Victory?

The Law Lords (the greatest authority in the land on the law) today came to a momentous decision. They ruled that evidence presented in court must not be admissible if it could have been obtained under duress of torture in a foreign country. Thus evidence obtained by, say, MI6 from foreign agencies would have to be squeaky clean and claims of torture would nullify such evidence.
Amnesty International welcomed the ruling. They say - and probably rightly so - that many people have been imprisoned or extradited on evidence obtained in a foreign country only after torture was applied.
But the noble lords stopped short of saying that the prosecution must prove that their evidence was not obtained in this way. One of their number said that the onus of such proof should be on the prosecution but this was not the majority view. So MI6, and the CIA and other"friendly" agencies will still be able to gain such evidence and, provided they don't make it too obvious, it will be difficult not to take it into account.
There is a narrow path to tread here. Some guilty people will obviously go free to continue their evil ways, be it terrorism or less political crimes. But while there is a chance that innocent people may be wrongly incarcerated - perhaps for political reasons - because of dubious evidence improperly obtained, then we must make sure that evidence is honest and true. If we allow ourselves to fall into the trap of "it is for the good of democracy whatever the cost" then we become no better than any terrorist and we might just as well introduce the police state as a norm.
This ruling comes at an opportune time. There is disquiet over allegations that the CIA (bless their cotton socks and I hope they rot in hell) are transporting suspects to secret bases in Eastern European countries to extract confessions from them under torture. The theory being that if it happens outside the USA then the American Government is clean and cannot be held responsible for any torture. It is a way of having a Guantanamo Bay without all the publicity.
The ruling does look like a victory for people like Amnesty International but, unless there is a burden of proof on the presenters of such evidence, it could also be looked upon as a victory for the manipulators in the government agencies who just want to run the country in spite of the law of the land and the rights of citizens.
I don't know who's right. There is doubt whichever way you look.
At the end of the day the fanaticism of "justified" terrorists (or freedom fighters?) seems to be equally matched by the fanaticism of the "righteous" governments (or freedom upholders?). It's a quagmire - I don't want to go there. But unless we do go there anarchy or fascism are the only alternatives.
E-mail spam is a nuisance. It can also be quite amusing in a sick sort of way. People try to sell me watches, condoms, viagra, sex aids, jewellery and cut-price software on a daily basis. They can also try to get my details by telling me my E-bay or Pay-Pal account has problems and I need to re-register my credit card. Since I am not registered with these organisations that is stupid. These fools must do their homework better. Unfortunately there are some gullible people who fall for it and suffer the consequences. The latest ones include messages purporting to come from MI6, FBI or CIA. The titles of the e-mails is always "You are viewing illegal sites". I never open these so I don't know what they contain but I expect they contain links whereby you are expected to give personal details or even pay fees (thus they gain you credit card details). What kind of fools do you take us for you poor sick people? Maybe I am using illegal sites, maybe not. But what sort of kicks do you get out of giving some poor gullibles nervous breakdowns? F*** off and leave us in peace.