Evidence gained by torture allowed by British judges

[rawstory]

As seen on the liberal alternative to Drudge, http://rawstory.com


By Robert Verkaik Legal Affairs Correspondent
THE INDEPENDENT
12 August 2004

The use of torture to obtain evidence against suspected terrorists was endorsed yesterday by the Court of Appeal in a ruling that has brought Britain into conflict with international human rights campaigners.

Two of the country's senior judges granted the Home Secretary the right to hold terror suspects on the basis of intelligence from tortured prisoners at Guantanamo Bay and other US detention camps.

Human rights groups and experts on international law said Britain had, in effect, been given the green light to trawl for evidence from torture victims across the world.

The controversial guidance emerged in the court's decision to reject appeals from 10 foreign nationals held for more than two years without charge or trial in British prisons under emergency terror laws introduced by David Blunkett after the 11 September attacks.

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/legal/story.jsp?story=550499

[Nambe]

1. If the evidence was gathered in the last 3.5 years....

It probably involved torture. The judge doesn't have my support, but he does have my sympathy.

[Rose Siding]

2. The conservative US Supremes have belly ached over...

the influence of int'l law on US courts- the libs sometimes cite trends in other countries in their rulings. See if they don't try to grab this one and run with it.

[Cronus Protagonist]

3. Makes me sad to be British

What a loss for a country that used to be the bastion of fairness in the world.

SHOVE IT! - Drop Bush Not Bombs! - Hero Kerry AWOL Bush
http://brainbuttons.com/home.asp?stashid=13

[TaleWgnDg]

4. uuummmmm, a short word of caution . . .

instead of all the hysteria as evinced in the Brit tabloids, why not sit down, spend some time, and read the damn case in its entirety?

http://www.courtservice.gov.uk/judgmentsfiles/j2769/ajouaou-v-sshd.htm

After being fully informed about what's happening THEN form an opinion.

:)

[Snazzy]

5. Do you have one?

The Independent is not a tabloid, BTW. (They do publish a dumbed down version--or have, but this isn't it).

And the ruling does, as this analysis states, allow that evidence obtained under torture (from that 'special friend'), to be admitted.

Reminds me of the WH torture memo really--what circumstances must legally exist to allow the most reprehensible of conduct to occur. And don't such memos and findings defacto sanction the same? Of course they do, TaleWgnDg.

Thanks for the link.

[struggle4progress]

6. So these nitwits feel that the WTC hijackings in US created ...

... an emergency in the UK that relieves the UK of its obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights?

[D-Notice]

7. That's pretty much

the excuse the govt gave when it forced through the legislation! :-(

X "I didn't do anything"

BUZZ

Police "Wrong answer"

X "But I didn't do anything!"

Police "You've got 32 teeth, wanna try for 16?"

X "No"

Police "Well then confess"

X "OK I did it!"

Police "See Your Honour, he confessed"

Judge "He did indeed - off to jail you go"