| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Jihad Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
The Saudis prevail. From the Telegraph, with thanks to Gabrielle Goldwater:
Four men who claim that they were tortured in Saudi Arabian prisons lost the right to sue their alleged torturers in Britain yesterday.The law lords allowed an appeal by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia against a decision by the Court of Appeal in 2004 giving the men permission to sue. They ruled that the authorities were protected by the State Immunity Act 1978 from proceedings brought in the English courts.
The case, in which the Lord Chancellor intervened to support the State Immunity Act, may now go to the European Court of Human Rights.
Sandy Mitchell, Les Walker and Bill Sampson were arrested after terrorist bombings in the Saudi capital Riyadh and in Khobar, eastern Saudi Arabia, six years ago, and claimed that they were tortured into admitting responsibility.
The fourth man, Ron Jones, was seized after being injured in a blast outside a bookshop.
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.
The second, and more recent, condemned and criminalised the official practice of torture, required states to suppress it and provided for the trial and punishment of officials found guilty of it.
To establish their right to sue for damages, the claimants had to show that the grant of immunity to the Saudi defendants under the State Immunity Act would be disproportionate, as inconsistent with a binding principle of international law. They had failed to do so.
Lord Hoffmann said international law was based on the common consent of nations.
"It is not for a national court to develop international law by unilaterally adopting a version of that law which, however desirable, forward-looking and reflective of values it may be, is simply not accepted by other states."
I am not an international lawyer. But I think a more robust and self-confident Britain would have protected its citizens.
Posted by Robert at June 15, 2006 5:11 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
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.
Posted by: OutOfAqaba![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/nav-commenters.gif)
at June 15, 2006 5:43 AM
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?
Posted by: Yojimbo at June 15, 2006 6:15 AM
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.
Posted by: JanuaryMan at June 15, 2006 6:59 AM
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.
Posted by: IceDragon at June 15, 2006 7:43 AM
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.
Posted by: Hugh at June 15, 2006 9:53 AM
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.
Posted by: Khalid Bin Waleed at June 15, 2006 10:50 AM
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.
Posted by: Turbinehead at June 15, 2006 11:44 AM
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.
Posted by: Beagle at June 15, 2006 11:56 AM
Four Britons denied right to sue Saudis for 'torture' over bombs
should be:
Four Britons denied right to sue Saudis for 'torture' over kegs.
Posted by: jsla at June 15, 2006 3:11 PM
Khalid Bin Waleed -- your sense of humor is even drier than my own.
Posted by: jsla at June 15, 2006 3:12 PM
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.
at June 15, 2006 10:53 PM
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.
Posted by: Jerusalem at June 16, 2006 2:25 PM
What Saudis do for westerners in their country should be done to Saudis in Britain and other countries.
Posted by: IceDragon at June 16, 2006 5:12 PM
Lie down with pigs, come up smelling like crap.
Do business with Saudis, ditto.
Posted by: profitsbeard at June 16, 2006 10:46 PM
Comments are turned off and archived for this entry.
(Note: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.)