Skip to main content

Torture enthusiasts are in the line of British fire

Torture, and all that involves - let alone its legality - is very much topical at the moment. If one were to listen to the Bush White House, and its cohorts, its OK to torture. Needless to say there are many others, notably some seemingly misguided lawyers, who take the position that torture can be justified in certain circumstances. That disgraceful professor of law at Harvard, Alan Dershowitz, is one of those who fall into the latter camp.

Richard Ackland, lawyer, commentator and editor of Justinian, in his weekly op-ed piece in the SMH, puts the question of torture out there and reflects on a English case dealing with the subject - and in the process, rightly, takes a stick to those lawyers who would supported torture.

"Remember that clutch of outspoken and confident lawyers who in last year's torture debates bravely came out for the freedom to torture?

They seemed mostly to be from Melbourne. One was a professional loud mouth, whose name I've forgotten, and there was another fellow from one of the Victorian academic centres who also saw the value in an appropriate bit of torture.

Extreme scenarios were posed. What if a detainee knew where the bomb was located that was timed to blow up Parliament House. Well, torture away until you got the answer. Dick Cheney helpfully chimed in, "It's a no brainer".

The only trouble now is that it's unlikely the torturees can even be tried for their alleged crimes. Their confessions are not worth the trouble, or as the judges say, "the evidence is unreliable".

Increasingly this is the truth facing the last spluttering moments of the Bush Administration.

One of the US Federal courts recently reopened a damages claim brought by Maher Arar, a Syrian-born Canadian citizen arrested by the U.S. at JFK airport in 2002 and forcibly extradited to Syria for "interrogation".

He was "interrogated" for a year before being released without charge.

In New York a judge has given the CIA a final deadline before holding the agency in contempt for the "spoliation" of torture videotapes. And then there's Jose Padilla, a US citizen falsely imprisoned in a Navy brig for three-and-a-half years, who is suing John Yoo, the former Justice Department "lawyer" and one of the principal architects of the Bush government's torture policy.

However, the most recent and the biggest blow to torture enthusiasts has come from the Brits. Last week the High Court in London ruled that the UK Government should hand over to lawyers of a Guantanamo detainee, Binyam Mohamed, exculpatory secret documents. Mohamed was a British resident who was arrested in Pakistan in 2002. The United States illegally rendered him to (shudder) Morocco, where he was held for over a year, moved to a secret CIA prison in Afghanistan, then to the Bagram prison in that country before being shipped off to Guantanamo Bay, which is his current address."

Read the complete piece here.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Reading the Chilcot Inquiry Report more closely

Most commentary on the Chilcot Inquiry Report of and associated with the Iraq War, has been "lifted" from the Executive Summary.   The Intercept has actually gone and dug into the Report, with these revelations : "THE CHILCOT REPORT, the U.K.’s official inquiry into its participation in the Iraq War, has finally been released after seven years of investigation. Its executive summary certainly makes former Prime Minister Tony Blair, who led the British push for war, look terrible. According to the report, Blair made statements about Iraq’s nonexistent chemical, biological, and nuclear programs based on “what Mr. Blair believed” rather than the intelligence he had been given. The U.K. went to war despite the fact that “diplomatic options had not been exhausted.” Blair was warned by British intelligence that terrorism would “increase in the event of war, reflecting intensified anti-US/anti-Western sentiment in the Muslim world, including among Muslim communities in the

An unpalatable truth!

Quinoa has for the last years been the "new" food on the block for foodies. Known for its health properties, foodies the world over have taken to it. Many restaurants have added it to their menu. But, as this piece " Can vegans stomach the unpalatable truth about quinoa? " from The Guardian so clearly details, the cost to Bolivians and Peruvians - from where quinoa hails - has been substantial. "Not long ago, quinoa was just an obscure Peruvian grain you could only buy in wholefood shops. We struggled to pronounce it (it's keen-wa, not qui-no-a), yet it was feted by food lovers as a novel addition to the familiar ranks of couscous and rice. Dieticians clucked over quinoa approvingly because it ticked the low-fat box and fitted in with government healthy eating advice to "base your meals on starchy foods". Adventurous eaters liked its slightly bitter taste and the little white curls that formed around the grains. Vegans embraced quinoa as

Climate change: Well-organised hoax?

There are still some - all too sadly people with a voice who are listened to - who assert that climate change is a hoax. Try telling that to the people of Colorado who recently experienced horrendous bushfires, or the people of Croatia suffering with endless days of temps of 40 degrees (and not much less than 30 at night time) some 8-10 degrees above the norm. Bill McKibben, take up the issue of whether climate change is a hoax, on The Daily Beast : Please don’t sweat the 2,132 new high temperature marks in June—remember, climate change is a hoax. The first to figure this out was Oklahoma Senator James Inhofe, who in fact called it “the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people,” apparently topping even the staged moon landing. But others have been catching on. Speaker of the House John Boehner pointed out that the idea that carbon dioxide is “harmful to the environment is almost comical.” The always cautious Mitt Romney scoffed at any damage too: “Scientists will fig