Four Britons denied right to sue Saudis for 'torture' over bombs

I've been angry all day about this. Talk about dhimmitude. Sampson isn't backing down, though. Great comment from him about how the British, Canadian, and Saudi governments are more interesting in "holding cocktail parties for torturers" than ensuring justice is done. How the hell do binding principles of international law give states the right to torture foreign nationals? And somehow I find it hard to believe that the court would have made this same decision if it involved a British Muslim national trying to sue the US over something that happened at Gitmo.

Lord Bingham said that at the heart of the case was the relationship between two principles of international law. One was that a sovereign state would not assert its judicial authority over another.

However, the Law Lords did rule that General Pinochet could be extradited to Spain for crimes alleged to have taken place on Chilean, not Spanish, soil. So this was a case of the Law lords' ruling that a sovereign state [viz.Spain] could "assert its judicial authority over another" [viz. Chile].

In the event, the Home Secretary - who had previously agreed to the extradition request, which was then legally challenged - released Pinochet on the ground he was medically unfit to stand trial. But this had nothing to do with ruling by the Law Lords, which judgement presumably stands:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/617425.stm

I'm not clear what the difference is here. Can "a sovereign state ... assert its judicial authority over another" or not? Yes? No? Sometimes? When there is an "R" in the month?

Are these the guys the Saudi's accused of running a bootlegging operation in the Kingdom? If so the Religious policeman had a great deal to say about the false allegations and torture the Saudi's perpetrated on these guys. Seems they basically were in denial that al-Queda was bombing inside the KSA until the foreigners residence blasts showed that it was not bootleggers battling for turf.

By their refusal to take a rogue state such as Saudi Arabia to task about torturing British citizens the British government have made themselves complicit in the torture and equally responsible.

Let's hope that the Saudi diplomats in London are not allowed to sleep soundly.

There is nothing to prevent Her Majesty's Government, if it has any shame left, from severing diplomatic ties, and urging other members of the E.U., to do so with Saudi Arabia until it agrees to submit to the jurisdiction of the British courts in this case?

Of course it won't happen. It's not a matter, as some wrongly believe or falsely claim, about "the oil." No need to worry about the oil. Saudi oil will always be sold on the world market. It is, rather, about money -- about the threat of cancelled contracts, even though there are only a few arms suppliers whom the Saudis cna go to, and those (especially the Americans) can coordinate with the British to stand up for a principle, and to demonstrate to Saudi Arabia that the mixture as before will not do.

But then there are those who are directly or indirectly on assorted Arab payrolls, and these former diplomats and intelligence agents, now fixers and go-betweens with the Arabs, will work mightily to earn their Arab money.

If you'd like to see what some of these people look like, just google "Jihad Watch" and "financial dhimmitude." Look at their faces. Think about them, think about their bank accounts, their houses, their cars, their Arab contacts, the power they and others like them wield in every Western capital.

These four men were British Christian terrorist, who were sent as terror agents to Saudi Arabia to insight and carry out terrorist activities, including bombings and mass killing.

The four men are lucky to be alive because under Islamic law the lightest punishment for these four people would have been death in front of 100's of crowds.

These Christian terrorists were sent by British terror network. One of the reasons why the Brits cannot over turn their verdicts because the Saudis could then provided the evidence they obtained through peaceful means from the four convicted terrorists. This evidence would have clearly shown the British terror cells operating in the Muslim land and no doubt show the Brit terror ring in UK.

I was so pleased to hear this verdict, justice finally was served.

First. I have little sympathy for people who can quite happily take the filthy money. They must have known the nature of Saudi regime. These men chose to ignore the facts. They were there because of the money. Greed led to their self inflicted misfortune.

Second. Do not expect the UK goverment to do anything to rock the boat.

Sorry guys if you were clever and had some morality you would never have gone there in the first place.

Robert is correct.

International jurisdiction is a question of asserting a claim. Belgium has "universal jurisdiction" because they claim to have it. National governments and their foreign policy concerns ($$$) trump such claims. The State Department will always swoop in to save terrorist sponsors (with $$$) like Saudi Arabia.

Someone has to hire all the ex-diplomats.

Four Britons denied right to sue Saudis for 'torture' over bombs

should be:

Four Britons denied right to sue Saudis for 'torture' over kegs.

Khalid Bin Waleed -- your sense of humor is even drier than my own.

Just as slavery is embedded in islam, so is torture.
Mohammed, the most perfect of men and an eternal example, ordered the Jew, Kinana, to be tortured in order to find out where his treasure was buried so it follows that torture is standard Muslim practice.

I think this is a terrible decision by the House of Lords, and is probably politically motivated.

While generally under international law a state is sovereign and cannot be sued in the domestic court of another country, there are limits to this sovereignty. For example, when a state enters into a commercial contract then it surrenders its automatic sovereign immunity.

However, I would argue that torture (in the form of deprived basic living conditions and physical battery while incarcerated) falls under a broader spectrum of crimes against humanity. And as history has shown, following orders is not a sufficient defense.

On a broader scale, it is interesting to see how the West has dropped its stance on torture as a direct result of Islamic terrorism: rather than setting an example these nations are engaging in practices that prior to 9/11 they would have condemned themselves at the highest level.

What Saudis do for westerners in their country should be done to Saudis in Britain and other countries.

Lie down with pigs, come up smelling like crap.

Do business with Saudis, ditto.