Purchase today

Enter your email address here to receive updates from the team.

Jobs

User login

The Staggers

The New Statesman’s rolling politics blog

RSS

Binyam Mohamed: standing up for what is right

Richard Littlejohn is wrong to suggest that 9/11 justifies Mohamed's incarceration.

By Yo Zushi Published 12 February 2010 12:41

In a recent comment piece, the Daily Mail goombah Richard Littlejohn accuses those who criticise the treatment of the former Guantanamo Bay prisoner Binyam Mohamed of trying to "undermine our security services and destroy our special relationship with the US". His headline is deliberately misleading: "How should we grill terrorists -- with a cuddle and a cup of tea?"

Mohamed, who spent five years in Gitmo only to be released without charge, was not a terrorist. To present him as such is simply dishonest. The UK Court of Appeal ruled this month that he had been subjected to "cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment" by his captors; even David Miliband has conceded that "there were practices that were unacceptable to us to which he was subjected".

Yet Littlejohn's response is typically tenuous: "His treatment wasn't pretty, but it has to be put in context of the 3,000 people killed in the worst-ever terrorist attack on US soil." But why? Mohamed wasn't responsible for the 11 September 2001 attacks. He was arrested on a charge of visa violation.

Evidence held by the Foreign Office, which had been suppressed until the government was forced to disclose the information on 10 February, reveals that the UK Security Service knew Mohamed was being deprived of sleep and shackled during interrogation. In January 2004, over a year after his capture, he was transferred from Morocco to a secret, CIA-run prison near Kabul.

He described his incarceration there for the human rights campaign group Reprieve:

It was pitch black, no lights on in the rooms for most of the time. They hung me up for two days. My legs had swollen. My wrists and hands had gone numb. There was loud music, Slim Shady [by Eminem] and Dr Dre for 20 days. Then they changed the sounds to horrible ghost laughter and Halloween sounds. At one point, I was chained to the rails for a fortnight. The CIA worked on people, including me, day and night. Plenty lost their minds. I could hear people knocking their heads against the walls and the doors, screaming their heads off.

Interviewed on the BBC's Newsnight, David Miliband said: "All of us who are decent, good British citizens . . . never want to see cruel and inhuman treatment that contravenes our legal obligations, or the morality of this country." That is why the allegation that MI5 colluded in his mistreatment -- by feeding his torturers questions -- is so disturbing.

Miliband might try to worm the UK intelligence services out of admitting any complicity; and Littlejohn might idiotically dismiss "any concern about the Binman's 'yuman rites' " -- but I like to think that most Britons take pride in their commitment to fairness, and to what is right.

Follow the New Statesman team on Twitter.

Tags: human rights Guantanamo

More from Yo Zushi

View the discussion thread.

8 comments

Sat, 2010-03-27 17:03 — gi joe (not verified)

can someone please tell me where mr mohammed got the money to go on his tour of afghanistan, and how did he know where to go, to get to the terror training camp he spent time at.

Sun, 2010-02-14 12:28 — gerry (not verified)

Fcats we can agree on:
1)Richard Littlejohn is loathsome
2.Binyam Mohammed was in Pakistan to "study" Islam
3.He associated with known jihadists and other Islamic extremists
Let us call Islamic extremism, jihadism, fundamentalism by its correct ideological name - it is pure fascism. Fascism Islamic style means - murder of non combatants,theological justification of suicide murder, destruction of free speech, hatred of the secular, the liberal, the tolerant. The world Binyam Mohamed and his friends want to create is one Hitler,Khomeini, The Interahmamwe, the Janjaweed, Pol Pot, Stalin and Mao would recognise as one their own.
And now Liberty, Reprieve, and the New Statesman (meant to be secular and liberal) are in alliance with Binyam Mohammed and Islamic extremism, doing fascism's work for it, undermining freedom and democracy, and all of this being paid for by the british taxpayer! Bin Laden must be splitting his sides!

Sun, 2010-02-14 12:50 — swatantra

It would be intereting to learn what Binyam Mohamads present view of 'jihad' is after his terrifying experiences. But the question remains: how far down the line must you go before a 'thought crime' becomes a threat to the state
and at what point should the state intervene to prevent an utter catastrophy and loss of life occuring. And 'thought crimes' generally involve an element of conspiracy.

Fri, 2010-02-12 13:26 — LadyRoisin (not verified)

Since the CIA did 9/11, and blew up their own building with all evidence at the same time,why should we put any more innocents behind bars. See infowars.com. Checkout the ambulances, debris, seats,bits of bodies of the plane that crashed into the P***agon

Fri, 2010-02-12 16:02 — swatantra

We have never had a proper explanation from Binyan Mohamed as to what exactly he was doing in Pakistan? when he was 'picked up' by the Intelligence Services. The recent decision to release X from prison on a miscarriage of justice because he was only doing 'research' and could not be convicted of just a 'thought crime', shows that the Courts are out of kilter with the Govts thinking. Of course torture cannot be condoned it is reprehensible and Britain unlike the USA does not indulge in it, neither does Britain connive with the USA as has been denied by the Head of MI5 and Milliband. But the Courts and Parliament need to get a common understanding of what constitutes 'terrorism' and a 'terrorist crime' f we are to put the uilty men away.

Fri, 2010-02-12 16:56 — rayppoklop

Swatantra:
I agree, current terrorism laws are so loose and badly defined that miscarriages of justice are bound to occur. In fact, the very notion of a "terrorist" is so ideologically charged that it has little objective meaning (on a related note, see Tariq Ramadan's discourse on "extremism" in the 15 Feb issue -- the essay, which is on this website, is called "Good Muslim, bad Muslim").

Sat, 2010-02-13 10:13 — Petra S (not verified)

Ugh. Littlejohn is a nasty piece of work. And torture is never justified.

Sat, 2010-02-13 16:41 — gerry (not verified)

I too think Richard Littlejohn is loathsome...but Binyam Mohammed should be noone's idea of a cause celebre! He came to the UK as an asylum seeker in 1994 but is clearly an Islamic extremist who at the very least went to Pakistan to "study" the pure/Taliban variety of Islam (which as we all know detests secularism, womens rights, free speech, freedom in general). Now we have the repulsive sight of Liberty, Reprieve, Amnesty etc in alliance with this Taliban supporting extremist, who may not have actually carried out himself acts of terror, but clearly shares their agenda and methods. Binyam Mohammed's Islamic jihadi extremist friends have carried out numerous beheadings, murders of non combatants, suicide bombings, even using disabled people and children to kill. An enemy such as this should not in any way be supported by these organisations: would they have flocked to the banner of Eichmann or Bormann if alleged that the Nazi hunters had mistreated them? Fascism Islamic style is no different from the German/Italian original..liberals, socialists and leftists should not get into bed with jihadists!