http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4509530.stm

Well, the pragmatic part of me wonders about this ruling. But then I realise that, once again, we've had to rely on the Lords to preserve the values behind Britain's traditions. We shouldn't have to - something is seriously deficient in the current government.

They argued evidence obtained in US detention camps should be excluded from court hearings.

It is thought some of the eight men are being held in Belmarsh or other high security prisons, pending deportation, some released on bail and others restricted by the government's new control orders. The Home Office will not confirm precise figures.

The Special Immigration Appeals Commission (SIAC) must now investigate whether evidence against the suspects facing deportation was obtained by torture.

'Hypothetical'

One of the detainees involved in the ruling, Jamel Ajouaou, told BBC News he was grateful to the law lords.

Mr Ajouaou left Britain in December 2001 of his own accord and went home to Morocco.

He said: "It is actually victory. It is not for the detainees. It is for the British people because a great country such as Britain deserves a better law than the law of the jungle."

The home secretary said the government had not been planning to rely on evidence it knew or suspected had been obtained under torture.

Nor did he expect the ruling to affect the outcome of the men's appeals.

Mr Clarke said: "We have always made clear that we do not intend to rely on or present evidence in SIAC, which we know or believe to have been obtained by torture. So this issue is hypothetical."

'Abhorrence'

Lord Bingham, the former Lord Chief Justice, who headed the panel of seven law lords, said English law had abhorred "torture and its fruits" for more than 500 years.

"I am startled, even a little dismayed, at the suggestion (and the acceptance by the Court of Appeal majority) that this deeply-rooted tradition and an international obligation solemnly and explicitly undertaken can be overridden by a statute and a procedural rule which make no mention of torture at all," he said.

Another member of the panel, Lord Carswell, said allowing evidence from torture to be used would "involve the state in moral defilement".

'Momentous'

Lord Carlile, the independent reviewer of the government's terrorism laws, said the ruling reaffirmed the law as most lawyers had assumed it to be.

Evidence in a small number of cases would now be re-examined, he said.

Conservative shadow attorney general Dominic Grieve said the judgement was "a completely correct restatement of a law that has existed for hundreds of years".

And Lib Dem foreign affairs spokesman Sir Menzies Campbell said the "landmark judgement" showed judges had "once again been more effective in defending individual rights than this government".

Key distinctions

Amnesty International said the "momentous" ruling overturned the "tacit belief that torture can be condoned under certain circumstances".

The former British ambassador to Uzbekistan, Craig Murray, said it was untrue the UK Government did not use information from torture.

He had been told the UK did not use torture itself or ask that any specific person be tortured.

"As long as we kept within that guideline, then if the Uzbeks or the Syrians, or the Egyptians or anyone else tortured someone and gave us the information that was OK," said Mr Murray.


Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/h...cs/4509530.stm

Published: 2005/12/08 20:22:04 GMT

© BBC MMV</font>[/QUOTE]

A victory for the cause of the just, or not? I have a problem with arresting people and never giving them a trial -- which is the US practice, despite court orders. But, if you confirm that someone is a terrorist and get life-saving info or knowledge of guilt, I really don't care if you had to knock all his teeth out with a metal bar to do it.

It's the presumption of guilt I'm against, not the torture of terrorists who are known to be guilty (as established by a court of law).

I agree, as long as they can be sure that the answers that are gathered during the torture are true and not just given to prevent further pain.

Yeah, but wouldn't toruture be considered a form of cruel and unusual punishment and therefore be unconstitutional? If so, how can anyone (you in this case T.L.) truly believe in our system of law and at the same time condone torture?

Plus hasn't been more or less proven that torture is an ineffective interrogation technique which leads to false intel?

Inquring minds want to know... [img]smile.gif[/img]

anothr victory for the rule of law

And if its been estabished their guilty, no need for the torture then, is there?

[ 12-08-2005, 08:10 PM: Message edited by: Aragorn1 ]

<font color = lightgreen>I would never use torture as a means of interrogation, because everyone has a breaking point of pain past which they will say anything just to get the pain to stop.

Torture as a means of entertainment is another thing altogether.... [img]graemlins/firedevil.gif[/img] </font>

[ 12-08-2005, 08:25 PM: Message edited by: Azred ]

As far as torture goes, in both my research and talking with anyone who deals with a lot of people who were tortured, I've never run across anyone who thought it was effective for interrogation. This includes folks at the Dept of Justice, psychologists, psychiatrists, asylum lawyers, and a few dozen people who were tortured. I think most Westerners see torture for what it isn't: a Medieval scenario involving a dungeon, a secret, and a lot of nasty tools. I never hear mainstream discussion of torture that's relevant to its modern form (and quite possibly the only form its ever really had): plain and simple state violence on individuals.

And yes, what would normally be considered as torture violates US law if it happens outside of lawful sanctions. That sounds redundant, but most other countries who are party to the Convention Against Torture don't care whether or not torture is legal somewhere to call it torture. Our adoption thus exempts the death penalty from being considered torture, as the definition (in this case: state intentionally causing pain or death) would otherwise count the death penalty as torture. Of course, if certain people change what 'lawful sanctions' entail, we'd be legally set up for something a lot of other nations would call torture (depending on the interpretation of the constitution).

I definitely agree with TL's statement about detainment, though.

First, I don't think torture is necessarily cruel and unusual punishment. You may want to google it, but the 8th Amendment has been pretty much eviscerated over time. I'm not saying what oughta be -- just what IS, for that is a lawyer's first job. You will find that most of my comments begin with "what is" before going to "what oughta be."

Second, I do not know that torture is an ineffective device. Studies show it leads most often to the answer the interrogator wants to hear. I have seen no studies that studied how often it is the case that what the interrogator wants to hear equals what is true. It may, it may not -- but if we require that the torture evidence be backed by physical evidence, we can assure that only the good evidence, however obtained, is pursued.

If we truly believe that it is wrong to convict innocent people, torture cannot be used. If we believe that people who are arrested have rights, torture cannot be used.

It is a fact that people can be badgered into telling lies even by persistent and suggestive interrogation techniques that are not considered torture. If you add in torture that is enough to break even the strong-willed, how accurate is anything such a person tells an interrogator? Sleep deprivation was the favoured method of Stalin's boys when he terrorized the USSR in the 1930s, and there was no need for any beating or burning, either. Leader after leader stood up before kangaroo courts, confessed to treason, and pointed the finger at other blameless people.

Ohhh I'm not to sure about that Lucern, Madame du lash got me to admit I was a very, very naughty boy in record time! But I digress ;)


How do you define torture? Physical pain? Mental torture? Would being kept in jail without trial for over 4 years for interrogation purposes be classed as torture (like the USA does to Australians) or would a week’s physical torture be less cruel in the long run?

If you send you’re prisoners overseas to be tortured, standard USA procedure according to C.Rice, could the evidence still be used because the torture happened elsewhere?