UK govt forced to publish U.S. torture allegations

[seemslikeadream]

UK govt forced to publish U.S. torture allegations

Keith Weir and Michael Holden
LONDON

UK government forced to disclose U.S. torture allegations
Wed, Feb 10 2010
LONDON (Reuters) - The British government lost a legal battle Wednesday to prevent the disclosure of secret U.S. intelligence material relating to allegations of "cruel and inhuman" treatment involving the CIA.

London's Court of Appeal rejected a request by British Foreign Secretary David Miliband to prevent senior judges from disclosing claims that former Guantanamo Bay detainee Binyam Mohamed had been shackled and subjected to sleep deprivation and threats while in U.S. custody.

The office of Dennis Blair, U.S. director of national intelligence, issued a statement saying the British court's decision "to release classified information provided by the United States is not helpful, and we deeply regret it."

"The protection of confidential information is essential to strong, effective security and intelligence cooperation among allies," the statement said. It indicated the ruling would create "challenges" but the two countries would "remain united in our efforts to fight against violent extremist groups."

Miliband had argued that full disclosure of the redacted claims might make the United States less willing to share intelligence and thus prejudice Britain's national security.

Recent events showed the importance of sharing intelligence, and the U.S. authorities were concerned about the release of such material, he told parliament, adding that he was working with U.S. officials to ensure bilateral ties were not damaged.

Mohamed, an Ethiopian national and British resident, was arrested in Pakistan in April 2002. He says he was flown to Morocco on a CIA plane and held for 18 months, during which he says he was repeatedly tortured, including having his penis cut with a knife. Morocco has denied holding him.

He was transferred to Afghanistan in 2004 and later moved to Guantanamo Bay, U.S. authorities have said. He was never charged and returned to Britain in February 2009.

KEY PARAGRAPHS 'REDACTED'

London's High Court ruled in 2008 that the British government must disclose all evidence held against Mohamed.

The court excluded seven sensitive paragraphs supplied by U.S. intelligence services, and judges said later the United States had threatened to end intelligence cooperation if the evidence of alleged torture was released.

But last October, two High Court judges ruled there was "an overwhelming public interest" in releasing the details, a decision the Appeal Court upheld Wednesday.

"The treatment reported ... could be readily contended to be at the very least cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment by the United States authorities," the now public judgment said.

Miliband said the Appeal Court would have upheld the principle that no country should disclose intelligence from another without its agreement -- had the substance of the paragraphs not already been put into the public domain by a U.S. court judgment in a separate case in December.

"Without that disclosure, it is clear that the Court of Appeal would have overturned the Divisional Court's decision to publish the material," Miliband said in a statement.

He told parliament Britain was opposed to torture. "The UK firmly opposes torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment. This is not just about legal obligations, it is also about our values as a nation ..."

Human rights campaigners said the government had gone to great lengths to conceal torture and the Foreign Office had been concerned mainly with saving face.

"These embarrassing paragraphs reveal nothing of use to terrorists but they do show something of the UK government's complicity with the most shameful part of the War on Terror," said Shami Chakrabati, director of rights campaign group Liberty.

[Nordic]

I love how they leave out the part about Binyan Mohammed's genitals being mutilated.

How can they even DISCUSS this case without mentioning the pure sadistic brutality in question here?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2005/aug/0 ... manrights1

'One of them made cuts in my penis. I was in agony'

Benyam Mohammed travelled from London to Afghanistan in July 2001, but after September 11 he fled to Pakistan. He was arrested at Karachi airport on April 10 2002, and describes being flown by a US government plane to a prison in Morocco. These are extracts from his diary.

They cut off my clothes with some kind of doctor's scalpel. I was naked. I tried to put on a brave face. But maybe I was going to be raped. Maybe they'd electrocute me. Maybe castrate me.

They took the scalpel to my right chest. It was only a small cut. Maybe an inch. At first I just screamed ... I was just shocked, I wasn't expecting ... Then they cut my left chest. This time I didn't want to scream because I knew it was coming.

One of them took my penis in his hand and began to make cuts. He did it once, and they stood still for maybe a minute, watching my reaction. I was in agony. They must have done this 20 to 30 times, in maybe two hours. There was blood all over. "I told you I was going to teach you who's the man," [one] eventually said.

They cut all over my private parts. One of them said it would be better just to cut it off, as I would only breed terrorists. I asked for a doctor.

Doctor No 1 carried a briefcase. "You're all right, aren't you? But I'm going to say a prayer for you." Doctor No 2 gave me an Alka-Seltzer for the pain. I told him about my penis. "I need to see it. How did this happen?" I told him. He looked like it was just another patient. "Put this cream on it two times a day. Morning and night." He gave me some kind of antibiotic.

I was in Morocco for 18 months. Once they began this, they would do it to me about once a month. One time I asked a guard: "What's the point of this? I've got nothing I can say to them. I've told them everything I possibly could."

"As far as I know, it's just to degrade you. So when you leave here, you'll have these scars and you'll never forget. So you'll always fear doing anything but what the US wants."

Later, when a US airplane picked me up the following January, a female MP took pictures. She was one of the few Americans who ever showed me any sympathy. When she saw the injuries I had she gasped. They treated me and took more photos when I was in Kabul. Someone told me this was "to show Washington it's healing".

But in Morocco, there were even worse things. Too horrible to remember, let alone talk about. About once a week or even once every two weeks I would be taken for interrogation, where they would tell me what to say. They said if you say this story as we read it, you will just go to court as a witness and all this torture will stop. I eventually repeated what was read out to me.

When I got to Morocco they said some big people in al-Qaida were talking about me. They talked about Jose Padilla and they said I was going to testify against him and big people. They named Khalid Sheikh Mohamed, Abu Zubaidah and Ibn Sheikh al-Libi [all senior al-Qaida leaders who are now in US custody]. It was hard to pin down the exact story because what they wanted changed from Morocco to when later I was in the Dark Prison [a detention centre in Kabul with windowless cells and American staff], to Bagram and again in Guantánamo Bay.

They told me that I must plead guilty. I'd have to say I was an al-Qaida operations man, an ideas man. I kept insisting that I had only been in Afghanistan a short while. "We don't care," was all they'd say.

I was also questioned about my links with Britain. The interrogator told me: "We have photos of people given to us by MI5. Do you know these?" I realised that the British were sending questions to the Moroccans. I was at first surprised that the Brits were siding with the Americans.

On August 6, I thought I was going to be transferred out of there [the prison]. They came in and cuffed my hands behind my back.

But then three men came in with black masks. It seemed to go on for hours. I was in so much pain I'd fall to my knees. They'd pull me back up and hit me again. They'd kick me in my thighs as I got up. I vomited within the first few punches. I really didn't speak at all though. I didn't have the energy or will to say anything. I just wanted for it to end. After that, there was to be no more first-class treatment. No bathroom. No food for a while.

During September-October 2002, I was taken in a car to another place. The room was bigger, it had its own toilet, and a window which was opaque.

They gave me a toothbrush and Colgate toothpaste. I was allowed to recover from the scalpel for about two weeks, and the guards said nothing about it.

Then they cuffed me and put earphones on my head. They played hip-hop and rock music, very loud. I remember they played Meat Loaf and Aerosmith over and over. A couple of days later they did the same thing. Same music.

For 18 months, there was not one night when I could sleep well. Sometimes I would go 48 hours without sleep. At night, they would bang the metal doors, bang the flap on the door, or just come right in.

They continued with two or three interrogations a month. They weren't really interrogations, more like training me what to say. The interrogator told me what was going on. "We're going to change your brain," he said.

I suffered the razor treatment about once a month for the remaining time I was in Morocco, even after I'd agreed to confess to whatever they wanted to hear. It became like a routine. They'd come in, tie me up, spend maybe an hour doing it. They never spoke to me. Then they'd tip some kind of liquid on me - the burning was like grasping a hot coal. The cutting, that was one kind of pain. The burning, that was another.

In all the 18 months I was there, I never went outside. I never saw the sun, not even once. I never saw any human being except the guards and my tormentors, unless you count the pictures they showed me.

They just conveniently ignore this.

[DoYouEverWonder]

Miliband had argued that full disclosure of the redacted claims might make the United States less willing to share intelligence and thus prejudice Britain's national security.

Actually, they might be better off without our cocked up, sexed up, bogus intel.

[Seamus OBlimey]

Actually, they might be better off without our cocked up, sexed up, bogus intel.

Let's hope this judgement is an indication that some are seeing that 'cos frankly we're well able to cook up our own..

If only we could do without the.. [insert current most favoured nation]

Thanks Nordic, I'd missed or forgotten that but..

Later, when a US airplane picked me up the following January, a female MP took pictures. She was one of the few Americans who ever showed me any sympathy. When she saw the injuries I had she gasped. They treated me and took more photos when I was in Kabul. Someone told me this was "to show Washington it's healing".

Is this some kinda human vivisection to show Washington? Your dick will heal after the implant surgery.. and again if it has to be corrected later.

WT?

[American Dream]

The Seven Paragraphs

Released Binyan Mohamed Abuse Evidence Poses Problems for Both British and US Governments

February 11, 2010

By Stephen Soldz

Stephen Soldz's ZSpace Page
In a major development in the struggle to curb the abuses committed as part of the War on Terror, the British government today released under court order previously redacted information on the abuse of Binyan Mohamed by US interrogators. Here are the seven paragraphs that were released which summarizes intelligence information which both the British and US governments fought hard to suppress:

"It was reported that a new series of interviews was conducted by the United States authorities prior to 17 May 2002 as part of a new strategy designed by an expert interviewer.

"v) It was reported that at some stage during that further interview process by the United States authorities, BM had been intentionally subjected to continuous sleep deprivation. The effects of the sleep deprivation were carefully observed.

"vi) It was reported that combined with the sleep deprivation, threats and inducements were made to him. His fears of being removed from United States custody and "disappearing" were played upon.

"vii) It was reported that the stress brought about by these deliberate tactics was increased by him being shackled in his interviews

"viii) It was clear not only from the reports of the content of the interviews but also from the report that he was being kept under self-harm observation, that the interviews were having a marked effect upon him and causing him significant mental stress and suffering.

"ix) We regret to have to conclude that the reports provide to the SyS [security services] made clear to anyone reading them that BM was being subjected to the treatment that we have described and the effect upon him of that intentional treatment.

"x) The treatment reported, if had been administered on behalf of the United Kingdom, would clearly have been in breach of the undertakings given by the United Kingdom in 1972. Although it is not necessary for us to categorise the treatment reported, it could readily be contended to be at the very least cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment by the United States authorities."

This case has aroused tremendous attention in Britain, as it clearly revealed British intelligence agents', and the British Government's, complicity in abuse of a British citizen. The British public, unlike much of the American, finds complicity in torture by its intelligence agents to be deeply disturbing.

The court decision ordering the release of this material is causing additional outrage because it violated hundreds of years of legal precedent in allowing only one side, the British government, to suggest changes in the decision. These changes were made without an opportunity of the defense to object. The letter to the court from the government lawyers requesting the changes was released, however. That letter gives a sense of what was excluded:

"The Master of the Rolls's observations… will be read as statements by the Court (i) that the Security Service does not in fact operate a culture that respects human rights or abjures participation in coercive interrogation techniques; (ii) that this was in particular true of Witness B whose conduct was in this respect characteristic of the service as a whole ('it appears likely that there were others'); (iii) that officials of the Service deliberately misled the Intelligence and Security Committee on this point; (iv) that this reflects a culture of suppression in its dealings with the Committee, the Foreign Secretary and indirectly the Court, which penetrates the service to such a degree as to undermine any UK government assurances based on the Service's information and advice; and (v) that the Service has an interest in suppressing information which is shared, not by the Foreign Secretary himself (whose good faith is accepted), but by the Foreign Office for which he is responsible."

Thus, the British government is afraid that the lies they perpetrated in the Binyan Mohamed case will disincline future courts from believing claims that the British government can be trusted when it asserts that they are opposed to torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. In other words, the court might correctly understand that the British government, like the US and many other governments, is a serial liar when it comes to abuses committed by its agents.

What may be less clear to US citizens is the potential enormous impact of the released information to the anti-torture struggle in the US. Marcy Wheeler [emptywheel] has pointed out the major significance of the apparent timing of Binyan Mohamed's abuse. It is reported to have occurred before a visit by an MI5 officer on May 17, 2002. The significance of the date is that it is before the Justice Department Office of Legal Counsel memos providing a legal cover for torture were issued in august, 2002.Thus, Binyan Mohamed's abuse, unlike later abuses, cannot be justified as being conducted in good faith under an authoritative legal opinion from the OLC.

Thus, this information just might provide an opportunity for prosecuting some of the torture perpetrators. And if the perpetrators are culpable, so may be those officials, however high they may be, who authorized the abuse.

Wheeler also points out that it is likely that the "expert interviewer" who designed the "new strategy" used on Binyan Mohamed was likely one of the CIA's chief torture psychologists, James Mitchell or Bruce Jessen, or at least an associate of theirs. Thus, these architects of the CIA's torture techniques may sweat a bit more after the release of these seven paragraphs.

The material released today also has several phrases that suggest that Binyan Mohamed was being experimented upon. As the material staes, tThe interrogations were "part of a new strategy designed by an expert interviewer." And "The effects of the sleep deprivation were carefully observed." Why were these effects being "carefully observed" unless to determine their effectiveness in order to see whether they should be inflicted used upon others? That is, the observations were designed to generate knowledge that could be generalized to other prisoners. The seeking of "generalizable knowledge" is the official definition of "research," raising the question of whether the CIA conducted illegal research upon Binyan Mohamed.

Last summer Physicians for Human Rights suggested that materials in the then released CIA Inspector General's report on the "enhanced interrogation" program suggested that the CIA had an systematic program of research. Such research is patently illegal and violates the rules that have governed human research since the Nuremberg Trials convicted German doctors for illegal research. This CIA research also violates rules of the US government regulating all research on people.

Similarly, bioethicist Steven Miles argued in an appendix to the second edition of his classic Oath Betrayed: America's Torture Doctors that the detailed interrogation log of Mohammed al-Qahtan only made sense as the notes for a research protocol.

This new evidence on the torture of Binyan Mohamed adds to the considerable evidence that, as part of its torture program, the CIA also had a program to systematically study the effectiveness of torture techniques. Last summer, Physicians for Human Rights called for an independent investigation of this potential CIA research. The new evidence suggesting that Binyan Mohamed may have been an unwitting research subject only adds to the urgency of an investigation.

In addition to the usual human rights advocates, all those who conduct research on people -- psychologists, sociologists, anthropologists, and biomedical researchers among others -- should join the call for an investigation. For torture effectiveness research violates all the principles that guide our work, that our efforts should improve human welfare rather than degrade and destroy. We cannot allow the possibility that our society will remain one where inhumane research can be conducted with total impunity.



Stephen Soldz is a psychoanalyst, psychologist, public health researcher, and faculty member at the Boston Graduate School of Psychoanalysis. He edits the Psyche, Science, and Society blog. He is a founder of the Coalition for an Ethical Psychology, one of the organizations working to change American Psychological Association policy on participation in abusive interrogations. He is President-Elect of Psychologists for Social Responsibility [PsySR].


From: Z Net - The Spirit Of Resistance Lives
URL: http://www.zcommunications.org/the-seve ... phen-soldz

[seemslikeadream]

U.S. Prisoner Tortured With Eminem Songs
By Daniel Dominguez on February 11th, 2010


We all saw that one coming. For a good long while now Eminem has been releasing music that seems intentionally designed to be used in conjunction with electrical shocks and sleep deprivation. Secret documents detailing the U.S. directed torture of Binyam Mohamed have been released, revealing that Mohamed was forced to listen to Enimen (featuring Dr. Dre) on repeat for twenty straight days, while intermittently hanging him by his wrists and beating him.

An unofficial CIA source has said the twenty straight days of Eminem punctuated by beatings was, “a misguided attempt to get Mohamed into Hip Hop.”

This isn’t the first time the CIA has unsuccessfully attempted to get people into Hip Hop. There was also the time they tried to get Richard Reid (the shoe bomber) into Kanye West by super-gluing an Ipod to his ears and shocking him with a cattle prod every time he tried to turn down “Gold Digger”.

When the torturers tired of forcing Slim Shady down Mohamed’s throat they replaced Eminem with, and I quote, “Halloween sounds” and “ghost laughter”. This is in direct defiance of the Geneva convention which explicitly states, “You are only allowed to use spooky Halloween sounds to torture someone if it is actually Halloween. Further, dressing up like a rabbit with a bow tie and surprising the torturee with a basket of chocolate eggs may only be done on Easter, or on other rabbit related holidays.”

When Mohamed was transferred to Morocco he was then subjected to having his genitals repeatedly sliced with a razor which Mohamed described to reporters as, “It was bad, but not nearly as bad as Eminem’s ‘Encore’. At least when your genitals are being sliced with a razor you don’t have to listen to outdated Pee Wee Herman references and simple-minded neurotic posturing.”

The whole thing is frankly bad form. I always feel like its important to at the very least charge someone before you take razors to their genitals. I’m willing to bet if Thomas Jefferson was alive today he would in all likelihood say, “Truly, hold off on ye genital cutting until we’ve gotten the facts straight. Also, while you’re at it, someone bring me a delicious slave to kiss.”

Binyam Mohamed case: Devil in the details around paragraph 168
Foreign office barrister requested that 'exceptionally damaging criticism' of the security services be removed from judgment


After seven previous court judgments on Binyam Mohamed's case, spanning two continents, the world's attention was today fixed on one 21-line paragraph, numbered "paragraph 168".

Detailing some of the most damning findings on the conduct of the security services ever made by an English court, it was sent out to parties in the case at 2.45pm last Friday.

The judgment was in draft form and password protected and was accompanied by an instruction that any parties who objected to its content should write to the court and, if necessary, arrange an "oral hearing".

On Monday the barrister acting for the Foreign Office did so. Jonathan Sumption QC sent a letter to the court requesting a change to the judgment. Describing paragraph 168 as "exceptionally damaging criticism" of the security services, he requested that the remarks be removed from the final version because they were "likely to receive more public attention than any other part of the judgments.

"If the observations in the draft judgment appear in the final version, the publicity likely to be given to them would be highly prejudicial to any criminal proceedings that might subsequently be brought," Sumption added.

The letter was copied to Dinah Rose QC, the barrister for Binyam Mohamed, but lawyers for all the other parties in the case say they were not aware of the changes to the judgment until yesterday, when an email was sent by Sumption's clerk.

By then Lord Neuberger had retracted paragraph 168 from his draft, assuming that the other parties had been informed and chosen not to make their own representations on the matter.

He was relying on almost 400 years of jurisprudence, which establishes the constitutional principle that there should be no secret communication between lawyers and courts in legal proceedings.

The case of Ship Money, brought by Oliver Cromwell's cousin John Hampden in 1637, established the rule, which is always observed in legal proceedings without specific directions from the court.

In this case, however, Sumption's requests were reflected in the retraction of paragraph 168 without many of the parties, including the Guardian, New York Times, Washington Post, and the human rights organisations Liberty and Justice, being given a chance to respond.

"In all the years I was first a government lawyer and then a Liberty lawyer I have never known the draft judgment process abused in this way," said Shami Chakrabarti, director of Liberty, which was a party to the case. "The purpose of using drafts is for typographical and factual corrections – minor matters such as names and dates. It is not to allow one party to rerun substantive arguments and tempt a court to tone down or change its judgments.

"I can't believe that the Foreign Office thought they could get away with this. It shows the kind of contempt for the law that this case has always been about."

"This is anti-constitutional behaviour of the most disquieting kind," said Mark Stephens, who represented American newspapers and the freedom of expression group Index on Censorship.

This morning, Neuberger said: "I think it was over-hasty to amend that written request of one party, without giving other parties the opportunity to reply."

The court has now given the parties until Friday to make submissions about whether paragraph 168 should stay in the final judgment.

Answering questions in the House of Commons today, the foreign secretary, David Miliband, defended the attempt to have the paragraph removed.

But others claim that using the draft judgment process to avoid government embarrassment is an abuse of process.

"It is particularly inappropriate that the government has used the draft judgment procedure in an attempt to mollify what are plainly very serious criticisms of its own conduct," a joint letter from Liberty and Justice has told the court.

[semper occultus]

I was also questioned about my links with Britain. The interrogator told me: "We have photos of people given to us by MI5. Do you know these?" I realised that the British were sending questions to the Moroccans. I was at first surprised that the Brits were siding with the Americans.

That surprises you why ??!

[Simulist]

I love how they leave out the part about Binyan Mohammed's genitals being mutilated.

Indeed.

The phrase "Proud to be an American" makes me want to vomit.

[tal]

MI5 Boss Hits Back at Torture Claims in Unprecedented Attack

An orchestrated establishment attack was mounted yesterday on the judge who effectively accused MI5 of complicity in the torture of terror suspects overseas.

Not only did Home Secretary Alan Johnson hit out at the 'baseless, groundless' claims, but the head of MI5 itself took the highly unusual decision to defend his officers in public.

The pair were joined by the head of Westminster's Intelligence and Security Committee, who said he did not know what Master of the Rolls Lord Neuberger 'was playing at'.

War of words: Hon Mr Justice Neuberger's claims that MI5 knew British resident Binyam Mohamed was tortured by the CIA in Afghanistan were dismissed as 'baseless' by Alan Johnson

Lord Neuberger's judgment concluded that MI5 knew British resident Binyam Mohamed was tortured by the CIA in Afghanistan.

He accused the security agency of having a culture of disregarding human rights, and of misleading a parliamentary inquiry.


Jonathan Evans has strongly rejected claims there is a 'culture of suppression' within the MI5

Mr Johnson said yesterday: 'The security services in our country do not practise torture, they do not endorse torture, they don't encourage others to torture on our behalf, they don't collude in torture. Full stop. What we have to get back to is ensuring that our security services are treated fairly.

'People can make their arguments and their assertions but that shouldn't be taken by some commentators in the media as true simply because someone has said it's true.

'They're baseless, groundless, and there's no evidence to back them up.'

MI5 director-general Jonathan Evans, who very rarely comments in public, said Lord Neuberger's suggestion that there was a was a 'culture of suppression' within MI5 was 'the precise opposite of the truth'.

The claim appeared in a seven-paragraph section of the ruling that was withdrawn after intervention from Government lawyers, but which later leaked out.

Mr Evans said MI5 was simply seeking to protect the country from 'enemies who would use all the tools and their disposal - including propaganda - to attack'.

Meanwhile ex-minister Kim Howells, who heads the Intelligence and Security Committee which has investigated the torture allegations, said: 'I don't know what the Master of the Rolls is doing or playing at.


'What I am telling you is that our completely independent investigations don't seem to confirm that the agencies are involved in any way in torture or complicity in torture.'

The seven paragraphs of intelligence about Mohamed's treatment were published after judges rejected the Government's attempt to stop it on the grounds it would damage intelligence-sharing with the U.S.

The backlash to the judgment came on the same day as a letter was published by Mr Johnson and David Miliband saying it was 'disgraceful' to suggest that the UK aided or turned a blind eye to torture.



They admit in the letter that operating guidance to British intelligence officers was altered at some point after 9/11 when it 'became clear' that the CIA had 'changed the rules of engagement'.

Mr Evans raised the same subject, saying he accepted that 'the British intelligence community was slow to detect the emerging pattern of U.S. mistreatment of detainees after September 11'.

But LibDem leader Nick Clegg said the comments in the letter 'raised far more questions than answers'.

Mr Clegg said: 'We must know who in Britain knew the U.S. had changed the rules on torture, when they knew and what action they took.

'We can only conclude that the security services either kept the information to themselves, or they informed ministers who failed to act immediately. Both of these would suggest at best a cover-up and at worst collusion in torture.

'Knowledge of Britain's potential complicity in torture looks likely to have gone to the very top of Government.'Yesterday human rights group Reprieve hit back at the 'absolutely extraordinary' criticism of Lord Neuberger, saying that judges were not 'rabble rousers'.

Executive director Clare Algar said: 'It has been made very clear that the intelligence services did know that Binyam was suffering cruel and unusual punishment and then he disappeared and the intelligence services continued to send questions to be asked of him in U.S. control wherever he might be.'


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250385/MI5-boss-hits-torture-claims-unprecedented-attack.html#

[Simulist]

The backlash to the judgment came on the same day as a letter was published by Mr Johnson and David Miliband saying it was 'disgraceful' to suggest that the UK aided or turned a blind eye to torture.

Since the UK government has aided in the murder and ruination of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives in a senseless war that should never have been fought — and continues to turn a blind eye to the suffering of those who remain — why should anyone doubt that the UK might have aided in or turned a blind eye to almost anything else? It certainly isn't "disgraceful" to wonder.

The United States has revealed itself to be a thoroughly despicable and untrustworthy government. The United Kingdom has also. Why should anyone trust the word of either of them?