UK Torture Inquiry

[Happy Face 29]

Foreign Secretary William Hague is to order an inquiry into allegations that the UK's security services were complicit in torture overseas.

 

Mr Hague said the investigation would be "judge-led" and details of it would be announced "pretty soon".

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/8696559.stm

 

Credit where it's due.

 

Can't help but agree with Richard Herring. Following the scrapping of ID cards and the new runway at Heathrow he pointed out...

 

"It appears the new right wing government is going to be more left wing than the old left wing government, and yet left wing people are mourning the loss of a right wing left wing government, even though it is possible the new right wing government is more left wing. The first thing any new Labour leader should try is possibly to make their party more left wing than the Tories again....and if that's not too much to ask, possibly more left wing than the Liberal Democrats too."

[Renton 22008]

Foreign Secretary William Hague is to order an inquiry into allegations that the UK's security services were complicit in torture overseas.

 

Mr Hague said the investigation would be "judge-led" and details of it would be announced "pretty soon".

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/8696559.stm

 

Credit where it's due.

 

Can't help but agree with Richard Herring. Following the scrapping of ID cards and the new runway at Heathrow he pointed out...

 

"It appears the new right wing government is going to be more left wing than the old left wing government, and yet left wing people are mourning the loss of a right wing left wing government, even though it is possible the new right wing government is more left wing. The first thing any new Labour leader should try is possibly to make their party more left wing than the Tories again....and if that's not too much to ask, possibly more left wing than the Liberal Democrats too."

 

A bit daft to come to such conclusions so early based on a couple of policies. As for Heathrow, what does that have to do with political persuasion. To scrap runway three is just fucking stupid, end of.

[Happy Face 29]

Foreign Secretary William Hague is to order an inquiry into allegations that the UK's security services were complicit in torture overseas.

 

Mr Hague said the investigation would be "judge-led" and details of it would be announced "pretty soon".

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/8696559.stm

 

Credit where it's due.

 

Can't help but agree with Richard Herring. Following the scrapping of ID cards and the new runway at Heathrow he pointed out...

 

"It appears the new right wing government is going to be more left wing than the old left wing government, and yet left wing people are mourning the loss of a right wing left wing government, even though it is possible the new right wing government is more left wing. The first thing any new Labour leader should try is possibly to make their party more left wing than the Tories again....and if that's not too much to ask, possibly more left wing than the Liberal Democrats too."

 

A bit daft to come to such conclusions so early based on a couple of policies. As for Heathrow, what does that have to do with political persuasion. To scrap runway three is just fucking stupid, end of.

 

Environmental policies are frequently seen as a bit lefty liberal like.

[Renton 22008]

Foreign Secretary William Hague is to order an inquiry into allegations that the UK's security services were complicit in torture overseas.

 

Mr Hague said the investigation would be "judge-led" and details of it would be announced "pretty soon".

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/8696559.stm

 

Credit where it's due.

 

Can't help but agree with Richard Herring. Following the scrapping of ID cards and the new runway at Heathrow he pointed out...

 

"It appears the new right wing government is going to be more left wing than the old left wing government, and yet left wing people are mourning the loss of a right wing left wing government, even though it is possible the new right wing government is more left wing. The first thing any new Labour leader should try is possibly to make their party more left wing than the Tories again....and if that's not too much to ask, possibly more left wing than the Liberal Democrats too."

 

A bit daft to come to such conclusions so early based on a couple of policies. As for Heathrow, what does that have to do with political persuasion. To scrap runway three is just fucking stupid, end of.

 

Environmental policies are frequently seen as a bit lefty liberal like.

 

And protecting leafy southern villages is Conservative.

 

I do admit though that the Daily Mail must be howling at the moon about the coalition!

[LeazesMag 0]

"human rights watchdog".

 

Fuck off.

[ChezGiven 0]

The people who would economically benefit in the short-term from Heathrow are the mainly Asian populations of Uxbridge and Southall.

 

The long term benefit for the economy will take a while to filter through, which means its just a cost for the public sector in the short-term. Also, in a recession, you dont need to expand your infrastructure that was coping during the boom.

 

Not a comment on the ideologies, just from a practical perspective, the Heathrow runway doesnt say much else.

[Renton 22008]

The people who would economically benefit in the short-term from Heathrow are the mainly Asian populations of Uxbridge and Southall.

 

The long term benefit for the economy will take a while to filter through, which means its just a cost for the public sector in the short-term. Also, in a recession, you dont need to expand your infrastructure that was coping during the boom.

 

Not a comment on the ideologies, just from a practical perspective, the Heathrow runway doesnt say much else.

 

It'd take at least 5 years to build a third runway though so I'm not convinced the current recession should influence planning.

 

As for the environment, the planes will simply go elsewhere, or remain stacked above our capital city, burning fuel, waiting to land.

[Happy Face 29]

The people who would economically benefit in the short-term from Heathrow are the mainly Asian populations of Uxbridge and Southall.

 

The long term benefit for the economy will take a while to filter through, which means its just a cost for the public sector in the short-term. Also, in a recession, you dont need to expand your infrastructure that was coping during the boom.

 

Not a comment on the ideologies, just from a practical perspective, the Heathrow runway doesnt say much else.

 

It'd take at least 5 years to build a third runway though so I'm not convinced the current recession should influence planning.

 

As for the environment, the planes will simply go elsewhere, or remain stacked above our capital city, burning fuel, waiting to land.

 

I'd imagine extra flights would be put on, rather than the existing density of flights being reduced to any great degree.

[Renton 22008]

The people who would economically benefit in the short-term from Heathrow are the mainly Asian populations of Uxbridge and Southall.

 

The long term benefit for the economy will take a while to filter through, which means its just a cost for the public sector in the short-term. Also, in a recession, you dont need to expand your infrastructure that was coping during the boom.

 

Not a comment on the ideologies, just from a practical perspective, the Heathrow runway doesnt say much else.

 

It'd take at least 5 years to build a third runway though so I'm not convinced the current recession should influence planning.

 

As for the environment, the planes will simply go elsewhere, or remain stacked above our capital city, burning fuel, waiting to land.

 

I'd imagine extra flights would be put on, rather than the existing density of flights being reduced to any great degree.

 

If there is more demand extra flights will be put on anyway. They will just benefit other countries.

[Happy Face 29]

The people who would economically benefit in the short-term from Heathrow are the mainly Asian populations of Uxbridge and Southall.

 

The long term benefit for the economy will take a while to filter through, which means its just a cost for the public sector in the short-term. Also, in a recession, you dont need to expand your infrastructure that was coping during the boom.

 

Not a comment on the ideologies, just from a practical perspective, the Heathrow runway doesnt say much else.

 

It'd take at least 5 years to build a third runway though so I'm not convinced the current recession should influence planning.

 

As for the environment, the planes will simply go elsewhere, or remain stacked above our capital city, burning fuel, waiting to land.

 

I'd imagine extra flights would be put on, rather than the existing density of flights being reduced to any great degree.

 

If there is more demand extra flights will be put on anyway. They will just benefit other countries.

 

Which is why it's a strong environmental move by the UK.

Edited May 21, 2010 by Happy Face

[Happy Face 29]

Over the past couple years, I've written numerous times about the serious left-right coalition that had emerged in Britain -- between the Tories and Liberal Democrats -- in opposition to the Labour Government's civil liberties abuses, many (thought not all) of which were justified by Terrorism. In June of 2008, David Davis, a leading Tory MP, resigned from Parliament in protest of the Government's efforts to expand its power of preventive detention to 42 days (and was then overwhelmingly re-elected on a general platform of opposing growing surveillance and detention authorities). Numerous leading figures from both the Right and Left defied their party's establishment to speak out in support of Davis and against the Government's growing powers. Back then, the Liberal Democrats' Leader, Nick Clegg, notably praised the right-wing Davis' resignation, and to show his support for Davis' positions, Clegg even refused to run a Lib Dem candidate for that seat because, as he put it, "some issues 'go beyond party politics'."

 

Now that this left-right, Tory/Lib-Dem alliance has removed the Labour Party from power and is governing Britain, these commitments to restoring core liberties -- Actual Change -- show no sign of retreating. Rather than cynically tossing these promises of restrained government power onto the trash pile of insincere campaign rhetoric, they are implementing them into actual policy. Clegg, now the Deputy Prime Minister, gave an extraordinary speech last week in which he vowed "the biggest shake-up of our democracy since 1832." He railed against a litany of government policies and proposals that form the backbone of Britain's Surveillance State, from ID Card schemes, national identity registers, biometric passports, the storing of Internet and email records, to DNA databases, proliferating security cameras, and repressive restrictions on free speech and assembly rights. But more striking than these specific positions were the general, anti-authoritarian principles he espoused -- ones that sound increasingly foreign to most Americans. Clegg said:

 

 

It is outrageous that decent, law-abiding people are regularly treated as if they have something to hide. It has to stop. . . . And we will end practices that risk making Britain a place where our children grow up so used to their liberty being infringed that they accept it without question. . . . This will be a government that is proud when British citizens stand up against illegitimate advances of the state. . . .

 

And we will, of course, introduce safeguards to prevent the misuse of anti-terrorism legislation. There have been too many cases of individuals being denied their rights . . . And whole communities being placed under suspicion. . . . This government will do better by British justice. Respecting great, British freedoms . . . Which is why we'll also defend trial by jury.

 

 

Clegg also inveighed against the oppressive criminal justice system that imprisons far too many citizens and criminalizes far too many acts with no improvement in safety, and also pledged radical reform to the political system in order to empower citizens over wealthy interests. To underscore that this was not mere rhetoric, the Tory/Lib-Dem coalition published their official platform containing all of these proposals, and the Civil Liberties section begins with language inconceivable for mainstream American discourse: "The Government believes the British state has become too authoritarian, and that over the past decade it has abused fundamental human rights and historic civil liberties."

 

Most striking of all, the new Government (specifically William Hague, its conservative Foreign Secretary) just announced that "a judge will investigate claims that British intelligence agencies were complicit in the torture of terror suspects." More amazing still:

 

The judicial inquiry announced by the foreign secretary into Britain's role in torture and rendition since September 2001 is poised to shed extraordinary light on one of the darkest episodes in the country's recent history.

 

It is expected to expose not only details of the activities of the security and intelligence officials alleged to have colluded in torture since 9/11, but also the identities of the senior figures in government who authorised those activities. . . . Those who have been most bitterly resisting an inquiry -- including a number of senior figures in the last government -- may have been dismayed to see the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition formed, as this maximised the chances of a judicial inquiry being established.

 

What an astounding feat of human innovation: they are apparently able to Look Backward and Forward at the same time! And this concept that an actual court will review allegations of grave Government crimes rather than ignoring them in the name of Political Harmony: my, the British, even after all these centuries, do continue to invent all sorts of brand new and exotic precepts of modern liberty.

 

Most readers have likely been doing so already when reading these prior paragraphs, but just contrast all of this to what is taking place in the United States under Democratic Party rule. We get -- from the current Government -- presidential assassination programs, detention with no charges, senseless demands for further reductions of core rights when arrested, ongoing secret prisons filled with abuse, military commissions, warrantless surveillance of emails, and presidential secrecy claims to block courts from reviewing claims of government crimes. The Democratic-led Congress takes still new steps to block the closing of Guantanamo. Democratic leaders push for biometric, national ID cards. The most minimal surveillance safeguards are ignored. Even the miniscule limits on eavesdropping powers are transgressed. And from just this week: "Millions of Americans arrested for but not convicted of crimes will likely have their DNA forcibly extracted and added to a national database, according to a bill approved by the U.S. House of Representatives on Tuesday" (h/t Dan Gillmor).

 

Can anyone even imagine for one second Barack Obama standing up and saying: "My administration believes that the American state has become too authoritarian"? Even if he were willing to utter those words -- and he wouldn't be -- his doing so would trigger a massive laughing fit in light of his actions. While Nick Clegg says this week that his civil liberties commitments are "so important that he was taking personal responsibility for implementing them, and promised that the new government would not be 'insecure about relinquishing control'," our Government moves inexorably in the other direction.

 

I don't want to idealize what's taking place in Britain: it still remains to be seen how serious these commitments are and how genuine of an investigation into the torture regime will be conducted. But clearly, what was once a fringe position there has now become the mainstream platform of their new Government: that it's imperative to ensure that their country is not "a place where our children grow up so used to their liberty being infringed that they accept it without question."

 

That's exactly what the U.S. has become, as each new Terrorist attack (or even failed attack) prompts one question and one question only, no matter which party is in power: "which rights do we give up now"? And each serious government crime engenders new excuses for vesting political leaders with immunity. And no new government power of detention, surveillance, or privacy-invasion is too extreme or unwarranted. Unlike in Britain, the term "civil liberties" or the phrase "the state has become too authoritarian" is, in the U.S., one which only Fringe Purist Absolutists utter. Unlike in Britain, efforts to impose serious constraints on unchecked government power are, in the U.S., the exclusive and lonely province of The Unserious Losers among us. And unlike in Britain, the notion that political leaders should actually do what they vowed during the campaign they would do is, in the U.S., a belief held only by terribly un-Pragmatic purist ideologues. Whatever else is true, it is encouraging that a major Western country -- one that has been the victim of a horrific terrorist attack and that has a substantial Muslim population -- has a government that is explicitly advocating (and, at least to some extent, implementing) these ideals.

 

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_gr...tain/index.html

[Renton 22008]

The people who would economically benefit in the short-term from Heathrow are the mainly Asian populations of Uxbridge and Southall.

 

The long term benefit for the economy will take a while to filter through, which means its just a cost for the public sector in the short-term. Also, in a recession, you dont need to expand your infrastructure that was coping during the boom.

 

Not a comment on the ideologies, just from a practical perspective, the Heathrow runway doesnt say much else.

 

It'd take at least 5 years to build a third runway though so I'm not convinced the current recession should influence planning.

 

As for the environment, the planes will simply go elsewhere, or remain stacked above our capital city, burning fuel, waiting to land.

 

I'd imagine extra flights would be put on, rather than the existing density of flights being reduced to any great degree.

 

If there is more demand extra flights will be put on anyway. They will just benefit other countries.

 

Which is why it's a strong environmental move by the UK.

 

You can stick unilateral environmentalism up your arse tbh.

[Happy Face 29]

You can stick unilateral environmentalism up your arse tbh.

 

Makes you look far less preposterous when you try and get India, the US, China and that to agree to reduce their emissions with a multilateral agreement though.

[Renton 22008]

You can stick unilateral environmentalism up your arse tbh.

 

Makes you look far less preposterous when you try and get India, the US, China and that to agree to reduce their emissions with a multilateral agreement though.

 

OK, a bit tongue in cheek but in this case I just think the planes would go straight to Schipoll or Charles de Gaulle. I'd give it 18 months before the tories backtrack on this decision. And about the same time frame for many civil liberty issues too.

[NJS 4411]

There were a few thing Labour promised pre-97 in opposition like an ethical foreign policy (including no arms sales to cunts) and a public enquiry into Hillsborough. As soon as they got in and I presume were visited by the coppers and mi5, all of those were soon dropped - I expect the same thing to happen now.

 

Cancelling things like ID cards which haven't been passed is one on thing - removing powers already in use by the services is another and I can't imagine any government of any hue doing it.

[Happy Face 29]

There were a few thing Labour promised pre-97 in opposition like an ethical foreign policy (including no arms sales to cunts) and a public enquiry into Hillsborough. As soon as they got in and I presume were visited by the coppers and mi5, all of those were soon dropped - I expect the same thing to happen now.

 

Cancelling things like ID cards which haven't been passed is one on thing - removing powers already in use by the services is another and I can't imagine any government of any hue doing it.

 

 

If it was just the Tories I'd be as cynical.

 

With the Cleggmeister tugging at the coat tails I think there's at least a modicum of integrity involved.

 

You may say that I'm a dreamer but I'll lament the coalition failure once it actually happens.

[Renton 22008]

With the Cleggmeister tugging at the coat tails I think there's at least a modicum of integrity involved.

 

Nope, no modicums of integrity left I'm afraid.

[spongebob toonpants 4153]

Foreign Secretary William Hague is to order an inquiry into allegations that the UK's security services were complicit in torture overseas.

 

Mr Hague said the investigation would be "judge-led" and details of it would be announced "pretty soon".

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/8696559.stm

 

Credit where it's due.

 

Can't help but agree with Richard Herring. Following the scrapping of ID cards and the new runway at Heathrow he pointed out...

 

"It appears the new right wing government is going to be more left wing than the old left wing government, and yet left wing people are mourning the loss of a right wing left wing government, even though it is possible the new right wing government is more left wing. The first thing any new Labour leader should try is possibly to make their party more left wing than the Tories again....and if that's not too much to ask, possibly more left wing than the Liberal Democrats too."

 

A bit daft to come to such conclusions so early based on a couple of policies. As for Heathrow, what does that have to do with political persuasion. To scrap runway three is just fucking stupid, end of.

 

Environmental policies are frequently seen as a bit lefty liberal like.

 

And protecting leafy southern villages is Conservative.

 

I do admit though that the Daily Mail must be howling at the moon about the coalition!

 

My core position of disagreeing with everything the Daily Mail believes is leaving me in a very disorientated and unhappy place atm

[Happy Face 29]

David Cameron has said a "judge-led" inquiry will be set up into claims that UK agents were complicit in the torture of terror suspects.

 

The prime minister promised compensation for victims if it was found foreign security staff committed abuses with UK counterparts colluding.

 

Speaking in the Commons, Mr Cameron said to ignore claims would risk UK agents' reputation "being tarnished".

 

Ongoing criminal and civil cases must end before the inquiry starts, he said.

 

The findings of the "fully independent" investigation, chaired by former Appeal Court judge Sir Peter Gibson, would be published by the end of the year, the prime minister added.

 

The Conservatives and Liberal Democrats have long called for an investigation into the claims by Ethiopian-born UK resident Binyam Mohamed that UK security services were aware of his torture by foreign interrogators, who were allegedly fed questions via the CIA.

 

Mr Cameron told MPs that these and other allegations were "not proven".

 

'Morally abhorrent'

 

But he added: "Our reputation as a country that believes in human rights and the rule of law... risks being tarnished."

 

The panel conducting the inquiry would have access to all relevant government papers, the prime minister promised, with some proceedings held in public.

 

He indicated that the government was ready to provide mediation to people pursuing civil cases in relation to their detention in the US-run Guantanamo Bay detention camp.

 

Labour leader Harriet Harman supported the inquiry, saying that any incidents of torture were "morally abhorrent".

 

The government is also issuing guidance to the UK security services, including not taking any action which they know or believe could lead to torture by operatives from abroad.

 

Mr Mohamed says he was tortured after being held in Pakistan in 2002, and subsequently moved to Morocco and Afghanistan.

 

He says the only evidence against him was obtained through such methods. Mr Mohamed also says agents from the UK's MI5 knew about this and fed questions to his interrogators through the CIA.

 

But UK security services say they do not use or condone torture.

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/politics/10521326.stm

[NJS 4411]

I think historically a lot of shit the security services have got up to has probably been unknown by governments of all parties - they probably had a "scared to ask" attitude.

 

If they find out Muslims were tortured I'd like to see the inquiry extended to say everything post-war which would include other skeletons at a guess.

[Happy Face 29]

Around a dozen men, who accused British security forces of colluding in their torture overseas, are to get millions in compensation from the UK government.

 

Some of the men, who are all British citizens or residents, were detained at the Guantanamo Bay prison camp in Cuba.

 

At least six of them alleged UK forces were complicit in their torture before they arrived at Guantanamo.

 

A ministerial statement on the out-of-court settlement is due to be made in the House of Commons later on Tuesday.

 

It is believed the government wanted to avoid a lengthy and costly court case which would also have put the British secret intelligence services under the spotlight.

 

Avoiding costs

 

Bisher al-Rawi, Jamil el Banna, Richard Belmar, Omar Deghayes, Binyam Mohamed and Martin Mubanga were among those who had begun High Court cases against the government.

 

They had claimed that UK intelligence agencies and three government departments were complicit in their torture and should have prevented it.

 

In May, the Court of Appeal ruled that the government was unable to rely on "secret evidence" to defend itself against the six cases.

 

Then, in July, the High Court ordered the release of some of the 500,000 documents relating to the case.

 

At least 60 government lawyers and officials have been working through the documents.

 

The settlement was believed to have been agreed after lengthy negotiations.

 

The controversial Guantanamo Bay camp was run by US forces BBC political correspondent Ross Hawkins said the Intelligence and Security Committee and the National Audit Office would be briefed about the payments.

 

He said the government would now be able to move forward with plans for an inquiry, led by Sir Peter Gibson, into claims that UK security services were complicit in the torture of terror suspects.

 

The Cabinet Office said: "The prime minister set out clearly in his statement to the House (of Commons) on July 6 that we need to deal with the totally unsatisfactory situation where for 'the past few years, the reputation of our security services has been overshadowed by allegations about their involvement in the treatment of detainees held by other countries'."

 

Tuesday's statement is expected to be made by Justice Secretary Ken Clarke.

 

The UK security services have always denied any claims that they have used or condoned the use of torture.

 

Last month, the head of MI6, Sir John Sawers described torture as "illegal and abhorrent" and defended the service's need for secrecy.

 

Mr Mohamed, from west London, was held in Pakistan in 2002 before US agencies moved him to Morocco, where he was severely tortured, before he was sent on to Guantanamo Bay in Cuba.

 

It later emerged that a British intelligence officer visited him in detention in Pakistan and that the CIA had told London what mistreatment he had suffered.

 

Mr Mohamed, 32, had alleged that his torturers in Morocco had asked questions supplied by MI5.

 

He was released in 2009, when allegations of British involvement in torture returned to prominence.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11762636

 

"But UK security services say they do not use or condone torture."

Edited November 16, 2010 by Happy Face

[Rob W 0]

pigeons- home - roost

 

and what makes me al;most happy is that people like Leazes and all the other members of the "hang-em-high" brigade will be paying just as much as I am in compensation

[LeazesMag 0]

pigeons- home - roost

 

and what makes me al;most happy is that people like Leazes and all the other members of the "hang-em-high" brigade will be paying just as much as I am in compensation

 

If anything, all the more reason why we should have preferably shot them when we had the chance.

 

You would allow half the world to live here, you would.

 

You don't get it. Just because it can't be proven, doesn't mean they weren't involved. The law is an ass - along with those who stupidly believe that justice always prevails, because it doesn't.

 

Pigeons - home - roost will be when you get some of these nutters moving into the house next door to you.

[Guest alex]

If anything, all the more reason why we should have preferably shot them when we had the chance.

[Kevin S. Assilleekunt 1]

With the Cleggmeister tugging at the coat tails I think there's at least a modicum of integrity involved.

 

Ah yes, that bastion of human integrity Nick Clegg; what a man.