That's Gotta Leave a Mark
Synchronicity is one of those inexplicable phenomena that usually brings me great joy. I got a healthy dose of that joy this morning, but it was mixed with a little sadness, given the subject. Secretary of State Rice has spent almost a week in Europe trying to convince our traditional allies that the US doesn't torture detainees, and even if we do allow it, it's in Europe's best interests to overlook it. Apparently Britain's highest court disagrees. The NY Times has this story.
Britain's highest court thrust itself into the middle of a roiling international debate on Thursday, declaring that evidence obtained through torture - no matter by whom - was not admissible in British courts. It also said Britain had a "positive obligation" to uphold antitorture principles abroad as well as at home.
"The issue is one of constitutional principle, whether evidence obtained by torturing another human being may lawfully be admitted against a party to proceedings in a British court, irrespective of where, or by whom, or on whose authority the torture was inflicted," said Lord Bingham, writing the lead opinion in a unanimous ruling for the Law Lords. "To that question I would give a very clear negative answer."
The ruling dealt specifically with 10 men who were detained after the attacks on the United States on Sept. 11, 2001, and were held without charge in Britain on suspicion of being terrorists. But while the question at hand concerned only British courts, the ruling seems to have been made with the current international situation very much in mind. Several of the concurring opinions referred explicitly, and not flatteringly, to the United States.
...Speaking of what he said was England's justifiable pride in its common-law rejection, centuries ago, of torture as a means to an end, Lord Hoffman brought his argument forward to the current era. "In our own century," he wrote, "many people in the United States, heirs to that common-law tradition, have felt their country dishonored by its use of torture outside the jurisdiction, and its practice of extra-legal 'rendition' of suspects to countries where they would be tortured."
...The Law Lords struck down the Court of Appeal decision in strong, stirring, indignant language that referred to centuries of English common-law precedent, to the moral weight of international treaties and obligations like the United Nations Convention Against Torture, and to the rights of individuals as enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights.
"The principles of the common law, standing alone, in my opinion compel the exclusion of third-party torture evidence as unreliable, unfair, offensive to ordinary standards of humanity and decency and incompatible with the principles which should animate a tribunal seeking to administer justice," Lord Bingham wrote.
...The prohibition against torture "has now become one of the most fundamental standards of the international community," Lord Bingham continued.
"This prohibition is designed to produce a deterrent effect, in that it signals to all members of the international community and the individuals over whom they wield authority that the prohibition of torture is an absolute value from which nobody must deviate." [Emphasis added]
Indeed.
Britain's highest court thrust itself into the middle of a roiling international debate on Thursday, declaring that evidence obtained through torture - no matter by whom - was not admissible in British courts. It also said Britain had a "positive obligation" to uphold antitorture principles abroad as well as at home.
"The issue is one of constitutional principle, whether evidence obtained by torturing another human being may lawfully be admitted against a party to proceedings in a British court, irrespective of where, or by whom, or on whose authority the torture was inflicted," said Lord Bingham, writing the lead opinion in a unanimous ruling for the Law Lords. "To that question I would give a very clear negative answer."
The ruling dealt specifically with 10 men who were detained after the attacks on the United States on Sept. 11, 2001, and were held without charge in Britain on suspicion of being terrorists. But while the question at hand concerned only British courts, the ruling seems to have been made with the current international situation very much in mind. Several of the concurring opinions referred explicitly, and not flatteringly, to the United States.
...Speaking of what he said was England's justifiable pride in its common-law rejection, centuries ago, of torture as a means to an end, Lord Hoffman brought his argument forward to the current era. "In our own century," he wrote, "many people in the United States, heirs to that common-law tradition, have felt their country dishonored by its use of torture outside the jurisdiction, and its practice of extra-legal 'rendition' of suspects to countries where they would be tortured."
...The Law Lords struck down the Court of Appeal decision in strong, stirring, indignant language that referred to centuries of English common-law precedent, to the moral weight of international treaties and obligations like the United Nations Convention Against Torture, and to the rights of individuals as enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights.
"The principles of the common law, standing alone, in my opinion compel the exclusion of third-party torture evidence as unreliable, unfair, offensive to ordinary standards of humanity and decency and incompatible with the principles which should animate a tribunal seeking to administer justice," Lord Bingham wrote.
...The prohibition against torture "has now become one of the most fundamental standards of the international community," Lord Bingham continued.
"This prohibition is designed to produce a deterrent effect, in that it signals to all members of the international community and the individuals over whom they wield authority that the prohibition of torture is an absolute value from which nobody must deviate." [Emphasis added]
Indeed.
posted by Diane at 3:57 AM
1 Comments:
you do perty well on the blob stats side of life. how you doin it without any commets ever. hmmmm... anither lawterd screwin the pubic.
Post a Comment
<< Home