Zaid
Dec 16, 2004, 09:35 AM
Lots of news this week:
David Blunkett resigns!
Leaving behind a bit of a mixed legacy. The good work that he did being completely overshadowed by all the absolutely control-freakery he tried to implement. He seemed to be a firm holder of the opinion that for security we should all be willing to give up privacy, due process and a few human rights. And of course letting the government hold tonnes of information about us, force us to get id cards, and make us pay for the damn things. I for one will be glad to see the back of that faciast.
(Though I do wonder about Charles Clarke as Home Secratry. Is it just me or does the man always look like he's had about 3 too many? )
Next European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and Iraq
The High Court has ruled that the ECHR does extend to UK-run prisons in Iraq.
On Tuesday Lord Justice Rix and Mr Justice Forbes ruled that UK jurisdiction could extend to a UK-run prison, but did not apply "to the total territory of another state".
They said as Mr Mousa was in custody when he died, his case was covered by the ECHR, but the other five Iraqis' cases failed as they were at home, walking in the street or driving when they died.
A limited victory, but a victory nonetheless.
As another article points out it would be highly surprising if the highest court, the House of Lords, was not asked for a definitive ruling on the matter. It also points out that
By exposing military behaviour towards detainees, any inquiry could be highly embarrassing for the Army as well as ensuring substantially higher compensation payments than is routinely offered to the families of those who have died in military custody.
It may also lead to a change of culture in the Army and a recognition that the procedures of the Special Investigations Branch (SIB ) do not conform to human rights standards.
The longer-term consequence could be that the armed forces lose the right to block criminal charges against troops.
linky1 (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4094295.stm)
linky2 (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4096181.stm)
This will be an interesting one to keep an eye on.
Terror detainees win Lords appeal
The House of Lords has ruled in favour of nine detainees held by the government under its anti-terrorism laws. The detainees have been held without trial or even a formal interview for almost three years on secret information that they might be supporters of international terrorism.
The Law Lords said (8-1) that the 'draconian' measures were incompatible with European Human Rights laws and that the government must pay for the cost of the appeal.
linky3 (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4100481.stm)
Of course you can't give up due process and the rule of law for a warm fuzzy feeling that we may be safer. (Even though the feeling is pure self-dellusion). As the holder of a brown skin and a funny sounding name, I'm glad of this victory for due process.
So all in all a good week I feel.
David Blunkett resigns!
Leaving behind a bit of a mixed legacy. The good work that he did being completely overshadowed by all the absolutely control-freakery he tried to implement. He seemed to be a firm holder of the opinion that for security we should all be willing to give up privacy, due process and a few human rights. And of course letting the government hold tonnes of information about us, force us to get id cards, and make us pay for the damn things. I for one will be glad to see the back of that faciast.
(Though I do wonder about Charles Clarke as Home Secratry. Is it just me or does the man always look like he's had about 3 too many? )
Next European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and Iraq
The High Court has ruled that the ECHR does extend to UK-run prisons in Iraq.
On Tuesday Lord Justice Rix and Mr Justice Forbes ruled that UK jurisdiction could extend to a UK-run prison, but did not apply "to the total territory of another state".
They said as Mr Mousa was in custody when he died, his case was covered by the ECHR, but the other five Iraqis' cases failed as they were at home, walking in the street or driving when they died.
A limited victory, but a victory nonetheless.
As another article points out it would be highly surprising if the highest court, the House of Lords, was not asked for a definitive ruling on the matter. It also points out that
By exposing military behaviour towards detainees, any inquiry could be highly embarrassing for the Army as well as ensuring substantially higher compensation payments than is routinely offered to the families of those who have died in military custody.
It may also lead to a change of culture in the Army and a recognition that the procedures of the Special Investigations Branch (SIB ) do not conform to human rights standards.
The longer-term consequence could be that the armed forces lose the right to block criminal charges against troops.
linky1 (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4094295.stm)
linky2 (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4096181.stm)
This will be an interesting one to keep an eye on.
Terror detainees win Lords appeal
The House of Lords has ruled in favour of nine detainees held by the government under its anti-terrorism laws. The detainees have been held without trial or even a formal interview for almost three years on secret information that they might be supporters of international terrorism.
The Law Lords said (8-1) that the 'draconian' measures were incompatible with European Human Rights laws and that the government must pay for the cost of the appeal.
linky3 (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4100481.stm)
Of course you can't give up due process and the rule of law for a warm fuzzy feeling that we may be safer. (Even though the feeling is pure self-dellusion). As the holder of a brown skin and a funny sounding name, I'm glad of this victory for due process.
So all in all a good week I feel.
