Comment at end
26th February, 2010
Live blog: Criticism of MI5 to be restored to Binyam Mohamed judgment
Haroon Siddique follows reaction to court ruling that criticism of MI5, removed from judgment in Binyam Mohamed case at behest of government, is to be restored.
Mr Siddique says –
So here’s the new paragraph 168, i.e. the new version of the passage that was deleted at the behest of the government. I’ve highlighted some of the key criticisms.
“168. Fourthly, it is also germane that the Security Services had made it clear in March 2005, through a report from the Intelligence and Security Committee, that they operated a culture that respected human rights and that coercive interrogation techniques were alien to the Services’ general ethics, methodology and training(paragraph 9 of the first judgment), indeed they denied that [they] knew of any ill-treatment of detainees interviewed by them whilst detained by or on behalf of the [US] Government” (paragraph 44(ii) of the fourth judgment).
“Yet, in this case, that does not seem to have been true: as the evidence showed, some Security Services officials appear to have a dubious record relating to actual involvement, and frankness about any such involvement, with the mistreatment of Mr Mohamed when he was held at the behest of US officials. I have in mind in particular witness B, but the evidence in this case suggests that it is likely that there were others.
“The good faith of the Foreign Secretary is not in question, but he prepared the certificates partly, possibly largely, on the basis of information and advice provided by Security Services personnel. Regrettably, but inevitably, this must raise the question whether any statement in the certificates on an issue concerning the mistreatment of Mr Mohamed can be relied on, especially when the issue is whether contemporaneous communications to the Security Services about such mistreatment should be revealed publicly.
“Not only is there some reason for distrusting such a statement, given that it is based on Security Services’ advice and information, because of previous, albeit general, assurances in 2005, but also the Security Services have an interest in the suppression of such information.”
Without stepping on too many toes, though I am FULLY aware that I will, I’d like to ask Mr Siddique this:
would Mr Siddique kindly inform us about the native country of his ancestral family? Is their record on securing the safety and human rights of its citizens unquestionable, without blemish? He is not yet listed on Wikipedia but similar spellings of his name are.
For the Article on Siddiqis in the Horn of Africa, see Siddiqis in the Horn of Africa; For the Pakistani scientist and alleged al-Qaeda member convicted in the U.S. of attempted murder, see Aafia Siddiqui.
Siddiqui, (also rendered as Siddiqi, Siddique, Siddiquee, Siddighi, Seddighi or Siddiquie) (Arabic: صدیقی) is a Muslim family name, found in South Asia and the Middle East. Shaikh is an additional title used occasionally by Siddiqui/Siddique to signify their Arab heritage.
The name “Siddiqui” derives from the word Siddiq, which means “truthful” in Arabic. “Al-Siddiq” was the title accorded to Abu Bakr (Arabic: ابو بكر الصديق), the first Khalifa (Caliph) and close friend of Prophet Mohammad. He was the greatest of the Companions or Sahabba and belonged to the Banu Taim clan of the Quraish. The surname “Siddiqui/Siddique” signifies ancestry (purported or otherwise) from Abu Bakr Al-Siddiq (RA).
In South Asia, the name Siddiqui implies membership of the Shaikh community, which is one of the four communities that make up the Ashraf category. Communities that use the surname include Manihar, Muslim Kayasths, Bisati and the Shaikhs
If you are of the opinion that is is un-pc of me to mention this, TOUGH. I know I have no racial prejudices. I also know that I trust my government and security services more than I trust Mr Mohamed or Mr Siddique.
My ancestral home, BRITAIN, did not develop its multi-faceted and liberal thesis on human rights and the protection of its citizens, over CENTURIES, at the behest of such as MR SIDDIQUE. Somehow or other, without his help, we struggled through to become the model for MOST if not ALL modern democracies.
We didn’t need his great insight and assistance in interpreting the relevant facts over the last thousand years or more, and we sure as hell don’t need them now. Our courts are already daft and unbalanced enough without his cheerleading adding to the mix.
Try being truthful and honest in your “reporting” next time, Mr Guardian writer. Don’t just highlight the sections which you, in all your wisdom, think we need to see in order to help YOU in your apparent aim of the discrediting and weakening of OUR security services and our government. After all you live in Britain right now (presumably) – the land where freedom and justice for ALL rules. OK?