Legal Ruling Threatens Intel Sharing
Former intelligence officials who spoke with FrumForum strongly criticized the February 10th, ruling by a London appellate court ordering the government to release classified intelligence given to them by the CIA. These officials denied claims that Binyam Mohamed, an Ethiopian-born British resident, had been tortured in American custody and stressed that the decision set a dangerous legal precedent which would inhibit future intelligence sharing between Britain and the U.S.
Mohamed was arrested in Pakistan in 2002 and charged with plotting to bomb high-rise apartment buildings in the U.S. In 2009, he was released to Britain because of the Obama administration’s concerns about torture allegations. Former CIA officials unequivocally stated that Mohamed was a terrorist who had planned to kill thousands of Americans. A former operative commented that he was “definitely a bad guy. [But] we had to turn him back over to the Brits for political reasons.” Mohamed alleges that he was innocent and had been tortured while in American custody. In the ruling, the judge ordered a classified seven page dossier documenting his treatment be released.
Mohamed claims that, while in custody, he was beaten and his genitals were sliced. But former officials with knowledge of the case claim that did not happen. One former operative very familiar with the interrogations noted that “in my experience, once these guys are released, the first thing they do is cry torture. We didn't do anything like that to him, despite what he's screaming to the press.”
The former intelligence officials who spoke with FrumForum agreed that Mohamed was probably deprived of sleep and shackled. They pointed out however that some prisoners in American jails are often similarly shackled. These officials also argued that while sleep deprivation was a harsh interrogation technique it did not constitute torture. A former high ranking CIA official emphatically stated that, “We made sure the harsh interrogation was designed to not permanently hurt anyone.”
In addition to dispelling Mohamed’s claims, all of the former intelligence officials who spoke with FrumForum agreed emphatically that the classified information about Mohamed should not have been released by the court and could compromise American security.
While lawyers for Mohamed praised the decision as a “resounding victory for freedom of speech”, a former high ranking CIA official explained it differently. He argued that the ruling was a “resounding defeat” for mutual cooperation between the U.S. and British intelligence agencies. He insightfully stated, “If you can’t protect our information, it will affect what we will share with you. It’s not trivial to give intelligence information to other countries. For the British Government to lose control of information we have given them in confidence is wrong.”
Furthermore, everyone agreed with his assessment that -- at least for the short term -- the sharing of information between the U.S. and United Kingdom would be limited. As a former senior CIA official angrily commented, “The ruling is absolutely ridiculous. Information shared is expected to be protected and conform to the desires of the originating nation. That’s just the way it is. This is not a trivial matter.”