Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Human Rights Law Blogs -> Never In Our Names

Human Rights Law

: Never In Our Names

The Twisted Tales of Torture Continue

By possum

The British news is all atwitter these days with accusations of torture or at least cooperation in torture by British personnel.  The latest problem for the British legal system comes from a judgement in the trial of Binyam Mohamed.  Given the man's story and evidence of his torture at the hands of various people, the court opinion was harsh.

The judges repeat no fewer than eight times that the Bush administration threatened the British that if the judges made this evidence public, the US would retaliate with sanctions.

The evidence being suppressed was that which confirmed the torture of Binyam.
Today Gordon Brown defended the British decision not to release the documents saying

Our policy is not to support torture or to condone torture, and we support President [Barack] Obama in his decision that the US will not use torture either.

A committee of MP's is being formed to study the whole episode in detail.

If the MPs decide the issues need further investigation they can hold further hearings, calling more witnesses and may produce a written report.

The real problem continues to exist.  No matter the twisted words or the fine public actions, there is an undercurrent of actions that deserves attention.

This week the joint committee on human rights held a hearing on allegations of British complicity in torture in Pakistan, to which Jacqui Smith has been asked to respond. They suggest a policy of condoning torture in the interests of national security.

There is strong evidence both the British and U.S. governments knew actions of the ICI in Pakistan included torture.  Yet men were sent to the nation under the terms of "rendition."

Asking Pakistan's security services to interrogate a detainee is essentially a request to use torture to obtain information.

Both British and U.S. authorities at various times have declared their nations do not engage in or condone torture.  Then from Britain we find the twisted words from the Criminal Justice Act of 1988.

It shall be a defence for a person charged with an offence under this section in respect of any conduct of his to prove that he had lawful authority, justification or excuse for that conduct.

And what may be the "lawful authority" mentioned here?  Is government approval at a high level enough?  What level?  

Loopholes, loopholes, loopholes.  This one is large enough to drive through an entire Guantanamo Bay or worse.  And the stories continue to evolve day by day.

Peace.

Full post as published by Never In Our Names on February 05, 2009 (boomark / email).