Corrupt British Blairite warmonger Hoon loses court case

This video from Britain says about itself:

“Yes I am emotional about torture SIR!” Shami Chakrabarti SAVAGES UK Minister Geoff “Buff” Hoon

6 February 2009

Shami Chakrabarti SAVAGES UK Minister Geoff “Buff” Hoon over the US attempts to BLACKMAIL Britain into silence over evidence of Torture.

Binyam Mohamed, a British resident held at the American base, has launched a legal challenge in the High Court in London for documents detailing his treatment to be made public.

However, two judges ruling on the case said that David Miliband, the Foreign Secretary, had advised that releasing the documents could lead to America withdrawing intelligence co-operation.

This, it was warned, could lead to Britons facing a very considerable increase in the dangers they face from terrorism.

The judges reveal that the secret documents at the centre of the case give rise to an arguable case of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. It is also disclosed that a British intelligence official may have been present when Mr Mohamed alleges he was tortured. The judgement raises the prospect of criminal charges being brought against British officials.

From daily The Morning Star in Britain:

Hoon court challenge fails

Friday 5th December 2014

Sleaze minister falls short at European Court of Human Rights

DISGRACED former minister Geoff Hoon failed yesterday in his European court challenge over a parliamentary sleaze report.

The ex-Labour MP had his Commons pass revoked four years ago by the Standards and Privileges Committee, which said he had brought the House into disrepute after a newspaper recorded him offering to use his influence in return for money.

Mr Hoon, who was defence and transport secretary from 1999-2005, reacted by lodging a complaint at the European Court of Human Rights saying the investigation had been unfair.

He argued there was no opportunity to challenge the finding in domestic courts, and that publication of the report undermined his right to “respect for family and private life” under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

But the court ruled that the proceedings “did not attract the application of the right to a fair trial because they did not determine or give rise to a dispute as the applicant’s civil rights.”

It also found that there was a “legitimate public interest.”