Torture and untruths

I was thinking about the decision not to allow evidence obtained by torture to be used in the UK courts. I have to say that I think this is a good decision. If you allow evidence to be used that has been obtained in such a way then you are in some way condoning that behaviour and allowing it to continue. The fact that the torture did not take place within the UK is irrelevant in my view, you are still saying there is something acceptable about it by using the evidence.

In Friday’s Metro they summarised some of the questions posed by the ruling. Here’s a snippet:
Q: Why does it matter if evidence emerges under torture?

A: Someone being tortured may say things that are untrue.

Those pesky torture victims - what are they doing telling untruths? Erm, maybe I am being a bit naive here, but isn’t the fundamental problem with obtaining evidence under torture that it is totally unethical and is against human rights. Perhaps I am in the minority on that one.

I shall leave you with some words from Amnesty International Secretary, Irene Khan:

“Human rights are for the best of us and the worst of us, for the guilty as well as the innocent. By failing to protect the rights of those who may be guilty, governments endanger the rights of those who are innocent, and put all of us at risk.”