ENGAGE RSS http://www.iengage.org.uk Fri, 12 Mar 2010 13:52:14 +0100 FeedCreator 1.7.3 http://www.iengage.org.uk/images/M_images/joomla_rss.png http://www.iengage.org.uk ENGAGE RSS http://www.iengage.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=791&Itemid=  That an election is in the offing is clear from the interview (http://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/29370/david-cameron-the-full-jc-interview) given by the Leader of the Opposition, David Cameron (pictured), to the Jewish Chronicle this week. The JC reports (http://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/29303/david-cameron-i-will-banish-extremists-britain) that Cameron’s Tory Party would act so that: ‘…visitors to Britain such as Yusuf al-Qaradawi, the influential Egyptian cleric who supports suicide bombing against Israeli targets, and Ibrahim Moussawi, Hizbollah's "media relations officer", would never again be allowed into the country.’And‘…a Tory government would ban the virulently anti-Zionist group Hizb-ut-Tahrir, which has called for the creation of an Islamic state in Britain.’ Fri, 12 Mar 2010 14:23:20 +0100 http://www.iengage.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=790&Itemid=  Philip Hollobone (pictured), the Tory MP who last month (component/content/article/1-news/742-tory-mp-mocks-burqa-wearers-in-parliament) equated the wearing of niqab and burqa by Muslim women to ‘the religious equivalent of going around with a paper bag over your head’, took the opportunity during yesterday’s Commons’ debate (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmhansrd/cm100311/debtext/100311-0012.htm#10031144001180) on International Women’s Day to repeat his claims that a ban on the burqa and niqab should be considered. According to Hansard, Hollobone interjected saying:‘On this occasion of international women's day, I want to raise the difficult subject of Islamic full-face veils-specifically, the niqab and the burqa. I am sure we can all agree with the Leader of the House's remarks-we all want to empower women in being equal. In my view and that of my constituents, the niqab and the burqa are oppressive dress codes that are regressive as regards the advancement of women in our society. I want to make it clear that I am talking about the niqab and the burqa, not the hijab, the khimar or the chador.‘I have been concerned for some time about the niqab and the burqa, but it was not until I took my children to the play area in my local park recently and saw a woman wearing a full burqa that it came home to me how inappropriate and, frankly, offensive it is for people to wear that apparel in the 21st century and especially in Britain. In my view and that of my constituents, the burqa is not an acceptable form of dress and banning it should be seriously considered.' Fri, 12 Mar 2010 13:19:23 +0100 http://www.iengage.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=789&Itemid=  The Guardian reports (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/mar/10/racism-police-stop-search) that the Equality and Human Rights Commission (chair, Trevor Phillips, pictured) is to brand police forces as ‘racist’ and threaten enforcement action for disproportionate use of stop and search (component/content/article/1-news/718-uk-stop-a-search-policy-ruled-illegal) against ethnic minorities. ‘Police forces will be told they face enforcement action unless they give meaningful promises to change, says a report for the Equality and Human Rights Commission expected to be released later this month.‘It presents a prima facie case that the police are still failing in their duties under racial equality laws and finds that an officer's power to stop and search, based on having a reasonable suspicion of involvement in criminality, is disproportionately used against Afro-Caribbean and Asian Britons.‘For some forces the "disproportionality" is more than 10 times. The report presses the police to defend themselves against the allegation they are breaking the law by highlighting the fact that some forces use the power considerably more than other forces policing the same types of area.' Thu, 11 Mar 2010 14:37:17 +0100 http://www.iengage.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=788&Itemid=  The European Parliament yesterday (http://euobserver.com/9/29650/?rk=1) voted in favour of a resolution on the Goldstone Report (component/content/article/1-news/626-un-adopts-goldstone-report-on-gaza-war-crimes) which calls on EU member states and the High Representative for Foreign Affairs, Baroness Catherine Ashton, to "publicly demand the implementation of [the Goldstone report's] recommendations and accountability for all violations of international law, including alleged war crimes." ‘EU parliamentary deputies in recent days have been inundated by lobbying emails from the European Jewish Congress over the vote. A spokesperson for the group told this website [EU Observer] that it had been "definitely a really major effort by the EJC, but it's only a work in progress and there's still a lot of work to do."‘On Tuesday afternoon, the level of lobbying had reached such an extent that Irish socialist MEP Proinsias de Rossa, the chair of the chamber's Palestinian Legislative Council liaison delegation, sent around his own email encouraging deputies not to buckle under the pressure. Thu, 11 Mar 2010 14:01:59 +0100 http://www.iengage.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=787&Itemid=  Taj Hargey (pictured) proves, yet again, that should the media want a Muslim voice to tell Muslims to put up and shut up, he’s the man to call. In a guest column (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article7055771.ece) in The Times today Hargey explains why he is supporting the rejection of a mosque planning application near the Royal Military Academy at Sandhurst in Surrey. The application has already attracted the ire of local Conservative MP Michael Gove who proposed (http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/feb/12/michael-gove-opposes-mosque) that the Bengali Welfare Association, the organization that submitted the planning proposal, “…withdraw the application [and] consider how to improve the facilities for worship for the Muslim community in a calmer environment."‘Calmer’ environment alluding to an English Defence League supported Facebook campaign against the mosque which has reportedly attracted over 6,000 signatures.Hargey, backing suggestions to disband the plans, tells us:‘This mosque will have five domes and two 100ft minarets that will loom over the Royal Military Academy at Sandhurst. Little wonder many people regard it as a provocation — and that’s why I will be at the council meeting opposing its construction.’ Wed, 10 Mar 2010 14:17:21 +0100 http://www.iengage.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=786&Itemid=  ENGAGE has received a reply from the Foreign Secretary, The Rt. Hon. David Miliband MP, to our letter (component/content/article/1-news/692-engage-letter-to-the-foreign-secretary-on-tzipi-livni-affair) concerning proposals to remove the power for issuing arrest warrants under universal jurisdiction provisions from UK Magistrates’ courts. Read the Foreign Secretary’s reply here (images/stories/milibanduniversaljurisdiction.pdf). Tue, 09 Mar 2010 10:35:19 +0100 http://www.iengage.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=785&Itemid=  Andrew Gilligan (pictured), perhaps deluding himself to be riding on the crest of a wave after his disgraceful C4 Dispatches (home/1-news/780-review-of-gilligans-islamic-republic-c4-documentary-about-the-ife) programme last Monday, may well be distinctly crestfallen following what appears to us to be a seriously libelous article he penned for the Daily Telegraph about the charity Muslim Aid. In last Tuesday’s paper in an article titled ‘Charity is linked to Islamic terrorists’, Gilligan claimed that the British Muslim charity Muslim Aid had ‘paid hundreds of thousands of pounds …to two organisations allegedly linked to terrorist groups’.He claimed that the charity ‘diverted substantial sums to Islamist organisations, possibly in contravention of its charitable status’.Despite the use of carefully placed caveats like 'possibly' and 'allegedly' to shield the author and the Daily Telegraph from a libel claim, the paper appears to have put its foot right in it by claiming Muslim Aid ‘is linked to Islamic terrorists’ in the article title.One would have thought that with the frequent attempts to besmirch Interpal with similar allegations of ‘links to terrorists’, polemicists like Gilligan would have learnt their expensive lesson.We strongly urge Muslim Aid to defend itself against this smear and ensure that it deals with this attack on its reputation with every legal means available to it.Gilligan's Daily Telegraph article no longer appears accessible on the paper's website. We wonder why? Mon, 08 Mar 2010 17:10:18 +0100 http://www.iengage.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=784&Itemid=  Friday saw the publication of a Home Office study, 'What perceptions do the UK public have concerning the impact of counter-terrorism legislation implemented since 2000? (http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs10/occ88.pdf)', prepared by the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory (Dstl) for the Office of Security and Counter Terrorism (OSCT). The study focusing on the primary question, perceptions of the UK public concerning the impact of counter-terrorism legislation implemented since 2000, included a number of sub-questions:1) What specific themes are present?2) Is there variation in reported impacts across different sub-sets of UK communities?3) What are the sources of the UK public’s perceptions of the impact of counterterrorism legislation?4) Does the evidence support a distinction between the existence of counter-terrorism legislation itself, versus the implementation of the legislation?Among key findings of the report are these:‘There was both quantitative and qualitative evidence showing that samples of Muslim communities perceive some aspects of CT legislation to be unfair, unjust and discriminatory. The evidence shows that elements of the Muslim communities generally feel they are being ‘treated differently’ since terrorist events such as 9/11 and 7/7. However, it is unlikely that these perceptions have been brought about solely through the introduction of CT legislation. Mon, 08 Mar 2010 15:20:52 +0100 http://www.iengage.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=783&Itemid=  Following news last week (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article7048576.ece) that two Muslim women traveling to Islamabad were denied permission to board their flight for having declined to pass through body scanners at Manchester airport, a petition has been lodged urging the PM to ensure that those who object to passing through such scanners are offered alternative search procedures. The petition, which can be viewed here (http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/Body-Scans/), states:‘We are concerned that the compulsory use of these new machines violate our rights to privacy (article 8 of the ECHR). We note that other states do currently offer alternative arrangements to the use of body scanners and see no reason why the UK should be an exception.‘We understand that measures must be taken to ensure safety and reduce the risk of terrorism; however, such measures must also be reasonable and proportionate. We are not convinced that the current implementation of body scanners in the UK meet these criteria, and further, we fail to see how offering an alternative screening process hurts either goal.’The Equality and Human Rights Commission has already raised the rights conflict arising from the use of body scanners at airports and Article 8 of the European Convention in a letter (component/content/article/1-news/765-ehrc-issues-warning-to-uk-government-over-use-of-discriminatory-body-scanners-at-airports) to the Transport Secretary, Lord Adonis. Body scanners are currently on trial at Manchester and Heathrow airports and are to be introduced across the UK by the end of 2010. Mon, 08 Mar 2010 10:56:19 +0100 http://www.iengage.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=782&Itemid=  Following the response to Baroness Warsi’s (pictured) question (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200910/ldhansrd/text/100222w0002.htm) last week to Lord MacKenzie, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Communities and Local Government & Department for Work and Pensions, organisations that have been funded under the Faith Communities Capacity Building Fund can be found (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200910/ldhansrd/text/100222w0003.htm) in Hansard. The funding tables are reproduced below. Baroness Warsi raised the question:“To ask Her Majesty's Government which groups, causes or organisations were funded in each round of the Faith Communities Capacity Building Fund programme; how much was given to each; and how much funding is to be allocated.” Thu, 04 Mar 2010 11:45:51 +0100 http://www.iengage.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=781&Itemid=  The papers on Tuesday widely covered (The Times (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article7046487.ece), Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terrorism-in-the-uk/7350741/Fatwa-to-condemn-terrorism-to-be-issued.html), Independent (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/sheikh-issues-fatwa-against-all-terrorists-1915000.html) and Evening Standard (http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23810140-is-this-a-triumph-for-the-islamic-peacemakers.do)) the fatwa issued in London by the Pakistani cleric Dr Tahir ul-Qadri (pictured) of Minhaj ul-Quran condemning suicide bombers. The BBC (http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8544531.stm) reported: ‘In his religious ruling, Dr Qadri says that Islam forbids the massacre of innocent citizens and suicide bombings.‘Although many scholars have made similar rulings in the past, Dr Qadri's followers argue that the massive document being launched in London goes much further.‘They say it sets out point-by-point theological arguments against the rhetoric used by al-Qaeda inspired recruiters.‘The fatwa also challenges the religious motivations of would-be suicide bombers who are inspired by promises of an afterlife.’600 pages seems an awfully long-winded way of reiterating messages repeatedly espoused by British Muslim scholars, on a number of occasions, propounding Islam’s denunciation of terrorism and suicide bombing. Thu, 04 Mar 2010 09:45:41 +0100 http://www.iengage.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=780&Itemid=   If you thought documentaries couldn’t sink lower than the hatchet job by John Ware for BBC Panorama, ‘Who speaks for British Muslims?’, in 2005, the Dispatches programme aired last night is proof to the contrary. Using spurious evidence, half-truths  and a ragbag of ‘community leaders’ – none of whom merit a byline demonstrating their ‘leadership’ credentials – Gilligan (pictured) outdoes even Ware in proving that documentary-makers with an animus against ‘Islamism’ have nothing but conjecture and pure prejudice on their side. Gilligan’s chief claims in ‘Britain’s Islamic Republic’ are that Islamic Forum Europe is quietly and systematically overtaking institutions in Tower Hamlets, from the East London Mosque to Tower Hamlets Council and the local Labour Party association. The targeting of political power and institutions of representative democracy are, Gilligan argues, tactical manoeuvres in an ambitious plan to realise the ‘Islamist’ dream of a socio-political reality anchored in the teachings of Islam.Who does Gilligan parade in front of our cameras to extemporise and validate his arguments? Well, first up is Paul Richards, former ‘special advisor’ to Hazel Blears. We’ve already exposed (component/content/article/1-news/388-hazel-blears-islamophobic-advisor-reveals-his-true-colours-in-this-weeks-jewish-chronicle) the hypocrisy that underlies Richards’ position. Richards seems strangely unaware of the blatant double standards he appears to invoke, decrying the IFE in the programme while in an article for the Jewish Chronicle, lauding the creation of:‘New groups [which] were nurtured and supported, such as the Muslim Women’s Advisory Group’.No prizes for guessing the democratic credentials of this particular invention of Blears and her aide, Richards. Tue, 02 Mar 2010 10:29:19 +0100 http://www.iengage.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=779&Itemid=  The Jewish Chronicle front page today (http://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/28758/brown-ill-change-war-crime-arrest-law) revisits the pro-Israel lobby’s persistence in securing a change (home/1-news/744-uk-govt-under-heavy-pressure-from-pro-israel-lobby-over-war-crimes-legislation) to the law on universal jurisdiction, before the end of this parliamentary term, to allow Israeli and other foreign politicians accused of war crimes to travel freely to the UK immune from arrest and prosecution. The JC today reports:‘Gordon Brown has personally intervened to unblock the logjam over a change in the law that allows local magistrates to issue arrest warrants for visiting foreign politicians accused of war crimes.‘The JC understands the Prime Minister is determined to press ahead with the law change before the election.‘The Prime Minister pledged his support for Ms Livni but did not immediately prioritise the issue.‘However, he has now called in key ally and fixer Tom Watson to advise on the issue. The MP for West Bromwich is known for his strong views in support of Israel and challenged Mr Straw on the floor of the House of Commons earlier (http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm200910/cmhansrd/cm100209/debtext/100209-0004.htm)this month.' Fri, 26 Feb 2010 15:59:21 +0100 http://www.iengage.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=778&Itemid=  The Department for Communities and Local Government today publishes a report (http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/statistics/pdf/1484586.pdf), ‘Attitudes, values and perceptions - Muslims and the general population in 2007-08’, based on data taken from the Citizenship survey 2007-08.The report analyses Muslim and general population attitudes towards engagement, cohesion, interaction and identity and prejudice and discrimination. Some of the reports findings:‘In 2007-08 rates of civic engagement and volunteering were lower among Muslims compared with the general population, reflecting the younger age profile of the Muslim population. However, Muslims were more likely than the general population to feel that they could influence decisions affecting Britain and their local area.‘The Muslim population and the general population often agreed on which were the most important rights, responsibilities and values for living in Britain. For example, in 2005 both Muslims and the general population agreed that everyone should have the right to free education for children and the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. Similarly, Muslims and the general population agreed that obeying and respecting the law, helping and protecting your family, working to provide for yourself and voting were the responsibility of everyone.' Fri, 26 Feb 2010 12:08:21 +0100 http://www.iengage.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=777&Itemid=  Seumas Milne (pictured) in his Guardian column (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2010/feb/25/anti-muslim-hatred-threat-to-all) today reflects on the heavy sentencing handed down to the Muslim protestors arrested following demonstrations held last year during Israel’s savage attack on the Gaza strip. Milne looks at the climate fomented by populist politicians, a willing media and far right racist groups that threatens to ratchet up anti-Muslim prejudice to the peril of us all. He writes:‘If young British Muslims had any doubts that they are singled out for special treatment in the land of their birth, the punishments being meted out to those who took part in last year's London demonstrations against Israel's war on Gaza will have dispelled them. ‘Of 119 people arrested, 78 have been charged, all but two of them young ­Muslims (most between the ages of 16 and 19)...In the past few weeks, 15 have been convicted, mostly of violent disorder, and jailed for between eight months and two-and-a-half years – ­having switched to guilty pleas to avoid heavier terms. Another nine are up to be sentenced tomorrow.‘The severity of the charges and sentencing goes far beyond the official response to any other recent anti-war demonstration, or even the violent stop the City protests a decade ago. So do the arrests, many of them carried out months after the event in dawn raids by dozens of police officers, who smashed down doors and handcuffed family members as if they were suspected terrorists. Naturally, none of the more than 30 complaints about police ­violence were upheld, even where video ­evidence was available.' Thu, 25 Feb 2010 11:52:29 +0100 http://www.iengage.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=776&Itemid=  The select committee on Culture, Media and Sport issued its report into ‘Press Standards, Privacy and Libel (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmcumeds/362/36202.htm)’ yesterday. The committee is chaired by John Whittingdale MP (pictured). The committee has been gathering evidence from a variety of sources over the last year looking into the manner in which the British media has covered the disappearance of Madeleine McCann as well as the News of the World phone-hacking scandal and the problem of ‘libel tourism’.The report contains a section (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmcumeds/362/36209.htm) devoted to the Press Complaints Commission and the future of self-regulation of the press:‘Finally we discuss self-regulation of the press; its future viability; the history and structure of the PCC, the current industry regulator; and its fitness for purpose. We also set out a considered programme of reform, aimed at making regulation of the press in the UK more effective. ‘Both the principle of press self-regulation and its practice by the PCC have always had critics and have often been matters for general concern. Indeed, in 1993 Sir David Calcutt, in a second report commissioned by the Government, concluded that self-regulation was not working and recommended that the Government should impose statutory regulation. This recommendation was not acted upon.' Thu, 25 Feb 2010 10:59:54 +0100 http://www.iengage.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=775&Itemid=  Home Office figures released today (http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs10/hosb0410.pdf) show 200 hundred terror arrests were made last year and 200,444 people stopped and searched under Section 44 of the Terrorism Act. From today’s Independent (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/two-hundred-terror-arrests-made-last-year-1910300.html):‘There have been 1,759 terrorism arrests since September 11 2001, the figures show. ‘For the year ending September 11 2009, a total of 201 people were arrested of which 66 people were charged - 17 (26%) were charged under terrorism legislation while seven (11%) were charged with terrorism-related offences.‘The most common charge under terror laws since 2001 is possession of an article for terrorism purposes (30%) and fundraising (14%). Thu, 25 Feb 2010 10:56:02 +0100 http://www.iengage.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=774&Itemid=  Simon Jenkins in his Guardian column (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/feb/23/newry-helmand-lessons-are-same) today reflects on the car bomb that exploded in front of Newry courthouse in Northern Ireland on Monday, the major NATO push against the Taliban in Marjah and the attempt by politicians to conflate the war in Afghanistan with strengthening domestic security. Jenkins writes:‘Terrorism in Northern Ireland is nowadays hardly reported because it has rightly been redefined as a crime. The terrorist must be denied the oxygen of publicity. And it works. If Monday's court-house bombing in Newry had been perpetrated on a public building in London there would have been pandemonium. Security chiefs would have been summoned. Doors would have been kicked down in immigrant suburbs and "suspects" arrested.‘Gordon Brown would have dived for his Cobra bunker, declaring "the nation is under threat" and the bomb was proof of the necessity of the Afghan war. That was how Washington reacted yesterday to news of a (failed) plot to put a bomb in the New York subway. It was nothing as commonplace as a crime but, said a spokesman, "an assault on our nation … a threat to our homeland security".‘The attempt of Gordon Brown (component/content/article/1-news/627-pm-speech-on-afghanistan), David Miliband and David Cameron to link the battle in Helmand with safety on British streets is no longer just implausible, it is surreal. Their declared objective is to reduce the risk of Islamist attacks by stamping out distant "terrorist sponsors" and "training camps". Other motives – maintaining Nato unity, regional stabilisation and confronting jihadism – are mentioned but are subsidiary. War can only be about security.' Wed, 24 Feb 2010 12:13:38 +0100 http://www.iengage.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=773&Itemid=  The papers today (Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/dubai/7294046/Dubai-assassination-eight-British-passports-used-in-Hamas-killing.html), Times (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article7036571.ece), Independent (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/israel-refuses-to-help-britain-with-inquiry-into-fake-passports-1907388.html)) report on the rebuff by Israeli foreign minister, Avigdor Lieberman (pictured), of foreign secretary, David Miliband’s request that Israel co-operate fully with the UK in getting to the bottom of the fake British passports that were used by the assassins of Mahmoud Al Mabhouh in Dubai last month. It comes as Dubai police claim two further forged British passports were used by the assassination team, making the total eight and not six.The Telegraph reports:‘Israel has shown little inclination to accommodate Britain's requests for answers and yesterday delivered a fresh rebuff to pleas for co-operation.‘David Miliband, the Foreign Secretary, emerged from a 45-minute meeting with his Israeli counterpart, Avigdor Lieberman, in Brussels empty-handed. Three other European states caught up in the plot – Ireland, France and Germany – received similarly short shrift.’Lieberman is said to have told the EU foreign ministers that were was “no proof” of Israel’s involvement in the killing and that "If someone would present information beyond articles in the media, we would relate to it. But since there are no concrete elements, there is no need to react." Tue, 23 Feb 2010 13:12:10 +0100 http://www.iengage.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=772&Itemid=  The Guardian reports (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/feb/23/government-legal-challenge-torture-detainees) on an unprecedented legal challenge launched by the charity, Reprieve (Director, Clive Stafford-Smith pictured), against the government concerning guidance issued to MI5 and MI6 on torture and the treatment of detainees held abroad. Reprieve has taken the matter to the High Court claiming that the government has failed to disclose guidance issued in 2004 to intelligence agents despite the Prime Minister’s pledge to publish it last March. The delay in making the guidance available has previously been criticized (http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/nov/15/government-isc-interrogation-guidelines-brown) by the Intelligence and Security committee.Reprieve said in a statement that the government had "failed adequately to ensure that UK intelligence personnel refrain from acts and omissions amounting to complicity in torture".It claims to have "compelling evidence" that British intelligence agencies have been engaged in the practice of "systemically providing information and questions and of conducting interviews with detainees in the custody of a foreign state in the knowledge, or constructive knowledge, that the individuals were being subjected to torture". Tue, 23 Feb 2010 12:42:21 +0100