|
|
RIGHTS-BRITAIN: 'Terrifying' Judgment over Suspected Terrorists
By Sanjay Suri
LONDON, Aug 13 (IPS) - After years of condemning torture in other
countries, Britian could now be approving it as official policy.
New questions have arisen for the government following a two to one
ruling by a court of appeal that said the British government had the
right to accept evidence obtained under torture - so long as the torture
took place in some other country.
The ruling was given in the case of a challenge by ten foreign
nationals who have been detained without charge for more than two years
on suspicion of involvement with terrorist organizations. Under Britain's
Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001, the men can be detained
without charge indefinitely.
The Act was passed soon after the Sep. 11 attacks, and the Labour
government is sticking to it in the face of continued protests by civil
liberty groups.
Lord Justice Laws said in his ruling earlier this week that the
British Home Secretary has the right to rely on evidence ''coming into
his hands which has or may have been obtained through torture by agencies
of other states over which he has no power of direction.''
The ruling raises fundamental issues for the government's declared
policies.
''The Prime Minister and his Home Secretary need to come clean on
their attitude to torture,'' Barry Hugill of the civil liberties group
Liberty told IPS. ''Do they think it is acceptable or unacceptable?''
Hugill described the detention of the men as Britain's Guantanamo
Bay. ''These men are being held on the say so of unknown intelligence
operatives. If they have committed a crime they should be put on trial,
otherwise they should be released.''
Justice Laws was supported in the ruling by Justice Pill. But in a
dissenting judgment Justice Neuberger warned the British government
against enjoying ''the fruits of torture.''
He ruled: ''Democratic societies, faced with terrorist threats, should
not readily accept that the threat justifies the use of torture, or that
the end justifies the means. It can be said that, by using torture, or
even by adopting the fruits of torture, a democratic state is weakening
its case against terrorists, by adopting their methods, thereby losing
the moral high ground an open democratic society enjoys.''
Amnesty International said that in the two to one ruling the court of
appeal had ''shamefully abdicated'' its responsibility. ''The rule of law
and human rights have become casualties of the measures taken in the
aftermath of 9/11. This judgment is an aberration, morally and legally.''
Amnesty added: "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."
The challenge has been made on behalf of ten of the 12 people being
held at high security prisons in Britain. Two others have been allowed to
leave Britain. Only one suspect, described as 'M' has won an appeal
against a certification describing him as an international terrorist.
The court ruling means that what is considered as evidence by police
and the military taken from the suspects as Guantanamo Bay or at other
places under other regimes can be used to keep these men in prison
indefinitely.
Gareth Pierce, the solicitor who has been arguing the case of the ten
men said in a statement that the judgment of the court of appeal
was ''terrifying''.
She said "it shows that we have completely lost our way in this
country legally and morally. We have international treaty obligations
which prevent the use of evidence obtained by torture in any
proceedings.''
A challenge to the ruling of the court of appeal on points of law
could place the British government in an awkward position: it would have
either to declare it will not honour its international obligations, or
that it will change its own case that the court of appeal upheld.
Britain is also bound under a declared ''ethical foreign policy'' that
it will not support regimes that resort to torture. Its new policy means
that Britain can now accept evidence obtained under torture in those
countries it has condemned for practicing torture.
The British government is now in a legal spot, and proceedings arising
from its stand look set to be tortuous.
(END)
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
What is RSS?
