The British government's decision to pursue legal action against Craig Murray (former British ambassador to Uzbekistan) for publishing documents obtained under the 'Freedom of Information (FOI) Act' is making a mockery of the entire system. The documents, exposing 'allied' human rights abuses in the 'War on Terror', were made available to view on his website, and have been used by Murray to support the contents of his recent book Murder in Samarkand.
In his book, Murray claims that the government has obtained key intelligence information by means of torture, and if these documents show – in some way – evidence of any such practice, it is hardly surprising that the British government is quivering at the thought of the information reaching a global audience.
The documents were released on request (as required under the FOI Act), however it was later declared that the majority of these documents were produced by a "servant of the Crown", and as such the Crown owns legal copyright.
This means that, in theory, the contents of the documents are – by law – available to anyone who should request to see them, but – by law – they cannot be reproduced or published without the permission of the Crown. This hypocrisy makes little sense and somewhat ridicules the government's 'gesture' of information 'freedom', effectively blemishing any attempt at transparency. Murray points out that this so-called freedom then becomes controlled: "If accepted, this extraordinary use of copyright could keep literally everything produced by government a secret."
Murray's response to the initial email, received from the treasury on Friday 7 July, makes for an entertaining read – he was advised, on Friday afternoon, to seek legal guidance before formally 'responding' and withdrawing the texts from his website the following Monday – advice which Murray says was "in practice impossible" (and when Murray asked for a more "practical deadline", his request was turned down). A breakdown of email exchanges between Murray and Gareth Buttrill, the Treasury Solicitor, can be viewed here: "As no court has ruled on anything, I would like to know by what power you, acting for the government, can tell me what I "must" do in this respect." (Murray)
If nothing else, the government's alacrity to claim copyright over these documents only goes further in supporting Murray's argument, and proves that the documents are authentic. This episode, I'm sure, will do wonders for the sale of his new book.
