Law Lords Rule on Torture Evidence
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.
Quote:
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.
Re: Law Lords Rule on Torture Evidence
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.
Re: Law Lords Rule on Torture Evidence
Quote:
Originally Posted by Busyman
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.
Re: Law Lords Rule on Torture Evidence
Quote:
Originally Posted by lynx
Quote:
Originally Posted by Busyman
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.
Re: Law Lords Rule on Torture Evidence
I found this blog helpful in decided what counts as torture
Quote:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/theblo...e/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
Re: Law Lords Rule on Torture Evidence
Quote:
Originally Posted by Agrajag
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.
Re: Law Lords Rule on Torture Evidence
Quote:
Originally Posted by vidcc
I found this blog helpful in decided what counts as torture
Quote:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/theblo...e/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
Do these bloggers take care to denounce "torture" when- and wherever it occurs, or are only certain nations qualified to trespass?
Re: Law Lords Rule on Torture Evidence
Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
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.
Re: Law Lords Rule on Torture Evidence
Quote:
Originally Posted by JPaul
Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
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.
Re: Law Lords Rule on Torture Evidence
Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
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.
