UK: Court of Appeal gives green light to torture

jex · 12-02-2004, 06:08 PM

Amnesty International is appalled by today’s ruling of the Court of Appeal that "evidence" obtained by torture is admissible in the UK.

"The rule of law and human rights have become casualties of the measures taken in the aftermath of 9/11. This judgement is an aberration, morally and legally," Amnesty International said today.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeals of 10 foreign nationals interned without charge or trial under the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 (ATCSA).

In a two-to-one ruling, the second highest court in England and Wales clarified that "evidence" obtained by torture would not be deemed admissible when directly procured by UK agents or in whose procurement UK agents have connived.

"This caveat does nothing to prevent torture at the hands of agents of other states; in fact, it effectively encourages and fosters it. It is a fundamental duty of all courts to act as a bulwark against human rights violations. Today, the Court of Appeal has shamefully abdicated this most important duty," Amnesty International said.

The Court of Appeal dismissed all grounds on which the appellants had appealed against the October 2003 judgments of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission (SIAC), including SIAC’s ruling that torture "evidence" is admissible.

"If there is sufficient evidence to warrant holding these individuals, they should be charged with a recognizably criminal offence, and tried in proceedings which fully meet international fair trial standards. Otherwise they should released", Amnesty International said.

Background
Under the ATCSA, the Secretary of State can certify non-deportable foreign nationals as "suspected international terrorists", and detain them indefinitely, without charge or trial. Therefore, Amnesty International believes that the ATCSA is discriminatory.

In December 2003, the Committee of Privy Counsellors, who had been charged with reviewing the ATCSA, recommended the urgent repeal of ATCSA powers allowing non-UK nationals to be detained potentially indefinitely. Early this month, the UK Parliament Joint Committee on Human Rights agreed with this recommendation.

As of today, 12 people remain interned under the ATCSA in the UK. They have been held in high-security facilities under severely restricted regimes. Most of the internees have been in detention for more than two years. One further person, known only as "G" for legal reasons has been granted bail under conditions amounting to house arrest. So far, only one person, known for legal reasons only as "M", has won an appeal against certification as a suspected international terrorist.

Nice being part of the 'good guys'.

**TheFeniX** · 12-02-2004, 07:29 PM

Torture is not only inhumane, but pointless most of the time.

Torture someone enough and he'll tell you he is the son of God and heals the sick. Cops beating confessions out of suspects usually turn out to be false anyways. I don't have any actual numbers, but I watched a documentary about this and it was pretty sad to see the number of confessed convicts cleared by DNA after their confessions.

Seriously, guilty or not you'd say anything to keep some bastard from pounding your face in for another few hours.

jex · 12-02-2004, 08:13 PM

Exactly, torture is well known for it's lack of accurate information, so why allow it? It is immoral and evil, so how come it's now OK? This is sick.

Considering the acts at Abu Ghraib prison as well, and the reaction to that, what is going on here?

IceCold · 12-02-2004, 08:16 PM

I notice that the word "evidence" was put in quotes throughout that article, but the word "torture" was not. What exactly was the torture?

**DudeMan** · 12-02-2004, 08:57 PM

Quote:

"This caveat does nothing to prevent torture at the hands of agents of other states; in fact, it effectively encourages and fosters it. It is a fundamental duty of all courts to act as a bulwark against human rights violations. Today, the Court of Appeal has shamefully abdicated this most important duty," Amnesty International said.

im soprry i dont agree with this analysis, the court has ruled it is not admissable evidence, ok, it did not specifically say that the torture should not take place, but it has made the practise pointless in any legal proceedings. further more, it mentions nothing of the law surrounding torture and UK agents and as you well know if this has at some time been reviewd in parliament or the house of Lords, (the highest court) then there is nothing the apeal lords can say (by law)

further more i am not satisfied with the claim torture, it is a word that cunjures up emotions and not one shred of detail or context has been given.

sorry jex but amnesty international (whilst serving a worthy cause) is well known for their exadurations and tendencies to blindly believe what they are told by people who are detained and wish to scorn the authorities. im afraid they will have to some up with specifics and the LAws already in place for me to consider it legitimatly argued.

Oh and Even though its the second highest court, there are still several apeal routes open to them, and are probably being paid for by the countries legal aid anyway, so i think we are jumping the gun and getting a bit emotional about something in its early stages... come on jex you know a bot about LAW there may very well be mitigating circumstances such as the binding rule of courts in the hirearchy, the fat lady has not sung, so we will wait till she does before i get my panties in a bunch.

Further more, just as a side note, when dealing with MI^ they will not always divulge any evidence for good reason, if they charge someone with something they tell the world what they are charged with and possibly tell the accomplaces of their suspect that they have the operation clocked. just recently a terror attack on canary walf was thwarted my MI6 an d one at heathrow. im sorry without facts not amnesty or anyone else is qualified at this point in time to pass judgement, certainly not before the legal battle is over.

jex · 12-06-2004, 07:24 PM

The law allows the use of evidence taken via torture, as long as that torture is not performed in the UK, or by a UK national.

"So mr smith, Dr Hansberger is now going to take you to Calais for a little bit of questioning..."

**CingularDuality** · 12-07-2004, 04:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IceCold

I notice that the word "evidence" was put in quotes throughout that article, but the word "torture" was not. What exactly was the torture?

Jex, do you have an answer to this question? Without this answer, this entire debate is pretty moot. If torture is defined as being forced to listen to Madonna's and Britney Spears' latest albums at the same time at 100db for 4 hours straight, then I think it's perfectly acceptable to use evidence gathered via torture. We need a definition for this word in this context...

jex · 12-07-2004, 12:13 PM

I would imagine that the quotes used in "evidence", means that the author believes that information collected via torture methods is not evidence. The article does not say anything about who was tortured or what was the method - if you read it it says that

information, collected via torture, is now admissable in a court of law.

Torture is torture, no matter how you wrap it up. If you think it's perfectly acceptable, then perhaps you should try submitting yourself to it sometime before making comments on what is or isn't acceptable. To make it effective, we'll take you to some nasty prison up in the uzbekistani mountains with a big fat sweaty jailor who will play you 8 hours of off key acid punk music, and then he'll come and question you. He'll do this for a month, because the questions he's asking you don't have the answer to. After a month of this, and a few beatings in the night (you know with rubber bats on pillows so you don't bruise), you'll confess to wearing womens clothes.

I think you have to be pretty naive to think that torture can be carried out humanely and that it would just be 'soft' torture.

The article doesn't give details on what torture, but they say that torture is admissable as long as it's not collected via UK agents. And torture is defined as...

tor·ture ( P ) Pronunciation Key (tôrchr)
n.

Infliction of severe physical pain as a means of punishment or coercion.
An instrument or a method for inflicting such pain.
Excruciating physical or mental pain; agony: the torture of waiting in suspense.
Something causing severe pain or anguish.

tr.v. tor·tured, tor·tur·ing, tor·tures
To subject (a person or an animal) to torture.
To bring great physical or mental pain upon (another). See Synonyms at afflict.
To twist or turn abnormally; distort: torture a rule to make it fit a case.

However you wish to hide the truth and wrap it up as harmless brittney spears songs tells me you have no concept of what this entails. Since when did our society suddenly agree that torture is acceptable - not in my world mate.

**Pokerface** · 12-07-2004, 01:56 PM

That definition of torture is still pretty broad. The Boston Red Sox "brought great mental pain" upon their fans for 86 years, and despite calls to string them up, they won't be brought in front of a tribunal anytime soon.

One man's pain (Britney Spears) is another man's pleasure (BRITNEY SPEARS!), you know?

**CingularDuality** · 12-07-2004, 02:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pokerface

That definition of torture is still pretty broad. The Boston Red Sox "brought great mental pain" upon their fans for 86 years, and despite calls to string them up, they won't be brought in front of a tribunal anytime soon.

One man's pain (Britney Spears) is another man's pleasure (BRITNEY SPEARS!), you know?

Exactly my point. Just about any interrogation technique could be labeled as "torture" by the person being interrogated. Shining bright lights in their face while keeping them handcuffed and asking them questions for 8 hours straight might be considered torture by some, but I don't have a problem with it at all.

And despite what some people have said here, interrogation techniques that make a person uncomfortable are highly effective. And if somebody just makes up an answer in order to avoid any more interrogation, the interrogator will know (or should, anyway). No, dumb, brute force torture doesn't work, but that's not how any organization with any sort of training would conduct an interrogation anymore...

It is curious that the original article didn't quote the word torture. Anyone have another source that actually quotes the UK Court of Appeal?

**DudeMan** · 12-07-2004, 07:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jex

The law allows the use of evidence taken via torture, as long as that torture is not performed in the UK, or by a UK national.

"So mr smith, Dr Hansberger is now going to take you to Calais for a little bit of questioning..."

oh come i dont think that is fair,

first of if it was not committed by a british agent we have no proof its torture, and the law makes it illeagle in this country, what ther do in their own countrys cant be legislated by our laws.

**DudeMan** · 12-07-2004, 07:11 PM

this argument seems all a bit of a null point. if a British agent were to administer torture the court has made it clear it is non admissable. if it occurs on British soil it is Non admissable. so if some french guy is tortured, then why would he be tried in a British court for his crimes when he was tortured in france.

secondly, this is the appeal court, whioch means they were appealing a decision from the high court, which also means if there is passed cases from the House of Lords that they are bound by the Previous decision of the HOuse of Lords. so this needs to be reviewed there, but for amnesty international to say we give the green light, of if this is your interpretation is a bit premature. because they have made sure you will not be tortured by a British agent. Further more, British agent the terminology in the eyes of the law need examining, because if we were to get evidence from a torture, it means nothing in our courts anyway if it isnt from a British investigation.

i think Amnesty is blowing a mole hill up with a tactical nuke for the sake of publicity with this.

**RandomGuy** · 12-07-2004, 08:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DudeMan

this argument seems all a bit of a null point. if a British agent were to administer torture the court has made it clear it is non admissable. if it occurs on British soil it is Non admissable. so if some french guy is tortured, then why would he be tried in a British court for his crimes when he was tortured in france.

Aside, but in response to this point:

After the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001 several Canadians were "deported" to Syria. It is pretty clear now that this was done at the behest of Canadian and/or American "agents" in order to torture information out of (innocent) terrorism suspects.

IceCold · 12-07-2004, 09:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RandomGuy

Aside, but in response to this point:

After the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001 several Canadians were "deported" to Syria. It is pretty clear now that this was done at the behest of Canadian and/or American "agents" in order to torture information out of (innocent) terrorism suspects.

Deported for torture? Well, were they in violation of Canadian immigration law or not? If they were, then how is it "pretty clear" now?

**USN_Squid** · 12-07-2004, 11:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RandomGuy

Aside, but in response to this point:

After the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001 several Canadians were "deported" to Syria. It is pretty clear now that this was done at the behest of Canadian and/or American "agents" in order to torture information out of (innocent) terrorism suspects.

I heard this story before but haven't heard any outcome or loawsuits surrounding it. I'm pretty sure I initially saw it on a site with a political dog in the fight. Do you have more information?

12-02-2004, 06:08 PM	#1 (permalink)
jex Join Date: May 2003 Location: United Kingdom Age: 37 Posts: 3,430	UK: Court of Appeal gives green light to torture Amnesty International is appalled by today’s ruling of the Court of Appeal that "evidence" obtained by torture is admissible in the UK. "The rule of law and human rights have become casualties of the measures taken in the aftermath of 9/11. This judgement is an aberration, morally and legally," Amnesty International said today. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeals of 10 foreign nationals interned without charge or trial under the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 (ATCSA). In a two-to-one ruling, the second highest court in England and Wales clarified that "evidence" obtained by torture would not be deemed admissible when directly procured by UK agents or in whose procurement UK agents have connived. "This caveat does nothing to prevent torture at the hands of agents of other states; in fact, it effectively encourages and fosters it. It is a fundamental duty of all courts to act as a bulwark against human rights violations. Today, the Court of Appeal has shamefully abdicated this most important duty," Amnesty International said. The Court of Appeal dismissed all grounds on which the appellants had appealed against the October 2003 judgments of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission (SIAC), including SIAC’s ruling that torture "evidence" is admissible. "If there is sufficient evidence to warrant holding these individuals, they should be charged with a recognizably criminal offence, and tried in proceedings which fully meet international fair trial standards. Otherwise they should released", Amnesty International said. Background Under the ATCSA, the Secretary of State can certify non-deportable foreign nationals as "suspected international terrorists", and detain them indefinitely, without charge or trial. Therefore, Amnesty International believes that the ATCSA is discriminatory. In December 2003, the Committee of Privy Counsellors, who had been charged with reviewing the ATCSA, recommended the urgent repeal of ATCSA powers allowing non-UK nationals to be detained potentially indefinitely. Early this month, the UK Parliament Joint Committee on Human Rights agreed with this recommendation. As of today, 12 people remain interned under the ATCSA in the UK. They have been held in high-security facilities under severely restricted regimes. Most of the internees have been in detention for more than two years. One further person, known only as "G" for legal reasons has been granted bail under conditions amounting to house arrest. So far, only one person, known for legal reasons only as "M", has won an appeal against certification as a suspected international terrorist. Nice being part of the 'good guys'. __________________ Jex

12-02-2004, 07:29 PM	#2 (permalink)
TheFeniX Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Houston, TX Age: 26 Posts: 4,478	Re: UK: Court of Appeal gives green light to torture Torture is not only inhumane, but pointless most of the time. Torture someone enough and he'll tell you he is the son of God and heals the sick. Cops beating confessions out of suspects usually turn out to be false anyways. I don't have any actual numbers, but I watched a documentary about this and it was pretty sad to see the number of confessed convicts cleared by DNA after their confessions. Seriously, guilty or not you'd say anything to keep some bastard from pounding your face in for another few hours. __________________ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - TheFeniX's Steam Profile TG's Team Fortress 2 Steam Group

12-02-2004, 08:13 PM	#3 (permalink)
jex Join Date: May 2003 Location: United Kingdom Age: 37 Posts: 3,430	Re: UK: Court of Appeal gives green light to torture Exactly, torture is well known for it's lack of accurate information, so why allow it? It is immoral and evil, so how come it's now OK? This is sick. Considering the acts at Abu Ghraib prison as well, and the reaction to that, what is going on here? __________________ Jex

12-02-2004, 08:16 PM	#4 (permalink)
IceCold Join Date: Mar 2004 Posts: 716	Re: UK: Court of Appeal gives green light to torture I notice that the word "evidence" was put in quotes throughout that article, but the word "torture" was not. What exactly was the torture?

12-06-2004, 07:24 PM	#6 (permalink)
jex Join Date: May 2003 Location: United Kingdom Age: 37 Posts: 3,430	Re: UK: Court of Appeal gives green light to torture The law allows the use of evidence taken via torture, as long as that torture is not performed in the UK, or by a UK national. "So mr smith, Dr Hansberger is now going to take you to Calais for a little bit of questioning..." __________________ Jex

12-07-2004, 12:13 PM	#8 (permalink)
jex Join Date: May 2003 Location: United Kingdom Age: 37 Posts: 3,430	Re: UK: Court of Appeal gives green light to torture I would imagine that the quotes used in "evidence", means that the author believes that information collected via torture methods is not evidence. The article does not say anything about who was tortured or what was the method - if you read it it says that information, collected via torture, is now admissable in a court of law. Torture is torture, no matter how you wrap it up. If you think it's perfectly acceptable, then perhaps you should try submitting yourself to it sometime before making comments on what is or isn't acceptable. To make it effective, we'll take you to some nasty prison up in the uzbekistani mountains with a big fat sweaty jailor who will play you 8 hours of off key acid punk music, and then he'll come and question you. He'll do this for a month, because the questions he's asking you don't have the answer to. After a month of this, and a few beatings in the night (you know with rubber bats on pillows so you don't bruise), you'll confess to wearing womens clothes. I think you have to be pretty naive to think that torture can be carried out humanely and that it would just be 'soft' torture. The article doesn't give details on what torture, but they say that torture is admissable as long as it's not collected via UK agents. And torture is defined as... tor·ture ( P ) Pronunciation Key (tôrchr) n. Infliction of severe physical pain as a means of punishment or coercion. An instrument or a method for inflicting such pain. Excruciating physical or mental pain; agony: the torture of waiting in suspense. Something causing severe pain or anguish. tr.v. tor·tured, tor·tur·ing, tor·tures To subject (a person or an animal) to torture. To bring great physical or mental pain upon (another). See Synonyms at afflict. To twist or turn abnormally; distort: torture a rule to make it fit a case. However you wish to hide the truth and wrap it up as harmless brittney spears songs tells me you have no concept of what this entails. Since when did our society suddenly agree that torture is acceptable - not in my world mate. __________________ Jex

12-07-2004, 01:56 PM	#9 (permalink)
Pokerface Join Date: May 2003 Location: MD, USA Age: 30 Posts: 5,787	Re: UK: Court of Appeal gives green light to torture That definition of torture is still pretty broad. The Boston Red Sox "brought great mental pain" upon their fans for 86 years, and despite calls to string them up, they won't be brought in front of a tribunal anytime soon. One man's pain (Britney Spears) is another man's pleasure (BRITNEY SPEARS!), you know? __________________ NS Game Officer. TF2 Admin. BF2 Admin / Scripter. PM with issues. Tempus: Pokerface is nailing it right on the head. Everyone who is arguing against him is simply arguing against reality. <anmuzi> it is not permitted to have privacy or anonymity <LazyEye> yeah when I play on TG the server digs though my trash Arm yourself with knowledge: TG NS TF2 BF2

12-07-2004, 07:11 PM	#12 (permalink)
DudeMan Join Date: May 2003 Location: london England Age: 22 Posts: 3,258	Re: UK: Court of Appeal gives green light to torture this argument seems all a bit of a null point. if a British agent were to administer torture the court has made it clear it is non admissable. if it occurs on British soil it is Non admissable. so if some french guy is tortured, then why would he be tried in a British court for his crimes when he was tortured in france. secondly, this is the appeal court, whioch means they were appealing a decision from the high court, which also means if there is passed cases from the House of Lords that they are bound by the Previous decision of the HOuse of Lords. so this needs to be reviewed there, but for amnesty international to say we give the green light, of if this is your interpretation is a bit premature. because they have made sure you will not be tortured by a British agent. Further more, British agent the terminology in the eyes of the law need examining, because if we were to get evidence from a torture, it means nothing in our courts anyway if it isnt from a British investigation. i think Amnesty is blowing a mole hill up with a tactical nuke for the sake of publicity with this. __________________ The Queen "Those who perpetrate these brutal acts against innocent people should know that they will not change our way of life," *Atrocities such as these simply reinforce our sense of community* TheFeniX "Guns don't kill people: effeminate men in green tunics do"

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
How many forum members does it take to change a lightbulb?	Diceman	The Sandbox	33	01-27-2007 03:39 PM
Should we fight terror with torture?	leejo	The Sandbox	32	07-09-2006 04:41 PM

Sponsored links

Sponsored links

Sponsored links

Sponsored links