Sunday 15 February 2009

The FCO and public interest immunity

‘The Foreign Office (FCO) solicited the letter from the US State Department that forced British judges to block the disclosure of CIA files documenting the torture of a British resident held in Guantánamo Bay, The Observer can reveal.

‘The letter said that the release of papers relating to Binyam Mohamed would damage future intelligence sharing between the two countries.

‘A former senior State Department official said that it was the Foreign Office that initiated the "cover-up" by asking the State Department to send the letter so that it could be introduced into the court proceedings. (…)

‘The former senior State Department official said: "Far from being a threat, it was solicited [by the Foreign Office]." The Foreign Office asked for it in writing. They said: 'Give us something in writing so that we can put it on the record.' If you give us a letter explaining you are opposed to this, then we can provide that to the court."

‘The letter, sent by the State Department's top legal adviser John Bellinger to foreign secretary David Miliband's legal adviser, Daniel Bethlehem, on 21 August last year, said: "We want to affirm in the clearest terms that the public disclosure of these documents or of the information contained therein is likely to result in serious damage to US national security and could harm existing intelligence-sharing arrangements."’

The above are excerpts from an article in today’s edition of The Observer.

The reasons advanced by the Foreign Secretary in the Binyam Mohamed case for asserting public interest immunity are precisely the same reasons as he put forward in his PII certificate in the current Lockerbie appeal. It was claimed in the Appeal Court by the Advocate General that the UK Government had tried, but failed, to obtain the consent of the “foreign power” that supplied the document(s) which Mr Megrahi’s legal team sought to have disclosed and the non-disclosure of which at the original trial formed the basis of one of the grounds on which the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission held that his conviction may have amounted to a miscarriage of justice.

One is now left wondering just how hard the FCO tried to get the foreign power’s consent to disclosure, and whether it was suggested to the foreign power that the FCO’s preferred response to the request would be “No”.

7 comments:

  1. It's high time that Scotland's High Court of Justiciary makes a clear decision to reestablish Libya's and Mr. Megrahis damaged prestige and honour. Otherwise the delaying tactics of the Scottish jurisdication with the help of a mysterious document "under national security" is obvious.

    by Edwin and Mahnaz Bollier, MEBO Ltd, Switzerland

    ReplyDelete
  2. After that 20th anniversary of the Lockerbie tragedy

    How will the world be responsive to the largest miscarriage of justice in Scotland in the "Lockerbie Case", if the manipulated proofs discovered by MEBO must be confirmed at the end of Megrahis current appeal?

    In 2005 Edwin Bollier presented to the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC) his own investigation thesis with determining facts, which among other things show clearly that no bomb suit-case was transported from air Malta via Frankfurt to London Heathrow and no MST-13 timer made for Libya was involved!
    At the 28th of June 2007 the SCCRC granted Mr Abdelbaset al Megrahi a second appeal because of a possible miscarriage of justice.

    by Edwin and Mahnaz Bollier, MEBO Ltd, Switzerland

    ReplyDelete
  3. Exactly. And one wonders if a similar letter was sent to Saudi Arabia to halt the BAE investigation.

    ReplyDelete
  4. 'Foreign policy is what you do; diplomacy is how you do it. Of course the two get mixed up especially when a diplomat is advising on policy or a member of the Government normally engaged in policy decision takes over a diplomatic operation which seems to merit top level or summit discussion. But generally speaking the task of a government is to decide and the task of a diplomat at any level is to try to make the decision work.'
    Lord Gore-Booth, 'With Great Truth and Respect', 1974.

    From this dictum by a former head of HM Diplomatic Service, it is safe to assume that Mrs Thatcher's government decided (in conjunction with President Bush Senior's administration) to blame Libya for the Lockerbie bombing.

    That governmental decision having been taken twenty years ago, the FCO today is simply trying 'to make the decision work'. Thus, the Foreign Secretary - and his legal advisers - are doing their utmost to delay, obfuscate and generally prevent the ineluctable overturning of Mr Megrahi's wrongful conviction.

    The Court of Criminal Appeal in Edinburgh has the power to frustrate David Miliband's delaying tactics. The Court could make a good start by rejecting the appointment of 'security-vetted special counsel' to represent Mr Megrahi at his second appeal.

    His current lawyer, Maggie Scott QC, has already demonstrated that she is perfectly capable of handling the case without being fettered with an imposed FCO-approved interlocutor.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I do not understand Patrick Haseldine's assertion that it is "safe to assume" (that Mrs Thatcher's Government in conjunction with the Bush administration decided to blame Libya for the Lockerbie disaster) from the quote of Lord Gore-Booth the relevance of which escapes me. How is it "safe to assume".

    ReplyDelete
  6. It is unnecessary for those who accept the Lockerbie trial verdict and the validity of the key prosecution evidence led at Camp Zeist (Mebo timer fragment, parts from a specific radio cassette model, clothing bought in Malta and a bomb suitcase originating at Luqa Airport) to make any assumptions at all.

    Those of us who believe that this evidence was fabricated by Britain and the U.S. for the "political" purpose of incriminating Libya must make at least one assumption: someone decided to incriminate Libya.

    I cannot imagine that such an important decision would have been taken at the level of Britain's forensic experts Alan Feraday and Dr Thomas Hayes or of the CIA's Vincent Cannistraro and the FBI's Thomas Thurman.

    In my view, it is "safe to assume" that this decision was taken at the very highest level: Mrs Thatcher here and President Bush Snr over there. Hence the relevance of the Gore-Booth dictum: "the task of a government is to decide and the task of a diplomat at any level is to try to make the decision work."

    In 2009, British diplomats are still trying "to make the decision work". As Professor Black says:

    "The reasons advanced by the Foreign Secretary in the Binyam Mohamed case for asserting public interest immunity are precisely the same reasons as he put forward in his PII certificate in the current Lockerbie appeal. It was claimed in the Appeal Court by the Advocate General that the UK Government had tried, but failed, to obtain the consent of the 'foreign power' that supplied the document(s) which Mr Megrahi’s legal team sought to have disclosed and the non-disclosure of which at the original trial formed the basis of one of the grounds on which the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission held that his conviction may have amounted to a miscarriage of justice.

    One is now left wondering just how hard the FCO tried to get the foreign power’s consent to disclosure, and whether it was suggested to the foreign power that the FCO’s preferred response to the request would be 'No'."

    ReplyDelete
  7. Do I somehow give the impression that I support the verdict at Camp Zeist? I pointed out to the authorities in 1996 who did it and claimed the reward money. (I didn't get it!) I had a relationship with the defence team of the man acquitted.

    I would certainly agree with the assumption that "somebody decided to incriminate Libya." I have written a number of articles attempting to explain why in particular part III of The Masonic Verses "Lockerbie - Criminal Justice or War By Other Means".

    However I do not believe it is "safe to assume" this agreement was taken "at the highest level" or even on a diplomatic or "political" level. (It may be true I just don't think it is "safe to assume" it.)

    While from personal experience I regard the FCO as a criminal enterprise (see part VI of "The Masonic Verses" -"Chinatown") I suspect this "agreement" (or plan) plan arrived at by spooks on both sides of the Atlantic in furtherance of existing policy.

    Patrick Haseldine's first paragraph refers to "clothing bought in Malta" and "a bomb suitcase originating at Luqa Airport". (Another vital piece of evidence was Megrahi's presence in Malta from the 20/12/88 to the 21/12/88). From this I deduce not his guilt but that the agreement to blame Libya was made not between the Government of Margaret Thatcher and the administration of George Bush senior but the administration of Ronald Reagan a President uninterested in and possibly unable to grasp detail and often unaware of what was being done in his name.

    ReplyDelete