In an effort to cover up evidence of the torture of Binyam Ahmed Mohamed, the Bush Administration threatened the National Security of the UK;

"Ordering the disclosure of the US intelligence information now would have only the marginal effects of serious and lasting damage to the US-UK intelligence sharing relationship, and thus the national security of the UK …"

The letters proving the threat were provided to the UK's Channel 4, who broadcast this segment on February 5, 2009;

The Foreign Secretary David Miliband (featured in the above video) denies that it is a threat, but this lie was put to rest by MP Edward Davey, who was also in the British Parliament on February 5th (but not sampled for Channel 4's broadcast);

It obviously is a threat, as summed up by Andrew Sullivan at the Atlantic;

That is a threat to hurt the security of a very close ally unless the British government intervenes into a court process to suppress evidence of US torture. In a critical test of the Obama administration, the demand that such evidence be suppressed was reiterated. (I don't know by whom. Panetta isn't in place yet. Brennan? Clinton?) And that's how illegal torture spreads throughout a legal and military system to undermine alliances as well as the rule of law. The poison of Cheney is still in the system. And it will be for a long time. That was the point: the crimes and blunders they committed were such that their successors find themselves, willy nilly, implicated in them.

Of course, it's worse than that. How do you suppose a British intelligence analyst would interpret this threat?

Consider the CIA's "al Qaeda" operatives, Ali Mohamed, Ramzi Yousef and Luai Sakra. It takes years to groom this kind of sophisticated "faux" terror; and even though British intelligence is up to their asses in the same game, they do not hold all the cards.

In shorthand, the analyst could interpret the threat like this; "We have assets in place. Do as we ask, or suffer the consequences."