law. In any event, the British High Court, having read the evidence Binyamin Mohammed intends to introduce and finding no threat to the national security of either nation, appears prepared to call the bluff. In a 38-page ruling released last week, they condemned the foreign secretary's actions in this regard as being contrary to the rule of law, and overruled his request to suppress the evidence. Pending one final appeal, the details of what the United States and other governments did to Binyamin Mohammed will be laid plain.

I've written about this before, of course, but it's important to note once again that those of us who feel passionately that a reckoning is due on these matters are not choosing transparency and the rule of law over security. Binyamin Mohammed was innocent. And he was tortured. By Americans. How can anyone believe that having done things like this systemically for seven years, on three continents, made us safer, when it's obvious how many of the victims were simply not guilty of anything? I reject categorically the notion that we had no choice here, because this is exactly what bin Laden wanted. He wanted to turn us into something we are not, and thus create a sustained mindset of all-out war. Enough is enough.

In the British High Court ruling, it is stated that the risk of an actual deterioration in intelligence sharing, based on releasing the Mohammed info, must be assessed in light of the strong historic relationship between the U.K. and the U.S. In short, the Brits are saying that Americans would never do this, would never put an ally's citizens at risk just to deny an innocent man his day in court. That language is directed at us, the American people. They're putting their faith in America's ultimate goodness. In light of this, Congress ought to put the Obama administration on notice, saying that our alliance with the UK is sacrosanct, and no actions of retribution are to be taken. If we can find the time to investigate Muslim groups for spying, on the basis of their desire to participate in democratic governance, maybe we can find the time for that too.