"Torture" Memos

[spanna]

so yeah any torture is too good for them. They dont abide by the geneva convention so we dont need to with them IMO.

That arguments pointless IMO, we'd all soon be the lowest of the lowest human scum if we went along with that attitude. There'd be nothing worth fighting for after that.

How? You apply the geneva convention when fighting others who apply it.

Others who dont, play by their rules.

Im pretty sure the taliban/al qaeda have a good old giggle that western countries treat them so well when they are caught.

Compared to what they get when caught by others its a holiday camp.

[spanna]

Cheney's argument that torturing detainees yielded highly valuable and reliable intelligence results not reasonably obtainable by other means is dubious and, even if true, does not excuse what was done. The price you pay for riding roughshod over the rule of law in order to exact brutal torture on captured prisoners is not worth paying, regardless of the outcome. I consider him to be an unspeakable c**t of the highest order - that he still has the audacity to claim the moral high ground beggars belief.

Who do you think they are questioning? These arent a bunch of panseys that will cry when you give them a chinese burn. They are quite happy to die.

If a quick simply CHEAP method worked then they would have used it.

Of course it excuses what was done. The information gathered has saved thousands of civilians lives how the flying f*ck can you not see that.

 

I tell you what beggars belief is this holier than thou human rights attitude people seem to think is fashionable to even horifically evil people. I wonder what you would be saying if this was the 40s and we were talking about caught top nazis. Would you still have the same "human rights for all" attitude. I highly doubt it.

 

Anyway, what about the human rights of innocent civilians and their families.

In my eyes they come first, a billion f*cking miles above some piece of sh1t Al Qaeda member.

[Pragmatopian]

Of course it excuses what was done. The information gathered has saved thousands of civilians lives how the flying f*ck can you not see that.

 

How can you see that? The compelling reports which Cheney has apparently seen are classified.

 

I tell you what beggars belief is this holier than thou human rights attitude people seem to think is fashionable to even horifically evil people. I wonder what you would be saying if this was the 40s and we were talking about caught top nazis. Would you still have the same "human rights for all" attitude. I highly doubt it.

 

While there is evidence that Nazi POWs were mistreated during and after WWII, I am not aware that the allies tortured them in order to obtain information.

 

Interesting article on the topic with source references

 

Anyway, what about the human rights of innocent civilians and their families.

 

I don't think anyone would argue that those killed in terrorist atrocities should be denied their human rights, but I fail to see the connection between their human rights and the permissibility of torture of those suspected of membership of terrorist organisations. At least some of the families of the victims of the September 11th attacks agree with me, not to mention those who voted in their millions for Obama and his pledge to end the use of torture.

[spanna]

How can you see that? The compelling reports which Cheney has apparently seen are classified.

He wants them declassified. Saying the us public need to see the result of the interogations. You dont need to be stephen hawkins to work out whats in the reports.

 

While there is evidence that Nazi POWs were mistreated during and after WWII, I am not aware that the allies tortured them in order to obtain information.

Even though my point was just would you holier than thou types have preached "human rights" for top nazis. Reading that article (the one linked at the bottom) says the us did torture nazi pows just not as bad as the nazis. So im not sure what your point is there.

 

I don't think anyone would argue that those killed in terrorist atrocities should be denied their human rights, but I fail to see the connection between their human rights and the permissibility of torture of those suspected of membership of terrorist organisations. At least some of the families of the victims of the September 11th attacks agree with me, not to mention those who voted in their millions for Obama and his pledge to end the use of torture.

Some = very few.

 

I like Obama (Bush was a moron).

I think Obama has been lucky with this decision. I reckon he has been pretty safe to end these methods as all the information to be gleaned is more than likely gotten already.

[pongo]

It has been shown over and over again that torture is a very crap method of extracting useful information.

[spanna]

Poorly done yes but obviously not in this case, it has saved thousands of lives.

 

Even third world countries can do it "properly" and extract the correct information.

Read Bravo two zero.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

Your saying a murderer who kills 1 person is the same as a Terrorist who kills 3000?

Nope I cant see how you come to that conclusion at all.

 

Yes I am, they are both murderers, both commit criminal acts. One has just killed more than the other.

 

You're are the one who believes that any torture and extent of torturing is permissible for the terrorist so how many people have to die for you to think that rulebook of democratic values and laws gets ignored?

 

Taliban/Al Qaeda are interlinked.

 

Well...yes...they have had relations and I don't doubt that many Taliban still have relations of some sort with Al Qaeda members. But the Taliban are very different from Al Qaeda. Again, I don't see why they were mentioned.

 

Thats funny because the fighters in Al Qaeda "claim" they are soldiers fighting a war.

 

They may call themselves soldiers. But they are not considered war combatants in the same sense as members of national armies. They are not employed by the state and their role is not to fight the soldiers of others countries.

 

Its blatently clear why you need to interogate Terrorists. Their tactics and systems are needed to be understood to help the western countries protect their citizens. The only way you find that out is by interogating the captured people.

From what the ex US vp has said recently it sounds like they got exactly this information.

God knows how many people lives have been saved by interogating the terrorists.

I cant quite understand why you think protecting innocent people is a bad thing... Very strange.

 

I dont agree there, if your a terrorist i want my gov to batter them half to death to get them to say everything they know.

 

I never said that terrorists should never be interrogated. You come from the position that torture is just fine because of the acts that are being committed and that these people do not have rights, etc. It is a silly position to take because it completely ignores the rules of OUR society which have to maintained if people want to live in a democracy.

 

Torture may offer some value if an incident is known to be impending, and you know who has that information, and that they are unwilling to offer information.

The problem is a liberal democratic nation that accepts that torture is necessary has already lost out to terrorism. It has decided to forego treating people as innocent until proven guilty and simply assumes they are guilty and worth whatever ill treatment can be meted out to them. It stands in complete opposition to what these nations stand for.

 

Yes, Al Qaeda are fucking nasty. But say someone was captured in Afghanistan, flown to Guantanomo and then tortured but he had only been in the organisation for a week. He would have been involved in any of the criminal acts. He would simply have been a member of that organisation. Is it right to treat this human being as some animal and not recognise his rights, ignore the values of the kidnapping country by torturing him, and thus sidestep the legal system which would otherwise prevent such treatment? I think not.

 

Ask yourself why it is wrong to torture people when you don't even know their guilt or their involvement in terrorist matters, simply because you have suspicions.

 

This is when it gets taken so far as to really highlight what c*nts are running the show across the world.

 

http://www.amnesty.dk/log/D2234-da.pdf

[La_Dolce_Vita]

Who do you think they are questioning? These arent a bunch of panseys that will cry when you give them a chinese burn. They are quite happy to die.

 

The better question is who do YOU think they are questioning? Are they all terrorists? And very importantly, have they all committed terrorist acts?

 

Of course it excuses what was done. The information gathered has saved thousands of civilians lives how the flying f*ck can you not see that.

 

Has it though? Thousands? I have treat that with scepticism, but I don't complete deny it. Though it may have saved lives you are arguiing that those who, in the eyes of the law, are presumed to be innocent and may not have actually carried out terrorist acts should be tortured for the sake of saving innocent lives, with massive ramifications for the value system of the interrogating nation.

 

In one sense it all boils down to the question of whether people in the US and Britain want to continue pretending they live in a democracy, where the law has great importance and where human rights and civil liberties are protected. And where we expect our government institutions to not lower themselves to the level of Al Qaeda in combating them. If you don't think this is important then I wonder what world you would want to live in.

 

I tell you what beggars belief is this holier than thou human rights attitude people seem to think is fashionable to even horifically evil people. I wonder what you would be saying if this was the 40s and we were talking about caught top nazis. Would you still have the same "human rights for all" attitude. I highly doubt it.

 

Nazis were never tortured. They were captured and brought to trial.

[SScott]

I wonder what world you would want to live in.

 

There is a HUGE difference between the world I would LIKE to live in and the reality of the world in which I actually DO live in.

 

 

And where we expect our government institutions to not lower themselves to the level of Al Qaeda in combating them.

 

This is a very naive statement.

 

I would like a show oh hands.

How many of you have been in combat?

How many of you have had to deal with drug dealers, murders, and terrorists on a regular basis on more than three different continents for longer than three years continuously?

How many of you have spent more than three days in a third world country let alone three years?

How many of you know what the level of Al Qaeda even is, let alone ones government lowering it's self to that level even means?

 

I'm sorry most you have no clue about the reality of life outside of your very insulated bubble of reality.

Please don't tell me that watching BBC news gives you that experience or knowledge.

The statements made here (in America too) are so far out of touch with true life, based on information that is incomplete, biased, and mostly just plain wrong.

But please continue to proclaim your vision of the what the world you live in should be. Hopefully it will someday become reality.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

There is a HUGE difference between the world I would LIKE to live in and the reality of the world in which I actually DO live in.

 

Maybe. But if you wish to live in a country that actually follows the rule of law and that unwaveringly abides by the principles of democracy and liberalism then you need to think very carefully about condoning terrorism, certainly the illegal manner in which the US and UK have managed Al Qaeda suspects.

 

 

And where we expect our government institutions to not lower themselves to the level of Al Qaeda in combating them.

 

This is a very naive statement.

 

I would like a show oh hands.

How many of you have been in combat?

How many of you have had to deal with drug dealers, murders, and terrorists on a regular basis on more than three different continents for longer than three years continuously?

How many of you have spent more than three days in a third world country let alone three years?

How many of you know what the level of Al Qaeda even is, let alone ones government lowering it's self to that level even means?

 

I'm sorry most you have no clue about the reality of life outside of your very insulated bubble of reality.

Please don't tell me that watching BBC news gives you that experience or knowledge.

The statements made here (in America too) are so far out of touch with true life, based on information that is incomplete, biased, and mostly just plain wrong.

But please continue to proclaim your vision of the what the world you live in should be. Hopefully it will someday become reality.

 

Combat? Dealing with drug dealers, murderers, terrorists? Living in a third-world country? Please explain the relevance, as it is lost on me.

 

If you are implying that my and other civilians lack of first-hand contact with such things means that we do not have the knowledge to comment and condemn torture then you are mistaken. And maybe also naive yourself to think that are opinions are simply formed from watching popular media. But please explain why you believe that first-hand experience is necessary to offer un-biased and worthy judgement on such matters.

[SScott]

Combat? Dealing with drug dealers, murderers, terrorists? Living in a third-world country? Please explain the relevance, as it is lost on me.

 

If you are implying that my and other civilians lack of first-hand contact with such things means that we do not have the knowledge to comment and condemn torture then you are mistaken. And maybe also naive yourself to think that are opinions are simply formed from watching popular media. But please explain why you believe that first-hand experience is necessary to offer un-biased and worthy judgement on such matters.

 

 

Judgment yes but unbiased and worthy? Please everyone has bias, worthy? What makes your judgment worthy?

What have you EVER done to make your judgment worthy? Please enlighten me I really would like to know.

Where do you get your information to form these un-biased and worthy judgments other than popular media?

If you don't understand the relevance of actual experience in anything you have a opinion or judgment about then I'm sorry we need to stop having a conversation right now.

You're repeating yourself and so am I.

You want to live in a country "that unwaveringly abides by the principles of democracy and liberalism".

And I'm saying that's a very nice fantasy but unfortunately back here in the land of reality things don't work that way.

If you had any actual experience in dealing with the things you condemn then you may see that reality isn't that simple.

But you don't and you can't and you never will, right?

 

Everything is based on perspective, and the more you can look at something from as many different perspectives the better you will be able to offer worthy judgment. There are never any clear cut and simple problems that can be summed up and solved with simple rhetoric. I dislike things or statements that seem to say that it is an absolute.

Idealism which you seem to have a lot of is nice but I wouldn't want to have my life depend on it. I don't want a government that is going to unwaveringly abide by anything.

 

Nazis were never tortured. They were captured and brought to trial.

 

Seriously? WOW

Ok were done. Have a nice day.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

Judgment yes but unbiased and worthy? Please everyone has bias, worthy? What makes your judgment worthy?

What have you EVER done to make your judgment worthy? Please enlighten me I really would like to know.

Where do you get your information to form these un-biased and worthy judgments other than popular media?

 

I am not saying that my judgements on the matter lack bias at all. And I recognise that statements made in the media have bias.

 

My comments on the worth of someone's judgements are in reply to your questions of whether I or other posters have experience at dealing with terrorism, murderers, drug dealers, and in having fought in combat. I see the relevance of experience in many matters, but I don't see it as a requisite to making informed judgements on whether torture should be used or not and the implications of its use by liberal democratic nations.

 

My comments about government lowering itself to the level of Al Qaeda was in relation to my assessment that the US government was (and maybe still is) quite willing to carry out unlawful and immoral acts in the fight against terrorism. Its use of torture in Guantanomo, extraordinary rendition, and kidnapping of suspected foreign nationals (often innocent people) demonstrates a complete disregard of national and international law and human rights. It doesn't suprise me that the United States or any nation is capable and willing to carry it out but it is still wrong.

 

And I'm saying that's a very nice fantasy but unfortunately back here in the land of reality things don't work that way.

If you had any actual experience in dealing with the things you condemn then you may see that reality isn't that simple.

But you don't and you can't and you never will.

 

I don't for a minute think that any nation abides unwaveringly to principles of democracy. I wouldn't even attibrute the term democratic to the United Kingdom or the United States. The reality is that countries that profess to give significance to democracy and liberty are those are becoming more and more willing to discard their values when it comes to the fighting Al Qaeda and terrorism. Yet these values underpin the conventional understanding of how liberal democratic governments operate and their role in society, they are also fundamental to the concepts of human rights and civil liberties.

 

Idealism which you seem to have a lot of is nice but I wouldn't want to have my life depend on it. I don't want a government that is going to unwaveringly abide by anything.

 

Many people proclaim that we should not let the terrorists win or change our way of life. But it is a question of how much our way of life WILL change depending on the actions taken by our governments. Do they stop torture and POSSIBLY allow an increased risk of attack or allow them to continue in fundamentally undermining some of the most important values that underpin our societies.

[bluemonday]

I wonder what world you would want to live in.

 

There is a HUGE difference between the world I would LIKE to live in and the reality of the world in which I actually DO live in.

 

 

And where we expect our government institutions to not lower themselves to the level of Al Qaeda in combating them.

 

This is a very naive statement.

 

I would like a show oh hands.

How many of you have been in combat?

How many of you have had to deal with drug dealers, murders, and terrorists on a regular basis on more than three different continents for longer than three years continuously?

How many of you have spent more than three days in a third world country let alone three years?

How many of you know what the level of Al Qaeda even is, let alone ones government lowering it's self to that level even means?

 

I'm sorry most you have no clue about the reality of life outside of your very insulated bubble of reality.

Please don't tell me that watching BBC news gives you that experience or knowledge.

The statements made here (in America too) are so far out of touch with true life, based on information that is incomplete, biased, and mostly just plain wrong.

But please continue to proclaim your vision of the what the world you live in should be. Hopefully it will someday become reality.

 

We're British.

We're very good timekepers.

We have a habit of making sure we fight wars at the right time.

We don't sit on our arses for a few years waiting to see what happens before doing something.

World Wars 1 and 2 being a good example of our prompt attendance.

 

If you come over here, take a walk around and see all the Manx war memorials with all those names on.

 

The names of people who died for what they believed in and for freedom.

 

The US may well have become the worlds policeman by default but that does not confer infallability.

And it's perhaps questionable that our current crop of leaders have felt obliged to play follow my leader/arse kiss with your lot.

 

Incidentally, the 'Brits' were fighting 'terrorists' for 30 plus years. Some of whom were allegedly 'supported' by Noraid.

 

Perhaps a case of 'one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter.'

[SScott]

We're British.

We're very good timekepers.

We have a habit of making sure we fight wars at the right time.

We don't sit on our arses for a few years waiting to see what happens before doing something.

World Wars 1 and 2 being a good example of our prompt attendance.

 

If you come over here, take a walk around and see all the war memorials with all those names on.

 

The names of people who died for what they believed in and for freedom.

 

The US may well have become the worlds policeman by default but that does not confer infallability.

And it's perhaps questionable that our current crop of leaders have felt obliged to play follow my leader/arse kiss with your lot.

 

Incidentally, the 'Brits' were fighting 'terrorists' for 30 plus years. Some of whom were allegedly 'supported' by Noraid.

 

Perhaps a case of 'one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter.'

 

WTF are you talking about?

None of this has any bearing on what I said.

I was in no way addressing you.

Your rambling comment is not only quite pointless but it is also filled with ignorance and incorrect statements.

So congratulation on that, you got any more blithering, idiotic, pearls of wisdom you would like to enlighten the rest of the world with?

[bluemonday]

Yes

You ( the US ) think you know it all

And you're making more enemies every day.

 

As you fail to see the point i'll explain.

 

LDV may well have no experience but it's his right to say what he thinks.

That's called freedom of speech.