View Full Version : Law Lords Rule on Torture Evidence
Agrajag
12-08-2005, 11:32 AM
From http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4509530.stm, hopefully j2 will accept that the BBC report accurately, even if he rejects The Scotsman out of hand.
Lords reject torture evidence use
Secret evidence which might have been obtained by torture cannot be used against terror suspects in UK courts, the law lords have ruled.
The ruling means the home secretary will have to review all cases where evidence from other countries might have been obtained in this way.
It is a victory for eight men who were previously detained without charge.
The government says it does not use evidence it knows to have been obtained by torture.
Human rights
Thursday's ruling centres on how far the government must go to show improper methods have not been used.
The Court of Appeal ruled last year that such evidence could be used if UK authorities had no involvement.
But eight of the 10 foreign terror suspects who were being held without charge, backed by human rights groups, challenged that ruling.
They argued evidence obtained in US detention camps should be excluded.
The Special Immigration Appeals Court (SIAC) must now investigate whether evidence was obtained by torture, the seven law lords have said in a unanimous ruling.
'Moral defilement'
In his judgement, Lord Carswell said: "The duty not to countenance the use of torture by admission of evidence in judicial proceedings must be regarded as paramount and to allow its admission would shock the conscience, abuse or degrade the proceedings and involve the state in moral defilement."
Daily Telegraph legal correspondent Joshua Rozenberg told BBC News 24 the ruling was a "very significant blow for the government".
He said it would not be enough for suspects simply to say the evidence against them had been obtained under torture - it was up to SIAC to investigate their claims.
But if the government was not prepared to say where evidence has come from, it must find other evidence to justify their continued detention.
'Momentous'
Sir Menzies Campbell, Lib Dem foreign affairs spokesman, said: "This will be seen as a landmark judgement. In trenchant language the highest court in the land has rejected evidence obtained by torture."
He said it showed "an independent judiciary has once again been more effective in defending individual rights than this government".
Amnesty International described the ruling as a "momentous," saying it overturned the "tacit belief that torture can be condoned under certain circumstances".
"This ruling shreds any vestige of legality with which the UK government had attempted to defend a completely unlawful and reprehensible policy, introduced as part of its counter-terrorism measures.
"The UK judiciary must now re-examine where 'evidence' extracted under torture may have been used in previous proceedings."
Shami Chakrabarti, director of civil rights pressure group Liberty, said: "This is an incredibly important day, with the law lords sending a signal across the democratic world that there is to be no compromise on torture.
"This is also an important message about what distinguishes us from dictators and terrorists. We will not legitimise evidence obtained by torture by using it in our justice system."
Home Secretary Charles Clarke has previously said he would deport anyone considered a threat to national security but suspects have the right of appeal to SIAC.
It would appear that our Government is condoning the use of torture, at the very least "turning a blind eye". Our Judiciary however is saying "no, it is wrong, that is all". It is a happy circumstance that they are in a position to do so.
Please note that they have not said that we must assume that evidence was obtained by torture, it is not enough for a suspect to claim this. Any such claim must be investigated, prior to a decision on whether the evidence is admissable or not.
Democracy > Dictatorship.
Busyman
12-08-2005, 01:49 PM
The judiciary almost always puts the government in check. I'm not at all surprised by this.
The U.S. judicial system disallows evidence obtained under duress.
This is not new.
Judiciary trumps.
The judiciary almost always puts the government in check. I'm not at all surprised by this.
The U.S. judicial system disallows evidence obtained under duress.
This is not new.
Judiciary trumps.Agreed.
But then some people who don't like the decisions claim that the judiciary are making laws. Go figure.
Busyman
12-08-2005, 05:19 PM
The judiciary almost always puts the government in check. I'm not at all surprised by this.
The U.S. judicial system disallows evidence obtained under duress.
This is not new.
Judiciary trumps.Agreed.
But then some people who don't like the decisions claim that the judiciary are making laws. Go figure.
I've only seen this once in a blue moon where the judiciary interprets a law in a so far out way that they have in essence made law. Our Supreme Court Eminent Domain ruling springs to mind....worthless nonsensical piece of trash ruling.
However, most of the time, the folks claiming this are angry that they were ruled against.
vidcc
12-08-2005, 06:29 PM
I found this blog helpful in decided what counts as torture
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/theblog/archive/wellhung.jpg
Condi could not have been clearer; "the United States did not have torture relations with that man, Kahlid Sheik Muhammad." Pay no attention to that blue dress with the bloodstains.
I am proud that the secretary of state is going to set the Europeans straight about how America treats its victims -- I mean prisoners -- I mean detainees.
I hope she explains to them that the use of snarling dogs to intimidate people who've never even been charged with anything is just our way of promoting inter-species understanding.
Administration critics need to understand that against the threats of the 21st century, we cannot rely on 20th century interrogation methods. We must look forward and embrace the techniques of the 15th century. She might as well have said, Don't think of it as the rack; consider it "violently assisted yoga." or "Hanging hooded suspects from the ceiling by their wrists should merely be considered 'a dangling conversation.'"
And as for the reports and photographs of the Gulfstream V, with tail number N379P, that's been used to whisk detainees to secret locations around the world where they have subsequently just disappeared? Give us some credit. We are, at our own expense, helping those people accumulate massive frequent flier miles.
I'm certain that once they get the right perspective Europeans will be proud to join our noble struggle against undue process. After all, and without any doubt, the United States is not a nation of torturers. Of course that does depend on what the meaning of is, is.source (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/aaron-freeman/tortured-explanations_b_11888.html)
From http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4509530.stm, hopefully j2 will accept that the BBC report accurately, even if he rejects The Scotsman out of hand.
I will accept the BBC gets things right occasionally.
What of it?
I've rejected a Scotsman?
Out of hand?
When?
Your judiciary, in essence, slaps your government's hands; what of that?
If I have made an implication, I hope it is clear...yours is not.:huh:
You Scots-
Two out of three of you are all alike.
I found this blog helpful in decided what counts as torture
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/theblog/archive/wellhung.jpg
Condi could not have been clearer; "the United States did not have torture relations with that man, Kahlid Sheik Muhammad." Pay no attention to that blue dress with the bloodstains.
I am proud that the secretary of state is going to set the Europeans straight about how America treats its victims -- I mean prisoners -- I mean detainees.
I hope she explains to them that the use of snarling dogs to intimidate people who've never even been charged with anything is just our way of promoting inter-species understanding.
Administration critics need to understand that against the threats of the 21st century, we cannot rely on 20th century interrogation methods. We must look forward and embrace the techniques of the 15th century. She might as well have said, Don't think of it as the rack; consider it "violently assisted yoga." or "Hanging hooded suspects from the ceiling by their wrists should merely be considered 'a dangling conversation.'"
And as for the reports and photographs of the Gulfstream V, with tail number N379P, that's been used to whisk detainees to secret locations around the world where they have subsequently just disappeared? Give us some credit. We are, at our own expense, helping those people accumulate massive frequent flier miles.
I'm certain that once they get the right perspective Europeans will be proud to join our noble struggle against undue process. After all, and without any doubt, the United States is not a nation of torturers. Of course that does depend on what the meaning of is, is.source (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/aaron-freeman/tortured-explanations_b_11888.html)
Do these bloggers take care to denounce "torture" when- and wherever it occurs, or are only certain nations qualified to trespass?
JPaul
12-08-2005, 09:21 PM
If I have made an implication, I hope it is clear...yours is not.:huh:
No implication intended, more bringing an issue to the table. Namely that our Govt appear to be condoning the use of torture, whereas our highest Court is decrying it. I thought I had said that, I'm pretty sure I did.
I thought it would be of interest, perhaps not.
If I have made an implication, I hope it is clear...yours is not.:huh:
No implication intended, more bringing an issue to the table. Namely that our Govt appear to be condoning the use of torture, whereas our highest Court is decrying it. I thought I had said that, I'm pretty sure I did.
I thought it would be of interest, perhaps not.
Oh, no-you're quite right; I thought your post was just a comment on Mr. Straw's discomfiture over events, as well as an omen of imminent turmoil for Big Tony.
I would assume your courts would uphold your laws/treaties, etc.
This whole...whatever it is, will be clarified soon enough, and I am loathe to pronounce without proper qualification; speculation is another matter. :)
EDIT:
I am harking back to the other thread, of course.
vidcc
12-08-2005, 10:00 PM
Do these bloggers take care to denounce "torture" when- and wherever it occurs, or are only certain nations qualified to trespass?
Yes they do denounce it no matter where or who does it. I guess it's worse if you think torture wrong and your own people are doing it.
Do these bloggers take care to denounce "torture" when- and wherever it occurs, or are only certain nations qualified to trespass?
Yes they do denounce it no matter where or who does it. I guess it's worse if you think torture wrong and your own people are doing it.
A strict moralist wouldn't make the distinction, but I guess torture+hypocrisy is worse...
One is inclined to bastardize a useless phrase from yesteryear:
If a questionable act is committed by an agent of the U.S., in circumstances constituting an arguably gray moral area, is it still reprehensible?
Never mind; I know your answer. ;)
vidcc
12-08-2005, 10:34 PM
If a questionable act is committed by an agent of the U.S., in circumstances constituting an arguably gray moral area, is it still reprehensible?
define "gray moral area"
Never mind; I know your answer. ;)
You do :huh: I have yet to see you get it right when you tell me "what I think"
define "gray moral area"
Never mind; I know your answer. ;)
You do :huh: I have yet to see you get it right when you tell me "what I think"
You are pro-torture? :O
I'm surprised, well and truly. :huh:
Oh, and as to the other, as you should know by now, the U.S. seeks to have the international community accept there is a need to address legal status issues vis a vis terrorists.
I'd have thought this was clear...
vidcc
12-09-2005, 12:42 AM
Oh, and as to the other, as you should know by now, the U.S. seeks to have the international community accept there is a need to address legal status issues vis a vis terrorists.
I'd have thought this was clear...
How is this a "gray moral area"? . Perhaps you mean "gray legal area"
Oh, and as to the other, as you should know by now, the U.S. seeks to have the international community accept there is a need to address legal status issues vis a vis terrorists.
I'd have thought this was clear...
How is this a "gray moral area"? . Perhaps you mean "gray legal area"
Both, actually, but well-spotted nonetheless.
It also occurs to me the tactic currently being employed is reflective of nothing less than the best efforts of the most able and agile lawyers, unpalatable though this might be.
vidcc
12-09-2005, 02:12 AM
How is this a "gray moral area"? . Perhaps you mean "gray legal area"
Both, actually, but well-spotted nonetheless.
Actually all "moral" issues are a "grey area" to a certain degree but how about this.... we set what counts as "torture" or "unethical" things we would object to ourtroops or citizens having to endure. That would clear the "greyness" up.
in other words the "enemy" is legitimately entitled to do to us as we do to them. I appreciate they already do bad things but the point here is what we think is both moral or legal.
What will it take to get the "international" community to entertain any idea that, where these people are concerned, some dialog beyond merely assigning them to current "policy" is necessary?
Leave torture out of it for a moment; these terrorists are associates of organizations fervently united only for purposes of inflicting death and destruction on those they deem unworthy.
They answer to no one, no entity holds sway over them.
There is no mechanism with which to pressure or influence them; they do as they please.
We have no method, system, or cogent philosophy to deal with them-indeed, their effectiveness depends wholly upon the lack of international disquisition.
In the absense of coherent and universally accepted policy, they cannot ultimately be defeated by means other than elimination.
Given these conditions, as long as their actions suit anyone apart from their current targets, they will continue to do what they do.
Some see their actions as expressive; they are more correctly viewed as oppressive, even by those who overlook their acts as long as they themselves are not targeted.
The fruits of a civilized world should be reserved for the willingly civilized.
vidcc
12-09-2005, 02:45 AM
The fruits of a civilized world should be reserved for the willingly civilized.
Don't the civilized lose that status once they stop behaving civilized?
The fruits of a civilized world should be reserved for the willingly civilized.
Don't the civilized lose that status once they stop behaving civilized?
I think I just proffered that behaviors (all of them) are conditional.
If your kid behaves, he doesn't get spanked, right?
Civilized nations are no different; we are as civilized as we can afford to be.
Consider that perhaps the price to countenance terrorism is too high for civilized men. ;)
Agrajag
12-09-2005, 02:55 PM
Don't the civilized lose that status once they stop behaving civilized?
Consider that perhaps the price to countenance terrorism is too high for civilized men. ;)
That's wordplay, to oppose torture does not mean one supports or approves of terrorism.
I don't think anyone would say that we should not use every legitimate method we have to fight terrorists, that would be mad talk.
Consider that perhaps the price to countenance terrorism is too high for civilized men. ;)
That's wordplay, to oppose torture does not mean one supports or approves of terrorism.
I don't think anyone would say that we should not use every legitimate method we have to fight terrorists, that would be mad talk.
True enough.
Do we expect terrorists to be impressed with our excellent treatment of them?
I would imagine the idea that we are "bound" by agreements they themselves do not ascribe to has it's appeal; in fact, it serves their compulsion rather well, I think.
After all, it's not as if they've a mental impairment which impedes their understanding of such policy...
BTW-why is the idea of military tribunal so objectionable?
We could have gotten much more of this stuff done properly long ago.
Mr JP Fugley
12-09-2005, 08:50 PM
That's wordplay, to oppose torture does not mean one supports or approves of terrorism.
I don't think anyone would say that we should not use every legitimate method we have to fight terrorists, that would be mad talk.
True enough.
Do we expect terrorists to be impressed with our excellent treatment of them?
I would imagine the idea that we are "bound" by agreements they themselves do not ascribe to has it's appeal; in fact, it serves their compulsion rather well, I think.
After all, it's not as if they've a mental impairment which impedes their understanding of such policy...
BTW-why is the idea of military tribunal so objectionable?
We could have gotten much more of this stuff done properly long ago.
Why would terrorists be the subject of military tribunals. Terrorism has nothing to do with military actions, it is murdering people.
Oh and it's us who decide on our standards of behaviour, us who decide what is civilized and what is barbaric, not the terrorists.
True enough.
Do we expect terrorists to be impressed with our excellent treatment of them?
I would imagine the idea that we are "bound" by agreements they themselves do not ascribe to has it's appeal; in fact, it serves their compulsion rather well, I think.
After all, it's not as if they've a mental impairment which impedes their understanding of such policy...
BTW-why is the idea of military tribunal so objectionable?
We could have gotten much more of this stuff done properly long ago.
Why would terrorists be the subject of military tribunals. Terrorism has nothing to do with military actions, it is murdering people.
Why should they have access to our civilian courts?
Once again, we have a need for a unique solution to a unique problem.
If they want to be special, why don't we create a special prosecutorial process?
You might think twice before you point to your I.C.C., BTW.
Oh and it's us who decide on our standards of behaviour, us who decide what is civilized and what is barbaric, not the terrorists.
True again.
What, then, if we decide the terrorists are barbaric?
Mr JP Fugley
12-09-2005, 09:24 PM
Why would terrorists be the subject of military tribunals. Terrorism has nothing to do with military actions, it is murdering people.
Why should they have access to our civilian courts?
Once again, we have a need for a unique solution to a unique problem.
If they want to be special, why don't we create a special prosecutorial process?
You might think twice before you point to your I.C.C., BTW.
Oh and it's us who decide on our standards of behaviour, us who decide what is civilized and what is barbaric, not the terrorists.
True again.
What, then, if we decide the terrorists are barbaric?
They are, however they are also innocent until proven guilty. As such they are entitled to the benefits of due process. In the same way as other mass murderers, serial rapists, paedophiles etc are.
They are entitled to be tried in a civilian court because other suspected murderers are entitled to the same.
What the feck does the I.C.C. (http://www.icc-cricket.com/) have to do with anything.
We in the UK have a history of treating suspected terrorists differently from others. We interned them without trial and tortured them for intelligence. Do you know how much good it does, fuck all. In fact it galvanizes their supporters. It causes more trouble, by making living martyrs. It ruins people lives and leads to imprisonment of the innocent, often caused by incorrect intelligence.
True again.
What, then, if we decide the terrorists are barbaric?
They are, however they are also innocent until proven guilty. As such they are entitled to the benefits of due process. In the same way as other mass murderers, serial rapists, paedophiles etc are.
They are entitled to be tried in a civilian court because other suspected murderers are entitled to the same.
What the feck does the I.C.C. (http://www.icc-cricket.com/) have to do with anything.
We in the UK have a history of treating suspected terrorists differently from others. We interned them without trial and tortured them for intelligence. Do you know how much good it does, fuck all. In fact it galvanizes their supporters. It causes more trouble, by making living martyrs. It ruins people lives and leads to imprisonment of the innocent, often caused by incorrect intelligence.
Yes, we've been through all that, and feel similarly.
I guess I'd have questions (as would the international community, I'm quite sure) as to their ultimate disposition:
Death penalty applies?
Where to detain them?
I wouldn't be wild about entertaining the idea of the international community interjecting itself into any aspect of the process apart from requiring humane treatment.
After all, they are our courts, yes?
vidcc
12-09-2005, 11:38 PM
Why should they have access to our civilian courts?
Once again, we have a need for a unique solution to a unique problem.
If they want to be special, why don't we create a special prosecutorial process?
Either way has pros and cons and valid arguements.
If a foreigner comits a crime on US soil he is tried in a US court. If one considers a terrorist a murderer and not a combatant then there is a case to try him in a civil court. If however he is considered a combatant then there is a case for military court.
On the last.... If a military court is the proper method then could it not be argued that a terrorist is subject to the geneva convention ?
Of course there is a case with AQ that it is not a country but a "virtual army" and this is where i feel the splitting of hairs is being made to excuse torture as though perhaps not being moral, at least not illegal to practice on "these people"
Agrajag
12-09-2005, 11:49 PM
They are, however they are also innocent until proven guilty. As such they are entitled to the benefits of due process. In the same way as other mass murderers, serial rapists, paedophiles etc are.
They are entitled to be tried in a civilian court because other suspected murderers are entitled to the same.
What the feck does the I.C.C. (http://www.icc-cricket.com/) have to do with anything.
We in the UK have a history of treating suspected terrorists differently from others. We interned them without trial and tortured them for intelligence. Do you know how much good it does, fuck all. In fact it galvanizes their supporters. It causes more trouble, by making living martyrs. It ruins people lives and leads to imprisonment of the innocent, often caused by incorrect intelligence.
Yes, we've been through all that, and feel similarly.
I guess I'd have questions (as would the international community, I'm quite sure) as to their ultimate disposition:
Death penalty applies?
Where to detain them?
I wouldn't be wild about entertaining the idea of the international community interjecting itself into any aspect of the process apart from requiring humane treatment.
After all, they are our courts, yes?
Indeed they are your courts and the international community has no right to interject unless you want them to. Like for example signing up to an international treaty against torture. Oh wait ....
One assumes that you chaps won't interfere with other people's systems, quid pro quo and so forth.
Yes, we've been through all that, and feel similarly.
I guess I'd have questions (as would the international community, I'm quite sure) as to their ultimate disposition:
Death penalty applies?
Where to detain them?
I wouldn't be wild about entertaining the idea of the international community interjecting itself into any aspect of the process apart from requiring humane treatment.
After all, they are our courts, yes?
Indeed they are your courts and the international community has no right to interject unless you want them to. Like for example signing up to an international treaty against torture. Oh wait ....
One assumes that you chaps won't interfere with other people's systems, quid pro quo and so forth.
One does assume, doesn't one? :)
Do you agree with what is going on in Iraq vis a vis Saddam's trial?
BTW-
I hope you have not defaulted to a "guilty" verdict on the torture question?
Ambiguous langauge is no sin in the absence of actual, proven torture.
JPaul
12-10-2005, 08:11 AM
Indeed they are your courts and the international community has no right to interject unless you want them to. Like for example signing up to an international treaty against torture. Oh wait ....
One assumes that you chaps won't interfere with other people's systems, quid pro quo and so forth.
One does assume, doesn't one? :)
Do you agree with what is going on in Iraq vis a vis Saddam's trial?
BTW-
I hope you have not defaulted to a "guilty" verdict on the torture question?
Ambiguous langauge is no sin in the absence of actual, proven torture.
The Lords ruled that we would not assume that torture had been used, just because someone claimed it had. However such claims would be investigated. Similar situation to claims of Police brutality, methinks. It really is all about due process and rights.
"Do you agree with what is going on in Iraq vis a vis Saddam's trial?" - in what way, the question is a tad sweeping, to my naive eye.
"Do you agree with what is going on in Iraq vis a vis Saddam's trial?" - in what way, the question is a tad sweeping, to my naive eye.
Ah, yes.
I mean insofar as it occurs under the watchful and restrained eye of U.S. forces.
Mr JP Fugley
12-10-2005, 05:27 PM
"Do you agree with what is going on in Iraq vis a vis Saddam's trial?" - in what way, the question is a tad sweeping, to my naive eye.
Ah, yes.
I mean insofar as it occurs under the watchful and restrained eye of U.S. forces.
Sorry, I thought there were other forces there as well.
So long as foreign forces are working alongside the now elected Iraqi Govt I see no particular problem. However that cannot go on forever and withdrawal plans should be agreed with the Govt of the country. It's not an occupation after all.
Sorry, I thought there were other forces there as well.
My apologies for the oversight. :blushing:
The ill-effect of a persecutorial media.
Mr JP Fugley
12-10-2005, 06:53 PM
Sorry, I thought there were other forces there as well.
My apologies for the oversight. :blushing:
The ill-effect of a persecutorial media.
:lol:
"persecutorial" is a lovely word, they should adopt it into the english language.
whoever they are:ph34r:
My apologies for the oversight. :blushing:
The ill-effect of a persecutorial media.
:lol:
"persecutorial" is a lovely word, they should adopt it into the english language.
whoever they are:ph34r:
I have done; what they do is of no moment.
You agree, of course.;)
JPaul
12-10-2005, 10:04 PM
:lol:
"persecutorial" is a lovely word, they should adopt it into the english language.
whoever they are:ph34r:
I have done; what they do is of no moment.
You agree, of course.;)
Conformity has never been your proverbial albatross.
I have done; what they do is of no moment.
You agree, of course.;)
Conformity has never been your proverbial albatross.
Albatross; another lovely word.
I shall use it soonest.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.