Hillary Clinton Threatens to Cut Intelligence Sharing With the U.K.

Well, so much for that famed "special relationship" between the United States and Great Britain. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has threatened to end intelligence sharing with Britain if its High Court publishes findings that would implicate the United States in a high-profile torture case.


At issue are seven paragraphs in the testimony of one Binyam Mohamed. Mohamed is a U.K. resident who was detained by the United States government on suspicion of terrorism shortly after 9/11 and spent 6½ years in prison in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Morocco and Guantánamo Bay. The contentious seven paragraphs are a summary of 42 CIA documents, which are said to include American admissions that the CIA tortured Mohamed while he was in its custody. Mohamed has also claimed that British intelligence agents knew about and were complicit in his torture in Pakistan, Afghanistan and Morocco.

The British judges were so astonished by Clinton's threat -- as conveyed to them by Foreign Secretary David Milliband's attorney, Karen Steyn -- that they actually sent Milliband a transcript of their hearing with Steyn over the weekend. They wanted him to confirm whether he really meant that the United States government would consider cutting off crucial intelligence-sharing with the U.K. -- thereby placing British citizens' lives at risk -- in order to keep this information out of the public domain.

In the judges' view, the seven paragraphs do not pose any national security threat to the United States. They "merely" confirm criminal acts of torture. As such, Secretary Clinton's request is -- as one judge put it -- nothing short of "an exercise of naked political power."

And it's not only the judges who are a bit miffed by this latest round of American muscle-flexing. After 10 years in which Tony Blair was not-so-affectionately described as George W. Bush's "poodle" (for Blair's unwavering support of the war in Iraq), commentators and human rights groups are livid that the U.K. is once again appearing to buckle to American pressure. As one columnist noted cynically when the Mohamed case first broke: "Our Government was prepared to fabricate threats posed by Saddam Hussein to justify America's invasion of Iraq and our own involvement in the war. Helping America to question terror suspects is small beer by comparison."

Yesterday, the Parliament's cross-party Committee on Human Rights called for a formal inquiry to investigate allegations that British intelligence and security agencies have been complicit in torture. Indeed, the Mohamed case is but one of several active cases in which British intelligence officials are accused of complicity in the detention and torture of citizens and residents while abroad.

In short, just as the clamor continues to grow in the United States for a bipartisan torture probe, so too are Brits eager to ask of their own government: "What did you know and when did you know it?"

Ironically, all of this comes just when President Obama finally seems poised to make good on his promise to close down Guantánamo. Last week, Ireland agreed to accept two Gitmo detainees. And administration officials are reportedly exploring bringing hundreds of the remaining detainees to a civilian-military prison in the United States to be held and tried.

I'm afraid that Guantánamo is proving to be the gift that just keeps on giving -- on both sides of the Atlantic. But don't despair. There's good news here too. The North Koreans may have mocked Hillary for her schoolgirl/pensioner ways. But over here in Britain, this latest move leaves no doubt that she's a full-fledged grown-up.