US threats re: disclosure of torture evidence

[sixfour]

US threats mean evidence of British resident's Guantánamo torture must stay secret, judges rule

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/feb/04/guantanamo-torture

what the?? If this is true, this is sickening.

[deca]

same trick they pulled over the BAE Saudi dogie deal

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/jan/19/bae.saudiarabia

In London the attorney-general, Lord Goldsmith, admitted that Sir John Scarlett, the head of MI6, had never possessed intelligence that Saudi Arabia planned to cut security links with Britain.

This admission appears to undermine government claims that Britain's national security was at stake unless the SFO inquiry was called off. Lord Goldsmith conceded to the Liberal Democrats that Sir John "did not say that the Saudis would be bound to withdraw cooperation". He said he had personally approached Sir John to convey Mr Blair's view that the police inquiry should be dropped.

"Certainly no one disagreed with the overall assessment that the Saudi threats were real," he said, adding that that Sir John's "view was that the Saudis might withdraw their cooperation if the SFO investigation continued and that they could decide to do so at any time".

[whiterain]

its now illegal to say we have done anything illegal dont ya know

[whiterain]

also notice that when the US does something good, its labelled as OBAMA DID yet when something as sick as this happens his name is kept out of it.

[gilly]

"The International Commission of Jurists has strongly urged the US to withdraw its opposition to the release of evidence on the alleged torture of a former British Guantanamo Bay detainee."

http://www.newsdaily.com/stories/tre5152ic-us-britain-usa-lawyers/

I've never heard of the ICJ before...does anyone know if they have any clout?