Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
In the ongoing battle over a redacted portion of a British court ruling that details the abuse and torture of Binyam Mohamed after being detained by the United States, the British high court has ordered that redacted text to be made public. My colleague Daphne Eviatar reports:
A British High Court on Friday ordered that previously redacted text concerning the alleged torture of former Guantanamo Bay detainee Binyam Mohamed must be made public...Meanwhile, the British Foreign Secretary had urged the British court not to make Mohamed's specific torture claims public, citing a risk to relations between the United Kingdom and the United States, suggesting that the U.S. had urged him to keep the charges hidden.
This last part is important because both the Bush and Obama administrations explicitly threatened the British government over this, saying that if this text was made public the United States might stop sharing critical intelligence with them. The British court rejected that argument:
Friday's ruling, reported by JURIST over the weekend, reversed the previous decisions to redact Mohamed's allegations, saying that "the public interest in making the paragraphs public is overwhelming" and "the risk to national security judged objectively on the evidence is not a serious one." The court's earlier opinion therefore will be re-issued with the paragraphs restored.
But here's what I think is odd. This same court had issued an earlier ruling deciding not to release that text specifically because they had been told by the British Foreign Secretary that the Obama administration was continuing the same veiled threats that the Bush administration had made. This ruling overturns that one, and it does so largely because the court has now concluded that the Obama administration is not handling the situation the same way Bush did and would not withhold any intelligence information if the text is released.
The problem is that the evidence pretty clearly contradicts that basis for changing the previous ruling. Glenn Greenwald published the letter sent by the Obama administration to the British government in May (PDF, look at the attachment on pages 6-9) and the text is virtually identical to what the Bush administration said on the matter.
That letter explicitly says that the position of the U.S. government had not changed at all. Indeed, it was written in response to an inquiry by the British court as to whether the election of a new president had changed the American position. That inquiry was made because Mohamed's attorney was arguing that the election of Obama had changed the American position and therefore the court should no longer redact the torture text based on fears of hurting the British-American intelligence sharing relationship. The response from the Obama administration could not be any more clear that their position was identical to Bush's position on that question:
It has come to the United States Government's attention that on 22 April 2009 your High Court heard argument on a motion of Mr. Mohamed for reconsideration of the Court's decision to withhold seven paragraphs from its open decision of 21 August 2008. The Court withheld those seven paragraphs at the request of your Foreign Secretary, based on a Public Interest Immunity Certificate that explained the damage to the United Kingdom's intelligence relationship with the United States--and as a consequence the United Kingdom's own national security--if the paragraphs were disclosed. Mr. Mohamed argued during the 22 April hearing that given the change in administration in the United States, HMG should be ordered to ask the Obama administration for its views on the disclosure of the information contained in the seven paragraphs...The seven paragraphs at issue are based upon classified information shared between our countries. Public disclosure of this information, reasonably could be expected to cause serious damage to the United Kingdom's national security. Specifically, disclosure of this information may result in a constriction of the U.S.-U.K. relationship, as well as U.K. relationships with other countries. Among the most critical sources and methods in the collection of foreign intelligence are the relationships the United Kingdom maintains with foreign countries. Through these relationships, the United Kingdom's intelligence and security services are able to provide national security and foreign policy officials with information that is critical to informed decision making; information that the United Kingdom cannot obtain through other means. Without the assistance of these foreign governments, it is almost certain that the United Kingdom's ability to identify and arrest suspected terrorists and to disrupt terrorist plots would be severely hampered. Quite clearly, the information that the United Kingdom obtains from the United States and other foreign governments is a critical component of the United Kingdom's counterterrorist efforts.
The cooperation and sharing of intelligence between the United Kingdom and United States, as well as with other foreign governments, exists under strict conditions of secrecy. Public disclosure by the United Kingdom of information garnered from such relationships would suggest that the United Kingdom is unwilling or unable to protect information or assistance provided by its allies. As a consequence, if foreign partners learn that information it has provided is publicly disclosed, these foreign partners could take steps to withhold from the United Kingdom sensitive information that could be important to its safety and security. Any decreased cooperation from those foreign partners would adversely impact counterterrorism missions and other endeavors.
This could hardly be more clear. Neither could this statement from the British Foreign Secretary, which was incorporated into the court ruling:
Despite this blunt insistence that the Obama administration's position was identical to the Bush administration's position, the British high court nonetheless overturns its own ruling and ordered the redacted text to be made public.
Now, let me make clear that I think this is a very good thing. That text should be public. But the court is clearly wrong in pretending that the Obama administration had changed positions. So why would they do this? I suspect it's because they are hoping to shame the Obama administration into backing off on this veiled threat.
Frankly, I never gave any credence to the threat to withhold intelligence in the first place, from either administration. We have no stronger ally than the British. Does anyone seriously believe that our government would withhold information from them that is important in the war on terror? I don't buy it. I think the threat was empty from the start and perhaps this is the British court's way of calling our bluff. And that's a good thing.
But the notion that Obama somehow changed the Bush administration's public position on this issue and therefore it's okay now to release that text is nonsense. And if you doubt that, you need only know that the Obama administration condemned the ruling almost immediately.
Politics
Comments
I think the difference is one of reputation (deserved or not). The British courts full well believed that Bush would torpedo a long-standing profitable intelligence-sharing relationship to shield torture; they seem to believe that Obama is merely posturing and wouldn't actually do it. I guess we'll see if they are right (among seeing many, many other things).
Posted by: Shygetz | October 20, 2009 10:00 AM
Perhaps the court hopes that the Obama administration will not, in the future, be torturing people, so that there will not be a situation where the U.S. needs to withhold information involving torture from the British for fear that it might be released publicly.
Posted by: Tom | October 20, 2009 10:03 AM
Ed stated:
The primary reason I'm not ready to go as far as you Ed is that the Obama Administration has yet to show any predilection to reversing course on nearly all of Bush's policies in this area. While I understand that intelligence sharing is a distinctly different set of matters relative to how Obama acts in court or how the Executive branch acts in the field of intelligence gathering; the reality is that with the exception of not directly torturing detainees, I see no evidence that rationalism and functional expertise has supplanted the incompetency displayed during the Bush years.
So while you are correct Ed that it would monumentally stupid for us reduce the intelligence dialogue with the U.K., there is little evidence we've supplanted the actual players in Bush's Administration with a more professional bunch. In fact, some of the best and brightest bolted when they realized what Bush was doing, which I think leaves the agency even more susceptible to self-defeating policies like taking our ball and going home pouting Rush Limbaugh style.
Posted by: Michael Heath | October 20, 2009 10:07 AM
Wouldn't "the recipient of a Nobel Peace Prize wouldn't behave badly" be a persuasive argument too?
Posted by: Christophe Thill | October 20, 2009 10:28 AM
Maybe they think that Obama is bright enough to realise that following through on this would be really stupid, but didn't have the same faith in Bush.
Posted by: Jefrir | October 20, 2009 10:40 AM
Here is the actual judgement if anyone is interested.
http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/docs/judgments_guidance/mohamed-judgment5-16102009.pdf
Posted by: Matty | October 20, 2009 10:52 AM
Obama should pardon Bush and Cheney on the torture program. That would be fun!
The pardon should narrowly cover what we know now. Put them in the position of declining the pardon, a position which will be popular with the shriekers. Or perhaps suffering prosecution later for the unrevealed wet work, creating a clear distinction between the easy early lies, obstruction of justice, and tampering with evidence, and the worse, nastier, later lies.
So it's a fantasy of satisfying, headstrong politics. If I were president, that would be appealing in a video game sort of way...but a bad choice. If I were president, I'd do exactly what Obama is doing. I'd go slow.
I think--I hope--Obama is doing this on purpose. I hope he's doing something unusual: leading all of us, even those who despise him. A sudden, urgent prosecution of the torture regime would hinder his agenda at home (and, oh, yes it could be more hindered.) He's been crazy-like-a-fox patient on health care. I think the strategy is to manage these things one at a time, using political capital, working into the principal if need be, to effect lasting, permanent, valuable change. I think he knows that he must be the first moderate, thoughtful leader in a while; the damage done by Bush and the rabid Right will take a generation to overcome. It's morally repugnant, but the torture and rendition ship will take a long time to turn around; the restoration of American prestige is also a lengthy project. Patience, I hope, is his approach. The left will have to wait.
Notice that the Bush folks did their best to embed the behavior and power in the fabric of the government. They believe so fundamentally in the unitary executive that they really don't mind allowing Democrats to wield it too, because they know that the more it is embraced the more permanent it becomes, which accrues power to their ideas and depletes the ideas they despise. One more place where Rove was smarter than all the liberals who kept saying, "Go ahead, Bush, take the power; Democrats will have it soon!" That leaves the Democrats a far harder job: giving the power back, putting aside some tasty, tasty power. Rove gambled that the future democrats would not be able to resist. I think (I hope) the dice are still tumbling on that one.
Therefore it's not enough for Obama to use the unitary executive to undo all the unitary executiving Bush did. He needs to use the old processes, especially time, to allow those things to expire, to sit curdling on the shelf. It's hard--I want to see Cheney (on oxygen, pathetically gasping) and Bush and Rumsfeld and Rove in front of a congressional committee, groveling, taking the fifth, silent asides to their lawyers, all of it. But that isn't in the best interest of the nation if you take the long run (just as it was not in the best interest of the nation to try Richard Nixon, and Ford knew it. So he pardoned him and tossed all hope of (re)election, which he also knew--some noble presidenting, there.)
By the way, it has been widely reported that the US 'condemned' the ruling of the British court. Ed took up that word too, and hyperlinked it. But here's what I found at that hyperlink: a State guy said "We are not pleased." Is that dead-bang proof of my Masterful Patience strategy? well, maybe not. I hope I'm right, I really do, but keeping control of the agenda is critical. I believe Obama will make more moves on torture. They won't be grand, or decisive, or very satisfying to us lefties, I bet. They may not even be visible. But that's what I predict will happen. I'll eat the internet if I'm wrong.
fingers crossed
ice
Posted by: ice9 | October 20, 2009 10:54 AM
ice9:
I think you're conflating two different issues. Whether he prosecutes anyone in the Bush administration is an entirely separate issue (and a decision he should not make under any circumstances; that should be left up to a career or special prosecutor with no influence at all from elected officials) from the question of whether Obama should be attempting to cover up the evidence of their crimes and/or working overtime to deny the victims of torture and illegal surveillance from getting justice in the courts, whether in this country or another.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | October 20, 2009 11:05 AM
ice9 stated @ 7:
I can't tell whether you are employing satire or I should take this literally. Do you believe President Ford's decision to pardon President Nixon was in the best long term interests of the nation?
Posted by: Michael Heath | October 20, 2009 11:47 AM
A lot of the current wrangling reminds me o the novel "Fatherland", in which the Germans do not lose WWII, and the protagonists only slowly finds out, 20 years later, what really happened to his Jewish neighbors.
You could see a lot of this written by a retired Himmler from his Black Sea mansion. There was a post from Bush's CIA boss Hayden this weekend on CNN, complaining about the release of the infamous torture memos - on legalistic grounds: "CIA lawyers had been hard at work with other government attorneys sorting out which of the many available FOIA exemptions they would use to continue to protect various parts of the OLC documents". This could have been written by Heydrich when the Wannsee protocols became public; no admission that maybe it was a little bit wrong, I mean morally, not in a legal sense of course, and maybe an apology?
Posted by: Mu | October 20, 2009 11:57 AM
To Ed, at #8, in his all-powerful Gray Box of Wisdom and Power:
(I love you, man)
Oh, you're right. I'm conflating busily. And more than two issues; I'm looking for a way to see the Obama approach to the previous administration's crimes as productive, satisfying. And it's hopeful, as I said, rather than analytical. And I might be wrong. But I don't mind admitting that I'm a fan, and that means I'm extending a benefit of doubt, and looking for evidence to explain it. Liberals. Sheesh.
But it's possible to see the glass as half intact rather than half broken. "Attempting to cover up" might also be parsed as "slowly, grudgingly permitting the revelation, with much pro forma protestation." "Attempting to cover up" isn't exactly what's happening; it's more like extending the previous coverup. (more generally, of course; I know that this whole British paragraphs thing is all Obama, but the torture of Binyam Mohamed was all Bush.)
This particular description of this particular coverup of this particular grotesque instance of torture is a platoon-sized incident in a very large war. Again, I cop to hopefully naive, but I take the shift, both in the British court's view and the Obama administration's tepid 'condemnation' of it, as a tactical maneuver that is not indicative of the administration's strategy. Obama must act as the American President now, and avoiding embarrassment, even embarrassment that works in his favor for some future purpose, seems cover enough (for me, hopefully naive person) to give him the benefit of the doubt.
But I say you're the naive one on the prosecution process. I mean, you're right and all, but that is one narrow component of any campaign of repudiation of the Bush administration's torture regime. If the Obama administration makes it a priority to pursue legislative, judicial, and/or executive recourse against the previous administration high, low, or middle, well, the special prosecutor route would be one (perhaps spectacular, but still only one) plan of attack. And though on paper we'd know that the choice of a prosecutor creates separation and neutrality, where has that ever happened? Another big circle back to Whitewater, back to Liddy's pardon. The goons will foam, my friend. The goons will foam. Why go half Monty?
How would you feel if the Administration anointed an apolitical (if such could be found) SP and then stood back aloofly and did nothing else? First, it would be unsatisfactory because we would be continuously bombarded with odds and ends of torture issues from the old days (like the Binyam Mohamed revelation) which would require administration response. Second, there would be rafts of folks still in government who had been involved and who would be caught in various spotlights, awaiting your executive action, sir. (and I'm as hopeful as you that the folks with some gumption and morality left...but it's also honorable to stay and fight the good fight from within, and what will become of those folks? They will become pawns and will prove again and again that no good deed goes unpunished.)
No, satisfaction will only come from a broad policy shift, a tectonic, highly public repudiation of the Bush way, some kind of broad reaction on some folks and broad amnesty on the rest, and a loud and resounding "Nevermore." I'm putting my money on the bet that Obama says it's not time yet, health care first. If a SP is in there somewhere someday, well fine. Those bastards will keep. Let 'em sweat and write for the Philly Inky and raise money for their defense. But the separation is a legal nicety, if you ask me.
Posted by: ice9 | October 20, 2009 12:13 PM
I'm no expert, but that strikes me as an unusually blunt and strongly-worded statement among diplomats, especially towards an ally.
Posted by: Scott Hanley | October 20, 2009 12:26 PM
to Michael Heath
yeah...maybe?
I guess I view it in retrospect. My students are 16, 17. They loved Frost/Nixon, so we talked about it after watching All the President's Men. Their retrospective view of Nixon was of a castrated, pathetic, rather deluded old man. I would believe that the pardon was bad if Nixon had been rehabilitated and avoided any reputational consequence, or if the Republican party had not been penalized, or if Robert Bork had been confirmed.
Did the pardon encourage other executives or aparatchiks to misbehave? Neutral, but I'd say not. The type of abuses Nixon and Colson cooked up have not been repeated; if anything, the legal framework that resulted from Watergate has been misused up to and including impeachment. I can see why a prosecution might have changed that...no, I can't. Maybe you can help me with they hypothetical.
Was the long nightmare over? no. The pardon did not have its intended political effect. The republicans didn't succeed in controlling or shifting the issue. It stayed out there; no closure. I fear that a Nixon plea (jail time? not happening.) would have created a false stop, a finality that was not good. So I'm putting my hopes on a political miscalculation, I suppose.
What's the other perspective? I'm looking forward for the opportunity to be the first person ever to be convinced to the contrary by an Internet argument.
ice9
Posted by: ice9 | October 20, 2009 12:50 PM
The Court's position is simple; Bushco directly threatened intelligence sharing if the paragraphs were released - they said that intelligence-sharing would be affected. The tap would be shut off.
The letter dated 30 April 2009 from the CIA to the SIS clearly stopped short of making such a threat; it said simply that intelligence-sharing could be affected. The distinction would/could is vital.
General Jones's letter dated 30 June 2009, written by him at a time when the Foreign Secretary could not but have known the importance of that distinction to the Court, and on specific request of the Foreign Secretary, does not make any change to the wording - instead, he makes quite clear that the April letter represents the considered position of Obamaco. It was open to Obamaco to repeat the threats made by Bushco - it didn't happen. There is a clear whiff off "We'll do what we can to help you out, but this is as far as we can go" about the letter.
Posted by: Robin Levett | October 20, 2009 2:33 PM
Oh, and the earlier ruling was made at a time when no relevant contacts on the issue had been made between the Foreign Secretary and the Obama administration. All the contacts had been pre-inauguration; but the Court understood that Obamaco had confirmed its alignment with Bushco post-inauguration, when it hadn't. The first formal statement of Obamaco's position was the 30 April letter.
Posted by: Robin Levett | October 20, 2009 2:40 PM
ice9 - I think the Ford pardon of Nixon was one of the biggest presidential mistakes in American History in terms of the harm it's caused this country and will continue to do so if President Bush and Vice President Cheney are not prosecuted for their crimes either. Certainly not in the 10, but on the list nonetheless.
I think the Ford pardon solidified the idea and created an impenetrable bulwark that Presidents are above the law and that political damage alone for mischief is punishment enough. I think it has caused Congress to not use their oversight powers on many other matters as they were intended as a check against a President who is behaving illegally, but even worse, unwisely. Congress has since conceded that power.
I think the pardon has provided the type of environment that promotes the Executive Branch for arguing in court for policies that are clearly unconstitutional. I also see a direct tie between the Ford pardon all the way Bush's torture regime and duping the Congress and the American People on the evidence argued for going to war in Iraq.
I say this as someone whose republican values (i.e., a moderate who is decidedly not conservative) are commiserate with Ford's, who presided during my later-teen years. I believe President Ford was a highly under-rated President who made a principled decision on pardoning Nixon. I have seen no evidence the pardon was payment for the office of the Vice Presidency or Presidency nor do I believe Ford had the lack of character necessary to make such a deal, even if implicit. I believe Ford did what he thought was in the best interests of the country.
However, I think President Ford was wrong, horribly wrong, so wrong that we can't even have a proper dialogue in this country about the limits of power of the Office of the Presidency. Office-holders take an oath to defend the Constitution and that very oath by Congress demands that crimes by the President are met with swift and harsh judgment rather than pardons or a looking of the other way - yet today we see such actions as inconceivable - and yes, I make this statement in the full light of the Clinton impeachment proceedings which were never more than a political charade.
This position I take was one that I developed immediately upon its pronouncement. Therefore, it may bias me in the sense that every event where a President usurps his powers causes me to reinforce my preconceived position; I admit I consciously am cognizant of that risk taking place. However I think I do rise above that and instead the ramifications of that decision are instead validated every time I see a President acting as if the law and his obligation to defend the law are the least of his concerns relative to this political ambitions.
Posted by: Michael Heath | October 20, 2009 2:45 PM
I'm with ice9 here: The Pardon was the only way out. There was no way Carter could have managed to set policy if a Nixon trial was imminent or ongoing. That Carter had his own plans for screwing things up is irrelevant.
As to the topic, I have been arguing in favor of trials and hangings for a long time. Lets get all the facts out and then get on with it.
Posted by: kehrsam | October 20, 2009 3:20 PM
kehrsam,
Carter? Pardon?
Posted by: James Hanley | October 20, 2009 4:55 PM
[Disclaimer: If this was said someplace else in the comments I'm sorry.]
My take on the slow pace of change on "National Security Issues" define that as you like, is that the ship of state is more like one of those Carnival Cruise floating resorts than a racing boat (sail or power take your pick). As a result it takes more effort to turn it around and you need to make sure you plot your turn carefully so you don't crush any unsuspecting onlookers. And this is a big turn not a minor course correction.
Posted by: JackU | October 20, 2009 5:17 PM
Instead of locking horns with Michael, a losing proposition if ever there was one, I've been busy with photoshop. It might just be crazy enough to work. If you look closely, (I) the Nobel Committee stashed a little hammer and sickle in Al's beard-swirl.
Fly, my little monkeys! Fly!
ice
http://storyarc.squarespace.com/obama-nobel-medal/
Posted by: ice9 | October 20, 2009 6:53 PM
Most of the comments here seem to concentrate on the US side of the equation. I'd be interested to hear from any UK commenters on this case. Matty usefully posted the actual judgment, but time does not permit me to read it just now.
Viewed from a distance and not having read the judgment, I see it as a UK court finally deciding to do what it is supposed to (actually help the cause of justice) and ignore external political pressure. In theory at least, should not an independent court do exactly that?
On the US part, I must say I am getting increasingly sceptical of the "give Obama time" argument. How much time does he need to reverse blatant injustice and constitution-busting?
Posted by: John Monfries | October 20, 2009 7:48 PM
ice9 @ 20 - I'm cognizant my argument on Ford's pardon is not popular and while I think its an arguable position, thought the same as yours.
I only get aggressive when people are making bad arguments, which I don't remember you ever doing. I probably get frustrated in that regard because it reduces the possibility of having a more meaningful and enlightening dialogue, like me getting an opportunity to hear you and kehrsam present opposing arguments to my position.
Posted by: Michael Heath | October 20, 2009 9:38 PM
I probably shouldn't say this since I'm too lazy to read the entire judgement or go back and read Greenwald, but my takeaway was that the court decided that the UK had requested the US to balk to protect their own butts.
Ice9:
I can't see anything but the roman numeral change. Maybe if you'd started with a better image... In principle, sounds good to send around the toobz.
Posted by: Uncle Glenny | October 20, 2009 10:04 PM
Oh, I have an open mind on Ford and Nixon. You didn't come on too strong, if that's your point. I'm not sure yet what I think. Perspective and contemporaneity are important. I was in junior high when Nixon was pardoned; my mom, the hippie, has never forgiven Ford. But we're talking about my generation now. One thing's sure, I'd like up to hoot and throw fruit at Karl Rove and Dick Cheney in the tumbrels, and as an old Washingtonian I know exactly the route they'll take.
Also I was arguing for pardon as part of my scheme to maneuver Obama into taking the "early pardon" maneuver on Bush--not to let him off the hook, mind you, but to set the hook deeper. Can you imagine the spluttering if Obama, with a straight face, pardoned Dick Cheney? That would be some newsday.
ice
Posted by: ice9 | October 20, 2009 10:08 PM
-a State guy said "We are not pleased."-
Then perhaps the US shouldn't have been caught torturing people.
Posted by: Richard Eis | October 21, 2009 4:29 AM
I haven't read through the whole judgement but one thing worth pointing out is that from a UK perspective this is not a case about the US torturing people so much as British collusion. There are serious accusations that British Agents knew what was happening and instead of objecting provided the torturers with areas of questioning and encouraged them to 'get more information'. I would not be surprised to learn that the government has used US objections to try and set a precedent that their own complicity in this can't be revealed. I also hope that this judgement sets the oposite precedent and we learn the truth about British involvement in this disgrace.
Posted by: Matty | October 21, 2009 4:42 AM
Matty's comment is spot on. Our government has been playing footsie with the truth on a number of very unsavoury things. Most folk here are pretty sure that the collusion with torture is a given - the 'don't ask don't tell' defence if I might use this. There is also the question of how far did they co-operate with special rendition. The CIA certainly used UK airports to re-fuel rendition flights (Prestwick which is relatively off the beaten the track and not too busy) and there has been evasion to say the least about whether this was agreed; the government had to admit that Diego Garcia had been used to hold detainees having previously sworn blind to the contrary; the testimony from detainees makes it clear that there was Britsh intelligence involvement in interrogations, admitedly mostly indirectly in posing questions to be asked.
So the British Government is s**t scared of this unravelling - our Justice Secretary's hands are likely to be a little dirty as he was Foreign Secretary at the time much of this happened and of the course our late lamented Dear Leader (who was roundly booed last night on the West Bank) may see his chances of being President of the EU disappear.
Incidentally if your readers wish to see the full horrors of Diego Garcia google it. This is where the islanders were expelled from their homes to accommodate a US base and the Britsh Government, possibly at your Government's instruction, is refusing to obey court orders to reinstate them. It's hard to contain the anger at this.
Posted by: Richard T | October 21, 2009 5:17 AM
I don't approve of all the secrecy under the pretense of national security; historically such unchecked powers have frequently (if not always) led to widespread abuse and has always been one of the greatest weapons of the worst despots of the past century. The UK isn't exactly innocent either; their police murdered that Brazilian guy then lied to cover themselves and their despicable action has been supported by the chiefs of police and people in government, sending a clear message that it's OK for the police to murder people as long as they claim it was in the interest of national security.
Posted by: MadScientist | October 21, 2009 8:02 AM
@Richard T: Diego Garcia island was a UK military installation and the UK set all the rules; the US came in much later - don't try to blame any but the UK government of the time for stealing the island. It is still an active military base and likely still one of the most secretive; I don't see it being handed back to civilians unless some major natural disaster wipes out the base.
Posted by: MadScientist | October 21, 2009 8:16 AM
I'm in the UK and when I heard about this again one morning last week I wondered if perhaps the US government actually now want it to come out but for political reasons don't want to do it themselves. By having it released by an external party whilst they frown, the US administration gets to avoid a potentially epic bout of political wrangling at home which would overshadow and derail everything else. The court gets to look good by doing what it's supposed to and ultimately the UK government can't stop it directly, doesn't have the political capital to try and is on the way out anyway, so I suspect they've been bigging up the US objections as much as possible. I seem to recall a previous incident when the US government (the previous one) made silly demands at the behest of the UK government so the UK government could try and cover things up...
On the US side of things, I suppose once the information is out it is a lot harder for anyone to argue nothing should be done about it than it is to argue the information shouldn't be released before hand. It would also allow the US government to avoid being pinned down to a particular policy in the future for cases like this as it's an external party doing the releasing, so won't set a precedent for what the US government should do.
It may well not be what is happening but it is plausible - and as we'll never know for sure they could always claim something like this was being done all along, depending on what is politically convenient down the line.
Ahh, politics.
Posted by: Captain Obvious | October 21, 2009 9:57 AM
Re: Nixon pardon, nixon politics:
http://www.balloon-juice.com/?p=28532
ice
Posted by: ice9 | October 21, 2009 9:03 PM