Reply #4: "The Bush administration based a crucial prewar assertion about ties ... [View All]

... between Iraq and Al Qaeda on detailed statements made by a prisoner while in Egyptian custody who later said he had fabricated them to escape harsh treatment, according to current and former government officials.

The officials said the captive, Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi, provided his most specific and elaborate accounts about ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda only after he was secretly handed over to Egypt by the United States in January 2002, in a process known as rendition.

More at the link:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/09/politics/09intel.html?ei=5094&en=7e35bbb61b8d1d0c&hp=&ex=1134190800&partner=homepage&pagewanted=all

Britain's Top Court Rules Information Gotten by Torture Is Never Admissible Evidence

By SARAH LYALL

LONDON, Dec. 8 - Britain's highest court thrust itself into the middle of a roiling international debate on Thursday, declaring that evidence obtained through torture - no matter by whom - was not admissible in British courts. It also said Britain had a "positive obligation" to uphold antitorture principles abroad as well as at home.

"The issue is one of constitutional principle, whether evidence obtained by torturing another human being may lawfully be admitted against a party to proceedings in a British court, irrespective of where, or by whom, or on whose authority the torture was inflicted," said Lord Bingham, writing the lead opinion in a unanimous ruling for the Law Lords. "To that question I would give a very clear negative answer."

The ruling dealt specifically with 10 men who were detained after the attacks on the United States on Sept. 11, 2001, and were held without charge in Britain on suspicion of being terrorists. But while the question at hand concerned only British courts, the ruling seems to have been made with the current international situation very much in mind. Several of the concurring opinions referred explicitly, and not flatteringly, to the United States.

Much more at the link:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/09/international/europe/09britain.html?pagewanted=print