A Paragraph To Savour

From The Guardian, about the Law Lords torture decision -

'Seven judges in Britain's highest court ruled yesterday that intelligence extracted by torture is not admissible in any British court. Lawyers said the judgement would reverberate around the world, putting beyond doubt that the ban on torture was absolute in civilised countries.'

And let's compare and contrast the above paragraph with this piece from the New York Times, aka the Law Lords decision's evil twin -

'American officials including Ms. Rice have defended the practice, saying it draws on language and cultural expertise of American allies, particularly in the Middle East, and provides an important tool for interrogation. They have said that the United States carries out the renditions only after obtaining explicit assurances from the receiving countries that the prisoners will not be tortured.'

Boo, hiss, he's behind you indeed.

Bold emphasis in the above paragraphs has been added by yours truly, rather than in the original stories - before anyone gets up in arms about my dodgy sources - not that it has seemed to have happened about WMDs though.

Pauly