transcript

This text below is a phonetic transcript of a radio story broadcast by PRI's THE WORLD. It has been created on deadline by a contractor for PRI. The transcript is included here to facilitate internet searches for audio content. Please report any transcribing errors to theworld@pri.org. This transcript may not be in its final form, and it may be updated. Please be aware that the authoritative record of material distributed by PRI's THE WORLD is the program audio.

MARCO WERMAN: I'm Marco Werman, and this is The World. Today, two British judges made some serious accusation against the US. The judges claim US officials have threatened to stop sharing intelligence with Britain if the judges release evidence about the alleged torture of a Guantanamo Bay detainee. The World's Laura Lynch reports.

LAURA LYNCH: The case itself isn't new. It centers on Binyam Mohamed, an Ethiopian-born British resident held in Guantanamo Bay. All charges against Mohamed were dropped last October, and he's expected to leave the prison camp soon. But British media had asked the courts here to release evidence about Mohamed's treatment during his detention, amid allegations British agents were complicit in torture. Today, the judges released their ruling, saying they're keeping the evidence secret – and they blamed the United States. Here's a reading of part of their judgment. “We did not consider that a democracy governed by the rule of law would expect a court in another democracy to suppress a summary of the evidence contained in reports by its own officials, relevant to allegations of torture and cruel, inhumane, or degrading treatment, politically embarrassing though it might be.” But that's exactly what the judges say the US is doing. They say the US is asking them to suppress information, and it's backing that up with a threat. “We had no reason to anticipate there would be made a threat of the gravity of the kind made by the United States government that it would reconsider its intelligence-sharing relationship.” The judges said they had to defer to lawyers for Britain's Foreign Office – who warned that the withdrawal of US intelligence could cause serious damage to the UK's ability to fight terrorism. Counter-terrorism specialist Will Geddes says the risk is real, given the close cooperation between the two countries.

WILL GEDDES: This threat of withholding intelligence means that any deeper investigation into these alleged incidents would mean that there's going to be a major compromise potentially to a major incident. One's got to look at it in bare facts, if you like.

LYNCH: US officials are refusing to comment on the ruling or the judges' remarks. One former Bush administration official confirms US intelligence agencies did tell Britain they oppose the release of information without their consent. That's not only normal, the official said, but it's the same treatment UK agencies would expect from America. An opposition member of Parliament, David Davis, rejects the explanation.

DAVID DAVIS: And if you read the judges' ruling, it is clear that they're incredibly cross. I mean, it's very, very firm stuff about “one law-abiding democracy does not tell the courts in another law-abiding democracy what to do.” It's very. very firm, and I'm afraid the government's got some serious questions to answer.

LYNCH: Just yesterday, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton met the British Foreign Secretary and spoke of the two countries “special relationship.” This ruling might put the relationship to the test, especially since the judges suggested the Obama administration might like to reconsider and lift the lid on the case. For The World, I'm Laura Lynch, in London.

Copyright ©2008 PRI's THE WORLD. All rights reserved. No quotes from the materials contained herein may be used in any media without attribution to PRI's THE WORLD. This transcript may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, without prior written permission. For further information, please email The World's Permissions Coordinator at theworld@pri.org.