Venice Commission lays down the law on secret detentions and extraordinary rendition in Europe 4

Dick Marty welcomes ‘important input’ of Venice Commission on member states’ legal obligations

“The Venice Commission has issued an excellent legal opinion that provides an important input for my inquiry on alleged secret detentions in Council of Europe member states,” said Dick Marty, Rapporteur and Chair of the Assembly’s Legal Affairs Committee, which requested the opinion in December 2005. Mr Marty said the 38-page text was “a thorough analysis of member states’ international law and human rights obligations, highlighting standards developed by the European Human Rights and Anti-Torture Conventions. Secret detentions, abductions and irregular transport of detainees from or through Europe to countries where persons are at risk of torture are flagrant violations of these human rights standards”. Mr Marty also indicated that he intends to present his report in June 2006.

Venice Commission opinion

Mr Marty’s second information memorandum

Secret detentions: Council of Europe action so far

Allowed HTML - you can use: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

4 thoughts on “Venice Commission lays down the law on secret detentions and extraordinary rendition in Europe

  • Richard II

    This post is for ANDY YOUNG.

    I've just read your reply, Andy, but the related article is likely to disappear off the screen in a day or so, so I'm posting my reply here:

    Andy wrote:

    "Richard II, who says I've discredited my argument by getting some names wrong. Actually, Richard, you are in the wrong here."

    I can't see how, but please continue:

    "The word Craig isn't used once in my comment."

    True, but you wrote:

    "I must say I haven't read the whole article. It might have some valid points, but I stopped after the first sentence….Murray just recycles some dumb old inaccurate quote. Which means that people like me find it hard to trust anything else Murray says as having any basis in fact."

    The key phrase is "…find it hard to trust anything else Murray says…"

    Why write that when this is CRAIG Murray's site?

    And why attack ANDREW Murray for "recycling some dumb old inaccurate quote" when it was CRAIG Murray who, earlier, made a post about the BBC's "inaccurate" remark.

    Unless it wasn't. But there are no archives for me to check.

    Any thinking person will assume that it's CRAIG Murray that you're attacking, because, yet again, CRAIG is misquoting.

    "I initially refer to Andrew Murray as the article's author – correctly -"

    No, you don't! You don't mention "Andrew Murray" once.

    "…and from then on refer to him as Murray."

    That's not true!

    You began your article by saying:

    "I must say I haven't read the whole article. It might have some valid points, but I stopped after the first sentence."

    Andy continues:

    "I guess I should have been more careful, given that this is Craig's site, but I thought I'd made myself clear."

    You did not then, and you have not now.

    Anyone reading your post will have assumed, rightly, that you were referring to Craig Murray.

    Andy wrote:

    "And, even if I had got someone's first name wrong, how does that invalidate the rest of an argument?"

    Your whole argument about not reading anything someone says from now on is based solely on the fact that they got a trivial bit of information "wrong". Well, when you get a bit of information wrong, no one should listen to you from then on.

    Andy wrote:

    "I didn't quote as much of the transcript around as you have done."

    Maybe you should. Maybe you should make an effort to see what a bullshitter Blair is.

    "I rather think that the whole context backs my point, though, that Blair considers he will be judged by the British people, and by God."

    What rubbish! Blair is cold-blooded murderer who doesn't give a damn about what the British people think. Hundreds of thousands of people protested before the invasion. Blair could have addressed them on stage at Hyde Park, but, instead, chose to ignore them. That's because he's not interested in what the public thinks.

    If he has so much faith, he can go to Iraq and fight and die like a real man, or walk the streets of Baghdad and let the Iraqis hug him, if he has so much faith.

    He believes in an afterlife, so why is he so afraid to suffer or die? And why is he and his wife so fond of money? – a worldly good!

    Tony Blair is a criminal, and an habitual liar. He lies about virtually everything, not just the Iraq invasion.

    He sends others off to die, others less than half his age, while he enriches himself off the state. What a brave, brave man!

    Andy wrote:

    "Finaly, can I just say that I am making no judgement here myself about whether Blair was right to go to war or not."

    It's about time you did make a judgement, because people are dying and suffering.

    And this is not a "war". America INVADED Iraq, and is currently OCCUPYING the nation, attempting to impose ruthless "free market" policies against the will of the Iraqi people.

    Blair invaded another nation based on lies and no public debate.

    That's criminal!

    I'm not saying don't invade. I'm saying you do so legitimately. And you do so carefully. You don't rush headlong into it.

    Blair KNEW America had no post-war invasion plan, other than to try to take over Iraq's economy and steal its wealth.

    He IS a murderer, whether you want to accept it or not.

    I'm sure you'd make a judgement about Blair's appalling conduct if you were on the receiving end of his actions.

    And I'm certain you'd be livid if, having suffered and seen members of your family die, Blair turned around and told you that "God" and the British people will judge him – albeit, toothlessly!

    But hang on! Shouldn't the Iraqis be judging Blair? They're the ones paying the heaviest price.

    Andy wrote:

    "Just that it is appropriate for him to believe that he will be judged by both the people as they look back on his decisions, and by God (because he is a religious man)."

    No, it is not appropriate.

    The government works for the people. Blair does not have the right to abuse government power and murder people for his personal ends or beliefs.

    He MUST JUSTIFY his decisions with hard facts, not give the public bullshit.

    In an earlier post, I pointed out that Bush executed a prisoner – Karla Faye Tucker – who said she had found God, and pleaded with Bush not to be killed.

    If it's good enough for Blair and Bush to talk about God, and for them to expect us to believe them, it's good enough for anyone.

    Karla Faye Tucker should, therefore, NOT have been executed. It was up to God to judge here, not Bush. "God" clearly wanted her to live.

    Bush, however, an individual who also claims to have found God, decided she was a liar. How did he know? "God" must have told him (a schizophrenic god, this). Bush then promptly executed her.

    This is Bush and Blair all over. Rules for others – none for them!

    And all you can do is defend Blair.

    Try to absorb this simple fact: Blair doesn't give a damn about your pathetic existence.

  • Richard II

    For ANDY again (that's cos I love him so much!).

    I used the search facility, and, yes, it WAS Craig – that's "CRAIG" for the hard of hearing – Murray who made the earlier post about the BBC misquoting Blair:

    Well, OK, "craig" made the post. I assume that's Craig Murray.

  • Richard II

    Andy Young wrote:

    "I, for reference, am not religious, and think that religious people generally are slightly nutty."

    Religion is one thing; belief in a god/creator is another; and believing there is more to existence than meets the eye is something else entirely.

    I think atheists are also slightly nutty. They genuinely believe the universe – or whatever underlies the universe – created itself one day, for no particular reason. Sounds pretty wacky to me.

    I don't believe in a god, but that doesn't make me atheist. I just don't know.

    If there's no creator, surely there should be nothing.

    And why am I aware of my existence? And why now, at this particular point in space and time? Surely, I shouldn't be. I'm only a collection of interacting atoms and electrons. However complex that interaction gets, it shouldn't suddenly become conscious, and start seeing colour and feeling pain, things that don't exist in the physical world.

    Interesting article here to read by Dylan Evans:

    "The 21st century atheist – not believing in God is no excuse for being virulently anti-religious or naively pro-science."

Comments are closed.