totalfreedom said:
The revelation that the House of Lords operate under evidence gathered under torture, is an indication that Queen Elizabeth II, "protector of the people and defender of the faith" might become he head of a world wide holly inquisition.
"MI5 'acts on facts gained under torture'
London Telegraph | October 21 2005
By Duncan Gardham
The head of MI5 has submitted evidence to the House of Lords indicating that her agents are prepared to act on intelligence obtained under torture in the fight against terrorism."
http://www.infowars.com/articles/ps/torture_mi5_acts_on_facts_gained_from_torture.htm
It's a slight shame that you didn't spot the last line on the Telegraph page, leading to another article;
Courts 'must oppose torture', law lords told
By Joshua Rozenberg, Legal Editor
(Filed: 18/10/2005)
Courts "should set their face against torture and the fruits of torture", seven law lords were told yesterday.
The claim, which is opposed by the Government, was made on behalf of 10 suspected foreign terrorists.
They claim that, in deciding to detain them, the Home Secretary was not entitled to rely on information obtained by foreign intelligence agencies through torture.
Ben Emmerson, QC, for the detainees - most of whom are Algerian - said Britain now exchanged intelligence information with states that practised torture.
He wants the seven judges to rule that evidence obtained through torture cannot be used in legal proceedings.
But Ian Burnett, QC, for the Home Secretary, maintained that there was no rule of law preventing a court from relying on statements of a third party obtained by agents of a foreign state through torture.
Mr Emmerson admitted that English law allowed the authorities to make operational use of information obtained through torture. If the police were to beat a confession out of a kidnapper, forcing him to reveal the location of his victim, it would be lawful for other officers to rescue the victim even though the confession could not be used against the kidnapper in court.
The QC was responding to a question by Lord Nicholls, who wanted to know why it was inappropriate for one arm of the state, a court, to rely on torture when this was acceptable for another arm of the state, the minister.
Mr Burnett, for Charles Clarke, argued that such a "mismatch" between what the executive might do and how it could justify its conduct to a court was unprincipled, leading to "absurd" results.
Mr Emmerson was supported by 14 human rights organisations. Keir Starmer, QC, for the 14, will argue that international agreements impose absolute obligations on states to prevent torture.
The 10 former detainees are challenging a decision of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission, upheld by a majority of two to one in the Court of Appeal last year. The hearing before the law lords is expected to end tomorrow, with judgment reserved.
[email protected]
13 October 2005: Terror Bill 'too weak to prevent human rights challenge'
