"A judge will investigate claims that British intelligence agencies were complicit in the torture of terror suspects, William Hague, the foreign secretary, said tonight. The move was welcomed by civil liberties campaigners and may put pressure on the Labour leadership candidate and former foreign secretary David Miliband, who was accused by Hague, while in opposition, of having something to hide. Miliband has repeatedly rejected the accusation and broadly indicated that he or his officials may have been misled by foreign intelligence agencies about the degree of British complicity." — Guardian
Meanwhile, back in Bizarroworld:
WASHINGTON — A federal appeals court ruled on Friday that prisoners being held without trial in Afghanistan by the military have no right to challenge their imprisonment in American civilian courts. The decision, overturning a lower court ruling in the detainees’ favor, was a victory for the Obama administration’s efforts to hold terrorism suspects overseas for extended periods without judicial oversight.
Disgusting. Amy Davidson unthreads the logic:
The prisoners in this case were not captured in Afghanistan. They were seized in other countries, where we are not at war... Then we brought them into a war zone. In other words, the government is avoiding judicial review by citing an impediment of its own creation, which sounds—and surely this comparison has been made somewhere—awfully like murdering your parents and asking the court for mercy on the ground that you are an orphan.