(I feel I should add more to this comment, to make it worth its while…*whistles*…Anyone see the, er – rugby, today?)

If the Bleeding Hearts who enforce EU Human Rights do not think it is torture, there is no rational reason to think it is torture. What we are seeing is the dumbing down of torture until it fits George W. Bush.

Nor is it rational to believe that their assumed status as “Bleeding Hearts” renders them beyond understatement (as the quote that I offered in comment 24 might suggest). The conspiracy implied in your final sentence is peculiar; not least as it would have to take in the, er, U.S. State Department, which classified sleep deprivation techniques as “torture” (when deployed by another country, natch).

As for myself, I see little reason to disagree with the UN Declaration On Torture.

Mental. Not physical. No evidence of torture in other words. Interviews are meant to cause mental stress. That is the point.

From the UN link, above…

For the purpose of this Declaration, torture means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental…

I believe that sleep deprivation techniques can fit the bill. Here, for example that notorious “Bleeding Heart” Menachim Begin describes it effects on him…

In the head of the interrogated prisoner, a haze begins to form. His spirit is wearied to death, his legs are unsteady, and he has one sole desire: to sleep… Anyone who has experienced this desire knows that not even hunger and thirst are comparable with it.

Or that infamous pinko Alexander Solzhenitsyn…

Sleeplessness was a great form of torture: it left no visible marks and could not provide grounds for complaint even if an inspection-something unheard of anyway-were to strike on the morrow.

As for your final question, well – for precisely the reasons I gave.

Ben

No one is claiming that any British person either ordered or carried out the torture. There are good reasons for suspecting that certain individuals were aware he was being tortured and did nothing to prevent such treatment. It is therefore entirely right that any relevant documents be released which can throw additional light on this.

This is not an issue for the Courts. Notice that the claim is not even one of torture. He was subject to shackling which is legal, sleep deprivation and threats. In other words techniques that the British Government used in Northern Ireland and promised not to use again – but techniques which the European Courts specifically found did not amount to torture.

A US court rule that his trreatment amounted to rather more than that.

Which is interesting. But, of course, irrelevant. You have no established torture took place. You have not named a single person who took part in this torture. There is no allegation that British officials did so. No issue for the British Courts.

Given Mohamed’s own testimony, the ruling of the US court and what we know about other cases there are good reasons to believe that torture did take place, or at least sufficient grounds for further investigation. The point about universal juristicion in the case of torture is that it could be a matter for the British courts even if no British officials did take part.

The fact they did not toss it at its first hearing is proof of judicial activism. The judges did not have to hear it much less make a ruling on the matter. And they should not have done so.

It was entirely proper for them to do so. To toss it straight in the bin would itself have been a case of judicial activism.

If the Bleeding Hearts who enforce EU Human Rights do not think it is torture, there is no rational reason to think it is torture. What we are seeing is the dumbing down of torture until it fits George W. Bush. Not torture per se. But if you want to go down this route, define torture for me.

“MI5 had known since at least ­January of that year that US authorities were mistreating detainees held in the ­so-called war on terror”

Mistreating being a very flexible word. It seems they knew that they were not letting him sleep – something the EU Courts specifically declined to call torture. That is not the same as knowing of the alleged genital cutting for instance.

“so MI5 would have known Mohamed was being subjected to sleep deprivation before their interrogation”

Torture being defined down to meet this practice. No one could have reasonably known that beforehand.

“[H]e was being kept under self-harm observation,”

So they were concerned about his health. Good for them.

“th[e] the interviews were having a marked effect upon him and causing him significant mental stress and suffering”

Mental. Not physical. No evidence of torture in other words. Interviews are meant to cause mental stress. That is the point.

“Now, I freely admit to knowing little of the law, but it seems to me that if there’s a) reason to believe that a British resident has been tortured, and b) reason to believe that British agents were aware of this, is the issue really no concern of British Courts? Odd, if that’s the case.”

Why? British Courts do not run the world. What happens outside of Britain is no business of theirs. Nor is there any reason to think BM had been tortured. Just stressed. By means the EU Courts found did not constitute torture. Why would British Courts get involved?

That doesn’t invalidate my point that it’s clumsy to invoke the ECHR as a final word on what doesn’t constitute torture. To pick up on another claim, you assert that “there is no reason to think that any British people even knew of the alleged torture“. Well…

MI5 had known since at least ­January of that year that US authorities were mistreating detainees held in the ­so-called war on terror…The court says Witness B (a MI5 agent) “probably” read the documents before he travelled to Pakistan to question Mohamed, and that others in MI5 ­certainly had, so MI5 would have known Mohamed was being subjected to sleep deprivation before their interrogation…[H]e was being kept under self-harm observation, th[e] the interviews were having a marked effect upon him and causing him significant mental stress and suffering…Yet further evidence that MI5 was made aware of Mohamed’s suffering before it questioned him.

Now, I freely admit to knowing little of the law, but it seems to me that if there’s a) reason to believe that a British resident has been tortured, and b) reason to believe that British agents were aware of this, is the issue really no concern of British Courts? Odd, if that’s the case.

Ben

And this is the problem. Liberals who do not like the fact that Blair was elected and re-elected, that Parliament voted for the War and the voters approved, have decided to use the Courts to impose an undemocratic political agenda on the rest of us. Think what you like about the idiocy of electing Blair, the solution is not to allow Judges to overturn the voters’ decision by making up the law as they go along.

“I think a fine case can be made that such practices do – when deployed in a certain manner – constitute torture.”

I am sure they could. But British officials have to do what is legal at the time and not what some Lib-Dem voting Judge might decide to permit in the future.

…techniques which the European Courts specifically found did not amount to torture.

Not forgetting that…

[T]he [European Convention on Human Rights] is a living instrument which must be interpreted in the light of present-day conditions..and that certain acts which were classified in the past as ‘inhuman and degrading treatment’ as opposed to ‘torture’ could be classified differently in the future..[T]he increasingly high standard being required in the area of the protection of human rights and fundamental liberties correspondingly and inevitably requires greater firmness in assessing breaches of the fundamental values of democratic societies.

I think a fine case can be made that such practices do – when deployed in a certain manner – constitute torture.

Ben

Also it seems a little risky for someone as odious as he is to advance the argument that people can fairly be tortured as long as they’re ‘unsympathetic’ enough.

No it is not. The British Courts are abusing the word “complicit”. There is no evidence that any British people took part in the alleged torture. There is no evidence that any British people ordered the alleged torture. There is no reason to think that any British people even knew of the alleged torture. The only allegation is that some British people may have visited him in prison and some other British people may have given the Americans information on him.

This is not an issue for the Courts. Notice that the claim is not even one of torture. He was subject to shackling which is legal, sleep deprivation and threats. In other words techniques that the British Government used in Northern Ireland and promised not to use again – but techniques which the European Courts specifically found did not amount to torture.

“Anyway, the UN Convention against torture allows the prosecution in Britain of anyone who has carried out torture regardless of their nationality and where the alleged crimes too place.”

Which is interesting. But, of course, irrelevant. You have no established torture took place. You have not named a single person who took part in this torture. There is no allegation that British officials did so. No issue for the British Courts.

“And this is nothing to do with judicial activism, the action was brought by Binyam Mohamed’s lawyers and contested by the Foreign Office, and the judges had to make a ruling on the matter.”

The fact they did not toss it at its first hearing is proof of judicial activism. The judges did not have to hear it much less make a ruling on the matter. And they should not have done so.

Yes, that makes more sense, sorry Ben6

Yes,by definition, they are.

I think “our forefathers” would struggle with the concept of dying for the rights of someone who would like to dismantle the very thing those rights are designed to protect ? Those rights are not unconditional.

The rule of law does not say that British Courts have to sit in judgement on whether a non-British person was tortured outside Britain by non-British people. Especially as there is no evidence any British person was ever involved in the alleged treatment.

Judges have taken it upon themselves to change the laws and bring actions that had nothing to do with them in the past, under their sway.

And even though Coughlin is a prat, it is still foolish to endanger British security over an issue that has nothing to do with us at all.

Cheers! I thought you were welcoming our Henry to 2010!

What is C2CCC? MMX surely?