Britain supports TORTURE

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

wire story (appears in The Palm Beach Post, 8/12/04):

Quote

Evidence obtained by other governments through torture could be used to detain terrorist suspects indefinitely in Britain, the British Court of Appeal ruled. The case was brought by eight foreign terrorist suspects who claim they had been locked up by British authorities without charge or trial based on information obtained through the torture of suspects at U.S. detention camps such as Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, or at Bagram air base in Afghanistan.

Now, I haven't heard proof uttered that U.S. forces have tortured information out of detainees, and I don't even know whose authority governs this Bagram air base in Afghanistan. (Before you bring up Abu Ghraib, I don't think that any of the mistreatment that occurred there was intended for seeking information.) Presumably, Britain would use torture-obtained information from wherever it came. Israel is known to continue to torture detainees. Plenty of other countries do it. So I don't think it matters that this case claims torture in American detainee camps.

I think that if the British government is going to accept and use information that was obtained through torture, by not condemning the torture and refusing to use the information, they are welcoming and inviting the further use of torture. In fact, this in a way makes them guilty of complicity in the torture, akin to how a person who never harms any children but buys child pornography has, indirectly, harmed children.

Does ANYBODY in this whole shitstorm of a world hold legitimate moral high ground anymore? Apparently the British can no longer claim it. Canada is said to be a haven for terrorists who come and go freely, so they can't claim it. France was owed millions of dollars by Hussein, which may explain their unwillingness to help unseat him, so they certainly can't claim it...

-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[Erroll 49]

Quote

I think that if the British government is going to accept and use information that was obtained through torture, by not condemning the torture and refusing to use the information, they are welcoming and inviting the further use of torture.

This line of reasoning is, in my not-so-humble opinion, totally absurd. Are you honestly suggesting that, for example, if the US intelligence services had obtained information that may have prevented 9/11, through torture, they should not have used it? Absurd.

[nacmacfeegle 0]

For once, no argument here, this situation is indefensible. I will be campaigning to have this ridiculous ruling turned round.

"So I don't think it matters that this case claims torture in American detainee camps. "

Of course it matters, if evidence is going to be thrown out of court because it was acquired under duress, it kind of makes the whole detention and interrogation process pointless.

"Before you bring up Abu Ghraib, I don't think that any of the mistreatment that occurred there was intended for seeking information."

What was it done for, shits and giggles? Thats even worse, but we've already been through that whole discussion, lets not re-open it.

--------------------

He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson

[nigel99 144]

I can't find a news article covering what you've posted - but one of the biggest problems that the US has in releasing people from Guantanamo Bay to the UK is that the evidence from Guantanamo is largely obtained "under duress". Lawyers here are pushing the fact that the US has crossed the line into torture as well. This means that the evidence is not admissable in court and the guys go free EVEN if they are guilty.

Personally I don't condon torture by anyone, BUT ALL government's do it as part of military operations just that some cleverly dress it up as "psychological operations" and play legal word games to avoid admitting it. It is probably justified in war circumstances as it MIGHT save lives.

The problem then comes related to fanatical terrorists - if we feel we have to torture them to save lives - should the legal system allow them to be released?

Experienced jumper - someone who has made mistakes more often than I have and lived.

[nacmacfeegle 0]

It was all over the late news last night, and is touched upon here.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/3553978.stm

The Guardian and the Independent are carrying he story on their front pages.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/terrorism/story/0,12780,1281397,00.html
http://www.independent.co.uk/

--------------------

He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson

[nigel99 144]

Thanks I looked first thing and searched under "torture" on bbc news and nothing came up.

Firstly this appears to me to be public admission that the US carries out torture to quote from the independant link you posted.

Quote

Two of the country's senior judges granted the Home Secretary the right to hold terror suspects on the basis of intelligence from tortured prisoners at Guantanamo Bay and other US detention camps

Secondly as per my first post - accepting that torture is not "nice" - if it saves lives and protects us - after all the current terrorists are deemed to be suicidal and a prison term would be no deterent - surely it is right to admit the evidence in court? If the courts don't do that then I would expect that these suspects would begin to suffer "accidental deaths" while in military custody...

Experienced jumper - someone who has made mistakes more often than I have and lived.

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

Now, I haven't heard proof uttered that U.S. forces have tortured information out of detainees, and I don't even know whose authority governs this Bagram air base in Afghanistan. (Before you bring up Abu Ghraib, I don't think that any of the mistreatment that occurred there was intended for seeking information.)

What about the guy who pled guilty and said that he was ordered to do it by interrogation team?

[metalslug 31]

Held under the Prevention of Terrorism Act of 1974, the Guildford Four were four people from Northern Ireland who were wrongly convicted in the United Kingdom in 1975 for the Provisional IRA's Guildford pub bombing, despite Joe McAndrew, one of the actual terrorists, subsequently admitting to the bombing. Like many charges under the Prevention of Terrorism Act, their convictions were quashed in 1989.

The Act did not directly support torture but certainly gave significant power to police and it has been alleged that confessions were 'extorted' from some suspects.
This Act was subsequently replaced by the Terrorism Act 2000 and may see more changes in future.
Whatever the UK's policies are, or what they may become, let us hope that justice is ultimately served to the right people.

[billvon 2,426]

>Now, I haven't heard proof uttered that U.S. forces have tortured
> information out of detainees. . .

We have descriptions of torture from prisoners, admissions from the torturers, and photographic evidence.

>Does ANYBODY in this whole shitstorm of a world hold legitimate
>moral high ground anymore?

Nope.

[mr2mk1g 10]

Quote

Does ANYBODY in this whole shitstorm of a world hold legitimate moral high ground anymore?

The Danish?

http://www.registerguard.com/news/2004/08/11/a2.int.denmark.0811.html

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

wire story (appears in The Palm Beach Post, 8/12/04):

Quote

I think that if the British government is going to accept and use information that was obtained through torture, by not condemning the torture and refusing to use the information, they are welcoming and inviting the further use of torture. In fact, this in a way makes them guilty of complicity in the torture, akin to how a person who never harms any children but buys child pornography has, indirectly, harmed children.

People, this is the pith of what I was getting at -- NOT "who is doing torture to whom, and where."

All I'm saying is that -- no matter if the torturers are the Iraqi governing council, Israel, Britain, U.S.A., whoever -- a country that acknowledges it will make use of torture-derived information is an enabler of torture, just as someone who seeks and views and buys child pornography is party to the abuse of children.

The first step toward eliminating torture is beginning to forego the "bounties" provided by torture. I don't see this as much different from U.S. courts refusing to consider evidence obtained illegally in contravention of the rights of a suspect. Our courts must be more principled than to allow use of illegitimately obtained evidence, and I think governments should be the same way regarding information obtained by torture. Stem the demand for torture and you may help stem the supply. But if you accept the bounty, you perpetuate the use of torture.

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[Kennedy 0]

"fruit of the poisoned tree"

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

"fruit of the poisoned tree"

'zactly.

-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[mr2mk1g 10]

So you equally condemn the US govt for relying on evidence gained from torture?

[JackC 0]

Quote

Does ANYBODY in this whole shitstorm of a world hold legitimate moral high ground anymore?

peacefulljeffrey on the moral highground: (found here)

Quote

Um, who said that we universally have to care about this useless "moral high ground"? What's wrong with saying, "Fuck the moral high ground, let's just defend our lives and our way of life from those who would destroy it, and whatever means we must use to do that, we use."

Moral high ground. Such bleeding from your sensitive hearts!... Fuck the moral aspects, we need to fight to defend ourselves, and that is completely moral.

(emphasis in original)

[mr2mk1g 10]

Now that is funny!

[Erroll 49]

Quote

In Reply To
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Does ANYBODY in this whole shitstorm of a world hold legitimate moral high ground anymore?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
peacefulljeffrey on the moral highground: (found here)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
um, who said that we universally have to care about this useless "moral high ground"? What's wrong with saying, "Fuck the moral high ground, let's just defend our lives and our way of life from those who would destroy it, and whatever means we must use to do that, we use."

Moral high ground. Such bleeding from your sensitive hearts!... Fuck the moral aspects, we need to fight to defend ourselves, and that is completely moral.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(emphasis in original)

As I suggested in my earlier response, in my opinion your stated position in this thread is absurd, and now looks more like a troll than anything else.


(Bold added by me.)

[Newbie 0]

LOL

"Skydiving is a door"
Happythoughts

[Botellines 0]

LMAO....

Dude, so much for your credibility.

Thanks JackC I needed the laugh.

• Quote

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

All I'm saying is that -- no matter if the torturers are the Iraqi governing council, Israel, Britain, U.S.A., whoever -- a country that acknowledges it will make use of torture-derived information is an enabler of torture, just as someone who seeks and views and buys child pornography is party to the abuse of children.

Hmmm, so when the US Military uses outside contractors as interrogators the military should be responsible. Or when the US turns suspects over to Afghan authorities and stands over their shoulders writing in a notebook while the Afghans torture the suspect, the US should be responsible?

[crozby 0]

Quote

All I'm saying is that -- no matter if the torturers are the Iraqi governing council, Israel, Britain, U.S.A., whoever -- a country that acknowledges it will make use of torture-derived information is an enabler of torture, just as someone who seeks and views and buys child pornography is party to the abuse of children.

Absolutely. Britain and the US and everyone else has been using torture since forever.

The unwritten rule is that governments can get up to shit-loads of morally repugnant activities so long as the general public doesnt have proof they are doing it - Do whatever you want, just don't get caught!

The problem these days is that its becoming too damn difficult for governments to break the law without some nosey journalist finding out about it and telling us all and putting us in the bad situation of having to judge the activity against our spoon-fed Sunday-school morals.

[miked10270 0]

Of course Britain supports torture.

For many years we have been a leading supplier of bespoke equipment for various Bastions of Democracy in an otherwise hostile world.

For example, you can't just BUY leg irons for your err... Special Prisoners. Fortunately, Hiatt's of 121 Great Barr Street, Birmingham, supply an extensive range of chain and rigid handcuffs for "oversized wrists".

Meanwhile, a firm in Edinburgh is the major supplier of high voltage electric shock batons. It's fair to say thewir design is one of the most popular in the world.

Both companies were suppliers of "prisoner control equipment" by appointment to the last but one government of certain 4 letter middle eastern countries.

Meanwhile, the Landrover Defender in both standard and semi-armoured forms remains "The best 4 X 4 X Far", or at least the most popular, for the majority of Bastions of Democracy with insurgent problems. There was a time when you couldn't see "government forces" shooting up the opposition without there being a Landrover in the background!

Mike.

.

Taking the piss out of the FrenchAmericans since before it was fashionable.

Prenait la pisse hors du FrançaisCanadiens méridionaux puisqu'avant lui à la mode.