British court releases some of the confidential material in the case of Binyam Mohamed: US military tried to get him to sign a false statement saying he had never been abused as condition for his rele
March 23, 2009
Today, the two British judges sitting on the case of Binyam Mohamed have revealed how the US government tried to get Binyam Mohamed to sign an agreement stating that he had never been tortured to promise not to speak with the media upon his release, and to plead guilty as a condition of his release back to Britain – all without his lawyers being allowed access to evidence that would help prove his innocence.
This annex of the British ruling was previously kept confidential by the British court because of the American military commission rules, which forbade making the materials public.
As the British judges make clear, the US military insisted that he sign an agreement never to sue the US, or any US ally (including Britain) for the wrongdoing committed against him – indeed, the military wanted him to assign any rights he might have to compensation to the US government! (Para. 5(iii))
The US military insisted that he accept a minimum sentence of ten years – on top of the seven years of torture he had already suffered. (Para. 5(v)) He was meant to agree to plead guilty notwithstanding the fact that the US military had not told him what the charges were to be. (Para. 6)
Significantly, Binyam Mohamed was required to waive any claim he might have to seeing the exculpatory evidence identified by the British judges, that could help prove his innocence, and how he had been tortured. (Para. 6) If Mr. Mohamed was to ask to see this exculpatory evidence, the “deal” would be off. (Para. 10)
He was required to sign a statement saying that he had never been tortured – a statement he insisted was false – and also commit never to speak to the media about his abuse. (Para. 11)
“The facts revealed today reflect the way the US government has consistently tried to cover up the truth of Binyam Mohamed’s torture,” said Reprieve Director Clive Stafford Smith, who has represented Mr Mohamed for four years. He was being told he would never leave Guantánamo Bay unless he promised never to discuss his torture, and never sue either the Americans or the British to force disclosure of his mistreatment. Gradually the truth is leaking out, and the governments on both sides of the Atlantic should pause to consider whether they should continue to fight to keep this torture evidence secret.”
Binyam Mohamed’s history of torture has been well documented. During his time in Guantánamo Bay, the US military tried to prosecute him in the military commissions, characterized by the British former Lord Justice Steyn as kangaroo courts.
This proposal discussed by the British courts was made by the US military came at a time when he was not charged with anything. It also came after a long history of efforts to make Binyam Mohamed plead guilty to crimes that he insisted that he did not commit. He had always been willing to enter a plea of nolo contendere (which essentially means you deny your guilt, but enter a plea as you recognize it is the only way to resolve the case), on the condition that he would be sentenced to time served, and immediately released back to Britain.
“Indeed, at one point we suggested he would plead nolo contendere to being the Pope himself,” said Mr Stafford Smith. “After the years of suffering he had been through, he was willing to do just about anything to get out of there, but he would not plead guilty to something he did not do, nor would he lie about the fact that he had been tortured.”
Eventually, by early 2009, the US military was still desperately trying to get Mr. Mohamed to plead guilty to something – anything – in order to save face. The final “offer” was that this man, originally alleged to be a most dangerous terrorist, should plead guilty and receive a sentence of only ten days in prison, less than one might expect for many driving offences. Mr. Mohamed rejected this offer, as he continued to insist that he was not guilty.
“Offering a man who is protesting his innocence freedom on the condition that he pleads guilty to something and serves a 10-day sentence is face-saving on an horrific scale,” said Reprieve Executive Director Clare Algar. “Likewise, the ‘condition’ that he agree not to speak about his torture is absolutely shameful. The truth about what happened to Binyam needs to come out and our government should do all it can to make that happen.”
For further information, please contact Clive Stafford Smith (07940 347125; firstname.lastname@example.org); or Katherine O’Shea at Reprieve’s Press Office on 020 7427 1099.
Note for Editors:
Reprieve, a legal action charity, uses the law to enforce the human rights of prisoners, from death row to Guantánamo Bay. Reprieve investigates, litigates and educates, working on the frontline, to provide legal support to prisoners unable to pay for it themselves. Reprieve promotes the rule of law around the world, securing each person’s right to a fair trial and saving lives. Clive Stafford Smith is the founder of Reprieve and has spent 25 years working on behalf of people facing the death penalty in the USA.
Reprieve’s current casework involves representing 33 prisoners in the US prison at Guantanamo Bay, working on behalf of prisoners facing the death penalty, and conducting ongoing investigations into the rendition and the secret detention of ‘ghost prisoners’ in the so-called ‘war on terror.’
PO Box 52742
London EC4P 4WS
Tel: 020 7353 4640
Fax: 020 7353 4641
Reprieve is a charitable company limited by guarantee; Registered Charity No. 1114900. Registered Company No. 5777831 (England).
Registered Office: 2-6 Cannon Street, London, EC4M 6YH
Chair: Lord Bingham; Patrons: Alan Bennett, Julie Christie, Martha Lane Fox, Gordon Roddick, Jon Snow, Marina Warner