# Terroists being deported to countries that allow torture, to extract info.



## Quiet Riot (15 Apr 2005)

Terror suspects at risk of torture, report claims 
 15.04.05 4.00pm
by Robert Verkaik
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/index.cfm?c_id=2&ObjectID=10120658
  Britain, the United States and other western countries are meeting the terror threat by sending suspects to regimes where they risk torture and abuse, it is claimed in a damning report published today. 
The report says that dozens of terror suspects have been forcibly deported by Western countries to Syria, Algeria, Egypt and Uzbekistan on the basis of "flimsy" assurances that their human rights will be respected. Many of them claim they have been tortured. 
The British government is singled out for criticism for adopting a policy of 'extradition at all costs' to overcome the problem of monitoring alleged terror suspects where there is insufficient evidence to try them in this country. 
Human Rights Watch, authors of the 91-page report, calls on the British government to "halt immediately" all negotiations with Algeria, Tunisia and Morocco over the deportation of the former Belmarsh terror suspects still being held under control orders. 
Foreign Office minister Baroness Symons visited North Africa in February to try to secure bilateral agreements for the men's deportation although the government has already acknowledged that these regimes torture terror suspects. 
A spokesman for the Foreign Office said yesterday that ministers rejected the suggestion that any assurances would be unreliable. 
"If they are properly handled and the assurances come from a high enough level and satisfy both this government and the UK's independent courts then they can be relied on," said the spokesman. 
One of the report's key recommendations is that Britain surrender details of all other cases in which it has sought diplomatic assurances to secure deportations of terror suspects. 
The United States is also criticised for adopting a practice known as "extraordinary rendition" in which suspects are sent to countries which use torture to extract confessions or other information. This intelligence is then passed on the US security services. 
Officials in the US recently acknowledged the transfer of an undisclosed number of suspects to countries where torture is a serious human rights problem, claiming they received diplomatic assurances prior to he transfers. But in an increasing number of those cases so-called "renditions" the suspects have alleged that they were tortured. 
Craig Murray, the former British ambassador to Uzbekistan, has recently accused Britain of complicity in torture, because of the use that MI6 makes of the intelligence gathered in this way by CIA. 
He said many prisoners of Uzbek origin captured by American forces were taken back to Uzbek jails where they received the most brutal tortures. 
These interrogations ended up in MI6 reports that he received. "I was told by the Foreign Office's senior legal adviser there was nothing in law to prevent us obtaining and using material which had been extracted under torture provided that we had not ourselves done the torture. 
"And MI6 said they found the intelligence useful. I was shattered and disillusioned." 
The report, Still at Risk: Diplomatic Assurances No Safeguard against Torture, documents the growing trend among Western governments including the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom and the Netherlands of seeking assurances of humane treatment in order to transfer terrorism suspects to states with well-established records of torture. The report details a dozen cases involving actual or attempted transfers to countries where torture is commonplace. 
"Governments that engage in torture always try to hide what they're doing, so their 'assurances' on torture can never be trusted," said Kenneth Roth, executive director of Human Rights Watch. 
"This is a very negative trend in international diplomacy, and it's doing real damage to the global taboo against torture." 
States that offer such assurances include some of the most abusive regimes in the world: Syria, Egypt and Uzbekistan. Transfers have also been effected or proposed to Yemen, Morocco, Tunisia, Algeria, Russia, and Turkey, where certain people - for example, suspected Islamists, Chechens, or Kurds - are singled out for particularly brutal abuse. 
Torture is banned under international law and there are no exceptions, even in times of war or national emergency. The ban includes the absolute prohibition on transferring people to places where they face a risk of torture. 
The United Nations Special Rapporteur on Torture, the Council of Europe Commissioner on Human Rights, and the UN Independent Expert on human rights and counter-terrorism have all warned that the use of assurances is eroding the global ban on torture. 
  
Related Links
 "¢ Read the full report by Human Rights Watch http://hrw.org/reports/2005/eca0405/

I think terroists are starting to get too many rights, kinda like criminals in this country.


----------



## Gramps (15 Apr 2005)

We must keep in mind taht they are only "Suspects" not convicts. Sending people to such places can give false Intel. If someone is beaten and tortured into submission how good is any of the information or the so called confessions that they are forced to sign?


----------



## NavalGent (15 Apr 2005)

The right not to face torture is too much?

"Torture is banned under international law and there are no exceptions, even in times of war or national emergency."

I think the practice of these "renditions" is pretty disgusting, and undermines the credibility that democracy and rule of law establish for us. Don't get me wrong, I'm no fan of terrorists, but I think that if the west is going to go to spread democratic values and act as a role model for other parts of the world, we should be setting a better example on how to behave.


----------



## Gramps (15 Apr 2005)

NavalGent is %100 correct. The "West" cannot go around taking the moral high ground and at the same time send people many of whom are citizens of Western countries to places that do the exact opposite of what the "West" is supposed to stand for.


----------



## Quiet Riot (15 Apr 2005)

I agree Gramps that info collected through torture can be very unreliable, after all I'd probably say or confess to anything to get the guy with the cattle prodder to stop poking my sack.   From reading the article I got that these people are more than just suspects, it's just that the government doesn't have enough evidence to assure a successful prosecution in their respective country and don't want the responsibility of keeping an eye on someone who might do them harm.   After all people like OJ and Blake are walking free....   But on the flip side people like Guy Paul Morin were sent to jail for many years before getting released if ever....   I just hope that the governments aren't sending every person who's said something bad about the governments to these other countries.
I see your point NavalGent, leading by example... but I still feel some of these people deserve that sort of treatment.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (15 Apr 2005)

Quote,
_He said many prisoners of Uzbek origin captured by American forces were taken back to Uzbek jails where they received the most brutal tortures_

...now I'm not agreeing with the torure thing but just where else should they go? 
Canada already has enough terror suspect loving families already,....sorry, full up.


----------



## GO!!! (15 Apr 2005)

Has anyone given thought to the chance that many of these individuals will say just about anything in order to gain some sort of compensation or further their case in the court of public opinion?

Lets not forget that they were not (for the most part) arrested on false pretences. These are international criminals, often in our country illegally, taking advantage of the same social safety net that is part and parcel of the part of the world they hate so much.


----------



## ghazise (15 Apr 2005)

Really, how terrible is it that we (the west) send off suspected terrorists to countries that have a tendancy to torture them?   
Is it is any worse than our trade policies with countries with poor labor regulations, that the production of these products are in a sense a form of torture?
I am quite sure that more people choose to torture themselves and risk their lives by working in these Industrial complexes, and those numbers far exceed the number of suspected terrorists being tortured.
The West chooses when and where they want to the take the MORAL HIGH GROUND.


----------



## Gramps (15 Apr 2005)

2FtOnion
You are completely right. Especially with your point on the West chosing when to take the moral High Ground. As for the countries that have poor labour regulations I think that could be a completely separate discussion in and of itself and I could probably go on and on with that topic as well.

As for some of the other posts I have read I guess with some people there is no such thing as "Innocent until proven guilty".


----------



## Quiet Riot (15 Apr 2005)

Well about the only thing I agree with the french on is thier way of prosecution,   the onus is on the accused to prove thier innocence.


----------



## paracowboy (15 Apr 2005)

what our interepid reporter is NOT saying is that the accused are returned to their countries of origin, *not* because of that nation's (or our) stand on torture, but because they are criminals FROM that country. They are arrested on legal grounds in Western nations because they are committing ILLEGAL acts in those nations, and they are LEGALLY sent back to their country of origin, following appeals, etc.

Torture is reprehensible, and worse, it is ineffective. But that is not our problem yet. Our problem is protecting Canadian citizens from murderous barbarians who relish the idea of mass slaughter, and look forward to dying while committing those atrocities.

Once we've settled THAT issue, let's work on enlightening the benighted.


----------



## KevinB (16 Apr 2005)

Ditto to Para and Go!

 IF we adopted a haven from abuse doctrine, we'd be full of theives and murders from other countries (worse than we are now)


----------



## Kat Stevens (16 Apr 2005)

Western countries should sub-contract the entire detention of terror suspects to the Russians.  There are plenty of lovely "re-education" camps in the scenic Siberian countyside just sitting there.  Not to mention plenty of qualified staff who'd love a chance to get their hand in, as it were...Please, no flames from Amnesty International types, just kidding.....maybe.... >

CHIMO,  Kat


----------



## tomahawk6 (16 Apr 2005)

Just wait til the targeted assassinations begin of terrorists.


----------



## Infanteer (16 Apr 2005)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Just wait til the targeted assassinations begin of terrorists.



Isn't that what the American's did with the Hellfire strike from a Predator Drone in Yemen?

How about Israel, that seems to be the new SOP for dealing with the HAMAS.

New techniques for a 4th Generaration opponent. :sniper:


----------



## Dare (16 Apr 2005)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Quote,
> _He said many prisoners of Uzbek origin captured by American forces were taken back to Uzbek jails where they received the most brutal tortures_
> 
> ...now I'm not agreeing with the torure thing but just where else should they go?
> Canada already has enough terror suspect loving families already,....sorry, full up.


America loses in the media when it captures terrorists and holds them at Gitmo, and it loses in the media when it sends them back to their home country. I suppose the only way to get a pass in the media would be to feed them, arm them up and send them back to their unit on the battlefield or, even better to the steps of parliament. That'll win over the hearts and minds of the International Community that many so eagerly wish to please.


----------



## foxtwo (16 Apr 2005)

If we as North Americans torture, I bet that if they would capture one of our soldiers as POW's there's no telling how badly the enemy would mutilate us on top of what some already do. And I don't think torture is very effective method of extracting information. I remember one time where a man was held in a Syrian jail and because he was being tortured so much he had to lie to his captor's and say he was going to bomb the Canadian Parliament Buildings...


----------



## tomahawk6 (17 Apr 2005)

There is no mercy for American soldiers that might be captured. If they will behead civilians they will do the same to soldiers.
Best to go down fighting.


----------



## Kat Stevens (17 Apr 2005)

foxtwo said:
			
		

> If we as North Americans torture, I bet that if they would capture one of our soldiers as POW's there's no telling how badly the enemy would mutilate us on top of what some already do. And I don't think torture is very effective method of extracting information. I remember one time where a man was held in a Syrian jail and because he was being tortured so much he had to lie to his captor's and say he was going to bomb the Canadian Parliament Buildings...



Agreed...being beheaded on world wide television is one thing, geting beaten up first would be terrible.... :

CHIMO,  Kat


----------



## GO!!! (17 Apr 2005)

foxtwo said:
			
		

> If we as North Americans torture, I bet that if they would capture one of our soldiers as POW's there's no telling how badly the enemy would mutilate us on top of what some already do. And I don't think torture is very effective method of extracting information. I remember one time where a man was held in a Syrian jail and because he was being tortured so much he had to lie to his captor's and say he was going to bomb the Canadian Parliament Buildings...



How do you know he lied? Maybe he was going to blow up the Parliament Buildings? Why are you so eager to give these guys the benefit of the doubt?


----------



## Acorn (17 Apr 2005)

foxtwo said:
			
		

> I remember one time where a man was held in a Syrian jail and because he was being tortured so much he had to lie to his captor's and say he was going to bomb the Canadian Parliament Buildings...



That is bovine excerment. Check your work.


----------



## GAP (5 Jul 2006)

Convicted terrorist pleads poor health to avoid deportation
Canadian Press
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060705.wissa0705/BNStory/National/

HAMILTON — A convicted terrorist fighting deportation says his failing health should entitle him to remain in Canada.

Mahmoud Mohammad Issa Mohammad turns 64 in two weeks and says he's too sick to be deported to Lebanon.

His diabetes, heart failure and hepatitis would be exacerbated if he were to be sent back, Mr. Mohammad's lawyer Barbara Jackman has argued
Mr. Mohammad is a former member of the Palestinian Front for the Liberation of Palestine. He was part of the terrorist team that hijacked an Israeli airliner in Athens on Dec. 26, 1968, killing an Israeli citizen.

In March, 1970, a Greek court convicted Mr. Mohammad of manslaughter and other offences and sentenced him to 17 years in prison.

Four months later, six Palestinian commandos hijacked an Olympic Airways airliner and threatened to blow up the plane if the Greek government did not release Mr. Mohammad. He was granted a pardon and left, only to turn up in Brantford, Ont., in 1987.

Canada began deportation proceedings against him in 1988 after learning he lied about his criminal past to get into Canada.

Mr. Mohammad has been fighting that battle since. And his latest appeal means the convicted killer could string out the process years longer.

More on link


----------



## George Wallace (5 Jul 2006)

Why send him to Lebanon......Send him to Greece where he can serve out his prison term.


----------



## GAP (5 Jul 2006)

When? After he dies of old age here?


----------



## George Wallace (5 Jul 2006)

Preferably before we have to pay for his funeral costs too.


----------



## GAP (5 Jul 2006)

Cremation doesn't cost that much...let's do it now, before it becomes too expensive... ;D


----------



## George Wallace (5 Jul 2006)

Is the a discount if you throw in his lawyers too?


----------



## GAP (5 Jul 2006)

lovely idea....just lovely...giggle  ;D


----------



## Cliff (6 Jul 2006)

> The British government is singled out for criticism for adopting a policy of 'extradition at all costs' to overcome the problem of monitoring alleged terror suspects where there is insufficient evidence to try them in this country.


This sounds like an effective policy. To me, the sending state should not have to accomodate terror suspects. When they show up on the police radar screen = they should be removed.


----------



## Centurian1985 (6 Jul 2006)

Ditto: the values values that these countries represent are the exact same values that many terrorist groups today claim they are fighting for.  In the case of a Muslim terrorist whose primary goal is the establishment of a society that follows Sharia law, why should they be afraid of going back to a country that has a justice system based on Sharia law?  It only proves the case that they are not supporting the religion or law, they are merely supporting the attempt to acquire power.


----------



## George Wallace (6 Jul 2006)

Centurian1985 said:
			
		

> Ditto: the values values that these countries represent are the exact same values that many terrorist groups today claim they are fighting for.  In the case of a Muslim terrorist whose primary goal is the establishment of a society that follows Sharia law, why should they be afraid of going back to a country that has a justice system based on Sharia law?  It only proves the case that they are not supporting the religion or law, they are merely supporting the attempt to acquire power.



Interesting point.  I wonder if any Crown Attorney has used that logic in the courts to justify their extradition?


----------



## Centurian1985 (6 Jul 2006)

One of my favorite points. Too 'outside the box' for many legal hounds...they keep getting sidetracked by the human rights aspects...which while valid in many cases doesnt explain why terrorists are afraid to face the same legal system they claim to be fighting for...


----------



## GO!!! (6 Jul 2006)

Centurian1985 said:
			
		

> One of my favorite points. Too 'outside the box' for many legal hounds...they keep getting sidetracked by the human rights aspects...which while valid in many cases doesnt explain why terrorists are afraid to face the same legal system they claim to be fighting for...



This could be used effectively here in Canada, as various Muslim groups were heard before the Ontario Human Rights Commission demanding that Sharia law be recognised as a valid and legal method of settling disputes between Muslims.

We could simply apply the punishments that would be appropriate in applicable "pioneer" nations in the area of Sharia law - like Saudi Arabia. 

"For your crimes against the state, you will be tortured, raped, and killed, in accordance with Allah's wish, and yours, demonstrated by your desire to implement Sharia law here" _In Sh'allah_


----------



## Centurian1985 (6 Jul 2006)

GO!!! said:
			
		

> This could be used effectively here in Canada, as various Muslim groups were heard before the Ontario Human Rights Commission demanding that Sharia law be recognised as a valid and legal method of settling disputes between Muslims.



That argument tends to fall apart based on the fact that many Muslims moved here to escape the Sharia law system and do not want to be forced to be part of the system.  I have read in the past that several women's groups do not consider Sharia law to be a 'valid and legal method' of settling disputes because of the Sharia law tendency to lay blame on women for the crimes of men (i.e. rape), as well as other infringements of their rights under Canadian law (i.e. rights that allow them access to education, decisions on what they can wear in public, etc.).


----------

