British Terror Arrests Based On Information From Torture In Pakistan?
According to this from The Guardian that appears to be the case:
Personally, I'm not willing to conclude that torture was used as I'm not willing to take some international human rights activist's word for it. Her definition of torture and mine probably aren't the same.
That being said, this does pose something of an interesting moral question. The information from this detainee in Pakistan was undoubtedly crucial in thwarting a major terror plot that could have killed thousands and had dire consequences on the global economy. In light of that, how important was it that he have an attorney present during questioning? What if he'd been granted a lawyer and, during the subsequent delays, the terror plot was carried out?
Going even further to the extreme, suppose this guy was subjected to some aggressive interrogation...how far is too far? Is making the room uncomfortably hot or cold torture? How about sleep deprivation? How about humiliation and fear? How about a few slaps to the face?
When we're talking about stopping a terror attack that is imminent how concerned can we afford to be about the treatment of one informant?
Reports from Pakistan suggest that much of the intelligence that led to the raids came from that country and that some of it may have been obtained in ways entirely unacceptable here. In particular Rashid Rauf, a British citizen said to be a prime source of information leading to last week's arrests, has been held without access to full consular or legal assistance. Disturbing reports in Pakistani papers that he had "broken" under interrogation have been echoed by local human rights bodies. The Guardian has quoted one, Asma Jehangir, of the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan, who has no doubt about the meaning of broken. "I don't deduce, I know - torture," she said. "There is simply no doubt about that, no doubt at all." If this is shown to be the case, the prospect of securing convictions in this country on his evidence will be complicated. In 2004 the Court of Appeal ruled - feebly - that evidence obtained using torture would be admissable as long as Britain had not "procured or connived" at it. The law lords rightly dismissed this in December last year, though they disagreed about whether the bar should be the simple "risk" or "probability" of torture.
Personally, I'm not willing to conclude that torture was used as I'm not willing to take some international human rights activist's word for it. Her definition of torture and mine probably aren't the same.
That being said, this does pose something of an interesting moral question. The information from this detainee in Pakistan was undoubtedly crucial in thwarting a major terror plot that could have killed thousands and had dire consequences on the global economy. In light of that, how important was it that he have an attorney present during questioning? What if he'd been granted a lawyer and, during the subsequent delays, the terror plot was carried out?
Going even further to the extreme, suppose this guy was subjected to some aggressive interrogation...how far is too far? Is making the room uncomfortably hot or cold torture? How about sleep deprivation? How about humiliation and fear? How about a few slaps to the face?
When we're talking about stopping a terror attack that is imminent how concerned can we afford to be about the treatment of one informant?
