Sunday, 29 March 2009
Tucked away at Page 15 of its annual Human Rights report, the FCO has finally made a public admission of its use of intelligence from torture. Despite the Orwellian doublespeak about "unreserved condemnation of torture", this is the clearest statement the government has ever made that it, as a policy, employs intelligence from torture.
"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."
Link to full document here:
Posted by TONY @oakroyd on 29.3.09
Wednesday, 25 March 2009
Friday, 20 March 2009
From Afghan National TV on 19th March.
On 19th March ,Khaiber Momand, the district chief of Bati Kot where a US raid the previous night happened, said those targeted were civilians, and those detained included the director of the district's development department, Haji Khair, and two of his sons.
Momand alleged that during the raid, troops also beat the mayor of Bati Kot, Mohammad Hassan, and his son, Enayat.
Col. Greg Julian, spokesman for U.S. forces in Afghanistan, said there were "solid, multiple sources of intelligence which led us to this location and to these individuals."
Detainees were being questioned and were suspected of association with insurgent activity, Julian said.
It was impossible to independently verify either claim because of the remoteness of the area.
Posted by TONY @oakroyd on 20.3.09