Alan Johnson MP

Please find below an article which appeared in Guardian and a letter which was published in the Times - both by David Miliband, Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs

Article by David Miliband which appeared on guardian.co.uk, Thursday 19 February 2009

Louise Christian’s misrepresentations

Contrary to claims, I have been consistent and honest in seeking Binyam Mohamed’s release and safeguarding national security

Louise Christian claims that my parliamentary statement on Binyam Mohamed contradicted the government’s evidence to the high court. It did not. And it is irresponsible of her to repeat a claim that has been comprehensively refuted.

The British government’s position on torture is clear. We unreservedly condemn the use of it and take allegations of mistreatment very seriously.

These are the facts. Far from suppressing evidence, it was our efforts that got documents disclosed to Mr Mohamed’s lawyers. Far from neglecting his human rights, it is our efforts that have secured the principle of his return to the UK. Far from neglecting our responsibilities, it was the home secretary’s intervention, the day after the high court published its October judgment, to refer allegations of possible criminal wrongdoing to the attorney general.

Louise Christian’s article simply misrepresents the facts. The US government did not threaten to “break off” intelligence cooperation if their intelligence documents were disclosed by order of an English court. They did alert the court to the danger of harm to the intelligence relationship if they were disclosed. That is what I said to Parliament and to the court.

I would have been negligent in my duties if I had ignored this. The point is nothing to do with the contents of the documents. In fact, we have made clear we have no objection to the US deciding to publish them. And the US attorney general has said he will review every case of state secrets privilege to assess whether publication would compromise US national security.

But the principle at stake is whether English courts should decide to disclose documents belonging to a foreign government against its wishes, and the damage this would do to our national security. It was on that basis, and no other, that I set out the position to the court. And it was the court that made it abundantly clear that justice for Mr Mohamed did not depend on public disclosure of the documents. The point would apply equally in the opposite direction: British intelligence that we share with foreign countries should never be disclosed by them against our wishes.

The British government never orders or condones torture. It is nonsense to suggest that we do.

Letter from David Miliband to the Times, published 18 February 2009

Julie Christie’s letter (”Britain and torture”, 16 February) suggests that the British Government has been duplicitous in Binyam Mohamed’s case. This is not the case.

We worked hard to secure the release of all 42 US documents relating to Mr Mohamed’s treatment in detention to his defence lawyers. We have equally worked hard for his release and return to the UK. The allegation of possible criminal wrong-doing was rightly and properly referred to the Attorney General.

The US made clear to us their view that damage that could be caused to intelligence cooperation by disclosure of their intelligence by a foreign court without their agreement - violating the fundamental principle of confidentiality around intelligence exchanges. Their views are a matter of court and public record. We sought Public Interest Immunity in this case solely because of the harm that would be done to our national security if US intelligence was made public by an English court, without US agreement.

We do not order or condone torture. We condemn it, unreservedly.