I responded to Michael White's Guardian blog as follows:
"Binyam Mohamed case: would an inquiry clear the air?"| Michael White | Politics | guardian.co.uk http://bit.ly/cjtKqs
The essence of the problem as highlighted finally by the court yesterday and all the activity around paragraph 168 is the suppression of torture information by the UK government. This is not a small matter whose breadth and depth need attention by an inquiry using Binyam Mohammed's case for a foundation.
The great reluctance to accept that torture is a standard inside the UK as well as outside coupled with suppression by the government and those using torture keeps this illusion operating with the help of the mushroom factor in the UK: dark and covered. As a result torture flourishes and keeps growing inside the UK at a level that few want to consider as reality. Until this reluctance barrier is breached, torture will get bigger and worse to the detriment of everyone. For all practical purposes it has ended the democratic state for me along with all its institutions and rule of law.
I speak from the position of a surveillance torture target that started 11.5 years ago and continues as of this writing 24/7/365 for this entire time where national security issues were faked from early 2001 onward (before 9/11) in order to sustain the surveillance torture abuse and included "kidnapping" (shall we say "disappearance"?) which was proposed in May 2001 again before 9/11.
The proposed kidnapping (later to become known as rendition) was blocked by the UK authorities at that time namely one "Paul Winston" whom I believed to be Met Special Branch (now anti-terror unit). Colonel Vine USMC Ret along with Lt Harry Bird USMC Ret proposed and argued for my "kidnapping" citing a previous incident where a target was kidnapped after a Royal Festival Hall concert, made to "disappear" and no one knew anything. This was used as an example of success.
You poo-poo extraordinary rendition based upon a couple flights and some other activity which you consider marginal. That's because it is unknown. The only way to get this into the public domain is to have a full empowered legal inquiry. The same is true for the far more important problem of domestic torture and its imprisonment by surveillance technology inside the UK as a matter of policy about which nothing is in the public domain generally at present.
The courts have finally opened the door to the reality of torture suppression by the UK government. This is a huge problem which the efforts over the past 18 months by David Miliband et al have demonstrated because they have sought to keep everything under wraps. It was worth it for them to take the risk to hide this so that a foot could not get into that door which the courts have now opened a crack.
You may rest assured that every effort is being made to silence me as I write but has never succeeded during all these years. Yet, it still goes on by indefinite surveillance attempts to deny human rights about which the court explicitly stated that these people have no concern. That perverted standard of torture abuse is widespread and will effect more and more over time as it has impacted me for 11.5 years 24/7/365 unless the whole problem of torture as a matter of UK government policy is now addressed thoroughly by an inquiry.
This is the key court statement highlight by John Kampfner:
" 'a real risk of serious damage to national security, of whatever degree, should not automatically trump a public interest in open justice.' "
"of whatever degree" the court said. Once you come to understand the nature, character and extent of UK surveillance torture abuse carried out by US agents thugs of the worst kind imaginable in the UK, the full impact of what the court has decided with regard to the threat to democracy itself inside the UK will sink in. Only a fully empowered legal inquiry will get at all its aspects.
I'm now waiting to see paragraph 168.
