Not really, the use of torture in the UK is illegal. Just because you do it overseas, doesn't make it legal.

Rendition and imprisonment without trial is unconstitutional in the US and UK, it violates the right to a fair trial. Rendition is a nice way of saying kidknapping, because the legal route is called extradition.

International Law forbids acts of aggression against soverign states, without security council approval (excepting the right to self defence of those aggressed or occupied).

Essentially when a lawful state abandons the idea of due process and legal rights, it resorts to tyranny.

All of these, where they being pursued against british citizens by an independent state, would be called crimes by the UK government (and in some cases acts of war - drone stikes).

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Yes, really.

It's already an 'established fact' that international law doesn't act as you think it should.

There's a lot of high minded language, but history has always been the justice of the victor and I don't see that changing anytime soon. In fact with China increasing in power and intent...To paraphrase Hitler to the Indians.....'you don't know how good you have it'.

To say it again, these are definitions of war.

All war is 'illegal' in the minds of one or both sides.

Definitions can be made to fit whatever you like......You can argue the toss all you like. The reality is that no state or individual is going to be convicted of bugger all in regards to the Gulf wars.

'illegal' is a pointless mantra.

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

my tuppence worth and view on the salient facts:

Sweden has asked for his extradition to face charges.

If he has a case to answer by UK/Swedish extradition agreements he should be sent.

The fact that the US may subsequently seek his extradition from Sweden, and Sweden may allow it is none of my concern and is an issue entirely between the US and Sweden.

Personally I'd be inclined to turn a blind eye while he slips out of the country to Ecuador or wherever, and becomes someone else's problem.

I find it interesting that everyone is happy to completely dismiss this sex case hanging over him simply because they see him as 'fighting the power'. Personally I don't give a stuff about him or his case so haven't bothered to look into it in any detail, but I imagine if a UK court has agreed his extradition, then there's a case to answer.

No. Which ones have persued him exactly? Other than ones where he's broken laws or due to face trial (ie UK and Sweden)

I'd suggest they're no more a public service than the other hackers.

Optimistic as ever

The UN is pretty clear on what is an isn't legal in terms of war, and has prosecuted a number of war criminals for statute crimes, most notably in result to the conflicts in the Balkans. War Crimes are on the UK statute of laws, and are enforcable, as are crimes against humanity, and even less offences regarding the abuse of public office and fraud offences relating to lying to parliment.

Yes, we should, even if its only in relation to relatively minor offences, or complicity/conspiracy charges relating to the deaths of UK service men. And we should also pursue cases against others involved if they enter our jurisdiction. I don't care if the US would permit it, I'm not a US citizen, the alleged crimes relating to the UK government and agencys associated are our responsibility to resolve.

Ethically, we have a responsibility, as a lawful democracy to present ourselves us such, rather than taking the easy route of sweeping the deaths of innocents and UK citizens under the carpet of convenience.

We as a nation seem happy to intervene in the affairs of other nations (Libya) and yet when it comes to the home, we protect the guilty because of their station and status, not their innocence.

I don't care what the states does, just because everyone else acts in a manner of moral hypocracy to the deaths of foriegners and our own service men, doesn't mean we should.

Well you can, it seems, if you're wealthy enough or powerful enough. In fact it seems if you are the Tony Blair or George Bush and cronies, you can have the world the way you like it.

You think the invasion of Iraq made the world safer. Afghanistan and Iraq removed the two major opponants of Iran from the world stage, weakened the security of pakistan, a nuclear power and essentially created a situation that has positively encouraged Iran and North Korea to pursue nuclear capability as a matter of necessity.

If anything, the actions of the West in the pursuit of 'democracy in the middle east' has done far more harm than good, and led to massive improvements in the position of Islamist movements (many of whom ultimately will end up looking to the Russians and Chinese for support, and enriching their coffers for arms and technology).

Rather than protect us from the tyranny of china, it has promoted Chinese interests world wide.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Isn't this why we have a secret service, to do the dirty things, and not get caught (or at least make them deniable). How hard is it to actually get a conviction for conspiracy to commit terrorist offences - We didn't need special rules against the Irish Republicans, or torture or rendition - You only have to show three or more people in cahoots to break the law, and its then down to them to prove their innocence (Conspiracy charges are unusual as the onis is on the accused to prove their innocence).

Problem is, most of the people picked up aren't really that much of a threat. Mostly they were people who were pro-Islamist in their home nation and involved in terrorist funding overseas, and we'd turned a blind eye to them between the 1980s and 2001.

After 9/11 they served much more as people who provoked the media, rather than actually carried a real threat or risk to citizens of the UK (those held in Belmarsh for example, were advocates of Jyhad).

All of them had pretty much committed offences for which they could have been jailed, just not very serious ones. Although after the new labour anti-terrorist laws, it became very easy to become a terrorist, even by association.

The degree to which someone is a threat, when the evidence is suppressed, and the hearings held in closed court, with no jury, is entirely down to the statement of those making the accusation.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]