they know it was obtained under torture or ill-treatment. The UK counterterrorism strategy CONTEST II explicitly states: Intelligence from the security and intelligence services of other states is vital to our own security and has repeatedly enabled us to disrupt attacks planned against the UK or UK interests. In most cases the source or sources of this intelligence will not be disclosed to the UK. If it is clear that the intelligence has come from a detainee the service providing it will rarely volunteer the circumstances in which the detainee is being held. If it is established that material has been obtained from a detainee by torture, it would not be admissible in criminal or civil legal proceedings in the UK as part of the case against an individual, regardless of where it was obtained. But... any intelligence which has been received may still be used to investigate and to stop terrorist attacks.72 The 2008 FCO annual report on human rights, which otherwise stresses the importance of the prevention and eradication of torture, shockingly reprises this language, stating: All intelligence received, whatever its source, is carefully evaluated, particularly where it is clear that it has been obtained from individuals in detention. The use of intelligence possibly derived through torture presents a very real dilemma, given our unreserved condemnation of torture and our efforts to eradicate it. Where there is intelligence that bears on threats to life, we cannot reject it out of hand (emphasis added).73 The government finds unfortunate comfort in the 2005 House of Lords Judicial Committee (commonly known as the “Law Lords”)74 ruling in the “torture evidence” case (A and Others vs. Secretary of State for the Home Department), described in more detail below, in which the Lords erroneously concluded that international law does not prohibit executive use of torture information for operational purposes. 72 Her Majesty’s Government, “Pursue Protect Prevent Prepare: The United Kingdom’s Strategy for Countering International Terrorism,” March 2009, http://security.homeoffice.gov.uk/news-publications/publicationsearch/general/HO_Contest_strategy.pdf?view=Binary (accessed November 11, 2009), p. 78. 73 FCO, 2008 Annual report on human rights, p. 15. 74 The House of Lords Judicial Committee was replaced in October 2009 by The Supreme Court as the highest court in the United Kingdom. “No Questions Asked” 28