I’m not sure what to think yet. See this Salon article:
It essentially claims that Obama has issued specific threats that he will order intelligence-sharing between the US and UK to cease, if the UK releases details on the torture and interrogation of Binyam Mohamed.
The cessation of intelligence-sharing would potentially expose the citizens of the UK (and presumably the US as well) to any terrorist attack that the CIA, etc. had foreknowledge of, but that the Brits don’t.
Thoughts?
Urgh. This was supposed to go in GD.
Blackmail would be threatening to post pictures of Gordon Brown f’ing a goat to the internet. This is just defining our mutual relationship on intelligence, which is in the end entirely voluntary on both sides.
Under threat of torture, this thread moved to GD.
The UK is our staunchest intelligence partner. Salon is a magazine uniquely useful for wrapping phish.
The article sure makes it seem like Blackmail.
My own personal opinion, I believe he wants all torture related charges alleged against US citizens to be handled inside the United States. A Spanish Court recently did something similar and the US asked them too cool it for awhile. They complied.
It would not look good if the United States, the nation of laws, was not able to adequately prosecute it’s own people and other nations had to “enforce the law” for us.
I don’t think it’s blackmail as much as just “hold on” until we figure out what’s going on. We need to see if we can actually prosecute, and if so, who exactly.
Surely the whole point of intelligence sharing is that it goes both ways. The US benefits from UK intelligence too, so wouldn’t it be rather cutting of your nose to spite your face?
Don’t you want James Bond on your team??
Given the poor quality of the US intelligence (WMD’s, mobile chemical weapon labs in semi-trailers, working on nuclear weapons, etc.). why would threatening to withhold that be credible blackmail?
Gee, I don’t know.
Regards,
Shodan
Yeah, riiiight. :rolleyes: We have no intention at all of punishing our pet monsters, or permitting anyone else to do so. Law or no law. The only reason we don’t want another country prosecuting American citizens for torturing their citizens, is that they might actually find our torturers guilty.
Is Obama blackmailing the UK to keep torture details secret? I don’t know.
Is there any evidence in this article that Obama is blackmailing the UK to keep torture details secret? None whatsoever. Wow, I sure see why Salon doesn’t have a good journalistic reputation!
This specific instance is poisoned because it involves torture, something the United States should not under any circumstances be involved in. But the real objection was that United States classified information was being released in public by a foreign country. I am not surprised that this not happening is an extremely important cornerstone of an intelligence sharing operation. It would be extremely strange if it wasn’t!
Did the administration have an ulterior, evil torture related motivation in this specific case? I don’t know. But if they didn’t have any other motivations either way the letter as it stands is not only perfectly reasonable, but it would have been really strange if something like it was not sent! So speculations about ulterior motives remain just that, speculations. Additional evidence is required to show that this is a blackmail case due to the torture element.
This article is written by a complete hack. He completely ignores the main point of the letters (even if you think they are wrong or made up to hide a different motivation, at least acknowledge them and indicate why you think they are lies), and his non-speculation speculation into motives is completely lacking.
Bottom line, the administration behaved like any administration should regarding its classified information. There does not appear to be convincing evidence suggesting ulterior motives, nor a motivation for these ulterior motives.
But the UK is so in love with the US that they’d continue to pass intelligence the US’s way anyway.
Isn’t it the same way with the fast track deporting, the UK has put it in place for deportation to the US but the US hasn’t done their bit?
The US did not “ask them to cool it off for a while” and they did not “comply”.
[/quote]
Well, that is pretty much what is happening.
I believe that if it were not for pressure coming from other countries the will to do anything about prosecuting torture crimes would be much less and even with that pressure there is not enough of it to openly confront the issue. The US government will try to whitewash the whole thing as best it can. If some prosecutions are inevitable in the end they will be a sham intended only for coverup and public consumption, as happened with Abu Ghraib.
However you may personally feel about Obama I think it is apparent he is a smart guy.
Severing the intelligence cooperation our two countries have had would endanger both countries. It’d just be stupid.
The UK and US share a unique relationship that is important to both nations for many reasons. Damaging that in a fit of pique seems stupidity of the first order.
If Obama wants to express his displeasure at this I am sure there are many ways to do so that fall short of this.
I’ll retract that.
Just kind of using this as a jumping off point. Obama (AG) has to be really really really careful about prosecuting. It has to result in Guilty. If they are not 100% sure it will result in guilty before the trial, then they should not prosecute. If they prosecute, and it comes back not guilty because specific intent/beyond reasonable doubt/ect people are going to equate not guilty = innocent = waterboarding ok = “America Loves It Some Torture!” headlines all over the world. When all not guilty would really mean is they just couldn’t prove something as difficult as specific intent beyond a reasonable doubt.
So I can understand the AG for taking his time, and if the evidence is not 100% conclusive (assuming no one talks) then I wouldn’t do it. But they can’t really say that’s why they’re not doing it, because that’s weak and people won’t understand that. So toss in some sanctions and say look forward, not backward. I get that.
Yeah, this is disturbingly plausible.
That’s some interesting circular argument there. How about I make the converse one: it’s obvious Obama is an idiot and making idiotic mistakes seems to be all he’s been able to do.