Britain: Security Service “facilitated” torture of Guantánamo detainee英國：保安服務的“便利”酷刑關塔那摩被拘留者
By通過 Richard Tyler理查德泰勒 | A London court has ruled that the British government must disclose information that could support the claim that torture was used to extract confessions from Binyam Mohamed, a former British resident who has been held in Guantánamo Bay since September 2004. |倫敦一家法院裁定，英國政府必須披露的信息可以支持的說法，酷刑被用來逼供從binyam穆罕默德，前英國駐地誰一直被關押在關塔那摩灣自2004年9月。
The ruling by the Judicial Review—a special court that considers the lawfulness of a decision or action made by a public body—is a rebuff to Foreign Secretary David Miliband, who had initially argued that he was under no obligation to provide Mohamed’s lawyers with the information.裁決的司法复核-一個特別法庭，考慮到合法性的決定或行動所作出的一個公共機構， -是一個試圖修補已經千瘡百孔的外交大臣大衛米利班，誰最初曾辯稱，他沒有義務提供穆罕默德的律師與信息。
Binyam Mohamed has now been incarcerated for nearly six and half years. binyam穆罕默德現在已被關押近6年半。 He was first detained in Pakistan, and then subjected to “extraordinary rendition”—Washington’s euphemism for its programme of organised kidnapping and torture—to Morocco.他是第一次被拘留在巴基斯坦，然後受到“不平凡的移交逃犯” -華盛頓奇摩的委婉說法，其方案舉辦的綁架和酷刑-摩洛哥。 Here he was held for 18 months while his captors used torture—including slicing his genitals with a razor—to wring a “confession” out of him.在這裡他被關押18個月，而他的綁架者使用酷刑，包括切片他的生殖器與微弱，以扭一個“交代”了他。
He currently faces trial by a US Military Tribunal, charged with conspiring to commit terrorism and providing material support for terrorism in an alleged “dirty-bomb” plot.他目前面臨的審判，美國軍事法庭，被控以共謀犯下恐怖主義和提供物質支持恐怖主義，在被指控的“骯髒炸彈”圖謀的。 He could face the death penalty if found guilty.他可能面臨死刑如果罪名成立。 The judges ruled that the information is “not only necessary but essential for his defence”.法官裁定的資料是“不僅是必要的，但必需為其辯護” 。
Human rights lawyer Clive Stafford Smith, Director of Reprieve, who has represented Mohamed since 2005, told the press, “This is a momentous decision.人權律師克萊夫斯塔福德史密斯，主任緩刑，誰代表穆罕默德自2005年以來，新聞界說， “這是一個重大的決定。 Compelling the British government to release information that can prove Mr. Mohamed’s innocence is one obvious step towards making up for the years of torture that he has suffered.迫使英國政府公佈的資料可以證明穆罕默德先生的清白，是一個明顯的一步，彌補了多年的酷刑，他便陷入困境。 The next step is for the British government to demand an end to the charade against him in Guantánamo Bay, and return him home to Britain.”下一步是英國政府的需求，結束了文字對他在關塔那摩灣，並返回他的家鄉英國“ 。
In their ruling, the judges state, “It is a long standing principle of the common law that confessions obtained by torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment cannot be used as evidence in any trial.”在其裁決中，法官的國家“ ，這是一個長期的原則，共同的法律的供述得到了酷刑或其他殘忍，不人道或有辱人格待遇不能被用來作為證據在任何審判” 。
The Judicial Review was held at the end of July over five days in both open and closed sessions, also hearing testimony in camera from British Security Service and Secret Service officers who had been involved in the questioning of Mohamed while he was detained in Pakistan and elsewhere.司法复核舉行截至七月底，超過五天，在公開和非公開會議，也聽證會的證詞在相機從英國保安服務公司和服務人員的秘密誰曾參與在訊問穆罕默德，而他被關押在巴基斯坦和其他地方的。 The court’s 75-page open judgement was finally published last week, while a secret “closed” judgement has also been made.法院的75頁的公開判決，終於上週公佈的，而一個秘密“封閉”的判斷，也已經取得。
Lord Justice Thomas and Mr Justice Lloyd Jones found there were compelling grounds that the “exculpatory” information should be released in confidence to Mohamed’s legal representatives.勳爵司法托馬斯和沈澄勞埃德瓊斯發現有令人信服的理由是“無罪”的資料，應予以釋放的信心，在穆罕默德的法律代表。 No order for the provision of such information has been made until a further hearing considers the issues of “national security” raised by the Foreign Secretary as grounds for its non-disclosure.沒有秩序，為提供這類資料已取得，直到進一步聽證會認為，問題的“國家安全”所提出的外相為理由而不予披露。
At the Judicial Review, Dinah Rose QC, representing Mohamed, told the court that by cooperating with the US in its unlawful treatment of her client, the security and intelligence agencies were “mixed up in wrongdoing”.在司法審查，黛娜上升御用大律師，代表穆罕默德，告訴法庭，由與美國合作在其非法治療她的客戶，安全和情報機構是“混合起來，在不法行為” 。 It was also alleged that the US “provided the UK with the fruits of his interrogation”.也有人指稱，美國“提供的英國與成果，他的審訊” 。
Rose said that a British agent—identified only as “Witness B”—had made a “veiled threat” to Mohamed while he was being held in Pakistan, to encourage his “cooperation”, with the implication that “we won’t help you unless you confess”.玫瑰說，英國的代理人確定的只是作為“證人B ”的-提出了“含蓄的威脅” ，穆罕默德，而他被關押在巴基斯坦，鼓勵他“合作” ，暗示“我們不會幫助你除非你坦白“ 。 She also asserted that MI5 had “repeatedly” provided the US authorities with detailed information about Mohamed’s life in the UK, information that was then used by his captors during interrogation.她還聲稱，軍情五處曾“多次”為美國提供了與當局的詳細資料，穆罕默德的生命在英國，資料，當時所使用的綁架者在審問期間。
In his summing up, Ben Jaffey, another of Mohamed’s legal team, highlighted the contradictions in MI5’s accounts; one MI5 officer had said that British security and intelligence agencies “did not know” Binyam Mohamed’s whereabouts after he was flown out of Pakistan in 2002, whereas an MI5 representative had explicitly told the House of Commons Intelligence and Security Committee that it believed he was in US custody.在他的總結，本jaffey ，另一穆罕默德的律師團，突出的矛盾，在軍情五處的帳目;之一的MI5人員說，英國安全和情報機構“不知道” ， binyam穆罕默德的行踪後，他被送至走出巴基斯坦在2002年，而一的MI5代表明確告訴眾議院的商品，情報和安全委員會，它相信他是在被美方關押。
Seeking to justify its refusal to hand over information that could uphold Mohamed’s claim that he was tortured, the government told the court that the UK was “hugely dependent in a number of areas on US intelligence”.尋求證明其拒絕交出資料，可以堅持穆罕默德聲稱他的折磨，政府告訴法庭，英國是“巨大的依賴，在一些領域對美國的情報” 。
Moreover, it was a “fundamental principle” that information passed between the countries not be disclosed to a third party without the consent of the country which had provided it.此外，這是一項“基本原則”的資料，通過國家之間不會向第三者披露，未經同意，該國已提供。 “Any disclosure, however limited, would seriously undermine this principle to the point that future cooperation between the UK and its most valuable intelligence partner, the US, would be severely jeopardised”, posing a “very serious risk to UK national security”. “任何披露，然而有限，將嚴重破壞這一原則指出，未來之間的合作，英國和其最寶貴的情報合作夥伴，美國，將會受到嚴重損害” ，是一個“非常嚴重的風險，英國國家安全” 。
Judicial Review findings 司法審查的結果
Binyam Mohamed’s case makes a mockery of the Labour government’s pretensions to oppose the use of torture and uphold human rights. binyam穆罕默德的情況下作出的嘲弄工黨政府的偽裝，反對使用酷刑和維護人權。
While claiming to uphold the Geneva Conventions and international treaties outlawing the use of torture, British military personnel, as well as officers from the various intelligence agencies have been implicated in the mistreatment of detainees in Afghanistan and Iraq.而聲稱要堅持日內瓦公約和國際條約禁止使用酷刑，英國軍事人員，以及人員從各情報機構已經有牽連的虐待被關押在阿富汗和伊拉克。 In the case of Binyam Mohamed, they have been caught red-handed.在該案件binyam穆罕默德，他們已被當場抓獲的霸道。
The judgement records that “it was accepted on behalf of the Foreign Secretary… that BM [Binyam Mohamed] had established an arguable case (i) that over the period April 2002 to May 2004 he was first held by the United States incommunicado and without access to a lawyer or a court or tribunal in Pakistan, and then detained there or elsewhere by the United States until his arrival in Guantánamo Bay in September 2004 (ii) that he was subject to cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment by or on behalf of the United States during such detention and (iii) that he was subject to torture during such detention by or on behalf of the United States.”判決記錄： “這是接受就代表外相…說的BM [ binyam穆罕默德]成立了一個值得商榷的情況（一） ，超過期限2002年4月至2004年5月，他首次舉辦，由美國單獨和沒有訪問一名律師或法院或仲裁庭在巴基斯坦，然後被拘留的有或其他地方的由美國，直到他在抵達關塔那摩灣在2004年9月（二） ，他是受到殘忍，不人道和有辱人格的待遇或由他人代的美國在這些拘留及（ iii ）說，他受到酷刑，其間如拘留或由他人代美國“ 。
Moreover, the legal hearing and court ruling establish conclusively that not only did the British government know about the mistreatment of Mohamed, British agents also facilitated this “wrongdoing”.此外，法律聽證會和法庭的裁決，建立得出結論認為，不僅英國政府知道虐待穆罕默德，英國特工也促進了這一“不法行為” 。 The judges found that “The relationship between the United Kingdom Government and the United States authorities was far beyond that of a bystander or witness to the alleged wrongdoing”.法官發現“之間的關係，聯合王國政府和美國當局是遠遠超出了這一個旁觀者或證人所指稱不法行為” 。
Even more damning, the court found “that on the basis that what was done was arguably wrongdoing, the SyS [Security Service] facilitated it in the manner and to the extent described.”更嚴厲，法院認定“ ，在此基礎上認為，是什麼做的是說不法行為，系統[安全服務] ，它在便利的方式和程度所描述的” 。
The court concluded that the “conduct of the Security Service facilitated interviews by or on behalf of the United States when BM was being detained by the United States incommunicado and without access to a lawyer in Pakistan in the period April 2002 until at least May 2002… The Court also concluded that the Security Service continued to facilitate the interviewing of BM by providing information and questions after 17 May 2002, in the knowledge of what was reported to them as to the circumstances of his detention and treatment in Pakistan.”法院的結論是， “進行的安全服務，促進採訪或由他人代美國時的BM被禁錮由美國單獨接觸律師在巴基斯坦，在2002年4月期間，至少要等到2002年5月…法院還得出結論認為，保安服務，以方便繼續約談的BM提供資料和提出的問題後， 2002年5月17日，在以知識什麼樣的報導，給他們以的情況下對他的拘留和待遇在巴基斯坦“ 。
The Security Services then continued to provide further information and questions to their American counterparts, even when they knew that Mohamed had been moved from Afghanistan to a third country, where he faced serious mistreatment.保安服務，然後繼續提供進一步的信息和問題，以他們的美國同行，甚至當他們知道穆罕默德已提出的從阿富汗到第三國，在那裡他遇到了嚴重的虐待。
Mohamed’s lawyers have been pressing the government to release information and documents they held that might sustain his claim that the “evidence” against him had been extracted under torture.穆罕默德的律師已敦促政府發布的資料和文件，他們認為，可能維持他聲稱“證據”對他已提取的酷刑下。 After an initial request for information was lodged by his legal representatives in April, government lawyers responded by saying the “UK is under no obligation under international law to assist foreign courts and tribunals in assuring that torture evidence is not admitted”.經過初步的資料的要求提出了由他的法律代表在4月，政府律師回應說， “英國是沒有根據國際法規定的義務，以協助外國法院和法庭在確保酷刑的證據是不承認” 。
Binyam Mohamed’s case was finally accepted for Judicial Review at the beginning of June. binyam穆罕默德的情況下，終於接受司法審查，在六月初。 Recognising the urgency of his plight, Mr Justice Saunders agreed to an “expedited” hearing, saying, “If it is correct that in the course of an interrogation, in which material supplied by the Defendant [the British government] was employed, the Claimant [Binyam Mohamed] was tortured, then it is arguable that there is an obligation to disclose material which may assist Claimant in establishing before the American Military Court that he was tortured.認識的迫切性，他的困境，法官桑德斯商定了一項“快速”聽證會，說： “如果這是正確的，在過程中訊問，在這種材料的供應由被告[英國政府]聘，索賠人[ binyam穆罕默德]的折磨，那是有商榷的餘地是有披露義務的物質，可協助索賠人在建立之前，美國軍事法院，他的折磨。 Whether the Court should exercise its discretion not to order disclosure can only be determined at a full hearing.”法院是否應行使其酌情權不命令披露，只能確定在正式聆訊“ 。
It was not until this application for a Judicial Review was accepted that the Foreign Secretary then grudgingly acknowledged government documents “could be considered exculpatory or might otherwise be relevant in the context of proceedings before the Military Commissions”.但直到這個申請司法复核接納外相，然後勉強承認政府文件“可被視為無罪的，或者可能，否則有關的語境中的程序之前，軍事委員會” 。
Geneva Conventions 日內瓦公約
In its deliberations, the court considered whether the British government or its agents had contravened the Genva Conventions.在審議過程中，法院認為，英國政府是否或其代理人違反了傑尼瓦公約。
“The United Kingdom Armed Forces are trained in the laws of armed conflict set out in the Geneva Conventions. “聯合王國武裝部隊都是訓練有素的武裝衝突法的內容已載列於日內瓦公約。 The Joint Services Intelligence Organisations’ training documentation states that the following techniques are expressly and explicitly forbidden: (a) physical punishment of any sort; (b) the use of stress positions; (c) intentional sleep deprivations; (d) withdrawal of food, water or medical treatment and three other specified techniques.”聯合服務，情報機構的培訓，文件指出，下列技術是明文規定，並明確禁止： （一）體罰任何種類的; （二）使用應力的立場; （三）故意剝奪睡眠; （四）撤回食物，水或醫療待遇和其他三個指定的技術“ 。
Citing a 2007 report by the Intelligence and Security Committee (ISC), established by the Intelligence Services Act 1994 to examine the policy, administration and expenditure of the Security Service (SyS), Secret Intelligence Service (SIS), and the Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ), the court found that the SyS and SIS “must have appreciated that it [rendition] was contrary to the rule of law.”援引2007年的報告，情報和安全委員會（的ISC ） ，成立了由情報服務法1994年，研究政策，行政和支出的保安服務（系統） ，秘密情報服務（ SIS ）的，和政府通信總部（ gchq ） ，法院認定該系統與SIS的“必須明白， [移交逃犯]是違反法治” 。
The ruling also documents the fact that the government knew of the ongoing and persistent mistreatment of detainees being held by the American authorities, or those acting on their behalf.執政黨也文件的事實，即政府知道正在進行的和持久性虐待被拘留者正在舉行的美國當局，或在那些代理代表他們。
From December 2001, British intelligence operatives were able to interview detainees in Afghanistan, if permission was given by the US authorities holding them.從2001年12月，英國的情報操作工能夠採訪時被拘留在阿富汗，如果許可是由美國當局舉行。 The first SyS officers arrived at Bagram airbase on January 9, 2002 to begin this interrogation.首次系統人員抵達巴格拉姆空軍基地對2002年1月9日開始，這審問。
A report from one such officer dated January 10, 2002 contained certain “observations” about the conditions under which the detainees were being held.一份報告，從1月等人員2002年1月10日所載的某些“意見”關於在何種情況下被拘留者被關押。 As a consequence, on January 11, 2002, instructions were sent to all SIS and SyS officers in Afghanistan that all prisoners, “however they are described, are entitled to the same levels of protection.”作為一個後果，對2002年1月11日，指示，發送給所有的SIS和系統的人員在阿富汗的所有囚犯， “不過，他們所描述的，均有權享有相同級別的保護” 。
Despite claims that this merely represented an “isolated case”, the judgement records that there were reports of a “further isolated case” in March 2002, and in April 2002 an SIS officer was present at an interrogation of a detainee by the US military, who complained of being kept “in isolation”.儘管有人聲稱，這只是代表一個“孤立的事件” ，判決記錄，有報導說“進一步孤立的事件”在2002年3月，並於2002年4月1矽統科技人員出席了訊問一名被拘留由駐伊美軍誰抱怨正在不斷“孤立地” 。
In June 2002, according to an ISC report cited by the court, the SyS had discussed with Foreign and Commonwealth officials a US report that referred to the “hooding, withholding of blankets and sleep deprivation of a detainee in Afghanistan”.在2002年6月，根據一項國際科學委員會的報告所列舉的法院，系統討論了與英國外交及聯邦官員報告說，美國所指的“戴頭罩，扣壓毛毯和睡眠剝奪一名被拘留在阿富汗” 。
Again, in July 2002, a SyS officer reported to his senior management that whilst in Afghanistan, “a United States official had referred to ‘getting a detainee ready’, which appeared to involve sleep deprivation, hooding and the use of stress positions.”再次，在2002年7月，一個系統的人員據報他的高級管理人員表示，雖然在阿富汗， “美國官員曾提到'越來越被拘留者準備' ，似乎是涉及剝奪睡眠，戴頭罩和使用應力的立場” 。
The court ruling cited an official document that was sent to all Security Service and Secret Service officers in Afghanistan in January 2002: “With regard to the status of the prisoners, under the various Geneva Conventions and protocols, all prisoners, however they are described, are entitled to the same levels of protection.法院的裁決舉了一個正式文件，這是發送給所有的安全服務和秘密的服務人員在阿富汗在2002年1月： “隨著地位方面的囚犯，根據各項日內瓦公約和議定書的規定，所有囚犯，但他們所描述的，是享有同樣程度的保護。 You have commented on their treatment.您有評論對他們的待遇。 It appears from your description that they may not be being treated in accordance with the appropriate standards.看來，從您的描述，他們未必接受治療，在按照適當的標準。 Given that they are not within our custody or control, the law does not require you to intervene to prevent this.因為他們不屬於我們的保管或控制，法律並不要求你進行干預，以防止這種情況出現。 That said, HMG’s [Her Majesty’s Government] stated commitment to human rights makes it important that the Americans understand that we cannot be party to such ill treatment nor can we be seen to condone it.”儘管如此，英國政府的[女皇陛下的政府]聲明，對人權的承諾，使得重要的是，美國人明白，我們不能以黨的這種虐待的待遇，我們也不能讓人容忍它“ 。
Such is the Labour government’s venal double-talk: not only has the British government tacitly accepted the use of torture by the US authorities from the beginning of the illegal wars in Afghanistan and Iraq (and benefited from the “intelligence” it produces), British agents have actively facilitated it.這是工黨政府的venal雙談：不僅英國政府默許接受了使用酷刑，美國當局從一開始就對非法阿富汗戰爭和伊拉克戰爭（並從中受益“情報”所產生的） ，英國代理商積極推動它。 All that counts is that HMG must not be “seen” to condone it!所有的罪狀是，英國政府絕不能“看到”寬恕！
Have Your Say: Britain: Security Service “facilitated” torture of Guantánamo detainee 你說：英國：保安服務的“便利”酷刑關塔那摩被拘留者
Please read our請閱讀我們的 posting guidelines before posting發布指引，然後再發布 . 。
Alternatively或者 you can discuss this report here您可以討論此報告在這裡 . 。
This entry was posted on Wednesday, August 27th, 2008 at 5:54 pm and is filed under 此項目被張貼在週三， 2008年8月27日在下午5時54分，並提交下 War & Terrorism News 戰爭和恐怖主義新聞 . 。 You can follow any responses to this entry through the 您可以按照任何的反應，此項目通過 RSS 2.0 2.0 feed. 餵養。 You can 您可以 leave a response 留下的回應 , or ，或 trackback Trackback跟踪 from your own site. 從你自己的網站。
Translations 翻譯
Related News 相關新聞
- Security services colluded in unlawful detention保安服務勾結，在非法拘留
- A UK Window into CIA Abuses英國窗口中央情報局虐待
- UK court rules against gov’t in key Guantanamo case英國法院規則對官立在關鍵關塔那摩案件
- US torture claims are unreliable: British lawmakers美國酷刑的說法不可靠：英國國會議員
- Lawyer asks Taoiseach for information on CIA flights律師要求taoiseach提供資料，美國中央情報局的航班
Email This Page To A Friend 電子郵件此頁給朋友
Latest Headlines 最新的新聞標題
- Bush Seeks to Affirm a Continuing War on Terror布什的目的，肯定持續反恐戰爭
- Protesters denied access to attorneys, forced to march in leg shackles, ACLU charges示威者拒絕進入律師，被迫在三月腿的桎梏中解放出來，美國公民自由聯盟收費
- POLITICS DRIVEN BY FICTION: MADE FOR TV政治驅動的小說：為電視
- Diebold Finally Admits its Voting Machines Drop Votes diebold終於承認其投票機的下拉票
- Blair has no right to lecture on the rule of law布萊爾無權講座，法治
- 3,000 Vets, War Protesters Hand-Deliver Their Message 3000獸醫，戰爭的示威者手提供他們的信息
- VIDEO: Climate Camp 2008視頻：氣候營2008年
- Conspiracy Files: Lockerbie陰謀檔案：洛克比空難
- A UK Window into CIA Abuses英國窗口中央情報局虐待
- More People are Catching on to Corporate Media Lies更多的人正在趕上對企業媒體謊言
More更多 Breaking News突發新聞
Archive 存檔
- August 2008 2008年8月
- July 2008 2008年7月
- June 2008 2008年6月
- May 2008 2008年5月
- April 2008 2008年4月
- March 2008 2008年3月
- February 2008 2008年2月
- January 2008 2008年1月
- December 2007 2007年12月
- November 2007 2007年11月
- October 2007 2007年10月
- September 2007 2007年9月
- August 2007 2007年8月
- July 2007 2007年7月
- June 2007 2007年6月
- May 2007 2007年5月
- April 2007 2007年4月
- March 2007 2007年3月
