Back Towards The Locus

Last Saturday, Craig Murray mined out this extraordinary passage from the FCO’s annual human rights report(pdf)…

“One example is the question of the use of intelligence provided to the UK by other countries. The provenance of such intelligence is often unclear – partners rarely share details of their sources. All intelligence received, whatever its source, is carefully evaluated, particularly where it is clear that it has been obtained from individuals in detention. The use of intelligence possibly derived through torture presents a very real dilemma, given our unreserved condemnation of torture and our efforts to eradicate it. Where there is intelligence that bears on threats to life, we cannot reject it out of hand. What is quite clear, however, is that information obtained as a result of torture would not be admissible as evidence in any criminal or civil proceedings in the UK. It does not matter whether the evidence was obtained here or abroad.”

Because, naturally, one can accept torture – and, indeed, encourage a market for it – and still unreservedly condemn the practice. It just means that one has to find a balance between the two.

Andy Worthington has been to a relevant Parliamentary meeting…

“On Monday, in a packed committee room in the House of Commons, politicians, lawyers and human rights campaigners came together to discuss how to both confront and publicize the British government’s increasing reliance on the use of secret evidence, and evidence obtained through torture. The meeting focused in particular on the cases of five men held under strict bail conditions or in prison, on the basis of secret evidence, who are facing deportation, even though they face the risk of torture, as a result of “diplomatic assurances” agreed between the British government and the governments of their home countries.”

Now, I rather regret to say, I’m going to talk to some sheep for a week. Why not listen to this, read this and watch this? Have a lovely week, whatever…