Not literally of course - I am irreversibly against the death penalty - but today the Daily Mail - I was pointed to the story by another blog; I would never voluntarily read it - reopens the story about the UK cover up of official knowledge and condoning of torture in US detention:

British collusion in U.S. torture of suspected terrorists was covered up after extensive top-level talks between the two governments, it can be revealed. Foreign Office officials spent three months working with their American counterparts to hush up the allegations made by Binyam Mohamed, it was claimed. Mohamed, a British resident, has spent six years in U.S. custody - including a spell in the notorious Guantanamo Bay. [From Torture case 'cover up': Foreign Office officials 'spent months colluding with U.S. to hush up claims' | Mail Online]

So, which should be hung out to dry in the international criminal court - Tony Blair for colluding in the first place with what he must have known (after all even I saw the episodes of torture in "24"!) was going on or David Milliband for his desperate attempts to cover up our knowledge and forethought in torture.

Come on chaps. We are signatories to the treaty on torture. If our judges won't indict Bliar and Millibland, perhaps we can persuade Spain's.

Here's a nice thought with which to retire tonight. Under the UN Convention on Torture of which the United Kingdom is a signatory, if there is any prima facie evidence that anyone in the UK government (or indeed the US government) knew of, condoned or participated in torture, can our judges immediately arraign them on charges under the convention? Please!