(no subject)

[armb]

We in the UK might detain people indefinitely without charge, but at least we aren't considering outsourcing torture. What sort of moral code comes up with the idea that it's ok to torture suspects so long as it's done somewhere else?

Comments

[filkerdave.livejournal.com]

All done in the name of Homeland Security, of course

[demoneyes.livejournal.com]

However note that while our Human-Rights-Preaching Govt has not - at least as far as I know - planned on outsourcing torture, they have AIUI decided that evidence potentially gained under torture conducted elsewhere will still be admissible as guidance to their decisions e.g. whether to detain someone indefinitely without trial.

:-(

But, indirectly...

[muninnhuginn]

As explained here it could happen to a British Citizen all the same.

Question is, I suppose, would this necessitate two plane trips, one to the States and then one to the torture contractor's country?

Re: But, indirectly...

[rdmaughan.livejournal.com]

Yes, it would. The UK would need to extradite to the USA. The USA would then extradite to the, shall we call them the "interrogation facilitator"?

I doubt this would happen in practice. The US government is unlikely to risk the fallout from being caught torturing subjects of one of their few allies.

I am also sure it would only happen once. Nowhere in the EC will extradite to the US on a capital crime without a guarantee to not seek the death penalty. If the US shipped a citizen of ours to Eygpt or Syria for torture the EU would probably stop extraditing anyone facing terrorism charges to the US.

Re: But, indirectly...

[muninnhuginn]

I doubt this would happen in practice. The US government is unlikely to risk the fallout from being caught torturing subjects of one of their few allies.

I'd be tempted to say "tell that to the British, and other non-US, citizens at Guantanamo Bay", but it'd be a cheap shot.

Re: But, indirectly...

[rdmaughan.livejournal.com]

And as far as I can see a pointless and irrelevent one too.

Re: But, indirectly...

[armb.livejournal.com]

The US government has been accused of torturing British citizens. The fallout risk appears small.

Re: But, indirectly...

[rdmaughan.livejournal.com]

I gave you a snotty reply to this previously because you used a debating trick that has always irritated me.

The "I could say this but I won't because..." trick. This, in my opinion, is just a way of making a cheap shot without getting a reputation as someone who makes cheap shots.

Of course that may not have been deliberate on your part so sorry for the less than polite reply i sent previously.

The rest is a more constructive reply, hopefully.

Guantanamo is obviously not a pleasent place to be sent to. I personally think it is immoral, counterproductive and should be closed down. However I suspect standards of treatment there are orders of magnitudes better than the standards at some of the places the US is considering deporting people to.

As far as I am aware nobody at Guantanamo has been electrocuted or drowned in shit. So we are talking about different levels of abuse.

Any abuse is bad and should be opposed but the levels potentially involved here are different and likely to cause different levels of public outrage.

Guilty as charged, m'lud

[muninnhuginn]

Yup, very irritating (I tries, I does: one day I'll rise to immensely irritating!). Which is why I didn't post a cross reply.

Re: But, indirectly...

[armb.livejournal.com]

And the agreement that UK citizens will be extradited more or less on request to the US isn't bilateral, since that would be Unconstitutional.

[rdmaughan.livejournal.com]

I am not completely comfortable with the detention without charge in the UK but I will say the following in its defence.

We are only holding 11 people. This is 11 more than I would like but it does suggest a selective approach rather than a lets lock them all up to be on the safe side approach.

They are held in normal prisons not seperate camps.

I believe all of them are free to leave if they can find a country that will take them. Effectively what the government want to do is deport them but it cannot do so as there is no where that will take them which the prsoners will agree to go to.

So we have three choices

1) Send them to a country they don't want to go to. In most if not all cases this would result in death or torture.

2) Let them loose when the government regards them as a threat to public safety. Not keen on this and not a risk most politicians will run.

3) Detain them as we are now.

Anyone got a better idea?

[armb.livejournal.com]

Detain them, while allowing them access to lawyers who are allowed to know what the evidence against them is, with some prospect of eventual trial or release?

[rdmaughan.livejournal.com]

The detainees have access to a lawyer of their choice.

Neither the detainee nor their lawyer has access to the evidence against them but this is the same for anyone detained in the UK. The police do not disclose details of an ongoing investigation, details are only passed to the defence when the CPS decides to proceed with a prosecution.

Effectively these guys are held nt because we want to imprison them but because we want to deport them and cannot safely do so.

Breakdown of people detained so far.

16 detained in total, all are north african muslims.

2 have opted to leave the country
1 has been released on bail
1 released having won his appeal against detention
1 released as no longer considered a threat

Eight of the nine detainees appealing to the law lords have appealed against their detention and failed.