UK court rejects terror detentions

Believe it or not, the court may have erred in its ruling IF it is based on international human rights law. Article 9 of the ICCPR (http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/a_ccpr.htm) states:

4. Anyone who is deprived of his liberty by arrest or detention shall be entitled to take proceedings before a court, in order that court may decide without delay on the lawfulness of his detention and order his release if the detention is not lawful.

In the case of the Guantanamo detainees - and I suspect this case is similar - all the United States is required to do is bring the case before a "competent tribunal" that decides on the lawfulness of the detention. This tribunal has the responsibility of determining the status of the detainee as a prisoner of war, an illegal combatant or a criminal, and then determine whether the detention is lawful. This is quite different than the right to trial. For instance, a prisoner of war is not entitled to a trial, and may be detained until the end of the conflict they participated in. Furthermore, since wars don't come with expiration dates, a POWs detention is always "indefinite", in a sense.

Ultimately it is not the courts that are to blame for decisions such as these, it is the failure of legislators to enact seemless, air-tight laws that ensure that terror suspects aren't released on account of poorly or vaguely crafted anti-terrorism legislation. What we don't want to do is throw out human rights laws like Article 9 of the ICCPR that are largely intended to protect peaceful, law-abiding political prisoners and their right to contest their detention in a court of law. Given the decision in this case, it appears Parliament has some work to do.

Mike
anything about mulsums killing non-mulsums?? This is just a way to help the mussis take over??

the UN=League of Nations

Get them out of My country!! No More money or Food if they are mulsum let the arab rich countrys feed them??

http://www.unhchr.ch/huricane/huricane.nsf/view01/9A56F80984C8BD5EC1256F6B005C47F0?opendoc UNITED NATIONS

Press Release
EXPERTS ON FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION CALL FOR
STEPS TO CHANGE OR REPEAL LAWS RESTRICTING
ACCESS TO INFORMATION
15 December 2004
Three leading international mechanisms for the defense of freedom of expression have called for urgent steps to improve the public's access to information.

In a joint statement adopted on 6 December 2004, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, Ambeyi Ligabo; the Representative on Freedom of the Media of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), Miklos Haraszti, and the Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression of the Organization of American States (OAS), Eduardo Bertoni, affirm that the right to access information held by public authorities is a fundamental human right which should be given effect at the national level through comprehensive legislation. They call for urgent steps to review and, as necessary, repeal or amend, legislation restricting access to information to bring it into line with international standards.

The joint statement, which appears below, was issued with the substantive assistance of the organization ARTICLE XIX in the context of its Global Campaign for Free Expression.
JOINT DECLARATION

by

the UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Opinion and Expression, the OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media and the OAS Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression

Having discussed these issues in London and virtually with the assistance of ARTICLE 19, Global Campaign for Free Expression;

Recalling and reaffirming their Joint Declarations of 26 November 1999, 30 November 2000, 20 November 2001, 10 December 2002 and 18 December 2003;

Noting the growing recognition of the key right to access information held by public authorities (sometimes referred to as freedom of information), including in authoritative international statements and declarations;

Applauding the fact that a large number of countries, in all regions of the world, have adopted laws recognising a right to access information and that the number of such countries is growing steadily;

Recognising the fundamental importance of access to information to democratic participation, to holding governments accountable and to controlling corruption, as well as to personal dignity and business efficiency;

Condemning attempts by some governments to limit access to information either by refusing to adopt access to information laws or by adopting laws which fail to conform to international standards in this area;

Stressing the need for informational 'safety valves' such as protection of whistleblowers and protection for the media and other actors who disclose information in the public interest;

Welcoming the commitment of the African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights to adopt a regional mechanism to promote the right to freedom of expression and noting the need for specialised mechanisms to promote freedom of expression in every region of the world;

Adopt, on 6 December 2004, the following Declaration:

On Access to Information

• The right to access information held by public authorities is a fundamental human right which should be given effect at the national level through comprehensive legislation (for example Freedom of Information Acts) based on the principle of maximum disclosure, establishing a presumption that all information is accessible subject only to a narrow system of exceptions.

• Public authorities should be required to publish pro-actively, even in the absence of a request, a range of information of public interest. Systems should be put in place to increase, over time, the amount of information subject to such routine disclosure.

• Access to information is a citizens' right. As a result, the procedures for accessing information should be simple, rapid and free or low-cost.

• The right of access should be subject to a narrow, carefully tailored system of exceptions to protect overriding public and private interests, including privacy. Exceptions should apply only where there is a risk of substantial harm to the protected interest and where that harm is greater than the overall public interest in having access to the information. The burden should be on the public authority seeking to deny access to show that the information falls within the scope of the system of exceptions.

• Public authorities should be required to meet minimum record management standards. Systems should be put in place to promote higher standards over time.

• The access to information law should, to the extent of any inconsistency, prevail over other legislation.

• Those requesting information should have the possibility to appeal any refusals to disclose to an independent body with full powers to investigate and resolve such complaints.

• National authorities should take active steps to address the culture of secrecy that still prevails in many countries within the public sector. This should include provision for sanctions for those who wilfully obstruct access to information. Steps should also be taken to promote broad public awareness of the access to information law.

• Steps should be taken, including through the allocation of necessary resources and attention, to ensure effective implementation of access to information legislation.

On Secrecy Legislation

• Urgent steps should be taken to review and, as necessary, repeal or amend, legislation restricting access to information to bring it into line with international standards in this area, including as reflected in this Joint Declaration.

• Public authorities and their staff bear sole responsibility for protecting the confidentiality of legitimately secret information under their control. Other individuals, including journalists and civil society representatives, should never be subject to liability for publishing or further disseminating this information, regardless of whether or not it has been leaked to them, unless they committed fraud or another crime to obtain the information. Criminal law provisions that do not restrict liability for the dissemination of State secrets to those who are officially entitled to handle those secrets should be repealed or amended.

• Certain information may legitimately be secret on grounds of national security or protection of other overriding interests. However, secrecy laws should define national security precisely and indicate clearly the criteria which should be used in determining whether or not information can be declared secret, so as to prevent abuse of the label "secret" for purposes of preventing disclosure of information which is in the public interest. Secrecy laws should set out clearly which officials are entitled to classify documents as secret and should also set overall limits on the length of time documents may remain secret. Such laws should be subject to public debate.

• "Whistleblowers" are individuals releasing confidential or secret information although they are under an official or other obligation to maintain confidentiality or secrecy. "Whistleblowers" releasing information on violations of the law, on wrongdoing by public bodies, on a serious threat to health, safety or the environment, or on a breach of human rights or humanitarian law should be protected against legal, administrative or employment-related sanctions if they act in "good faith".

Ambeyi Ligabo
UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Opinion and Expression

Miklos Haraszti
OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media

So what about the mussis cutting off heads won't this fall under [for the defense of freedom of expression]

Part of the American Tribe
Squirrel Hunter
Spider Killer
God Bless the USA and her Fighting Forces and ALL who Fight with her give them Strength,Sight,Wisdom, and Courage to Stand against this Evil Islamic Terrorist and ALL who Support them Open the Worlds Eyes to their Threat and give them Courage to Stand and Fight Amen

Sounds like a technicality-

The judges are mainly requesting clarification for a badly crafted law.

The Brits, masters of wordplay from the Bard to Churchill, should be able to craft a law more airtight.

We need relinquish NO rights of core value in fighting Islamic extremism (going under the code name "War On Terror"), since we are trying to preserve our meaning more than our mortality.

A de facto surrender of our freedoms would be a failure of strategy, if not elan vital, against such anhedonic despots.

All detainees DO need to either be charged. Or shot.

There are precedents for both methods of taking on such a threat, so it should require no massive legal tinkering to make sure we all keep our terrorists under lock and key, until they are ready to be turned, or composted.

Or, if all was a 'mistake', one or two might even be freed, inshallah?

I'll be there with a little reproduction of the WTC towers inscribed:

"It is not what a person puts in their mouth,
but what comes out of it, that makes a one unclean."

-to present it to any we really need* to free.

(*Unlike those 'innocents' released so far, turning up as neo-Taliban and al-Qaeda wanna-be's.. revealing ongoing uncorrected intelligence failures... Why does 'Porter Goss' sound like a name for a not-very-fancy breed of goose to me?)