Government loses torture appeal

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by StickyToffeePudding, Feb 10, 2010.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. "Binyam Mohamed torture appeal lost by UK government

    Binyam Mohamed has been involved in a lengthy legal battle
    The foreign secretary has lost an Appeal Court bid to stop the disclosure of secret information relating to the alleged torture of a UK resident.

    Ethiopian-born Binyam Mohamed says UK authorities knew he was tortured at the behest of US authorities during seven years of captivity.

    David Miliband had said releasing the material would harm national security.

    Judges ruled redacted paragraphs, which say his treatment was "cruel, inhuman and degrading", should be released.

    The judgement was delivered by the three most senior Court of Appeal judges in England and Wales.

    Commenting on the case, the prime minister's spokesman said the government stood firmly against torture and cruel and inhumane treatment. "

    What grips my waste matter in all this is the utter cobblers by HMG over the 7 lines showing Mohammed was tourtured and their claim it will damage int' sharing with the US when a US court has already disclosed MORE then those 7 lines contain!

    Total waste of public money and the courts time!
  2. The judgement in its entirety is here:

    It must make very uncomfortable reading for the Foreign Secretary and the intelligence agencies. But it really is difficult to see how the following could be held to damage the ability of the UK or US to produce intelligence, or that its revelation will cause any serious harm to intelligence exchanges between the two - it is, of course, very embarrassing for both governments, but that's not what the legal argument was about:


  3. What grips my arse is why the fvck Labour were so anxious to bring Binyamin 'Honest, I was only on a sightseeing holiday in Afghanistan' Mohammed back here.
  4. Security risk my arse. Poltically embarassing yes. Embarassment is not a reason to cover up torture.

    But, as a foreigner who abused the UK to go to Afghan for a bit of jihad-play, a shoeing is the least he should get.
  5. If the British Government believed he was so guilty that he deserved 18 months of torture, why the hell do they now allow him back in the UK? If after all that time he didn't confess to anything then questions need to be asked. By torturing him we probably made sure he could never be convicted even if he were guilty. What a tangled mess the government have created by trying to deceive the public.

    That's the whole problem of allowing yourself to get dragged down into the murkey world of rendition, illegal detention and torture. You end up lying and tolerating actions that you should rightly condemn your enemies for. You end up tied in knots and unable to take any action.

    Milliband and any of his predecessors who knew about this action should be held to account in International Courts.
  6. FFS he wasn't tortured, he had a few sleepless nights, and got shouted at a bit. A bit like Sandhurst or Brecon.

    Bastard should be in jail.
  7. Somebody has to have a good long look at the torturers CV, he obviously wasn't as experienced or as qualified as he made out.

    Any decent 'interviewer' would have had what he wanted to know in a matter of hours not 18 months.
  8. 'FFS he wasn't tortured, he had a few sleepless nights, and got shouted at a bit. A bit like Sandhurst or Brecon.'

    Not quite:

    'By any measure, the treatment meted out to Binyam Mohamed was medieval in its barbarity.
    Shackled in total blackness in the CIA's 'dark prison' in Kabul, he was forced to listen to ear-splitting music 24 hours a day for a month. In Morocco he was hung from walls and ceilings and repeatedly beaten, His penis and chest were sliced with a scalpel and hot, stinging liquid poured into the open wounds.'

    I rather don't think that they allow that at Sandhurst or Brecon, if they are then things have changed since my day. Be very careful what you condone - I'm sure that those sort of comments were rife in Chile and Argentina when people started disappearing. When it's YOUR son or daughter lifted off the street it's a different matter - what will you say when they come for you?

    We now have draconian 'anti-terror' laws which allow, for example, you to be detained for 28 days without charge then released, for your assets to be seized if you are suspected of terrorism, how long before someone is detained for merely saying something that embarasses the government? Be very careful what you wish for, you might just get it.
  9. The bit I've bolded (emboldened?) wasn't in the actual court proceedings, or any of the seven paragraphs released by our courts. It was his original accusation. In other words, a made-up accusation to get headlines and sympathy. The sleep-deprivtion bit was the reality. Not pleasant, I grant you, but emphatically NOT torture.

    Accusing us of torture is a standard Jihadi tactic. Where this does happen, it is wrong and counter-productive. Where our courts bend over backwards to protect our enemies, something needs to be done.

    Oh, and I was wrong. He doesn't belong in jail. He belongs in Ethiopia.
  10. I somehow don't think the Met Police would be spending months investigating an MI5 agent for keeping someone awake for too long or subjecting a prisoner to bad and loud music.

    David Davies is hardly a bleeding heart liberal but is fighting the case of some detainees. They have given evidence that they were subjected to:

    Sleep deprivation (outlawed under various conventions incidentally)
    Stress positions (I think we banned that 30 years ago)
    Sensory deprivation
    Water-boarding (not yet authorised as an RMAS training method)
    Mock executions
    Sustained beatings
    Removal of finger nails.

    As someone pointed out - hardly the actions of an intelligent or skilled interogator. They are acts of cruelty and barbarism over a sustained period. They achieved nothing and de-values those who did it and those they are supposed to serve.

    If this sort of stuff were done to one of our soldiers we would be outraged and rightly so. I do not draw any sort of equivalence with terrorists, nor excuse their actions in any way but just make the point that we should not stoop to their disgusting levels.
  11. You talk about large numbers of other detainees, and I take your point.

    I was writing about our friend BM, who accused no-one of waterboarding, and whose other accusations were not substantiated in a British court.
  12. Well said that man, give him back his orange track suit.
  13. The minute he was arrested for 'holidaying' in Afghanistan & Pakistan his British residency should have been revoked.
  14. ....and I have no problem with that. If he had been arrested and treated in accordance with accepted international law, that is exactly what we could have done with him. Now we will face years of court action whilst lawyers and judges decide to what extent his rights were abused and who is responsible. What a fecking mess and all because we weren't prepared to say to Dubya "what you are doing is wrong under international law and we cannot, even as your most loyal ally, support you".

    The process of law is intended to protect both parties. If you ignore it, you inevitably build up greater problems.
  15. On another note, not totally unrelated, his immigration status was that he was given leave to remain whilst his case was resolved..... was his case ever resolved? And what is the legal status of people with leave to remain reference the British Government being duty bound to protect them etc. ?