Doing the right thing?
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Holly Beach, Louisiana
Posts: 916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes Malaya...along with Kenya, Cyprus, and Northern Ireland....the British all squeaky clean!
http://eprints.lincoln.ac.uk/1135/1/uoa66jt01.pdf
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...clean-war.html
http://eprints.lincoln.ac.uk/1135/1/uoa66jt01.pdf
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...clean-war.html
Last edited by Boudreaux Bob; 13th Dec 2014 at 14:09.
Torture is illegal,based on international & most national law;
"…the deliberate, systematic or wanton infliction of physical or mental suffering by one or more persons acting alone or on the orders of any authority, to force another person to yield information, to make a confession, or for any other reason."
Tokyo Declaration, 1975
There is no moral or ethical dilemma,the reason is immaterial,who does it is immaterial.
"…the deliberate, systematic or wanton infliction of physical or mental suffering by one or more persons acting alone or on the orders of any authority, to force another person to yield information, to make a confession, or for any other reason."
Tokyo Declaration, 1975
There is no moral or ethical dilemma,the reason is immaterial,who does it is immaterial.
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 1,958
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bbob, nobody here claims that. And it's most certainly not true of, say, the Russians or Iranians. But that doesn't stop them seizing the opportunity to distract from and justify their own bad behaviour.
Half the problem here is defining what 'torture' is. Most western politicians seem to have a very low threshold but a number of the techniques mentioned in this report (and the UK Iraq enquiry) were done to me in training (and that was after woptb's 1975 Tokyo thing). Did I consider that I was being tortured? No. Do I think that some of those things have a place in prisoner handling? Yes. Are we very squeemish in the West nowadays? In my opinion, Yes.
Maybe I should contact antibritishhumanrightslawyers4u.com to see if I have a multimillion pound claim against the government (of 30 years ago)!!
Maybe I should contact antibritishhumanrightslawyers4u.com to see if I have a multimillion pound claim against the government (of 30 years ago)!!
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Holly Beach, Louisiana
Posts: 916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Shot,
My point is fairly simple.
The Americans and CIA are being accused of doing nefarious things as if we are the only ones to have ever engaged in such activities.
That is patently unfair, down right wrong, and very hypocritical of those that insist upon doing so.
Compounded by the inadequacies of the Feinstein Report which they do not wish to acknowledge makes it all very wrong in my view.
The Daily Mail Article about the London Cage and the events that surround that situation are for all intents and purposes the same as today.
Yet we have to remember that no one has been executed based upon Confessions extracted under the CIA's EIT program. One individual died while in Captivity and could attributed to the treatment he received.
This whole debate about "Torture", what constitutes Torture, and the moral/ethical/legal issues that pertain, is one that is not new, not limited to just the United States and its CIA.
I long ago here at pprune went on record saying I endorsed standard interrogation techniques as used by our Law Enforcement Agencies in efforts to obtain "confessions" to criminal acts even if done by Terrorists. I also confirmed my firm belief in the protections afforded to all individuals by the US Constitution and applicable Federal and State Law. I also accepted that those protections to non-US Citizens held outside the United States were very limited and for those accused of Terrorism I had no qualms with them not being afforded the same protections as US Citizens. All of those views are based upon consideration of the Law.
I have a lot of problem with the way our Government uses the Armed Drones and that we have a Sitting US President who brags about his having a "Kill List" and the ability to pen his name to an Order and the CIA/Military will send out a Drone and kill that person even if that person happens to be a US Citizen. That is far more bothersome to me than authorizing the use of EIT's on Terrorists held by the US Government.
My point is fairly simple.
The Americans and CIA are being accused of doing nefarious things as if we are the only ones to have ever engaged in such activities.
That is patently unfair, down right wrong, and very hypocritical of those that insist upon doing so.
Compounded by the inadequacies of the Feinstein Report which they do not wish to acknowledge makes it all very wrong in my view.
The Daily Mail Article about the London Cage and the events that surround that situation are for all intents and purposes the same as today.
Yet we have to remember that no one has been executed based upon Confessions extracted under the CIA's EIT program. One individual died while in Captivity and could attributed to the treatment he received.
This whole debate about "Torture", what constitutes Torture, and the moral/ethical/legal issues that pertain, is one that is not new, not limited to just the United States and its CIA.
I long ago here at pprune went on record saying I endorsed standard interrogation techniques as used by our Law Enforcement Agencies in efforts to obtain "confessions" to criminal acts even if done by Terrorists. I also confirmed my firm belief in the protections afforded to all individuals by the US Constitution and applicable Federal and State Law. I also accepted that those protections to non-US Citizens held outside the United States were very limited and for those accused of Terrorism I had no qualms with them not being afforded the same protections as US Citizens. All of those views are based upon consideration of the Law.
I have a lot of problem with the way our Government uses the Armed Drones and that we have a Sitting US President who brags about his having a "Kill List" and the ability to pen his name to an Order and the CIA/Military will send out a Drone and kill that person even if that person happens to be a US Citizen. That is far more bothersome to me than authorizing the use of EIT's on Terrorists held by the US Government.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Lancashire
Age: 48
Posts: 550
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The US/UK governments don't care about their own people i.e sending soldiers to fight/die/lose limbs in wars based on lies.
Why would they suddenly care about alleged 'terrorists'?
Why would they suddenly care about alleged 'terrorists'?
BB,
What I said about Malaya is based on a year's archival research and interviews with surviving terrorists and intelligence officers, conducted 10 years ago (which I am willing to share with you - including a considerable amount of documents from the CIA's own archives).
What I didn't say was it didn't happen; what I did say that it was prohibited (I have a copied of the Order signed by the Commissioner of Police) and was not an instrument of state power (unlike the present matter) - why? Because in this contflict it was completely unhelpful. Once you tortured a CEP/SEP (who was subject to the civil police code), you could not turn them and use them as a source, with any degree of success. Fact.
What I said about Malaya is based on a year's archival research and interviews with surviving terrorists and intelligence officers, conducted 10 years ago (which I am willing to share with you - including a considerable amount of documents from the CIA's own archives).
What I didn't say was it didn't happen; what I did say that it was prohibited (I have a copied of the Order signed by the Commissioner of Police) and was not an instrument of state power (unlike the present matter) - why? Because in this contflict it was completely unhelpful. Once you tortured a CEP/SEP (who was subject to the civil police code), you could not turn them and use them as a source, with any degree of success. Fact.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Holly Beach, Louisiana
Posts: 916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In Vietnam, the USN SEAL's used a similar approach in cultivating captured VC/NVA which included very "lenient" treatment and the use of soft techniques to very good use.
Winning an individual over as compared to breaking him has got to be the better method. I have no doubt of that and have said that all along.
I am not naive enough to think that will always work or is it always appropriate.
The end goal is probably what determines the methods to be used.
If you seek to build a Criminal Case then coercive interrogation techniques are not appropriate ever.
If it is cooperation you seek then again coercive techniques are not appropriate.
If it is simply getting critical information from an unwilling prisoner in a timely fashion then perhaps harsher techniques might be considered. When the timeliness of that information being sought is no longer important then the use of coercive means is no longer justifiable.
That does not mean "Torture" but the use of psychological means and minor physical measures to break down the ability of the prisoner to withhold information. Making him uncomfortable, deprive him of sleep, altering of eating times, inducing mental stress....all harsh and unpleasant but far removed from what could be construed as "Torture".
Winning an individual over as compared to breaking him has got to be the better method. I have no doubt of that and have said that all along.
I am not naive enough to think that will always work or is it always appropriate.
The end goal is probably what determines the methods to be used.
If you seek to build a Criminal Case then coercive interrogation techniques are not appropriate ever.
If it is cooperation you seek then again coercive techniques are not appropriate.
If it is simply getting critical information from an unwilling prisoner in a timely fashion then perhaps harsher techniques might be considered. When the timeliness of that information being sought is no longer important then the use of coercive means is no longer justifiable.
That does not mean "Torture" but the use of psychological means and minor physical measures to break down the ability of the prisoner to withhold information. Making him uncomfortable, deprive him of sleep, altering of eating times, inducing mental stress....all harsh and unpleasant but far removed from what could be construed as "Torture".
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Far, far away.
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Once again, my sincere thanks to those (few) of you who offered a response to my original question.
As regards the thread drift into the rights and wrongs of the procedures outlined in the report, I would simply point out that many of my countrymen have, in the past, been vilified by the West for using exactly the same procedures.
A significant number of you have defended the use of these techniques. Does this mean you now understand why we used them, that we may consider ourselves absolved from any sense of guilt associated with their use and that they will henceforth be considered acceptable forms of prisoner interrogation?
If they're OK for you, they're OK for everyone else. And if they're OK for military prisoner interrogation, perhaps they're OK for certain forms of civil prisoner interrogation too?
As regards the thread drift into the rights and wrongs of the procedures outlined in the report, I would simply point out that many of my countrymen have, in the past, been vilified by the West for using exactly the same procedures.
A significant number of you have defended the use of these techniques. Does this mean you now understand why we used them, that we may consider ourselves absolved from any sense of guilt associated with their use and that they will henceforth be considered acceptable forms of prisoner interrogation?
If they're OK for you, they're OK for everyone else. And if they're OK for military prisoner interrogation, perhaps they're OK for certain forms of civil prisoner interrogation too?
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: S of 55N
Posts: 360
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mr Noritake said:
It will depend on what they knew. My suspicion is the aircrew new very little. Move chap x from A to B.
Mr Noritake also said:
No. It;s just as wrong and ineffective for them as for anyone else.
Again, it's not ok for anyone because it's both morally bankrupt and ineffective. There is no upside to the use of torture.
Sun
what's the legal position regarding those pilots involved in rendition flights?
Mr Noritake also said:
A significant number of you have defended the use of these techniques. Does this mean you now understand why we used them, that we may consider ourselves absolved from any sense of guilt associated with their use and that they will henceforth be considered acceptable forms of prisoner interrogation?
If they're OK for you, they're OK for everyone else. And if they're OK for military prisoner interrogation, perhaps they're OK for certain forms of civil prisoner interrogation too?
Sun
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 1,958
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bob, I agree with much of your post but hanging someone from a bar for 22 hours or chaining them naked to the floor until they die of hypothermia can't be construed " minor physical measures"
I am yet to see a single poster declare that they are more outraged with water boarding than they are at some lunatic cutting off a head.
Not one.
Its taking the discussion from the sublime to the ridiculous.
Utter tosh.
Not one.
Its taking the discussion from the sublime to the ridiculous.
Utter tosh.
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: S of 55N
Posts: 360
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bob,
Just once more, and re-phrased so as to be clear, I believe it was wrong for the CIA to use torture but I feel no less strongly about anyone elses use of torture. Both instances are legally and strategically ineffective.
By way of evidence, ISIS beheading have not furthered their strategic intent.
Sun.
Just once more, and re-phrased so as to be clear, I believe it was wrong for the CIA to use torture but I feel no less strongly about anyone elses use of torture. Both instances are legally and strategically ineffective.
By way of evidence, ISIS beheading have not furthered their strategic intent.
Sun.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Lancashire
Age: 48
Posts: 550
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cutting off someone's head or being hit by a 500lb bomb from 25,000ft, hellfire from a UCAV or cut to ribbons via Apache cannon viewed on detailed TADS videos.
Ultimately, is there a difference?
They're all perpetrated by the weak.
Ultimately, is there a difference?
They're all perpetrated by the weak.
Maybe I should contact antibritishhumanrightslawyers4u.com to see if I have a multimillion pound claim against the government (of 30 years ago)!!
I agree, this report is Obama's political game having just lost the last set of hustings. If we're talking psychological trickery, then this report is a classic example.
Whilst we're on the subject of psychology, I heard a funny anecdote on Radio 4 today. The comedian asked, does anyone know what the strategic intent is of the jihadist terrorist plot that led to the introduction of screening passengers and making them put their toiletries in bags with less than 100ml? If it was to terrorise the public and cause them a nuisance plus delays then they are winning! Whilst, this raised a laugh, I thought, "how very true"!
Finally, I don't like or agree with torture and I think that waterboarding is on (or maybe just over) the line between torture and physical/mental manipulation. Manipulation to gain intelligence is a fine art and using a 'sledgehammer to crack a nut' may not be the be the best way to get high-grade info - hold a Stanley knife to my ball-bag and I'll tell you anything and everything I can think of and I will leave you to work out what's true, half-true or a lie to stop you popping my testicles outside of my skin!
LJ
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: oxfordshire
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
British soldiers have “lost their capability” to interrogate terrorist insurgents..
Don't yell at terrorist suspects, soldiers told
From MSN, featuring quotes from The Telegraph ...
"British soldiers have “lost their capability” to interrogate terrorist insurgents because of strict new rules on questioning that even ban shouting in captives’ ears, military chiefs have warned.
The rules — detailed in court papers obtained by The Telegraph — also prevent military intelligence officers from banging their fists on tables or walls, or using “insulting words” when interrogating a suspect."
From MSN, featuring quotes from The Telegraph ...
"British soldiers have “lost their capability” to interrogate terrorist insurgents because of strict new rules on questioning that even ban shouting in captives’ ears, military chiefs have warned.
The rules — detailed in court papers obtained by The Telegraph — also prevent military intelligence officers from banging their fists on tables or walls, or using “insulting words” when interrogating a suspect."
BB:-
That old chestnut! So were you, for the same reason we were, there was no real alternative given the weapon delivery limitations at the time. That is entirely different to one's treatment of prisoners. When the Gestapo plunged their detainees' heads into water for minutes at a time, often drowning them in the process, we rightly condemned it. When detainees are waterboarded it is also torture and also to be condemned. There is a high suspicion here that the redaction reference the UK is going to turn out to be a can of worms. This discussion isn't anti USA, it's anti (or pro) torture.
You were quite happy to Area Bomb whole cities during World War II but you get squeamish about a few hundred folks getting roughed up during interrogation?