Breaking News

“The principles of the common-law, standing alone, in my opinion compel the exclusion of third-party torture evidence as unreliable, unfair, offensive to ordinary standards of humanity and decency and incompatible with any principles which should animate atribunal seeking to administer justice.” Thus spoke Lord Bingham when he announced the Law Lords decision banning torture from U.K. courts. He went on: “This prohibition is designed to produce a deterrent effect, in that it signals to all members of the international community and the individuals over whom they wield authority that the prohibition of torture is an absolute value from which nobody must deviate.”

His fellow lwayer Lord Hoffman dirtected a comment to the U.S.: “In our own century [he had been talking about the centuries old ban on torture in U.K. common-law] many people in the United States, heirs to that common-law tradition, have felt their country dishonored by its use of torture outside the jurisdiction, and its practice of extra-legal ‘rendition’ of suspects to countries where they would be tortured.”

Couldn’t be clearer than that. Well said. Now we need someone here to pick up the ball. I wonder what the odds are of that?

For what it’s worth here is Harold Pinter’s Nobel Prize acceptance speech. He has cancer so he had to deliver the speech via video link from England rather than in person: Nobel Lecture – Literature 2005.

As usual he is outspoken and extraordinarily eloquent. Love him or hate him, the man can turn a phrase! What a writer. The prize was well deserved.

The U.K. House of Lords decided yesterday that evidence obtained from a prisoner by the use of torture cannot be used in a court case against that person. There are several terrorist cases working there way through the British legal system, and although no one suggests that torture has been used against any of the defendants, the ‘Law Lords’ have acted to clarify the rules. There may be an international impact from this decision: any extradition attempt by the U.S. of a prisoner held in the U.K. may now run afoul of the alleged torture being carried out by the U.S. or its surrogates. At the least a defense lawyer now can cast a reasonable shadow over such a case. This is a practical example of how the Bush administration is potentially hurting our ability to fight terrrorism by its attitude toward torture.

BTW: For those of you who are unaware, the members of the House of Lords known in the vernacular as ‘The Law Lords’ are the U.K. equivalent of the Supreme Court. I believe they are all retired High Court judges.

Not to belabor the point but now the top U.N. human rights official has criticized the U.S. for its alleged torture of prisoners. The Washington Post has this report: U.N. Official Faults U.S. Detentions. From the article you can see that John Bolton is living all the way down to my very low expectations of him when he feebly argues that a U.N. human rights official, on Human Rights Day no less, dares to tell poke at American policy. He would prefer that she speak about rogue nations such as Burma, Zimbabwe, or Cuba.

That’s exactly the issue John! America can now be mentioned in that august company thanks to the Bush administration. Burma, Cuba, Zimbabwe, America …. it sickens me.