Outrage over £30m torture hush money

[AtW]

Bollocks, it's (a) cost conducive to just pay the settlement, because even if HMG won, how on earth would they recover legal fees outlaid (more than £30m) (b) HMG does not want to disclose intelligence operational data.

They'd fight if they thought they'd have realistic chance of winning - they know that even if they win on technicality that method A is not torture it would be pretty close to torture (at least in views of public) so they'll lose anyway.

It's smart decision to settle - creates a bit of a problem for USA though, as it would have to find lots more money IF they chose to do the same for remaining people there.

[TimberWolf]

(b) HMG does not want to disclose intelligence operational data.

I suspect (b) above and what went on behind the torture scenes are one and the same thing, or do you think they (the suspects) know something unrelated to the torturous things that were done to them?

[AtW]

The Government does not want this to go to court as it would not be in the national interest.

Yes, it would not be in national interest to have it proven that the Govt would engage in criminal activity that should bring specific people to war crimes court.

[Incognito]

They were tortured, there is no doubts about that.

Whether or not they were tortured is not the question, the question is whether HMG were complicit in it or party to it. I don't see any mention of them being waterboarded in deepest darkest Lincoln or operative Joe Smith being present when mad Mullah was having his balls wired up. HMG policy is all about plausible deniability.

Made legal by the US president G.W.Bush after advice from his CIA lawyers

That is between the US and the UN to argue. The CIA have medical opinion that waterboarding causes no long lasting damage, so then it's an argument about semantics really isn't it.

A simpleton like you who professes to doing a law degree (cos you failed to make the grade first time round) should understand the idea of guilty until proven. Or do you not understand that you cretin?

I don't actually understand what you're trying to get at here, have you been on the Meths again? Are you actually trying to describe Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat? In which case in your minimal grasp of the parlance it'd be 'innocent until proven' (it's actually the 'presumption of innocence'.) Either way, you're arguing about something you have a complete lack of knowledge about, stop it now before you make yourself look an even bigger idiot. This discussion is about torture, not the argument around whether or not these people are determined as 'lawful' or 'unlawful' combatants and whether or not Habeas corpus applies to them.

[minestrone]

Actually you chimp, if you read the thread you'll have seen Mitch's initial statement:

I thought you might have been clever enough to spot my mistake in what I posted... "understand the idea of guilty until proven"

If you never got that then God knows why you are doing a law degree.

[minestrone]

Whether or not they were tortured is not the question, the question is whether HMG were complicit in it or party to it.

I think the pay out suggests they were, or do you not understand the idea of 'hush money'.

****** hell, are you so simple to not understand that? Suppose that is what happens when a Govan copper breeds.

[Incognito]

Even, for the sake of argument, we were not sending UK citizens abroad to be tortured, it's hardly a credible defence to say it's okay for us to send someone to be tortured because s/he's foreign.

Sorry, I only threw that UK citizen comment in to show they were trying to rely on the UK legal system.

They'd fight if they thought they'd have realistic chance of winning - they know that even if they win on technicality that method A is not torture it would be pretty close to torture (at least in views of public) so they'll lose anyway.

It's smart decision to settle - creates a bit of a problem for USA though, as it would have to find lots more money IF they chose to do the same for remaining people there.

No they wouldn't and no it doesn't.

[Incognito]

****** hell, are you so simple to not understand that? Suppose that is what happens when a Govan copper breeds.

Still know more about the law than you and still earn more than you. Suppose that is what happens when a Govan copper breeds.

I thought you might have been clever enough to spot my mistake in what I posted... "understand the idea of guilty until proven"

Yeah, sure you did.

[TimberWolf]

I suspect (b) above and what went on behind the torture scenes are one and the same thing, or do you think they (the suspects) know something unrelated to the torturous things that were done to them?

Oh, I think I see what you mean. Evidence HMG would need to provide in court might expose our 'don't ask' position on torture, an illegal act or necessitate that people lie under oath about what they knew. This would be over and above what the tortured suspects know or might say about proceedings. Messy.

But the fact that they don't want this coming out also reinforces the view that what occurred was illegal, which to be honest I thought was clear cut under UK law (even if it is still practised covertly) and under the Geneva convention.

[Netraider]

Then again, if it involved sharing a cell with a big hairy bugger HMG can keep their cash and I'll hang on to my liberty thanks.

Speaking if which, has anybody heard from HAB recently?