UK Evidence Obtained by Torture Cannot Be Used Against Suspects

[kpete]

Lords reject torture evidence use

The men were detained under the 2001 Anti-Terrorism Act
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 Home Secretary Charles Clarke 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 had been held without charge.

Mr Clarke said he accepted the ruling and it would have "no bearing" on government efforts to combat terror.

He said the government did not use evidence it knew or suspected had been obtained by torture but the ruling had clarified the appropriate legal test of what was admissable.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4509530.stm

[pberq]

1. Good for the Lords!

This is a step in the right direction. And hopefully can be used to influence U.S. policies.

[Monkey see Monkey Do]

2. Freedom kick! + interview with ex-Law Lord on torture, human rights, etc)

(alternatively you can watch the interview by following the link below)

Jon Snow Lord Steyn, when asked to talk about the whole question of torture, about rendition, the US Secretary of State said yesterday that the captured terrorists of the 21st Century do not fit easily into traditional system of criminal, military justice. Isn't it a reality that what is happening is a response to a kind of human behaviour that international law isn't used to having to deal with?

Lord Steyn It is undoubtedly from 9/11 onwards a new situation and modern terrorism involves far greater risks to the public. But, in my view, it is even more important now that one must stand by human rights law, respect the treaties. The need for them has not been lessened but increased.

Jon Snow The Americans are saying that European lives have been saved by carrying people from one place to another. They deny torture.

Lord Steyn I can't see that that is a proposition that can be sustained. Specifically when you refer to torture it is very important to know what is meant by torture. I'm speaking purely as a lawyer. The US administration has adopted a definition of torture which is extremely narrow. It involves causing death, total organ failure and so forth. The true definition is much wider and it includes coercive questioning.

Jon Snow Do you therefore think that in a way Guantanamo Bay is a template for what is happening?

Lord Steyn I think Guantanamo Bay is the clue to much of what we have seen unravelled even over this weekend. We have seen a scale of lawlessness unravel which in my opinion is the logical extension of Guantanamo Bay because Guantanamo Bay involved taking prisoners from Afghanistan, and many other places, to an island where there would be a lawless black hole where they can never escape from, where they have no right to trial. This logically is not very different from what the Americans call rendition which, in truth, is abduction. It is not authorised by international law and the connection between this and Guatanamo Bay is very close.

(...)

http://www.channel4.com/news/special-reports/special-reports-storypage.jsp?id=1284

(it's three pages long)