BS: Torture!!!!

Subject: BS: TORTURE!!!!
From: TIA
Date: 16 Apr 08 - 11:00 PM

How is it that the POTUS can admit publicly that he has violated both USA law, and the Geneva conventions, and it rates barely a mention on the national news, and no thread on Mudcat? (so sorry if I am am simply being dumb and missing the thread).

http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/LawPolitics/story?id=4635175&page=1

Is it just me? Why are we not all in the streets demonstrating?

We have become exactly what we spent my lifetime opposing (USSR, Syria, North Korea, Red China, Saddam's Iraq, etc. etc. etc....)

How in the world can we (Americans) claim any high ground whatsoever in any international debate over human rights?

The world should be pissing on OUR Olympic flame.

Abu Ghraib is simply under new management.

Can anyone who was appallled by Clinton's blowjob seriously feel that this is okay? That the "rule of law" is less violated by this? That civilization was more threatened by a cigar in a vagina than planned and sanctioned water torture?

WHAT THE FUCK???????????????????????

You Bush supporting SHITHEADS. This is what you gave us. We are now a country with an official torture policy approved by the Commander in Chief.

Please, hit me with your rationalizations, then go sleep well.

Assholes.

(Bet this one will get deleted or edited. Sorry. I am angry.)

Subject: RE: BS: TORTURE!!!!
From: Peace
Date: 16 Apr 08 - 11:19 PM

http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/LawPolitics/story?id=4635175&page=1

I'm not sorry you're angry, TIA. I just don't understand why you are holding back what you really feel.

Maybe the bastard can be impeached now?

Subject: RE: BS: Torture!!!!
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 16 Apr 08 - 11:29 PM

Anger doesn't seem to have worked for the last 7 years. I didn't see this story, but I am not at all surprised. I didn't vote for this idiot any of the four times he has run in my lifetime (I was stuck with the idiot as governor for a term and a half, before his hand-picked pretty boy took over here).

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: Torture!!!!
From: TIA
Date: 16 Apr 08 - 11:31 PM

From the story...

"According to a top official, Ashcroft asked aloud after one meeting: "Why are we talking about this in the White House? History will not judge this kindly." The Principals also approved interrogations that combined different methods, pushing the limits of international law and even the Justice Department's own legal approval in the 2002 memo"

Holy shit.

Subject: RE: BS: Torture!!!!
From: Don Firth
Date: 16 Apr 08 - 11:33 PM

I got this in an e-mail this morning, listened to it, got mad (again!!), and signed the petition.

OUT! OUT!

Damn it all! This is not MY America!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Torture!!!!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 17 Apr 08 - 12:00 AM

It's been happening for a long time...and in many places. In Asia. In Latin America. In Africa. In Europe. In the Middle East. Wherever the servants of the Empire go.

It's just been made official now, that's all. That's what's different. Have care, because first they torture and murder powerless foreign people in faraway places, and they do it quietly and you don't even hear about it much, if at all. Then one day they do it on your own ground. And they hardly even bother to conceal it anymore.

That's how it works. A little bit at a time. It's called the totalitarion tiptoe. It approaches in little steps, small increments of change, and one day there it is right in front of you and all around you. By that time the mainstream media will simply be its compliant mouthpiece, and the courts will have been bought.

It does things like launching unprovoked wars of its own choice on distant countries that have never attacked you, and couldn't possibly have attacked you even if they'd wanted to. It declares war on a tactic ("terror") rather than on an actual enemy, while it practices the very tactic that it claims to BE fighting! That's what dictators do. That's what war criminals do. That's what totalitarian systems do. Take care. Such people are literally capable of anything, and they don't care what you think about it either...although they might care enough to find a way to shut you up at some point if you are a known "dissident".

Do you think it will just end when Mr Bush leaves office? I wish I was that optimistic.

Subject: RE: BS: Torture!!!!
From: Amos
Date: 17 Apr 08 - 12:10 AM

Why was this not headlined in every news medium in America from the New York Times to Ugly Bill and Hannity on Fux News?

Tell ya what -- if it turned out that Kerry, Obama, or even Ms Clinton had sat in on that meeting, it would have.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Torture!!!!
From: Alice
Date: 17 Apr 08 - 12:15 AM

I got an email this morning too, about Condi Rice chairing the meetings and specific torture techniques approved.
you are not the only one who is angry.

Alice

Subject: RE: BS: Torture!!!!
From: Alice
Date: 17 Apr 08 - 12:18 AM

"Given new revelations that Condoleezza Rice chaired the meetings approving specific torture techniques, she can not continue as Secretary of State. Secretary of State Rice Must Resign"

Petition
http://act.truemajorityaction.org/p/7002/condipetition?petition_KEY=51

Subject: RE: BS: Torture!!!!
From: Tweed
Date: 17 Apr 08 - 12:20 AM

You're right on Don. It ain't been your America nor mine for the last eight years. I feel like an ex-patriated stranger in a strange land these days.

Aslo, oddly enough I have damn near stopped feeling anything anymore. Almost, like to avoid losing my entire mind, I've managed to subconsciously distance myself from anything they do. Like a fucking ant in an anthill. Nobody can hear one ant with all the others screaming and gnashing their mandibles...what the hell's the use. It ain't gonna stop unless we all go apeshit and sway the military over to standard thinking patterns and that ain't happening either.   We're pretty much fucked from here on I fear.

More vino! Strike up the band Maestro!! Stick the hose in another detainee's mouth and let it rip. We must defend the motherland at all costs....

Subject: RE: BS: Torture!!!!
From: artbrooks
Date: 17 Apr 08 - 12:25 AM

In the first place, who knows what he knew and when he knew it - including him! In the second place, why should he start caring now what anyone thinks of him? Even the people who are supposedly members of the same political party are rushing to disassociate themselves from him. What were the most recent poll results? A 23% approval rating? It is more than a little depressing that there are still that many people with their heads in the sand, though.

Subject: RE: BS: Torture!!!!
From: Barry Finn
Date: 17 Apr 08 - 01:06 AM

Pissed, Angry, Mad aren't even close to how I feel. I'm seeing red & the blood is boiling. Who the fuck do they think they are. And doing all this in our name too!
It's no wonder we get no respect anywhere our names are mentioned, & why should we? We don't protest (much), we don't boycott, we don't call general strikes but we do sit by & allow this kind of shit to continue (mostly). If backwater 3rd world nations can change their directions why can't we? We certinly have the resources & capabilities, or are we all just sleepwalking?

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: Torture!!!!
From: Peace
Date: 17 Apr 08 - 01:23 AM

For the first time on Mudcat, I am going to keep my mouth shut. I just saw the shame, despair and anger from a political spectrum of posters. Finding out what's happened to your country under the leadership of that person in the White House sure does send a few things home, but it is YOUR home. I hope we don't find it out the hard way in Canada.

Subject: RE: BS: Torture!!!!
From: Amos
Date: 17 Apr 08 - 03:57 AM

Didn't the Great Bush once baldly assert, "The United States doe not condone torture"?


Or am I mixing that up with Vlad?

A

Subject: RE: BS: Torture!!!!
From: Barry Finn
Date: 17 Apr 08 - 04:11 AM

Would that be Vlad the Headless or Vlad the Crucifier? Or were they both one in the same, Vampires?

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: Torture!!!!
From: GUEST,PMB
Date: 17 Apr 08 - 04:47 AM

Where's Teribus when you need him?

Subject: RE: BS: Torture!!!!
From: ard mhacha
Date: 17 Apr 08 - 05:12 AM

Join the club USA The European Court found Britain guilty twice, but it wasn`t too bad, it was only inhuman and degrading treatment, that was akin to`come rest your mouth on my boot`. See John McGuffin`s book on Google, The Guinea Pigs.

Subject: RE: BS: Torture!!!!
From: Bryn Pugh
Date: 17 Apr 08 - 05:24 AM

". . . his private parts committed a severe and unprovoked attack on my kneecap, nearly incapacitating him -me, I mean, Your Worships.

Constable Wizleigh will testify that he then tried to chew the toecaps of my boots. This explains the loss of teeth and contusions to his lips, Your Worships . . . "

Subject: RE: BS: Torture!!!!
From: Rapparee
Date: 17 Apr 08 - 09:43 AM

So what else is new? And what do you think will be done about it? After all, it was all done in the name of "security."

Come, get out of the way, boys
Quick, get out of the way
You'd better watch what you say, boys
Better watch what you say
We've rammed in your harbor and tied to your port
And our pistols are hungry and our tempers are short
So bring your daughters around to the port
'Cause we're the Cops of the World, boys
We're the Cops of the World
We pick and choose as please, boys
Pick and choose as please
You'd best get down on your knees, boys
Best get down on your knees
We're hairy and horny and ready to shack
And we don't care if you're yellow or black
Just take off your clothes and lay down on your back
'Cause we're the Cops of the World, boys
We're the Cops of the World
Our boots are needing a shine, boys
Boots are needing a shine
But our Coca-Cola is fine, boys
Coca-Cola is fine
We've got to protect all our citizens fair
So we'll send a battalion for everyone there
And maybe we'll leave in a couple of years
'Cause we're the Cops of the World, boys
We're the Cops of the World
And dump the reds in a pile, boys
Dump the reds in a pile
You'd better wipe off that smile, boys
Better wipe off that smile
We'll spit through the streets of the cities we wreck
And we'll find you a leader that you can't elect
Those treaties we signed were a pain in the neck
'Cause we're the Cops of the World, boys
We're the Cops of the World
And clean the johns with a rag, boys
Clean the johns with a rag
If you like you can use your flag, boys
If you like you can use your flag
We've got too much money we're looking for toys
And guns will be guns and boys will be boys
But we'll gladly pay for all we destroy
'Cause we're the Cops of the World, boys
We're the Cops of the World
Please stay off of the grass, boys
Please stay off of the grass
Here's a kick in the ass, boys
Here's a kick in the ass
We'll smash down your doors, we don't bother to knock
We've done it before, so why all the shock
We're the biggest and the toughest kids on the block
And we're the Cops of the World, boys
We're the Cops of the World
And when we butchered your sons, boys
When we butchered your sons
Have a stick of our gum, boys
Have a stick of our bubble gum
We own half the world, oh say can you see
And the name for our profits is democracy
So, like it or not, you will have to be free
'Cause we're the Cops of the World, boys
We're the Cops of the World.

Subject: RE: BS: Torture!!!!
From: Teribus
Date: 17 Apr 08 - 06:58 PM

Hello Guest,PMB, I'm here, was there anything you wanted?

Nice to see that Bryn Pugh has chipped in. Wonder if this is the same Bryn Pugh who came out with this:

"Bryn Pugh - PM
Date: 20 Mar 08 - 05:12 AM

Iam with Richard, here, and not just because I am a fellow lawyer.

I was on the picket lines :
Clay Cross rent strike ; Tower Hamlets rent strike ; Minrers' strike 72, 73, 74 ; antiNF rally, Hyde, 1975 - (where we learnt to fight back - cricket boxes protected lads' nuts ; fencing protectors protected lasses' breasts ; wellies were stuffed with newspaper against back-heels from bogies ; and hat-pins dipped in dogshit retaliated. Oh, and Anderton nearly got his head kicked in cos he was in civvies.)

Grunwick picket line, 1978."

Now in amongst all that you have - "hat-pins dipped in dogshit".

Now then Bryn could you tell us what they were used for? Not sticking into Police Horses was it? Into Police Officers? Must have been for something. Which is odd, because you see Old Bryn, he's a lawyer. So maybe he can toddle off and do a bit of research and tell how long ago that those sort of antics were outlawed in warfare and accepted as a crime by all, give you a hint, it was long before the Geneva Convention was ever thought of and it still remains on the books to this day - anybody dipping ammunition, the blade of any weapon in any toxic, or poisonous substance is guilty of a war crime.

Having read the link referred to in TIA's opening hysterical rant, it comes down to an arguement based on semantics "Harsh Interrogation v Torture". Maybe someone should ask John McCain, he was subjected to "Torture" over an extended period, the purpose of that treatment was not to extract military secrets or information but to physically break him and get him to toe the Party line. Maybe he could compare notes with Kahlid Sheik Mohamed who was subjected to "harsh interrogation" over quite a short period of time, the purpose of which was to gain secret information, did his interrogators get any information, was the interrogation successful? We will know that in a few years time. Of course we cannot ask the likes of Kenneth Bigley, Nick Berg or Eugene Armstrong as part of their torture was having their heads cut off.

Reading through what was supposed to be permitted, it is no more than is used in the training of any combat aircrew; naval attack swimmer; SBS swimmer/canoeist; SAS Trooper.

To use such techniques, is it justifiable? I would think it could be perfectly justifiable under certain circumstances, and I could understand that those circumstances could vary dramatically.

Nice also to see ard here on this thread as well, the UK was hauled to the European Court for using harsh interrogation techniques, they were trying to get information. The Provisional IRA tortured their prisoners and then executed them (Mrs Jean MacConville) to extract completely false "confessions".

Subject: RE: BS: Torture!!!!
From: Peace
Date: 17 Apr 08 - 07:07 PM

But the rights and wrongs of torture are NOT the issue here, however. Plain and simple: the President, Vice President and Condi broke the law. Period. THAT is the issue.

Subject: RE: BS: Torture!!!!
From: Don Firth
Date: 17 Apr 08 - 07:43 PM

Well, here's the way it works.

Bill Clinton broke the law when he lied about "I did not have sex with that woman." He had to be impeached.

Bush, Cheney, and Rice lied about whether or not the United States condones and practices torture (a violation of the Geneva Accords). That's just hunky-dory.

Could this possibly have something to do with party affiliation. . . ?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Torture!!!!
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 17 Apr 08 - 08:44 PM

Ah, but since it is official policy that under no circumstances does the US "condone torture" then by definition anything that the US condones or practices cannot be "torture". So that's all right.

The old maxim still holds: the King can do no wrong.

Just watch Condoleeza Rice repeatedly explaining that US can and does never condone torture, and that it is always a crime.

Doesn't she do it well? It's an amazing ability to be able to be so passionately sincere when you are lying through your teeth.

Subject: RE: BS: Torture!!!!
From: Amos
Date: 17 Apr 08 - 10:17 PM

She really needs to b brought to trial, and bring her Uberfuhrer with her.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Torture!!!!
From: GUEST,PMB
Date: 18 Apr 08 - 03:23 AM

OK, just when we thought we'd found an issue Teribus could agree wiuth us on.

Teribus supports torture. I should have known it.

Subject: RE: BS: Torture!!!!
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 18 Apr 08 - 08:27 AM

Looking at that vid of Ms Rice so passionately disavowing torture Yeats's words came to mind:

The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.

Subject: RE: BS: Torture!!!!
From: Bryn Pugh
Date: 18 Apr 08 - 08:32 AM

Teribus -

It's the same Bryn Pugh whose private parts committed a severe and unprovoked attack on the poor police's kneecap.

The same Bryn Pugh who sustained cut and bruised lips from trying to chew the toecaps off a police's boots.

The same Bryn Pugh who shaved his head because he became a little exasperated by polices lifting him off the deck by his sideburns.

The samwe Bryn Pugh who to this day (except in Court when not wearing bands) does not wear a necktie, because he became exasperated with being damn near asphyxiated by polices
pulling in the end of it.

The same Bryn Pugh who lobbied MPs to ensure that the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 reached the Statute book.

As to what the hatpins were used for, Teribus - mind your own fucking business.

Subject: RE: BS: Torture!!!!
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 18 Apr 08 - 08:34 AM

Some are experts at defending the indefensible.

Subject: RE: BS: Torture!!!!
From: Bobert
Date: 18 Apr 08 - 09:18 AM

Waterboard Bush and Cheney and this stuff will stop...

But seriously.... We need an entire culture change in America... Our collective thinking has become severly screwed up...

We will never win a war on terrorism so we need to undo the neocon's PR because the current war on terrorism is absolutely "insane" because we are repeating behaviors expecting different results...

(But, Boberdz, how do you go about changing a culure and why aren't people in the streets???)

Well, for one we have an administartion that have proven over and over again that it doesn't give a rat's ass what the people think or what the people want so we're going to juts have to wait these folks out...

And, two, we don't have the microphone... Micro-microphones, yes thru the internet but not "The Microphone"...

I feel the tides turning away from the nightmarish and failed policies of the last 30 or so years... Timing is everything and the pendelum is swinging back toward humanism and compassion... Unfortunaely, it's a lot like watching a pot of water come to a boil... We need to be ready when it boils but, right now, we juts have to ride out some more crap...

Wish it were different but it ain't...

B~

p.s. This from obne who participated in mnay of the anti-war demonsrations in D.C. since the mad-dash-to-Iraq...

Subject: RE: BS: Torture!!!!
From: Teribus
Date: 18 Apr 08 - 11:03 AM

Well Bryn you law abiding model citizen, wandering out onto the streets fully prepared to "retaliate" you probably deserved everything that came your way.

The hat pins dipped in dog-shit were used against police horses. This sort of behaviour was generally considered to be a bit infra dig during the middle-ages. The "strikers" also had some neat little wheeze aimed at crippling police horses, when successful the horses normally had to be destroyed.

Yes Bryn you probably did deserve everything that came your way, you were probably begging for it.

Subject: RE: BS: Torture!!!!
From: Donuel
Date: 18 Apr 08 - 11:10 AM

There are those who have called for the resignation of Ms Rice over the issue of approving torture. They should not be so hasty in view of the fact there has not been another 9-11.


paid for by the

'People for the freedom of torture and the American Way'

a subsidary of the Clark lawfirm.

Subject: RE: BS: Torture!!!!
From: irishenglish
Date: 18 Apr 08 - 11:54 AM

Teribus, have you ever read accounts of people who have been tortured? Have you ever met someone who was subjected to mental or physical torture? I have, and for all the victims I met, there is an anguish in their eyes, which years later, does not go away. I will not repeat some of the things these people told me they were subjected to, because it makes my stomach nauseous. Suffice it to say, I cannot, or will not ever approve of the use of torture in any means. Before 9/11 I had debates with people about the use of torture as a means of extracting crucial information at a critical time. Think of it like a bad Hollywood movie, if we can torture this guy, he'll tell us where the bomb is, and we can save thousands of lives. In reality, it won't work like that, plans can be changed, or when someone like Kahlid Sheik Mohamed is captured, they immediately go to Plan B, which renders information gleaned from torture as unuseful.

Subject: RE: BS: Torture!!!!
From: Bobert
Date: 18 Apr 08 - 12:07 PM

That seems to be the opinion of many former intellegece folks as well, irishenglish...

At the very least it brings US down to Saddam's level meaning that the Taliban can declare victory any time they like...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Torture!!!!
From: Don Firth
Date: 18 Apr 08 - 01:51 PM

I just heard an interview on the radio with a woman had been in the Army for twenty years and who spent her last several years of government service in the State Department. A few years ago, she resigned in disgust when she could no longer tolerated the disparity between what the State Department knew leading up to the Iraq war and what the public was being told. When the interviewer pointed out that the United States has not undergone a terrorist attack since 9/11, she responded, "Despite the much touted 'protective measures,' many of which involving erosion of civil rights, this country is so porous that terrorists could attack us any time they want. But they don't need to. They are sitting back and watching with satisfaction as this country destroys itself." [She has a book just out, and I tried to get her name and the title of the book, but the radio station's web site is temporarily off-line. As soon as it's back, I'll post it.]

Apart from the moral issue, there is the question of whether or not torture is an effective way of extracting accurate information. Especially with the mid-set of the current terrorists, it obviously is not. Let's take the standard scenario that many advocates of torture present:    A nuclear bomb has been planted in a major city and is set to go off in a very few hours. We have captured a terrorist who was in on the plot and knows where the bomb is located. Of course, he refuses to say what city it's in and where it is within that city.

So we apply the thumb-screws. Literally. Waterboarding, electric shock to the genitals, whatever strikes the torturers sadistic fancy. AHA! Success! He blurts out that the bomb is in New York City, and he gives the exact location.   We make a quick phone call and a team of specialists rushes to the location.

Just as they discover that there is nothing there, Washington, D. C. goes up in a horrendous fireball.

The terrorist knows that he's dead meat anyway. And when he is not just willing to die for his cause, but eager to do so because he believes it assures him a place in Paradise, he sits back and laughs. No matter what they do to him now, he has just bought himself a first-class ticket to Allah's favor and a state of Eternal Bliss.

Those who are willing to commit mass murder to achieve their ends are beyond the pale. Less than human. There are very effective ways of dealing with terrorism that the leaders of our country are simply unwilling to try because it means drastic changes in our foreign policy. But for the sake of this discussion, that's another matter.

Those who torture, those who authorize torture, those who defend it, and those who just prefer to look the other way are also less than human. I have nothing but the greatest disgust and contempt for terrorists and torturers alike.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Torture!!!!
From: Amos
Date: 18 Apr 08 - 02:18 PM

Those who are willing to commit mass murder to achieve their ends are beyond the pale. Less than human. There are very effective ways of dealing with terrorism that the leaders of our country are simply unwilling to try because it means drastic changes in our foreign policy. But for the sake of this discussion, that's another matter.



Don:

I would be most interested to hear your sugegstions and reserarch on effective alternate methods of dealing with terrorism. Seriously. Please start the thread or add to this one, if you will.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Torture!!!!
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 18 Apr 08 - 02:38 PM

Much of the time torture isn't so much about extracting information as about grinding down prisoners so that they become totally malleable, and will say or do whatever is convenient to the captors.

Teribus's summary of John McCain's experience "subjected to "Torture" over an extended period, the purpose of that treatment was not to extract military secrets or information but to physically break him and get him to toe the Party line" is very reminiscent indeed of much that has come out about the way prisoners of the US and UK have been treated in recent years.

And of course there is also a recreational aspect to it, as exemplified in the Abu Ghraib events which were so inconveniently leaked into the public domain. But that won't happen again in a hurry. The leaking, I mean.

Subject: RE: BS: Torture!!!!
From: Amos
Date: 18 Apr 08 - 02:40 PM

These days the only things that leak in such events are sphincters.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Torture!!!!
From: Don Firth
Date: 18 Apr 08 - 05:28 PM

As I said, Amos, this would involve drastic changes in this country's foreign policy and our whole method of dealing with other countries.

Although this is not the only source of such information, I have cited John Perkins', Confessions of an Economic Hit Man a number of times.   He certainly shines a light on the roots of the problem. There are those here who will discount this because of the source (Democracy Now) and the interviewer (Amy Goodman), but with the media being what it is, where else are you going to hear this?   HERE. Click on one of the "Listen/Watch" links. About seven minutes into the interview, Perkins begins talking about the deal made with Saudi Arabia, then Iraq. This explains a lot about our present situation and how we got here. Perkins has recently come out with a second book, The Secret History of the American Empire.

Perkins' revelations are one of a number of places one can start to get an idea of why so many people in the world are angry at the United States. It's not that they hate our way of life (the reason we're usually given to explain the terrorists' motivation), its because the "way of life" of some of the richest Americans is on their backs, and has been for generations. Understandably, there are a lot of people in the world who are fed up with it and are starting to fight back the only way they know how.

This does not excuse terrorism and mass murder, but it certainly explains it.

The ball is in our court. The root cause of so much hatred for this country is actually an internal American problem. And a big one!

What are we going to do about it?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Torture!!!!
From: Amos
Date: 18 Apr 08 - 09:49 PM

That interview is a real poke in the eye, even though I read Confessions of an Economic Hitman years ago. John Perkins is a private hero and I wonder if he moves often or manages to sleep at night, worrying about Bechtel (Veep and Co.)seeking revenge.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Torture!!!!
From: GUEST, heric
Date: 18 Apr 08 - 11:58 PM

>>"According to a top official, Ashcroft asked aloud after one meeting: "Why are we talking about this in the White House? History will not judge this kindly." <<

"Ashcroft was troubled by the discussions. He agreed with the general policy decision to allow aggressive tactics and had repeatedly advised that they were legal. But he argued that senior White House advisers should not be involved in the grim details of interrogations, sources said."

They all signed off on it. Ashcroft managed to get this quote of his into the national media. He wanted it done, but he wanted plausible deniability and/or distance from detailed allegations. Rice took charge of the issue, stayed involved, and took responsibility off of the CIA and onto herself.

Which of the two deserves a warmer room in Hades?

Subject: RE: BS: Torture!!!!
From: CarolC
Date: 19 Apr 08 - 02:49 AM

Torture is also handy if you need a patsy for something really big. If you can get enough people to confess to being terrorists (which they have done), you can justify all kinds of erosions of civil liberties in your own country.

I'm not so curious about whether or not Teribus has ever seen anyone who has been tortured as I am about whether or not he has ever participated in that sort of activity himself. He seem awfully keen on it.

Subject: RE: BS: Torture!!!!
From: Barry Finn
Date: 19 Apr 08 - 06:43 AM

Somewhere I'd read an essay on the ten steps towards a Dictatorship & as torture beings one of the steps in point, it was noted that every Dictorship that used torture on their enemies eventually somewhere going down the lined ended up using torture on their own citizens.

I'd fully agree with Don's assessment. Where Don says

"its because the "way of life" of some of the richest Americans is on their backs, and has been for generations."

I'd change "on their backs" to
"under their thumbs"

I've always felt that we (the US) conveniently deal with terrorism in a way a doctor would treat the symptoms of a disease, using a knee jerk reaction rather than investigating the cause of the disease/problem & dealing with the root source.
I would want to ask why someone would feel so desprate as to resort to mass murder not just "Bush it under the rug" buy saying their culture hates us. No one hates with out some sort of cause. What's the cause? It's just to easy to fire back & invade unless that the purpose to begin with.

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: Torture!!!!
From: Bobert
Date: 19 Apr 08 - 07:02 AM

Exactly, Barry...

We need an extreme make-over that promotes humanism...

Until we change the "culture" we wil be like hamsters in a wheel wondering why things aren't getting better for US...

And this "culture" change needs to be top-to-bottom... I don't think the rich folk really want US to end up looking like Haiti where they are only *safe* ib their compounds (Green Zones)...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Torture!!!!
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 19 Apr 08 - 08:43 AM

Last night I watched a programme on how the SAS (forerunner to the CIA) conspired with the Nazis against The Soviet Union.
This morning I opened my paper to read a long article on how top members of the US Government are sanctioning the use of torture in its 'war on terror'
Threads like this give me hope that the US isn't entirely comprised of fascist shitbags - thanks for that folks.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Torture!!!!
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 19 Apr 08 - 08:53 AM

Front page lead in today's Guardian Top Bush aides pushed for Guantánamo torture:

America's most senior general was "hoodwinked" by top Bush administration officials determined to push through aggressive interrogation techniques of terror suspects held at Guantánamo Bay, leading to the US military abandoning its age-old ban on the cruel and inhumane treatment of prisoners, the Guardian reveals today.

General Richard Myers, chairman of the US joint chiefs of staff from 2001 to 2005, wrongly believed that inmates at Guantánamo and other prisons were protected by the Geneva conventions and from abuse tantamount to torture.

The way he was duped by senior officials in Washington, who believed the Geneva conventions and other traditional safeguards were out of date, is disclosed in a devastating account of their role, extracts of which appear in today's Guardian...

Subject: RE: BS: Torture!!!!
From: irishenglish
Date: 19 Apr 08 - 10:44 AM

Jim Carroll-just as an aside, I wouldn't consider the SAS to be a precursor to the CIA. They are an extremely elite commando unit, and for sure they are the ones involved in deep covert activity, but they are not an intelligence orgainization in and of themselves. But I am interested in that program.

Subject: RE: BS: Torture!!!!
From: Amos
Date: 19 Apr 08 - 11:21 AM

Wasn't the SAS --it were the OSS.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Torture!!!!
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 19 Apr 08 - 12:43 PM

Amos,
O.S.S. is right - sorry about that.
The programme was called 'Operation Sunrise' and was on RTE 2 at 8pm last night.
The Guardian article on the use of torture at Guantanamo puts much of it down to the series '24'. The journalist claims that some of the techniques and much of the morality for the use of torture has been lifted straight from this.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Torture!!!!
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 19 Apr 08 - 01:26 PM

I suspect that one effect of 24 has been to encourage the American Public to see torture as part of the American Way, and as OK, so long as it's done by the Right People.

"It's a dirty job, but someone has to do it" is the line, and an awful lot of people buy it. Very much the same as that laid out by Himmler talking to the SS: "To have gone through this and yet - apart from a few exceptions, examples of human weakness - to have remained decent fellows, this is what has made us hard. This is a glorious page in our history that has never been written and shall never be written."

Subject: RE: BS: Torture!!!!
From: An Pluiméir Ceolmhar
Date: 19 Apr 08 - 02:37 PM

Can someone refresh my memory about where McCain really stands on torture when it is inflicted by the US?

I have a distinct recollection of being greatly disillusioned at reading some time ago that he had voted in favour of a piece of Cheney (OK Bush if you prefer) regime legislation authorising some form of supposedly "lite" torture. But when I google "McCain" and "torture", all I get is page after page of stuff about what seems to be a bill that he subsequently introduced, apparently with the aim of whitewashing his image.

Subject: RE: BS: Torture!!!!
From: Amos
Date: 19 Apr 08 - 06:38 PM

Bush Administration Blocked Waterboarding Critic

Former DOJ Official Tested the Method Himself, in Effort to Form Torture Policy

By JAN CRAWFORD GREENBURG and ARIANE de VOGUE
Nov. 2, 2007Ñ

A senior Justice Department official, charged with reworking the administration's legal position on torture in 2004 became so concerned about the controversial interrogation technique of waterboarding that he decided to experience it firsthand, sources told ABC News.

Daniel Levin, then acting assistant attorney general, went to a military base near Washington and underwent the procedure to inform his analysis of different interrogation techniques.

After the experience, Levin told White House officials that even though he knew he wouldn't die, he found the experience terrifying and thought that it clearly simulated drowning.

Levin, who refused to comment for this story, concluded waterboarding could be illegal torture unless performed in a highly limited way and with close supervision. And, sources told ABC News, he believed the Bush Administration had failed to offer clear guidelines for its use.

Bush Administration Blocked Critic

The administration at the time was reeling from an August 2002 memo by Jay Bybee, then the head of the Office of Legal Counsel, which laid out possible justifications for torture. In June 2004, Levin's predecessor at the office, Jack Goldsmith, officially withdrew the Bybee memo, finding it deeply flawed.

When Levin took over from Goldsmith, he went to work on a memo that would effectively replace the Bybee memo as the administration's legal position on torture. It was during this time that he underwent waterboarding.

In December 2004, Levin released the new memo. He said, "Torture is abhorrent" but he went on to say in a footnote that the memo was not declaring the administration's previous opinions illegal. The White House, with Alberto Gonzales as the White House counsel, insisted that this footnote be included in the memo.

But Levin never finished a second memo imposing tighter controls on the specific interrogation techniques. Sources said he was forced out of the Justice Department when Gonzales became attorney general.

Subject: RE: BS: Torture!!!!
From: CarolC
Date: 19 Apr 08 - 08:27 PM

Can someone refresh my memory about where McCain really stands on torture when it is inflicted by the US?

As far as I can tell, he's against torture, but his definition of torture seems to not be in agreement with that of international law, US law, and the Geneva Convention.

Subject: RE: BS: Torture!!!!
From: heric
Date: 19 Apr 08 - 09:51 PM

>> . . . he found the experience terrifying and thought that it clearly simulated drowning.<<

I read somewhere and I now know not where, that waterboarding was much more than simulated drowning. It was actual drowning, with inhalation of water and subsequent resuscitation. If that reference was correct - simulated death would be a better term than simulated drowning.

Subject: RE: BS: Torture!!!!
From: Amos
Date: 20 Apr 08 - 02:36 AM

I am sire many others besides me wrote to the New York Times upbraiding them for their silence on the issue of Bush's revelations that he approved the torture planning sessions.

I am glad they finally spoke up about it.

"The Torture Sessions

Published: April 20, 2008

Ever since Americans learned that American soldiers and intelligence agents were torturing prisoners, there has been a disturbing question: How high up did the decision go to ignore United States law, international treaties, the Geneva Conventions and basic morality?

The Board Blog
Additional commentary, background information and other items by Times editorial writers.
Go to The Board È
The answer, we have learned recently, is that Ñ with President BushÕs clear knowledge and support Ñ some of the very highest officials in the land not only approved the abuse of prisoners, but participated in the detailed planning of harsh interrogations and helped to create a legal structure to shield from justice those who followed the orders.

We have long known that the Justice Department tortured the law to give its Orwellian blessing to torturing people, and that Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld approved a list of ways to abuse prisoners. But recent accounts by ABC News and The Associated Press said that all of the presidentÕs top national security advisers at the time participated in creating the interrogation policy: Vice President Dick Cheney; Mr. Rumsfeld; Condoleezza Rice, the national security adviser; Colin Powell, the secretary of state; John Ashcroft, the attorney general; and George Tenet, the director of central intelligence.

These officials did not have the time or the foresight to plan for the aftermath of the invasion of Iraq or the tenacity to complete the hunt for Osama bin Laden. But they managed to squeeze in dozens of meetings in the White House Situation Room to organize and give legal cover to prisoner abuse, including brutal methods that civilized nations consider to be torture..."

Subject: RE: BS: Torture!!!!
From: Amos
Date: 20 Apr 08 - 02:39 AM

"...Mr. Bush has sidestepped or quashed every attempt to uncover the breadth and depth of his sordid actions. Congress is likely to endorse a cover-up of the extent of the illegal wiretapping he authorized after 9/11, and we are still waiting, with diminishing hopes, for a long-promised report on what the Bush team really knew before the Iraq invasion about those absent weapons of mass destruction Ñ as opposed to what it proclaimed.

At this point it seems that getting answers will have to wait, at least, for a new Congress and a new president. Ideally, there would be both truth and accountability. At the very minimum the public needs the full truth.

Some will call this a backward-looking distraction, but only by fully understanding what Mr. Bush has done over eight years to distort the rule of law and violate civil liberties and human rights can Americans ever hope to repair the damage and ensure it does not happen again."

Ibid

Subject: RE: BS: Torture!!!!
From: Teribus
Date: 20 Apr 08 - 07:23 AM

"Teribus supports torture. I should have known it." - Guest,PMB

"I'm not so curious about whether or not Teribus has ever seen anyone who has been tortured as I am about whether or not he has ever participated in that sort of activity himself. He seem awfully keen on it." - CarolC

Both the above came as a result of me saying this:
"To use such techniques, is it justifiable? I would think it could be perfectly justifiable under certain circumstances, and I could understand that those circumstances could vary dramatically."

Rather over-egging the pudding aren't we?

Can anyone point out anywhere in what I have said that indicates that I:

A. "Support torture" (PMB's contention)

B. "Am awfully keen on it" (CarolC's contention)

Just to satisfy CarolC's curiousity re: having "ever participated in that sort of activity himself." The answer to that is yes on a number of occasions as the person being interrogated - from my first post to this thread:

"Reading through what was supposed to be permitted, it is no more than is used in the training of any combat aircrew; naval attack swimmer; SBS swimmer/canoeist; SAS Trooper."

The categories I participated in were connected to training and exercises relating to diving and qualification as a "Forward Observer" Both were courses that taught escape and evasion and resistance to interrogation. Of the courses run by the RN the worst to go through was the one for combat aircrew, mainly because it was more intense, extremely realistic and longer in duration.

By the bye, just for the record, I neither A) Support torture, or B) Am awfully keen on it.

Subject: RE: BS: Torture!!!!
From: Peace
Date: 20 Apr 08 - 01:23 PM

I was about to post that in no way would Teribus condone torture, but I see he's said that already. He is a much nicer person than many give him credit for, (despite that he and I are often on opposing sides of issues).

IMO, the real issue here is summed up in the NYT article Amos linked to. I read it and went to cut and paste the following only to see that Amos had already done so. Not wishing to trash a perfectly good cut and paste, here it is again.

"Mr. Bush has sidestepped or quashed every attempt to uncover the breadth and depth of his sordid actions. Congress is likely to endorse a cover-up of the extent of the illegal wiretapping he authorized after 9/11, and we are still waiting, with diminishing hopes, for a long-promised report on what the Bush team really knew before the Iraq invasion about those absent weapons of mass destruction — as opposed to what it proclaimed.

At this point it seems that getting answers will have to wait, at least, for a new Congress and a new president. Ideally, there would be both truth and accountability. At the very minimum the public needs the full truth.

Some will call this a backward-looking distraction, but only by fully understanding what Mr. Bush has done over eight years to distort the rule of law and violate civil liberties and human rights can Americans ever hope to repair the damage and ensure it does not happen again."



That article should be read by every American in the USA, and anyone who continues to support Bush's action in this ugly representation of power gone mad, because what it states is what we all know. If we continue to knao and we continue to do nothing, an equal degree of guilt will rest with us.

Subject: RE: BS: Torture!!!!
From: Gervase
Date: 20 Apr 08 - 01:44 PM

RTI training, although deeply unpleasant, is to torture what the Sealed Knot are to warfare. And what seems to have been sanctioned by the US administration is torture.
And what makes it all the more deplorable is that they carried on doing if even when it should have become evident that it clearly doesn't bloody work!

Subject: RE: BS: Torture!!!!
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 20 Apr 08 - 02:00 PM

Can anyone point out anywhere in what I have said that indicates that I..."Support torture"?

Teribus has already done that himself earlier in the same post: To use such techniques, is it justifiable? I would think it could be perfectly justifiable...

"Such techniques" - including "waterboarding" are a form of torture, when used for real.

Going through the motions in the context of training sessions, where in fact everyone involved knows that there is no treat of drowning, is not the same thing, anymore than a mock execution where the target know the guns are loaded with blanks is in any way comparable to one where they believe live ammunition is being used. (Another form of enhanced interrogation that amounts to torture.)

Subject: RE: BS: Torture!!!!
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 20 Apr 08 - 02:11 PM

Can anyone point out anywhere in what I have said that indicates that I..."Support torture"?

Teribus has already done that himself earlier in the same post: "To use such techniques, is it justifiable? I would think it could be perfectly justifiable"...

"Such techniques" - including "waterboarding" are a form of torture, when used for real.

Going through the motions in the context of training sessions, where in fact everyone involved knows that there is no threat of drowning, is not the same thing, anymore than a mock execution where the target know the guns are loaded with blanks is in any way comparable to one where they believe live ammunition is being used. (Another form of enhanced interrogation that amounts to torture.)

Subject: RE: BS: Torture!!!!
From: Joe_F
Date: 20 Apr 08 - 08:58 PM

Read _Darkness at Noon_ by Arthur Koestler. Torture gets its toehold by extracting useful information, sometimes almost by accident. But once it becomes a habit, its chief use is to extract false confessions.

It used to be -- perhaps still is -- a common police practice in all countries. In the U.S. it was called the third degree.

It appears (it is very hard to research this question, and I am dependent on chance impressions) that in most parts of the world large numbers of children are routinely beaten -- not primarily for disciplinary reasons, but (so to speak) recreationally, so that when they grow up they cannot take anyone seriously who does not at least threaten to beat them. In such places civilized government is impossible. (Here my friends on the left will have observed that I am a dissenter from the religion in which blaming the victim is taboo.)

Subject: RE: BS: Torture!!!!
From: Penny S.
Date: 21 Apr 08 - 05:46 AM

There was a piece in New Scientist recently based on an interview with a man who works against torture. I belive he was from the Middle East, but would not like to attribute him to a particular country without checking. His family had experience of the activity on the receiving end.
He suggested that a culture which includes initiation rites into accepted groups, and ritualised bullying of new recruits into organisations, and accepts dehumanising of prisoners is more likely to find the threshold to torture lower than others.
He was more specific than that, actually, referring to membership of fraternities.
Penny

Subject: RE: BS: Torture!!!!
From: Teribus
Date: 21 Apr 08 - 09:40 AM

Kevin, a question for you, please try and answer it honestly. Why couldn't you just quote the whole passage in context? - you surely must have been a journalist at one time or other:

Kevin's quote to "prove" that I support torture:

"To use such techniques, is it justifiable? I would think it could be perfectly justifiable..."

The whole passage actually stated:

"To use such techniques, is it justifiable? I would think it could be perfectly justifiable under certain circumstances, and I could understand that those circumstances could vary dramatically."

Now I would venture to point out that there is quite a bit of a difference there, wouldn't you? If you still cannot bring yourself to admit that, please explain why the justification was so heavily qualified, i.e. "could be" and "under certain circumstances".

Subject: RE: BS: Torture!!!!
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 21 Apr 08 - 10:40 AM

Problem with Teribus' argument is that the "certain circumstances" don't seem to be defined.

Subject: RE: BS: Torture!!!!
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 21 Apr 08 - 01:42 PM

No significant difference whatsoever that I can see, I'm afraid. "Could be" and "under certain circumstances" don't in fact change the meaning at all.

You could equally have written "Torture is in principal justifiable, but not in all circumstances".

Subject: RE: BS: Torture!!!!
From: Don Firth
Date: 21 Apr 08 - 02:38 PM

Almost invariable, when the subject of torture comes up in discussion, someone will claim that torture is "justifiable under certain circumstances." When asked what those circumstances might be, their stock example is the ticking bomb scenario. Either that or something involving an "innocent child" who will die within hours unless found and rescued (blantant emotional appeal?).

I believe I have dealt with that "justification" in an above post—18 Apr 08 - 01:51 p.m.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Torture!!!!
From: Peace
Date: 21 Apr 08 - 02:53 PM

Regardless, Teribus is not the problem on this thread. The problem is that the President of the USA broke the law as did the VP and his then Sec State (?). Why are they not hauled up by their 'short and curlies' and the top two impeached. Why is Condi not be prosecuted for criminal activity? WHERE IS THS DEMOCRACY that used to exist in the US. Folks were quick enough to impeach Clinton for lying. Keriste, does ANYone give a rat's ass about the USA?

Subject: RE: BS: Torture!!!!
From: Amos
Date: 21 Apr 08 - 03:57 PM

Well, Iw ouldn't have posted the damns tory if I didn't give a rat's ass. I also sent a flaming letter to the editor of the NY Times. The story came out int he Times two days later, and I am sure it was not because of my letter alone, but maybe it helped.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Torture!!!!
From: GUEST,Chief Chaos
Date: 21 Apr 08 - 04:26 PM

I'd like to point out that in John McCain's experience the principal factors conducting the torture were members of a recognized government agency which means they were subject to the Geneva Convention. As such they are war criminals!

In the case of the hat pins dipped in dog crap (although I find it truly abhorrent) the people using them were not members of a recognized government agency and therefore the Geneva convention does not apply. Also use of the contaminated hat pins in an offensive or defensive manner is not "torture" but might be considered terrorism.

It's funny but the best way I can describe the current situation is to use a song title from David Bowie, "This Is Not America".

Subject: RE: BS: Torture!!!!
From: Teribus
Date: 22 Apr 08 - 11:57 AM

"In the case of the hat pins dipped in dog crap (although I find it truly abhorrent) the people using them were not members of a recognized government agency and therefore the Geneva convention does not apply. Also use of the contaminated hat pins in an offensive or defensive manner is not "torture" but might be considered terrorism." - Guest Chief Chaos

It is not the case that you have to be members of a recognised government agency to be brought to book under the terms of the Geneva Convention. The Geneva Convention applies across the board and terrorists commit many more "war crimes" than organised armed forces.

I was not attempting imply that use of contaminated hat pins was "torture", I was pointing out that some contraventions of the Geneva Convention seem to be quite acceptable when practiced by the side one happens to support, while others are totally abhorrent when practiced by the side one opposes. That is what I would call hypocrisy.

Subject: RE: BS: Torture!!!!
From: Peace
Date: 22 Apr 08 - 11:57 AM

That rant was NOT addressed to you at all, Amos. I KNOW the agitatin' you do. It was a general cry for "let's get off our collective arse, stop making excuses as to why those bastards can't be impeached, and IMPEACH the fu#kers." PERIOD.

Subject: RE: BS: Torture!!!!
From: CarolC
Date: 22 Apr 08 - 12:13 PM

Both the above came as a result of me saying this:
"To use such techniques, is it justifiable? I would think it could be perfectly justifiable under certain circumstances, and I could understand that those circumstances could vary dramatically."

No it didn't. At least not in my case. Mine came as a result of your posts over a long period of time. This is a pretty good example...

Yes Bryn you probably did deserve everything that came your way, you were probably begging for it.

Sounds like when you did it, you enjoyed it, too.

Subject: RE: BS: Torture!!!!
From: GUEST,Windor Knot
Date: 22 Apr 08 - 01:01 PM

Teribus, tell us about your exciting military experiences in this field.

Subject: RE: BS: Torture!!!!
From: Teribus
Date: 22 Apr 08 - 01:06 PM

Oh, forgot to put in that last post of mine.

Don the reasoning outlined in your post of 18 Apr 08 - 01:51 p.m., has got more holes in it than a collander.

Ticking bomb scenario, with the mind-set of the current terrorists:

You are onboard an aircraft mid-Atlantic, mid-Pacific. You are informed that there is a bomb onboard and the identity of the person who has it is known. You have one hour to extract the location of the bomb and instructions how to disarm it.

Under those circumstances anyone onboard that aircraft who says that they would have qualms about any means of interrogation used, or think twice about what they had to do to get that information is a liar. I would venture to guess under such circumstances, whether successful or not, you and the "terrorist" are all in the same boat, you do nothing and you are going to die for certain, attempt to forcefully interrogate the "terrorist" and you stand a chance of surviving, it is the only option realistically open to you and you do want to live.

Now Don the holes in your hypothetical scenario, which you laid out as follows:

Part 1:
"Apart from the moral issue, there is the question of whether or not torture is an effective way of extracting accurate information. Especially with the mid-set of the current terrorists, it obviously is not."

Well those Al-Qaeda members who have been interrogated so far must have passed on some information of worth judging by the number of senior operational figures rolled-up to date and the number of operations that have been exposed. By the bye Don as to the mind-set of the terrorists Kahlid Sheik Mohammed has got no more desire to enter paradise than Osama bin Laden or any of the other leaders of the jihadist terrorist groups, they're the fat-cats who get their lieutenants to con others into carrying-out the attacks, they would never dream of carrying them out themselves.

Part 2:
"Let's take the standard scenario that many advocates of torture present:    A nuclear bomb has been planted in a major city and is set to go off in a very few hours. We have captured a terrorist who was in on the plot and knows where the bomb is located. Of course, he refuses to say what city it's in and where it is within that city."

In your scenario neither the interrogator or the terrorist is in danger, unless of course you both happen to be in Washington, D. C., but you did not state that.

You also ommit to provide detail as to how the terrorist came to be in your hands, but you imply that it is known that he, "was in on the plot", therefore you were not running blind, you were "on to him", you must have had more information - this bit is important.

Part 3:
"So we apply the thumb-screws. Literally. Waterboarding, electric shock to the genitals, whatever strikes the torturers sadistic fancy. AHA! Success! He blurts out that the bomb is in New York City, and he gives the exact location.   We make a quick phone call and a team of specialists rushes to the location.

Just as they discover that there is nothing there, Washington, D. C. goes up in a horrendous fireball."

Thumb-screws, waterboarding, electric shocks, naw just, "sit him down with his bags off slap his toger and in a floury bap with a pork chop bring in a Cocker Spaniel and shout "lunchtime Fido". Your description has hallmarks of Hollywood. What is wrong with it is this:

- In all probability your terrorist has not been trained to withstand interrogation.

- You as interrogator however know full well that he will try to resist, he will try to delay, he will try to mislead.

- From the minute that he has been caught, he is robbed of any means of knowing the time, he has no idea of how long he has to hold out, you as interrogator make sure of that.

- You must have had some knowledge, some information, from some source, that led to his capture. It had to be something that he was completely unaware of otherwise he would not have been caught.

- So you question him about some aspect of his capture, something that know the answer to, but he does not. He will resist, he will try to delay, he will try to mislead, but you know the answer that you are looking for, so you continue until finally you get the correct answer. You as interrogator have broken your man you now know his threshold.

- Only then do you ask him about the bomb.

Part 4:
"The terrorist knows that he's dead meat anyway. And when he is not just willing to die for his cause, but eager to do so because he believes it assures him a place in Paradise, he sits back and laughs. No matter what they do to him now, he has just bought himself a first-class ticket to Allah's favor and a state of Eternal Bliss."

Knows he's dead meat? Not in the slightest Don, he wasn't intending to die in the attack, it wasn't part of the plan was it? At least not as described in your scenario. Not wishing to point out the obvious flaw in your arguement Don if he is not only willing to die, but as eager to die as you suggest he would have been standing guard by the bomb, not swanning around getting caught many miles distant. And that is where the Cocker Spaniel, the floury Bap and the Pork Chop come into play- Any devout muslim who engages in bestiality involving the eating of pork ain't buying a first-class ticket to anywhere, least of all Allah's favour, and is not bound for Paradise.

Subject: RE: BS: Torture!!!!
From: Teribus
Date: 22 Apr 08 - 01:12 PM

Tell us what a Windor Knot is Guest

Subject: RE: BS: Torture!!!!
From: GUEST,dianavan
Date: 22 Apr 08 - 01:39 PM

"I was pointing out that some contraventions of the Geneva Convention seem to be quite acceptable when practiced by the side one happens to support, while others are totally abhorrent when practiced by the side one opposes." - teribus

Contraventions of the Geneva convention are unacceptable when practiced by either side but it is useless to protest the use of torture by the opposition. Rather, it is our 'own side' that should be held to the highest standard. As citizens, we become watchdogs because the actions of our military, reflect on us.

It is simplistic to assume that because we criticize our own government, we automatically support the 'other side'.

Subject: RE: BS: Torture!!!!
From: irishenglish
Date: 22 Apr 08 - 01:48 PM

Teribus, I think your post has strayed a bit from the torture issue to intelligence gathering as well. The capture of someone doing the actual attack is but one player in the game. I forget the "intelligence" lingo for this, and I think I read this in a Frederick Forsyth novel, but for a successful operation, there are layers of knowledge that any one given person has. Some one, or a very select handful of people have direct knowledge of the entire event. They parcel out the specific information in segments to various other people, who then pick and choose the actual people to be involved in the attack. What it means is that no one person (other than the originators of the plan) has full details of all aspects of the operation, and if one level gets compromised somehow, then the entire operation is considered compromised. What happened after 9/11, I believe, was a more concerted effort was placed on being suspicious of the lower down the chain followers. Of course we still go after the big guns like Mohammed. But like I posted originally, if Mohammed had for example, high level knowledge of planned terrorist attacks, do you not think that in his own mind he could give them almost any information, because HE knew as a planner, that anything planned was now compromised if he were captured? I think it's also wrong for all of us to assume that a large amount of data was gathered by active torture. SOme may have been, and if you ask me personally, any torture is wrong. But we did improve our intelligence gathering capability as well, and I think that has been more of the reason that we have not had an attack since 9/11 than any info gleaned from a tortured operative, who for all we know, was simply hired to obtain passports, while some other guy took care of transportation, while someone else handled the money, while someone else decoded messages.

Subject: RE: BS: Torture!!!!
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 22 Apr 08 - 02:11 PM

Stuff about forcing people into submisssion with pork chops because they are devout Muslims is basically rubbish, just as it would be if you were to make the same kind of suggestions in respect of devout Jews. Yes, both sister religions have rules about that kind of thing - essentially much the same rules - but with plenty of room for flexibility to cope with that kind of thing.

Subject: RE: BS: Torture!!!!
From: GUEST,Windsor Knot
Date: 22 Apr 08 - 02:16 PM

Did Teribus prepare the pork chops ?

Subject: RE: BS: Torture!!!!
From: GUEST,Chief Chaos
Date: 22 Apr 08 - 04:26 PM

The Geneva Convention does not apply to terrorists or anyone other than signatory nation states!
I don't think the use of torure or terrorism by any side is acceptable and I find our use of it to be repugnant.

Segmenting the information out is a classification called "Compartmentalizing".

It will be years, if ever at all, that we find out what information was gathered by torture and what by illegally tapping phones/the internet/whatever. Doesn't matter how it was collected, it was done illegally.

The hope of the Geneva Convention is that by treating combatants (notice the term "combatants", this administration decided to label everyone in the Afghani (Taliban) army and the Iraqi army as non-combatants)in a certain way, it will guarantee your "combatants of the same treatment.

As in WWII, Korea, and Vietnam it doesn't always work that way (but there's no telling if we were actually following the rules there either.

Subject: RE: BS: Torture!!!!
From: Teribus
Date: 22 Apr 08 - 04:30 PM

Eh, Kevin, without the reference to the pork chop the, "sit him down with his bags off slap his toger and in a floury bap bring in a Cocker Spaniel and shout "lunchtime Fido", comes straight from the "Blackadder Goes Forth" episode where Blackadder is tasked with uncovering the identity of a German spy.

A Windor go back inside your container and play with your computer - keep taking the drugs.

Subject: RE: BS: Torture!!!!
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 22 Apr 08 - 05:17 PM

Indeed. But the pork chop angle keeps on cropping up in this kind of context, and I think it deserves to be pointed out as the nonsense it is.
.........................

You are on board an aircraft mid-Atlantic, mid-Pacific. You are informed that there is a bomb on board and the identity of the person who has it is known. You have one hour to extract the location of the bomb and instructions how to disarm it. Under those circumstances anyone on board that aircraft who says that they would have qualms about any means of interrogation used, or think twice about what they had to do to get that information is a liar.

I've been trying to think of what kind of torture might conceivably get a terrorist on a plane set to explode, who has already committed himself to die in the explosion, to actually talk. Not so easy. I suppose rounding up his family on the other side of a world and torturing them to death on a TV link might do the trick. But I doubt if that was what you had in mind when you said "any means of interrogation".

Subject: RE: BS: Torture!!!!
From: Teribus
Date: 22 Apr 08 - 06:19 PM

"I've been trying to think of what kind of torture might conceivably get a terrorist on a plane set to explode, who has already committed himself to die in the explosion, to actually talk." - MGOH

You miss the point entirely Kevin. What you, as one of the innocents about to die in that hour do is what we are talking about. Whether you get the information out of him or not, is neither here nor there.

Anyone who says that having been given that information they would just sit down and ask this chap nicely to please change his mind is a liar.

Your only way out is to make him tell you what you need to know.

My contention is that the people on that aircraft would have no qualms whatsoever about torture in such circumstances, and no you cannot put the aircraft down on the sea the bomb is pressure sensitive and besides no wide body airliner has ever successfully landed on water.

Subject: RE: BS: Torture!!!!
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 22 Apr 08 - 06:40 PM

Maybe most, maybe even all the people in that situation might think that way, but that wouldn't mean they were right.

The only way of finding out how to defuse the bomb is to get the man or woman to change their mind and to talk, that's agreed.

But that means that anything that makes him or her less likely to change their mind and to talk has to be ruled out. And I would suggest that that means there can be no question of torture, for that very reason.

What you'd want would be someone who knew about Islam, and could talk with understanding about Allah the Compassionate and Merciful. Get on the radio and try to find someone like that, if there's no one like that on board.   Not much chance perhaps, but more chance than a nonsensical and completely ineffective torture session as the minutes tick away.

Subject: RE: BS: Torture!!!!
From: GUEST,Chief Chaos
Date: 22 Apr 08 - 06:53 PM

Seems to me that "truth serum", if it indeed exists, would be of better use than trying to extract information through fear or pain.

Or perhaps what most of us have been saying all along, keep your eyes and ears open and don't go blindly mucking up the world and maybe you will be able to see it coming and defuse the situation before terrorism becomes an issue!

Subject: RE: BS: Torture!!!!
From: Don Firth
Date: 22 Apr 08 - 07:53 PM

Spin what I wrote anyway you want, Teribus, but I stand by what I said. I could go through point by point and refute each one of your "refutations," but I don't have the time right now. I may be back, however. In the meantime, I will leave it as an exercise for others to pick out the holes in your "refutation."

You certainly seem to be willing to go to great lengths to justify torture.

Interesting.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Torture!!!!
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 22 Apr 08 - 07:55 PM

Teribus-
the major flaw in your argument (even assuming that torture may be justified in life-threatening situations)is the implicit assumption that the torturers know that the torturee is guilty---an often shaky assumption that too many folks are willing to make.

Subject: RE: BS: Torture!!!!
From: GUEST,Windsor Knot
Date: 22 Apr 08 - 08:00 PM

Sadly Don Teribus was an army cook, well do I need to go on ?

Quite often it's the like of the Army Catering Corp, Pay Corp and other non-combatants that "talk" tactics.

We allow him his drift into the reams of fantasy once every so often.

Subject: RE: BS: Torture!!!!
From: GUEST,Windsor Knot
Date: 22 Apr 08 - 08:22 PM

Guest, I am not belittling him, he is more than capable of doing his to himself.

The guy considers himself some sort of an authority on military affairs. In fact if you go through some of his previous posts regarding military matters, he says, "I do have some relevant experience in these matters".

Right through from Ulster,Bosnia and Herzegovina,Iraq,Iran and Afghanistan, he has his angle, and he believes he is rarely wrong.

Now he never saw active service(other than a chip pan fire)so really to speak as an authoritarian or someone with experience is bound to attract critical response.

Now if the subject was feeding the other ranks of the Royal Marines upon a boat I would be glad to sit back and remain silent.

Subject: RE: BS: Torture!!!!
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 22 Apr 08 - 08:24 PM

I'd agree there. (Though I'm not too sure about that word "belittled". Cooks should not be underestimated - think of Long John Silver...)

Subject: RE: BS: Torture!!!!
From: GUEST,Windsor Knot
Date: 22 Apr 08 - 08:36 PM

McG, don't forget the crew of "The Viceroy" who suffered nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, and muscle weakness caused by ciguatera fish poisoning served up by the ships cook.

Results of cultures of stool samples from the crew members showed signs of Salmonella, Shigella, Campylobacter, Yersinia, and Vibrio.

So I suppose non-combatant crew members can deal out torture !

Subject: RE: BS: Torture!!!!
From: Don Firth
Date: 22 Apr 08 - 09:50 PM

Having re-read Teribus' "refutation," I think the weaknesses in his argument are patently obvious. For one thing, granted that the higher-ups in the planning of an terrorist attack may not themselves be eager to enter the Land of Milk and Honey any time soon, your chances of capturing one of them is not that great compared to capturing one of the "field agents" (for example, someone like one of the nineteen 9/11 highjackers). There is a greater probability that a field agent is of a disposition to be willing to take risks and even die to bring the operation off.

But there is another matter:   in a well-planned operation, often those field agents assigned to a specific task may not know much about the overall plan, only the part of it that they've been assigned to do (common practice in such operations for obvious reasons). So the guy you're torturing may not even know the answers to what you're asking him. But under torture, he's liable to say anything.

Teribus, you keep telling me what I as the interrogator know. If I know all that you say I know, why am I even bothering to ask the prisoner much of anything?

Back to peelin' spuds, man.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Torture!!!!
From: Teribus
Date: 23 Apr 08 - 12:25 AM

"For one thing, granted that the higher-ups in the planning of an terrorist attack may not themselves be eager to enter the Land of Milk and Honey any time soon, your chances of capturing one of them is not that great compared to capturing one of the "field agents" (for example, someone like one of the nineteen 9/11 highjackers)" - Don Firth.

The following sort of blows that one out of the water:

"The 1993 World Trade Center bombing (February 26, 1993) a car bomb was detonated below Tower One of the World Trade Center in New York City. The 1,500-lb (680 kg) urea nitrate-hydrogen gas enhanced device[1] was intended to knock the North Tower (Tower One) into Tower Two, bringing both towers down and killing thousands of people. It failed to do so, but did kill six people and injured 1,042.

The attack was planned by a group of conspirators including Ramzi Yousef, Mahmud Abouhalima, Mohammad Salameh, Nidal Ayyad, Abdul Rahman Yasin and Ahmad Ajaj. They received financing from Khaled Shaikh Mohammed, Yousef's uncle.

In March 1994, four men were convicted of carrying out the bombing: Abouhalima, Ajaj, Ayyad and Salameh. The charges included conspiracy, explosive destruction of property and interstate transportation of explosives.

In November 1997, two more were convicted: Yousef, the mastermind behind the bombings, and Eyad Ismoil, who drove the truck carrying the bomb."

Hey Don out of those "involved" to any great degree I count seven caught.

More info:
"Agents and bomb technicians of the U.S. Treasury Department's Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) responded to the scene of the blast. An ATF bomb technician subsequently found the axle in the bomb crater with the VIN of the Ryder truck that was used to contain the explosives. Further investigation by ATF found that the vehicle had been rented by a Palestinian named Mohammad Salameh. Yousef's friends reported the van was stolen in an attempt to slow investigators down.

On March 4, 1993 authorities announced the capture of Salameh. In a sweep the same day, Salameh's arrest led to the apartment of Abdul Rahman Yasin in Jersey City, New Jersey, which Yasin was sharing with his mother, in the same building as Ramzi Yousef's apartment. Yasin was taken to Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) headquarters in Newark, New Jersey, and was then released. The next day, he flew back to Iraq, via Amman, Jordan. Yasin was later indicted for the attack, and in 2001 he was placed on the initial list of the FBI Most Wanted Terrorists, on which he remains a fugitive today. He disappeared prior to 2003's U.S. coalition invasion in Operation Iraqi Freedom.

The capture of Salameh and Yasin led authorities to Ramzi Yousef's apartment, where they found bomb-making materials and a business card from Mohammed Jamal Khalifa. Khalifa was arrested in relation to the crime on December 14, 1994, and was deported to Jordan by the INS on May 5, 1995. He was acquitted by a Jordanian court and lived as a free man in Saudi Arabia until his death in 2007."

Subject: RE: BS: Torture!!!!
From: Don Firth
Date: 23 Apr 08 - 12:50 AM

I am fully aware of all this, Teribus, but it doesn't change what I said. This was a bit of a fluke and we got lucky.

I don't think you are going to find very many more al Qaeda higher-ups and operations planners hanging out in Jersey City, New Jersey these days.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Torture!!!!
From: Teribus
Date: 23 Apr 08 - 01:18 AM

1993 WTC Bombing - "This was a bit of a fluke and we got lucky." - Don Firth.

How about the 1998 US Embassy Bombings Don?:

The current indictment charges the following twenty-one people for various alleged roles in this crime.

Muhammad Atef - killed in Afghanistan in 2001
Muhsin Musa Matwalli Atwah - killed in Pakistan in 2006
Wadih el Hage - serving life without parole since 2001
Mohamed Sadeek Odeh - serving life without parole since 2001
Mohamed Rashed Daoud al-'Owhali - serving life without parole since 2001
Khalfan Khamis Mohamed - serving life without parole since 2001
Khalid al Fawwaz - held in the UK since 1998
Ibrahim Eidarous - held in the UK since 1999
Adel Abdel Bary - held in the UK since 1999
Mamdouh Mahmud Salim - arrested in 1998, held in the Guantanamo Bay detention camp
Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani - arrested in 2004, held in theGuantanamo Bay detention camp
Mustafa Mohamed Fadhil - probably held, but not definitely confirmed
Osama bin Laden - at large
Ayman al Zawahiri - at large
Saif al Adel - at large
Abdullah Ahmed Abdullah - possibly killed 1st June 2007 in Puntland region of Somalia, not confirmed
Anas al Liby - at large
Fazul Abdullah Mohammed - at large
Ahmed Mohamed Hamed Ali - at large
Fahid Mohammed Ally Msalam - at large
Sheikh Ahmed Salim Swedan - at large

Got lucky again Don?

What about the October 12th attack on the USS Cole Don?

"On November 3, 2002, the CIA fired a AGM-114 Hellfire missile from a Predator UAV at a vehicle carrying Abu Ali al-Harithi, a suspected planner of the bombing plot. Also in the vehicle was Ahmed Hijazi, a U.S. citizen. Both were killed. This operation was carried out on Yemeni soil.

On September 29, 2004, a Yemeni judge sentenced Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri and Jamal al-Badawi to death for their roles in the bombing. Al-Nashiri, believed to be the operation's mastermind, is currently being held by the U.S. at Guantanamo Bay detention camp. Al-Badawi, in Yemeni custody, denounced the verdict as "an American one." Four others were sentenced to prison terms of five to 10 years for their involvement, including one Yemeni who had videotaped the attack.

On February 3, 2006, 23 suspected or convicted Al-Qaeda members escaped from jail in Yemen. This number included 13 who were convicted of the USS Cole bombings and the bombing of the French tanker Limburg in 2002. Among those who reportedly escaped was Al-Badawi. Al-Qaeda's Yemeni number two Abu Assem al-Ahdal may also be among those now on the loose.

On October 17, 2007, al-Badawi surrendered to Yemeni authorities as part of an agreement with al-Qaeda militants. Following his surrender, Yemeni authorities released him in return for a pledge not to engage in any violent or al-Qaeda-related activity, despite a $5 million reward for his capture. Two other escapees remained at large."

Another fluke eh Don?

Subject: RE: BS: Torture!!!!
From: GUEST,Windsor Knot
Date: 23 Apr 08 - 04:54 AM

No I wouldn't say it was a fluke Teribus. Maybe it got too hot in the kitchen !

Subject: RE: BS: Torture!!!!
From: Stu
Date: 23 Apr 08 - 05:24 AM

Of course, if you support torture as a legitimate tactic for intelligence gathering you support it across the board - for everyone on every side of a conflict, regardless of whether they are combatants, civilians, male, female or children.

By supporting torture you support the suffering inflicted in the secrect prisons and gulags, laogais and detention centres, back rooms and isolated spots where these people ply their brutal trade.

After all, what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, after all?

Subject: RE: BS: Torture!!!!
From: irishenglish
Date: 23 Apr 08 - 04:45 PM

Teribus, since this thread is about torture, tell me how many of those you listed above have been tortured? Tell me how many were tortured that provided names and locations for us to be able to capture them? Can't do that? That's because as I stated yesterday, our human intelligence has been improved (as well as physically having lots of soldiers around, that kind of helps too),aiding the capture of these men. I am absolutely disgusted that this country has applied torture to it's enemies. Your initial response to this thread came from a sheer sense of outrage at protesters actions against the police, yet you seem to be mouthpiecing the Bush administrations mantra of the standard rules don't apply after 9/11. So what that leads to is for someone else in the world to say, we are tired of the rules against torture. Let's capture some American or British soldiers and torture them, if they can change the rules, why can't we. ANd I'm taking a longshot on this Teribus, then I think that revulsion that you showed in your original post will come out at the audacity of someone doing that to our troops. So in the end, who wins when we torture? Probably the only one who does is the sadistic bastard who waterboards, or inserts objects where they don't belong. If you don't want to hear about someone doing that to our side, then we shouldn't do it as well.

Subject: RE: BS: Torture!!!!
From: Barry Finn
Date: 23 Apr 08 - 04:54 PM

When we do it (torture) to others the next step is that we do it to our own! Sorry, human nature.

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: Torture!!!!
From: irishenglish
Date: 23 Apr 08 - 05:00 PM

Anonymous GUEST-my username reflects something personal. I am an American, so when I say our troops, I am talking about our troops.

Subject: RE: BS: Torture!!!!
From: irishenglish
Date: 23 Apr 08 - 05:14 PM

Feel free to delete my last post as it has no bearing on the thread-Thanks!

Subject: RE: BS: Torture!!!!
From: Don Firth
Date: 23 Apr 08 - 05:39 PM

"Teribus, since this thread is about torture, tell me how many of those you listed above have been tortured?"

Exactly so, irishenglish!

I have noted in the past that Teribus has a tendency to pad his "refutations" wiht a lot of extraneous and irrelevant information, apparently attempting to stun by the sheer volume of his post.

And by the way, irishenglish, I agree with the rest of your post, too.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Torture!!!!
From: GUEST,Windsor Knot
Date: 23 Apr 08 - 06:15 PM

Please understand Teribus is harmless, a little imaginative maybe. You find those that served in a support capacity in the armed services tend to regret they were not more mainstream, handled weapons, saw overseas service, stories to tell grandchildren. This poor guy has only menu sheets to show.

Subject: RE: BS: Torture!!!!
From: Bryn Pugh
Date: 24 Apr 08 - 04:57 AM

Well, well. An Army cook, eh ?

Who called the cook a bastard ?

Who called the bastard a cook ?

After dicussion in the Mess, following the Cream of Cockroach soup, and the Ptomaine Curry, who durst say that an Army cook knows naught of torture ?

Subject: RE: BS: Torture!!!!
From: Gervase
Date: 24 Apr 08 - 05:52 PM

As far as I know Teribus has never claimed to have been in the Army. And I'm sure he would probably be most insulted if anyone made that assumption, as - to the best of my knowledge - he had the misfortune to serve in the Navy.
Do you have a serious point to make, Guest WK, or do you just get your thrills from gadding about and making snide remarks?

Subject: RE: BS: Torture!!!!
From: Teribus
Date: 25 Apr 08 - 06:19 AM

In her post of 23 Apr 08 (04:45 PM) irishenglish had some questions for me:

1)Teribus, tell me how many of those you listed above have been tortured?
2) Tell me how many were tortured that provided names and locations for us to be able to capture them?
3) Can't do that?

Out "my" list of 37 persons, Irishenglish, involved in 1993 WTC Bombing (8); 1998 US Embassy Bombings (21) & the USS Cole Bombing (8):

-   33 have not been "tortured"
-   3 may have been subject to "waterboarding".
-   1 who has been "waterboarded"

-   4 have definitely been killed
-   4 are currently held at Guantanamo
-   17 are definitely in custody
-   12 are presumed still at large

Or put in simple terms two-thirds of those involved in those attacks no longer pose a threat, or can do any harm to anyone. One third are still at liberty and are being hunted.


Your answers are as follows:
1) One definite and three probables if "waterboarding" is considered as torture.
2) As they were already being "tortured" I take it they had already been captured - can't do one without the other as the song goes.
3) Yes, to a reasonable degree of certainty.

During the Presidency of "Peanut" Carter, on his instruction, the security and intelligence agencies of the United States of America, junked human-intel as being too suspect, from that point on they were to rely on electronic means of gathering information and on visual/sensor information gathered by instrumentation mounted in satellites or aircraft. This was a grave error, it was monumental in its idiocy, apart from what was given the US by Mossad and other "friendly" security services in the region the US went "blind" with regard to real intelligence in the middle-east region shortly after the Shah was overthrown.

Irishenglish in her post states that - "...our human intelligence has been improved (as well as physically having lots of soldiers around, that kind of helps too),aiding the capture of these men."

Really, Irishenglish? Now who are you going to give credit for putting all this in place? I'll give you a hint - In the wake of 911, who was it that said to the world community, "You are either with us or against us" - Once the world community had made up its mind the US Intelligence Services were no longer blind, they had access to human-intel from hundreds of different sources. You seem to imply that, "having lots of soldiers around, that kind of helps too". Who put them there Irishenglish?

"Your initial response to this thread came from a sheer sense of outrage at protesters actions against the police, yet you seem to be mouthpiecing the Bush administrations mantra of the standard rules don't apply after 9/11."

My initial response to this thread pointed out the hypocrisy typified by the left when viewing any situation - "The other side must be bound what I say, not as I do".

As for, "the standard rules don't apply after 9/11." - all three instances of terrorist attack that I have mentioned predate 9/11, most of those brought to book for those attacks predate 9/11. The notion that there are "rules" in war is fanciful nonsense at best.

Your contention that either US or UK Forces initiation of "torture" has lead to the terrorists adopting such practices is ludicrous:

"Let's capture some American or British soldiers and torture them, if they can change the rules, why can't we."

Irishenglish find out when this was written and by whom:

"When you're lyin' out there on Afghanistans Plains
And their women come out to cut up what remains
Just roll on your rifle and blow out your brains
And go to your God like a soldier"

Before my son went out to Afghanistan this was drummed into those about to deploy:

"Capture is not an option; If you do get captured you will be tortured and executed, neither the Taleban, or Al-Qaeda holds prisoners, they will not hold you hostage, because they know we will not bargain with them. Do not get captured, do not leave anyone behind."

In Borneo and Northern Ireland we were read pretty much the same scipt. Terrorists do not take prisoners. Hostages are only held if they believe they can be of use.

If you are engaged in a war, you fight it to win, irrespective of what it takes, you fight it to win. I may not like that, I may not agree with that, but I cannot deny the reality of it, nor the possible necessity of it.

Subject: RE: BS: Torture!!!!
From: irishenglish
Date: 25 Apr 08 - 12:33 PM

Teribus, not enough time at the moment to break down your post, except for the following:First, I am male, not female. Second, in response to,"Capture is not an option; If you do get captured you will be tortured and executed, neither the Taleban, or Al-Qaeda holds prisoners, they will not hold you hostage, because they know we will not bargain with them. Do not get captured, do not leave anyone behind."

Don't you think that our fair treatment of prisoners, ie, not stripping them naked, making them get in dogpiles, photographing them just might result in them treating our own POW's with decency? "Your contention that either US or UK Forces initiation of "torture" has lead to the terrorists adopting such practices is ludicrous." Is it really? It's not necessarily for the "now" Teribus. These things are remembered. When Abu Graibh hit the news, did you not think to yourself, uh oh, this can't be good for our guys? I know I did.



Also, "Terrorists do not take prisoners". Who was it that held hostages in Lebanon in the 80's then? Oh that's right, they were just harmless militia that had no ties to terrorists.No, wait, they did have ties to terrorism,such as Imad Mughniyah. And "Hostages are only held if they believe they can be of use" So university professors like David Dodge, ministers like Benjamin Weir and Terry Waite, and journalists like Terry Anderson were of great importance and were useful to these guys?

My point about it being easier to have captured some of these guys with our troops came out a little fuzzy ( I do realize that the offenders and incidents you mentioned were mostly pre-9/11). I also meant that our troops were of course looking for people yet to be captured, not ones that had already been captured. My point will remain the same though, no matter what-if you, Teribus believe on the one hand, "
If you are engaged in a war, you fight it to win, irrespective of what it takes, you fight it to win. I may not like that, I may not agree with that, but I cannot deny the reality of it, nor the possible necessity of it," and on the other, "just for the record, I neither A) Support torture, or B) Am awfully keen on it." then you are definitely at odds with yourself. SO military superiority and diplomacy don't get us a victory in this war,but rather, lies and degradation, and torture, and economic ruin, and a failure to plan ahead for the future of the region is what gets us that victory? Then we have sunk to a new low more than I ever had thought.

Subject: RE: BS: Torture!!!!
From: GUEST,Windsor Knot
Date: 25 Apr 08 - 12:58 PM

Never mind the usual ranting Teribus, answer the question. You were a cook and worked in the kitchen of a ship.People above are asking you to confirm this.

Is your delay in answering some form of torture ?

Subject: RE: BS: Torture!!!!
From: irishenglish
Date: 25 Apr 08 - 01:14 PM

And tell us Windsor Knot how you come by such info yourself?

Subject: RE: BS: Torture!!!!
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 25 Apr 08 - 01:31 PM

"Waterboarding" is torture, when used for real.

Subject: RE: BS: Torture!!!!
From: GUEST,Windsor Knot
Date: 25 Apr 08 - 01:56 PM

Go through his old threads freestater like the rest of us do and you will find it there.

Subject: RE: BS: Torture!!!!
From: Teribus
Date: 25 Apr 08 - 02:42 PM

Ah, Windor, I am pleased that you have turned up.

This threat is about torture isn't it?

Well Irishenglish, old Windor would know quite a bit about torture, or the people he supports (or should that be supported) and continually defends, not as Guest Windor Knot, there's lots of names been used, haven't there Windor. You see irishenglish, Windor is a stout defender of the "bold" Provisional IRA, my mention of Mrs Jean McConville must have hit a thread in their little web, so an "attack" had to be launched.

Tell us about Mrs Jean McConville Guest Windor Knot, tell us all about why she was tortured. If you are a bit reluctant I'll repeat the tale I've told before:

Jean McConville was a Belfast-born mother of 10 who was abducted from her home and killed by the Provisional Irish Republican Army (IRA) in or around Christmas of 1972.

McConville's family contend that she was killed as a punishment for aiding a dying British soldier in West Belfast following a fierce gun battle with the IRA, but the IRA claimed that they had discovered she was passing information on local republicans to the security forces via a secret radio transmitter. A claim that has been discounted by the Police Ombudsman Nuala O'Loan whose office carried out a full investigation, no transmitter ever existed and none has ever been brought forward by the PIRA - twelve "brave and bold heroes" of the PIRA abducted this 5 ft tall widow from her house, dragging her from her bath in front of her screaming and hysterical children, and we are expected to believe that they left the radio behind???

McConville's children reject this claim and have called on the IRA to clear her name. In January 2005, Sinn Féin party chairman, Mitchel McLaughlin, claimed that the killing of Jean McConville was not a criminal act. Now it is extremely important that they (The PIRA) hold to that line because the man who had to have sanctioned this beating, abduction, torture and execution of an entirely innocent woman had to have been the PIRA Officer Commanding in Belfast at the time - a certain Gerry Adams - embarassing or what?

In response to McLaughlin's statement, Social Democratic and Labour Party Justice Spokesperson Alban Maginness suggested that the IRA were culpable for War crimes as Jean McConville was "killed 'without previous judgement pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all judicial guarantees which are generally recognised as indispensable', and that constitutes a war crime in the definition of the International Criminal Court". A second war crime occurred by the IRA's ' refusal to acknowledge deprivation of [her] freedom or to give information on [her] fate or whereabouts'".

To elaborate on something stated above. In July 2006, Police Ombudsman Nuala O'Loan stated after an investigation by her office that there is no evidence that Jean McConville ever passed information to the security forces. Mrs O'Loan said she would give the family more details of the findings of her investigation in the near future and would make those details public.

Mrs O'Loan said it was not her normal role to confirm or deny the identity of people working as agents for the security services. "However, this situation is unique. Jean McConville left an orphaned family, the youngest of whom were six-year-old boys. The family have suffered extensively over the years, as we all know, and that suffering has only been made worse by allegations that their mother was an informant. As part of our investigation we have looked very extensively at all the intelligence available at the time. There is no evidence that Mrs McConville gave information to the police, the military or the security service".

In August 2006, Northern Ireland's chief constable Sir Hugh Orde said he is not hopeful anyone will be brought to account over the murder. Sir Hugh said: "Any case of that age, it is highly unlikely that a successful prosecution could be mounted." This I believe is a "deal" being offered obliquely to Mr Adams and his former associates.

Oh, yes Guest Windor Knot, I forgot about the "torture" part, didn't I.

On December 6, 1972, a gang PIRA "volunteers" sent a false message into a social club where Mrs McConville was playing bingo that her daughter Helen had been knocked down by a car. Once lured outside Jean McConville was pounced upon, interrogated, abused and battered.

The following night she suffered another dose of mob rule. A gang of 12 masked members of the PIRA — eight men and four women - burst into her home and dragged her from the bathroom. She was bundled screaming into a car as some of her children watched. It was the last picture of their mother they have in their minds. The terrified mother of ten, still in pain from the previous night's beating, was tortured, her fingers were cut off to extract the "confession" that she was an informer and once that had been obtained she was finally forced to kneel, whereupon a "hero" of "the cause" murdered her with a single shot in the back of the head.

And here Guest Windor Knot is the finale of the whole sorry business, I'll not go into the catalogue of lies and hand-on-heart denials of involvement in the death of Jean McConville issued by the PIRA by non-other than Gerry Adams himself in the ensuing years. But finally it was Bill Clinton involvement that got them to come part-way clean.

McConville's body was buried secretly on a beach in County Louth, approximately 50 miles from her home. The IRA did not admit their involvement until over 20 years later, when they passed information on the whereabouts of the body.

After a prolonged search, co-ordinated by the Garda Síochána - during which the search area and time involved was expanded by the Gardaí - the search was abandoned, as no body could be located in the area specified by the IRA.

In August 2003, her body was accidentally found by members of the public while they were walking on Shelling Hill beach.

"A Garda escort accompanied the cortège to the border from where it made its way to Crumlin in County Antrim to be waked at the home of her son Michael. The funeral took place on Saturday with Requiem Mass at St. Mary's Church in Belfast. In his homily, Bishop of Down and Connor, Dr Patrick Walsh referred to Mrs. McConville's killing as touching "the depths of depravity". Monsignor Tom Toner, a friend of the McConville family, said, "Jean McConville and the other disappeared will forever stand in judgement on the shame and guilt of their murderers". A Presbyterian minister, the Rev. Ruth Patterson, read out comments from Mrs. McConville's children. "Among the mourners were Social Democratic and Labour Party (SDLP) leader Mark Durkan and some of his colleagues. The Ulster Unionist Party was also represented but Sinn Féin politicians decided not to attend."

McConville, a Catholic convert, was buried beside her husband, Arthur, a British Army soldier who died in 1971, in Holy Trinity graveyard, Lisburn, County Antrim.

What Mrs Jean McConville suffered was torture. The two and a half minutes "waterboarding" that Khaled Shaik Mohammed endured doesn't even come close in comparison.

And finally Guest Windor Knot to answer your question:

"...answer the question. You were a cook and worked in the kitchen of a ship.People above are asking you to confirm this."

I have never served in the British Army, or anybody else's army for that matter.

As Gervase (24 Apr 08 - 05:52 PM) quite rightly points out in his post I served in the Royal Navy, where I was most definitely was not a cook and the only time I ever saw the inside of a "kitchen" was during rounds.

By the bye Guest Windor Knot, your terminology demonstrates more than anything your lack of real knowledge regarding myself. But just for future reference when you pop up as "Guest Something-else":

There is no such thing as a "kitchen" in the Royal Navy - They are all called Galleys even in shore establishments.

Subject: RE: BS: Torture!!!!
From: Don Firth
Date: 25 Apr 08 - 03:04 PM

A ghastly story indeed, Teribus.

But I would ask you this, then:   knowing all this, how can you continue to defend the use of torture as being "perfectly justifiable under certain circumstances?"

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Torture!!!!
From: GUEST,Windsor Knot
Date: 25 Apr 08 - 03:29 PM

What the hell are you talking about Terius.

From your earlier comments I thought, here is a guy with problems. Now I am convinced of it !

For what reason would I know or care about something that happened in Ulster in the 1970's ?

I can only assume this ridiculous rant is to deflect from the questions other members have put to you, including myself.

I will repeat it, Teribus were you an army cook ?

Subject: RE: BS: Torture!!!!
From: irishenglish
Date: 25 Apr 08 - 04:01 PM

Hey Teribus, I hope you believe me, when I say that I believe you HAVE answered Windsor Knot's question about being an Army cook. Now we can say that he is the one with problems!

Subject: RE: BS: Torture!!!!
From: GUEST,Windsor Knot
Date: 25 Apr 08 - 04:05 PM

It's true what they say, Crackpots tend to find eachother.

Subject: RE: BS: Torture!!!!
From: Gervase
Date: 25 Apr 08 - 05:48 PM

Windsor Knot, the needle's stuck. Find another sock to worry, there's a good fellow. Your posts here show you to be an excitable and easily deluded sort - there are plenty of other internet forums out there where you can meet like-minded types. Try some of the Diana conspiracy sites, or the Illuminati nutters. You'll be among friends there, and - more importantly - you'll stop being a childish pain in the arse here.
And, for what it's worth, I've known some Army cooks whose boots you wouldn't be fit to shine (even if they were crap cooks who burned everything in sight).

Subject: RE: BS: Torture!!!!
From: GUEST,Windsor Knot
Date: 25 Apr 08 - 06:02 PM

To the resident bore above, GO BOIL YOUR HEAD.

Subject: RE: BS: Torture!!!!
From: Don Firth
Date: 25 Apr 08 - 07:20 PM

Hey! C'mon, Windsor Knot, don't be a moron.

Teribus can be dead wrong even if he isn't an Army or Navy cook.

Now, back to our regular broadcast.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Torture!!!!
From: GUEST,Windsor Knot
Date: 25 Apr 08 - 08:12 PM

Don I looked through some of his old posts the other day and there was a thread in which he was involved in and he spoke about his service history. In one of the threads there a discussion involving him and his position as a cook.

I really can't be bothered now trawling through them again.

Read his post tonight (25 Apr 08 - 02:42 PM) the guy has completely flipped. He directed questions at me to answer about a lady being tortured in Ulster thirty years ago !!

And you call me a moron, read that post of his and re-think your slur.

Subject: RE: BS: Torture!!!!
From: Teribus
Date: 25 Apr 08 - 08:15 PM

The following was Guest Windor Knot (25 Apr 08 - 03:29 PM)

"I can only assume this ridiculous rant is to deflect from the questions other members have put to you, including myself.

I will repeat it, Teribus were you an army cook ?"

Now that little passage refers to my post of 25 Apr 08 - 02:42 PM in which I stated the following quite clearly:

"I have never served in the British Army, or anybody else's army for that matter."

and also

"I served in the Royal Navy, where I was most definitely was not a cook"

Now if you have any trouble deciphering that Guest Windor, take it to one of the Doctors, yes they're the people with the white coats and ask them to explain it all to you. Maybe they should put your jacket back on while they do that, then we don't have to read the utter drivel you type.

Subject: RE: BS: Torture!!!!
From: GUEST,Windsor Knot
Date: 25 Apr 08 - 08:57 PM

Teribus, I accept what you now say that you were not a cook, but in fact a sailor. As you are aware there IS a thread you were involved in which a discussion took place and it was said you were a cook on board a ship. I saw no denial or correction from you on that thread.

I apologise to you as I was clearly wrong. Now would you please do me the courtesy of explaining your outburst towards me earlier and your request for an explanation regarding a lady being tortured in Ulster ?

Subject: RE: BS: Torture!!!!
From: Don Firth
Date: 25 Apr 08 - 10:39 PM

And my apologies to you, Windsor Knot. I wasn't calling you a moron, but it's possible for an otherwise intelligent person to act like a moron. This in response to telling Gervase to "go boil his head."

Maybe we should all count ten a couple of times before hitting the "Submit" button. And that goes for Gervase, too.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Torture!!!!
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 26 Apr 08 - 03:18 AM

Haven't looked at this thread lately - surprised to see it still happening.
Seems that the last statement on topic (before all that fascinating stuff about culinary occupations) implied that as long as somebody in Ulster does it, it's ok for the rest of the world to use torture - do I have that right?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Torture!!!!
From: Teribus
Date: 26 Apr 08 - 08:19 PM

irishenglish, your post of 25 Apr 08 - 12:33 PM, intriques me slightly:

"Don't you think that our fair treatment of prisoners, ie, not stripping them naked, making them get in dogpiles, photographing them just might result in them treating our own POW's with decency? "Your contention that either US or UK Forces initiation of "torture" has lead to the terrorists adopting such practices is ludicrous." Is it really? It's not necessarily for the "now" Teribus. These things are remembered. When Abu Graibh hit the news, did you not think to yourself, uh oh, this can't be good for our guys? I know I did."

Eh, irishenglish, don't know where you were brought up, or what age you are. But for my generation in the UK there were many POW tales and "escape" stories abounded. So many in fact that our US cousins actually believe that a Steve McQueen character did all that marvelous stunt riding of motor-cycles during what was in fact the "Greatest Escape" ever made.

Now please irishenglish, please regale us all of POW escapes by the Russians in Afghanistan. Hells teeth, they maintained an Army of over 175,000 men there for the best part of a decade. There must have been some of them taken prisoner? How were they treated irishenglish? All this pre-dates Bush so their treatment could not have been predicated by what US forces have ever done.

Tell you what irishenglish you will not be able to come up with one single story. Do you know why? Because the other side simply did not take prisoners - rather scary isn't it.

So please do not in any way shape shape or form attempt to lecture those at the sharp end of things. They are fighting for survival, the strongest instinct known to mankind, they react as required and do whatever is necessary. That I understand, that is reality for those actively engaged, where the US Bill of Rights, the US Constitution, the European Bill of Human Rights and the Geneva Convention don't matter a shit if you happen to get caught by the opposition.

What happened in Abu Ghraib was absolute "peanuts" to what went on there in Sadddam's day - there are plenty survivors tales to testify to that if you care to read them. The treatment of prisoners is a damn site better that any of our troops could expect to receive at their hands and that has been a known factor since day one.

Expect the usual responses from those who tend to theorise and have never themselves ever been in harms way on the behalf of others for one second in their lives.

Subject: RE: BS: Torture!!!!
From: irishenglish
Date: 27 Apr 08 - 09:39 AM

So I guess Andy McNabb and his SAS men weren't captured and brought to Abu Ghraib during the first Iraq war Teribus. I guess they weren't tortured either.

Subject: RE: BS: Torture!!!!
From: Teribus
Date: 27 Apr 08 - 10:58 AM

Oh they were captured and taken to Abu Ghraib while it was under Saddam's control. Also captured were some downed RAF crews and an ex-SBS Officer who was doing some survey work in the Shat-al-arab. He was accused of spying. All those taken were mistreated, threatened, tortured. They were taken as Prisoners of War and as such covered supposedly by the Geneva Convention, as were the 605 Kuwaiti Nationals abducted from Kuwait and taken to Iraq and murdered.

Now which particular example of abuse by either British or American Armed forces caused Saddam to act that way irishenglish.

Subject: RE: BS: Torture!!!!
From: Barry Finn
Date: 27 Apr 08 - 11:34 AM

who's murderer is worst. Ridiculous basis for an arguement!
Barry

Subject: RE: BS: Torture!!!!
From: Teribus
Date: 27 Apr 08 - 01:46 PM

Not my point at all Barry and you know that very well.

There are some here suggest that treatment doled out is reciprocal fact of the matter is that it is not. Instances of abuse and torture of prisoners under the custody of US or UK Forces is very much in the minority. The same cannot be said for those that those troops are currently engaging.

Subject: RE: BS: Torture!!!!
From: Don Firth
Date: 27 Apr 08 - 01:50 PM

I fail to see that if one side of a conflict uses torture and brutality, that is a moral justification for the other side to do the same.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Torture!!!!
From: GUEST,Impressed
Date: 27 Apr 08 - 02:57 PM

Excellent accounts and so much inside information. Clearly we are in the company of either an ex Special Boat Squad member or 00 Teribus.

For Teribus's Eyes Only.

Live and let Teribus.

Dr.Teribus.

The Teribus who loved me.

Gold Teribus.

On Teribus's Secret Service.

Teribus with the Golden Gun.

Casino Teribus.

Thunderballs Teribus.

Moonraker Teribus.

From Teribus with Love.

Never Say Teribus.

Subject: RE: BS: Torture!!!!
From: Teribus
Date: 27 Apr 08 - 03:52 PM

On the subject of titles Guest - You don't impress me much

Subject: RE: BS: Torture!!!!
From: GUEST,Impressed
Date: 27 Apr 08 - 04:09 PM

Come on buddy, you have been talking out of the side of your mouth all through this thread. If your position involved direct contact with individuals involved in interrogation or you were yourself say so, this "is he or isn't he involved" cloak and dagger stuff is annoying.

People want to know your role, if you had a role at all !

You are now past the point in this thread in which you are expressing an opinion as a civvie.

I myself think torture is wrong, it's uncalled for in civilised society.
Why or how can you post here in support of it ?

By the way please answer this question.

Subject: RE: BS: Torture!!!!
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 27 Apr 08 - 06:39 PM

People want to know your role, if you had a role at all !

I rather think that most people aren't the least bit interested in that kind of stuff, which is completely irrelevant to the argument.

Subject: RE: BS: Torture!!!!
From: Teribus
Date: 27 Apr 08 - 07:24 PM

Previous post of mine on this thread (Teribus 20 Apr 08 - 07:23 AM)

"..just for the record, I neither A) Support torture, or B) Am awfully keen on it."

So then Guest Impressed it looks as though we are in full agreement.

As to your question - you know where you can file it. Guest "Whatever-you-chose-to-call-yourself-next-time"

Subject: RE: BS: Torture!!!!
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 27 Apr 08 - 10:01 PM

But c) find it acceptable in certain circumstances. Quite some weasel room there.

Subject: RE: BS: Torture!!!!
From: Teribus
Date: 28 Apr 08 - 01:14 AM

"justifiable"
adjective
Her actions were quite justifiable (= there was a good reason for them) in the circumstances.

"acceptable"
adjective
satisfactory and able to be agreed to or approved of:
Clearly we need to come to an arrangement that is acceptable to both parties.
So what is an acceptable level of radiation?
This kind of attitude is simply not acceptable.

See any difference in those two Guest TIA???

Now what was it I said Guest TIA???

"perfectly justifiable under certain circumstances?" (Hint - Teribus)

or:

"perfectly acceptable under certain circumstances?" (Hint - Guest TIA)

Pay attention to detail.

Subject: RE: BS: Torture!!!!
From: Don Firth
Date: 28 Apr 08 - 01:36 AM

I fully understand the distinction between "justifiable" and "acceptable." In this context, however, the distinction is more academic and semantic than actual, and trying to hide behind that doesn't really cut it.

Please refer to my post above ~ 27 Apr 08 - 01:50 p.m.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Torture!!!!
From: freda underhill
Date: 28 Apr 08 - 02:28 AM

even teribus under torture would confess to being a perpetrator of Sep 11, if the right technique was used.

Barry finn - 'it was noted that every Dictatorship that used torture on their enemies eventually somewhere going down the lined ended up using torture on their own citizens.'

that says it all.

freda

Subject: RE: BS: Torture!!!!
From: Teribus
Date: 28 Apr 08 - 11:17 AM

And where exactly Don have I ever put forward the arguement that:

"I fail to see that if one side of a conflict uses torture and brutality, that is a moral justification for the other side to do the same." - Don Firth's Post of 27 Apr 08 - 01:50 p.m.

I do not believe that I have have. Others have ventured the option that if "we" use "torture", the otherside is then more likely to use it against any of our troops captured. I believe that that is a complete red-herring.

Generally "we" do not use "torture", the cases reported so far have represented a tiny number of instances compared to the number of prisoners handled in the case of US Forces (Abu Ghraib). In the instances of accusations against UK Forces, Piers Morgan of the "Daily Mirror" actually went ahead and published articles about UK "torture" of Iraqi prisoners including beautiful photographs all of which were phoney, specially staged and all taken in the UK. Immediately they were published the discrepancies and errors were glaring. He should have had them verified of course but what the hell he's in the business of selling news papers - fuck the lives of the soldiers he was deliberately putting at risk by publishing them in an attempt to inflame the situation in order to sell even more copy.

By the bye, I was rather hoping that Guest TIA would acknowledge the difference and refrain from putting words into my mouth and then try to take me to task for them.

Subject: RE: BS: Torture!!!!
From: Don Firth
Date: 28 Apr 08 - 01:44 PM

Teribus, it's not always about you.

I have often heard the argument put forth that "if they do it, we should be able to do it, too." In fact, it is implied several places in this and other threads in which the subject has come up for discussion.

It should be obvious that that kind of "moral" or "ethical" principle opens up a Pandora's Box of barbarism.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Torture!!!!
From: GUEST,Egan
Date: 28 Apr 08 - 02:02 PM

Teribus seems to hop on and over the fence quite often on this thread. He says he does not support the use of torture, then finds reasons for the use of it. As ex service personal he doesn't seem to want to let the side down. How nice it would be to see a post from him uttering condemning the use of any kind of torture be it slapping, pushing, deprivation of sleep or subjected to simulated drowning, called waterboarding.

During discussions about these enhanced interrogation techniques he makes reference to several countries and individuals, yet there is always an absence of the phrase "I totally condemn this".

Sorry Teribus, fence hopping has to stop sometime.

Subject: RE: BS: Torture!!!!
From: irishenglish
Date: 28 Apr 08 - 02:22 PM

You know what, I'm done with this thread. Teribus, we're not going to change each others minds, you're still going to believe on the one hand that you're not very fond of torture, and on the other that it is justifiable in circumstances, while I am going to adhere to the fact that it should never be used. I believe I also made some remarks that should have been debated more, but were left by the wayside (and not just by yourself Teribus, but such is the nature of threads, especially when they get longer). As a closing I will just say that torture is an awful, evil concept. Human rights groups like Amnesty and Human Rights Watch fight every day for the rights of those that are tortured. They do so in a broad based manner generally, keeping an eye on all of those nations that engage in the activity. And I remember in the 80's hearing first hand accounts from victims of torture from all over, and I remember reading the reports that chronicled the nature of the torture in those countries. At that time, it included countries in Latin America, and Africa, in China and the Soviet Union, as well as those from Europe, and incidents in Northern Ireland, such as Teribus pointed out, and isolated incidents from the US as well. What I realized at the time was that the greater number of incidents were not from my country, the US, but from countries of which I knew very little about-Congo, Chile, Nicaragua. And even learning the nature of the reason people were wrongfully imprisoned or tortured in a nation like Burma, for example, I still couldn't fully grasp how anything could be so bad, any words could be so dangerous, any union meeting so inciendiary, that you had to kidnap someone off the street, and place them in a deep dark prison somewhere, cut off from their families, and proceed to torture them. But now, years later, I understand how the words that "someone" deems dangerous, and inciteful brings a government to seek to arrest, imprison, and torture.I know, because my country is doing it. Now I know, that is going to stir up something, because there are those on here who will argue that organizing a trade union in Guatemala is a far cry from setting off a bomb, and it is a fair distinction, to be sure. But if my government, the US, can rightfully capture, sentence, and imprison TRUE perpetrators or planners of terrorist acts, why resort to torture? Why haul people off to a deep dark prison, cut off from their families, and in come cases torture them? An question I didn't have 20 years ago, is still out there waiting to be answered, but instead of it being somewhere else, it is now my own country doing it, along with the others. That is why I will never, ever support torture.

Subject: RE: BS: Torture!!!!
From: GUEST,Egan
Date: 28 Apr 08 - 02:36 PM

Excellent post Irishenglish,

Teribus any chance of a reply of full condemnation of the use of torture ?

Please no more going into a "cut and paste" tangent.

Subject: RE: BS: Torture!!!!
From: TIA
Date: 28 Apr 08 - 03:15 PM

Oh, I am quite interested in detail.
Therefore, I would like to know which of the following phrases Teribus feels apply to torture:

Torture is...
Excusable
Hunky-dory
Venial
Unobjectionable
Satisfactory
Acceptable
Forgivable
Justifiable
Unexceptionable
Defensible

By the reasoning of his 28 Apr 08 - 01:14 AM post, some of these statements are true, while others are outrageous.



I happen to believe that they are all outrageous. Makes my position way easier to defend without a lot of arm waving.

Subject: RE: BS: Torture!!!!
From: Teribus
Date: 28 Apr 08 - 06:37 PM

I see that you are still attempting to put words into my mouth TIA, or Guest TIA, or GUEST "Whoever".

I believe that my stance on "Torture" has been stated quite clearly on this thread and repeated by me a number of times.

Subject: RE: BS: Torture!!!!
From: Don Firth
Date: 28 Apr 08 - 06:40 PM

Sorta like trying to nail Jell-O to the wall. . . .

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Torture!!!!
From: GUEST,Ye Teri Odin
Date: 28 Apr 08 - 07:09 PM

Teribus I have read through the comments above and there are more questions lying out to you than it would appear you have answered !

Since you refuse to state your total abhorrence against the use of torture I can only surmise that you feel the use of torture is justified against certain groups who stand against what you believe is right and just. On the other hand, as an ex member of Her Majesty's Armed Forces, you have never condemned Britain's use of torture on suspects.

To clear up any confusion here, please state you condemn the use of torture against any human being by any country including Britain.

Subject: RE: BS: Torture!!!!
From: GUEST,Chief Chaos
Date: 28 Apr 08 - 07:19 PM

I'm afraid that a quote from your very own post pretty much sums up what we've been saying:

"The terrified mother of ten, still in pain from the previous night's beating, was tortured, her fingers were cut off to extract the "confession" that she was an informer and once that had been obtained..."

Someone being tortured is likely to agree to anything or make anything up to satisfy their torturers, whether they know actual information or not.

And on another point, I take issue with anyone dismissing anyone's opinion based upon what they did for a living. Talk about Elitist bull! I worked as a frame and matt maker at an art shop. Does that make my words worth less? What about my working at Jiffy Lube? What someone has done in the past is not the sum and total of who that person is or what that person can accomplish.

Not that I want to invite comparison, but I believe Hitler was a sad sack private in WWI...look what happened when he was ignored.

Subject: RE: BS: Torture!!!!
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 28 Apr 08 - 10:36 PM

"See any difference in those two Guest TIA???"
Not really.


Do you see any differences in my list of words above?

I will give you a hint. Half are synonyms for acceptable. Half are synonyms for justifiable. Now since you are so keen on the detailed difference between the two, go sort them out. If you truly have a consistent point, you must agree with half, and disagree with the other half. I am not putting words in your mouth, I am trying to understand the jumble that actually does come from your mouth.

Subject: RE: BS: Torture!!!!
From: GUEST,Ye Teri Odin
Date: 29 Apr 08 - 01:54 PM

Doesn't look like Teribus wants to answer questions.

Subject: RE: BS: Torture!!!!
From: Teribus
Date: 29 Apr 08 - 03:50 PM

Hi Chief,

When in this thread have I dismissed - "...anyone's opinion based upon what they did for a living."?

The only person that has been dismissed on those grounds in this thread has been me, by Guest Windor Knot talking his usual ill-informed tripe - True?

That was done by either:

Guest Windor Knot - 1 post to his/her credit
Guest Windsor Knot - who first burst into print on 29-02-08 talking a complete and utter load of bollocks wrt Prince Harry, but who gave us the benefit of of his ignorance for all of 62 posts.
Guest Egan - 2 posts from about the time Guest Windsor packed it in

And now we have - Guest Ye Teri Odin - 2 posts

All wrapped up they are all probably the same person

Guest Impressed's posting history is quite different, with very few posts (6) ranging back to 2005. So Guest Impressed is probably some member who periodically ditches his/her "cookie" to send posts that he/she would be too ashamed to send under their normal title.

Same could also apply to the other source detailed above. They're like mayflies.

Subject: RE: BS: Torture!!!!
From: GUEST,Chief Chaos
Date: 29 Apr 08 - 04:42 PM

The secondary point wasn't directed at you Teribus.
Although I happen to disagree with your position (although I do understand your position) I think you have the right to post your opinion and defend it just like anyone else without having other 'catters saying things like "He's just a cook!"

Subject: RE: BS: Torture!!!!
From: GUEST,Windsor Knot
Date: 29 Apr 08 - 04:56 PM

Teribus, I have NOT been posting under any another name. I apologised to you earlier in this thread for something I read about you in another thread. I also asked you a question which you never replied to.

If you want a slanging session, I will be glad to accommodate you. This would probably suit you as you could avoid the questions members have put to you.

Get over yourself man and get your facts straight.

Subject: RE: BS: Torture!!!!
From: Teribus
Date: 30 Apr 08 - 12:31 PM

I believe that I have answered all questions put to me Guest Windor Knot, or whatever he/she wishes to call him/herself.

But he/she comes out with some very strange things:

Example 1:
GUEST,Windsor Knot - PM
Date: 25 Apr 08 - 01:56 PM

"Go through his old threads freestater like the rest of us do and you will find it there."

OK Guest Wind or not – For someone who purports to have no interest or knowledge about past happenings in Ireland – Where does the epithet "freestater" come from?

And what a strange hobby - "Go through his old threads". Of course you would know what I had said in "old threads" if you had previously posted as Guest "Whatever-you-want-to-call-yourself", or were a member who had ditched their "cookie". Which leads me to the next example.

Example 2:
GUEST,Windsor Knot - PM
Date: 25 Apr 08 - 03:29 PM

"I can only assume this ridiculous rant is to deflect from the questions other members have put to you, including myself."

That sentence is rather strange and revealing for someone who has categorically stated that they have never posted under any other name, particularly this bit:
"questions other members have put to you, including myself."

Because you are not a member, are you Guest Windor Knot? Tell us whats your Mudcat Member name?

Now this thread is about torture. Mrs Jean McConville was without any shadow of a doubt beaten, tortured and then executed, all matters of recorded fact – witness statements, hospital reports and autopsy report at the Coroners Inquest. The purpose of the torture was to extract a false confession, to do that they had to cut off her fingers and mutilate her. Now folks, that is torture.

So is this: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/6275152.stm

What Khaled Shaik Mohammed suffered for all of two and a half minutes pales to total isignificance in comparison. If someone who has set a bomb with the intent of taking innocent lives is subjected to "Harsh Interrogation" and if information extracted during that interrogation saves as much as a single life then I can understand that that interrogation was justified, or maybe there are those here who would rather promote the importance of the rights of the terrorist over the rights of his victims, I most certainly do not. I stand by what I originally said.

Subject: RE: BS: Torture!!!!
From: TIA
Date: 30 Apr 08 - 02:25 PM

Even in the infamous and oft-cited ticking bomb scenario, I want torture to be illegal. If someone feels that they are really doing the right thing by torturing another human, I want the onus to be on that person (the torturer) to make a conscious decision to engage in civil disobedience on a matter of principal. Who knows, maybe someday, one of my kids will be in a situation where I decide that I must torture someone. But there should be no exception for me or anyone else. This brave person can then suffer the consequences knowing that he or she did the right thing. And, whether the torturer was right or wrong, we deter torture.

If we start to cook up places and times where torture is okay, I bet I can come up with a scenario where rape is okay. I'll bet I can come up with one where cannabilism is okay. I bet I can come up with one were child molestation is okay. I bet I can make up a scenario where the only responsible choice is to pluck out my grandmothers eye and feed it to a pig. Do we really want any of these to be legal?

Subject: RE: BS: Torture!!!!
From: Don Firth
Date: 30 Apr 08 - 02:31 PM

Well, put, TIA.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Torture!!!!
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 30 Apr 08 - 02:44 PM

"If someone who has set a bomb with the intent of taking innocent lives is subjected to "Harsh Interrogation" and if information extracted during that interrogation saves as much as a single life then I can understand that that interrogation was justified, or maybe there are those here who would rather promote the importance of the rights of the terrorist over the rights of his victims, I most certainly do not. I stand by what I originally said."

Of course, this assumes that you know he's a terrorist.....before you torture him.

Subject: RE: BS: Torture!!!!
From: GUEST,Observer
Date: 30 Apr 08 - 02:48 PM

Like Jean Charles de Menezes ?

Subject: RE: BS: Torture!!!!
From: Teribus
Date: 30 Apr 08 - 03:11 PM

"Well, put, TIA." - Don Firth

Well let's see what was so well put shall we? It read more like delusional rant to me.

Part 1:
"Even in the infamous and oft-cited ticking bomb scenario, I want torture to be illegal."

Very good, excellent - You're Dead.


Part 2:
"Who knows, maybe someday, one of my kids will be in a situation where I decide that I must torture someone. But there should be no exception for me or anyone else. This brave person can then suffer the consequences knowing that he or she did the right thing. And, whether the torturer was right or wrong, we deter torture."

And once again you plus God knows how many others perish, but that's OK because you deterred torture.

I take it that we are talking about the following here as "torture":
- Waterboarding
- Taking somebody's watch away from them and putting them in a blacked-out room.
- Leaving them in that room in perfect silence
- Depriving them of sleep or rest
- Have then stand, sit or kneel in uncomfortable positions
- Playing them loud music
- Have dogs bark at them

As opposed to having fingers or various other parts of their anatomies lopped off for little or no reason at all, merely as a continuation of punishment as a prelude to execution. Something that neither US or UK forces have ever practiced or been accused of, unlike their adversaries both past and current.

Part 3:
"If we start to cook up places and times where torture is okay, I bet I can come up with a scenario where rape is okay. I'll bet I can come up with one where cannabilism is okay. I bet I can come up with one were child molestation is okay. I bet I can make up a scenario where the only responsible choice is to pluck out my grandmothers eye and feed it to a pig. Do we really want any of these to be legal?"

I do not think that anybody has ever said that torture is okay, I can see circumstances where it could be justified. I would challenge anybody to come up with any set of circumstances where rape would be okay, or any circumstances where it could be considered justified.

There have been historical recorded instances where cannibalism was considered justified, it has never been considered okay in western eyes, but considered perfectly normal behaviour in other societies around the world.

As to, "I bet I can come up with one were child molestation is okay." I am all ears, because I can think of none.

"Well put" indeed!! Your arguement is hysterical emotive twaddle as usual TIA.

Subject: RE: BS: Torture!!!!
From: Teribus
Date: 30 Apr 08 - 03:19 PM

"Of course, this assumes that you know he's a terrorist.....before you torture him." - dick greenhaus

"If someone who has set a bomb with the intent of taking innocent lives is subjected to "Harsh Interrogation" and if information extracted during that interrogation saves as much as a single life then I can understand that that interrogation was justified," - Teribus

What I wrote assumes nothing dick, it states perfectly clearly that the person subject to that form of interrogation set the bomb. What did you think I was talking about when I mentioned "under certain circumstances" - the weather conditions? the colour of jacket he was wearing?

Subject: RE: BS: Torture!!!!
From: GUEST,Egan
Date: 30 Apr 08 - 03:48 PM

Teribus, you are demented. I was actually quite optimistic that you were going to wake up as time went by to the absurdity of your posting. The only rationale for this otherwise ridiculous argument that you alone support is that the enemy of your enemy is your friend, no matter what. If you really do think that anyone in disagreement with British policy is the biggest baddest thing in the world and that curbing its power is the only thing that matters (think Hitler Churchill Stalin), then this alliance makes a kind of primitive sense. Although even if you do think that, encouraging the development of rampant capitalism everywhere would make a lot more sense. But, if you think that lefty-ism is anything at all to do with positive support for civilisation, decency, freedom, female (in particular) emancipation, life being nice even if you do not agree with the use of torture then you should surely turn your back on the military forces you were once part of.

Meanwhile, I cannot help noticing and rejoicing that some members have cornered you here with great replies (which always go unanswered) they seem to have such a genius for pissing you off. From what I have been reading, they have achieved this. Compared to the numberous momentous own goals you seem to be scoring.

Unless of course millions of us around the world read of this outrage and exclaim with one voice: "That it's wrong to torture someone. How dare they silence the hereditary paragons of the British forces and their use of torture you so clandestinely defend.

Subject: RE: BS: Torture!!!!
From: irishenglish
Date: 30 Apr 08 - 04:03 PM

Just wanted one last answer to a question Teribus asked me. He said

" Now please irishenglish, please regale us all of POW escapes by the Russians in Afghanistan. Hells teeth, they maintained an Army of over 175,000 men there for the best part of a decade. There must have been some of them taken prisoner? How were they treated irishenglish? All this pre-dates Bush so their treatment could not have been predicated by what US forces have ever done.

Tell you what irishenglish you will not be able to come up with one single story. Do you know why? Because the other side simply did not take prisoners - rather scary isn't it."

Well, sorry to tell you Teribus, I found your one, from The New York Times, June 14, 1988 comes this article:http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=940DE2DF143CF937A25755C0A96E948260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=1

You see, this guy was not a deserter, nor was he a convert to Islam, which did happen in many cases, sometimes under coercion. He does though, I believe count as ONE SINGLE STORY, which is what you asked for. By the way, as this article points out, for the Soviet invaders of Afghanistan, their fear of capture was as much based on their reception at home upon return, as it was about actually being captured. And before you chime in, I know this predates Bush, but you asked a question, here's your answer.

Subject: RE: BS: Torture!!!!
From: Teribus
Date: 30 Apr 08 - 04:25 PM

Very well done irishenglish, 5 out of 311 missing accounted for.

That GUEST,Egan - 30 Apr 08 - 03:48 PM is only surpassed in idiocy by your post to the HMAS Sydney thread.

Subject: RE: BS: Torture!!!!
From: Don Firth
Date: 30 Apr 08 - 04:35 PM

Nonsense, Teribus! You're even more irrational than usual today. TIA has stated an ethical stand, and it's a perfectly valid one which you seem incapable of grasping. "If you want to do the crime, you should be willing to do the time."

And then, there is:

"Of course, this assumes that you know he's a terrorist.....before you torture him."

Dick has a valid point. I cite the case of Maher Arar. If you don't know who he is or what was done to him, look him up and educate yourself.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Torture!!!!
From: irishenglish
Date: 30 Apr 08 - 04:35 PM

You asked for one case, I found one, so you decide to twist it again and make it 5 out of 311, as an attempt to show how wonderful you are, how clever. Well, all praise the wiseass himself, Teribus. Tell you what, next time you ask a question and someone answers it, keep your snide fucking comments to yourself.

Subject: RE: BS: Torture!!!!
From: GUEST,Egan
Date: 30 Apr 08 - 05:12 PM

Answers please Teribus, these guys are right.

Subject: RE: BS: Torture!!!!
From: Teribus
Date: 30 Apr 08 - 05:24 PM

Answers to what Guest Egan?

Subject: RE: BS: Torture!!!!
From: freda underhill
Date: 30 Apr 08 - 05:25 PM

People who torture or who promote torture believe they are above the law. They do not consider that they have an obligation to provide evidence or get a jury to make a decision on a conviction prior to their acts of torture. They are arrogant enough to believe that THEY KNOW that someone is evil and therefore needs to be tortured outside any legal process. But there is a difference between those who agree on the sidelines, and the perpetrators who actually do it.

what sort of a person can do such things and justify it? A sadist- Sadistic personality disorder is a pervasive pattern of cruel, demeaning, and aggressive behavior, beginning by early adulthood, as indicated by the repeated occurrence of at least four of the following:

    * Has used physical cruelty or violence for the purpose of establishing dominance in a relationship (not merely to achieve some noninterpersonal goal, such as striking someone in order to rob him/her).
    * Humiliates or demeans people in the presence of others.
    * Has treated or disciplined someone under his/her control unusually harshly.
    * Is amused by, or takes pleasure in, the psychological or physical suffering of others (including animals).
    * Has lied for the purpose of harming or inflicting pain on others (not merely to achieve some other goal).
    * Gets other people to do what he/she wants by frightening them (through intimidation or even terror).
    * Restricts the autonomy of people with whom he or she has a close relationship, e.g., will not let spouse leave the house unaccompanied or permit teenage daughter to attend social functions.
    * Is fascinated by violence, weapons, injury, or torture.

Those who give licence to such people to perpetrate acts of torture would be outraged if someone kicked their cat. But then the cat has value to them, doesn't it?

Subject: RE: BS: Torture!!!!
From: Teribus
Date: 30 Apr 08 - 05:34 PM

Bit touchy irishenglish?? I congratulated you on finding something, that I had looked for and had failed to find, I say again well done.

Now what exactly have I twisted? You stated that you'd found one example in actual fact you'd found five. - Source the article you yourself referred to. Same article also mentioned that there were 311 Soviet soldiers missing in Afghanistan.

As for the rest of your post - Feeling a bit precious are we??

Subject: RE: BS: Torture!!!!
From: irishenglish
Date: 30 Apr 08 - 05:38 PM

Fair enough Teribus. My comment was only based on what I perceived as sarcasm on your part. I still disagree with you vehemently, but apologize.

Subject: RE: BS: Torture!!!!
From: Don Firth
Date: 30 Apr 08 - 05:40 PM

Have you looked up Maher Arar yet, Teribus? Or would you just rather not go there?

Ron Suskind of the New York Times, in a 2004 article, said:

In the summer of 2002, after I had written an article in Esquire that the White House didn't like about Bush's former communications director, Karen Hughes, I had a meeting with a senior adviser to Bush. He expressed the White House's displeasure, and then he told me something that at the time I didn't fully comprehend -- but which I now believe gets to the very heart of the Bush presidency.

The aide said that guys like me were ''in what we call the reality-based community,'' which he defined as people who ''believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.'' I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. ''That's not the way the world really works anymore,'' he continued. ''We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.''

And on the seventh day, they rested?

I believe this explains a lot about George W. Bush and his administration. And I believe it may very well explain a lot about Teribus as well.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Torture!!!!
From: freda underhill
Date: 30 Apr 08 - 05:43 PM

Maher's Story in Brief

Maher Arar is a 34-year-old wireless technology consultant. He was born in Syria and came to Canada with his family at the age of 17. He became a Canadian citizen in 1991. On Sept. 26, 2002, while in transit in New York's JFK airport when returning home from a vacation, Arar was detained by US officials and interrogated about alleged links to al-Qaeda. Twelve days later, he was chained, shackled and flown to Syria, where he was held in a tiny "grave-like" cell for ten months and ten days before he was moved to a better cell in a different prison. In Syria, he was beaten, tortured and forced to make a false confession.

During his imprisonment, Arar's wife, Monia Mazigh, campaigned relentlessly on his behalf until he was returned to Canada in October 2003. On Jan. 28, 2004, under pressure from Canadian human rights organizations and a growing number of citizens, the Government of Canada announced a Commission of Inquiry into the Actions of Canadian Officials in Relation to Maher Arar.

On September 18, 2006, the Commissioner of the Inquiry, Justice Dennis O'Connor, cleared Arar of all terrorism allegations, stating he was "able to say categorically that there is no evidence to indicate that Mr. Arar has committed any offence or that his activities constitute a threat to the security of Canada."

http://www.maherarar.ca/

Subject: RE: BS: Torture!!!!
From: Teribus
Date: 30 Apr 08 - 06:30 PM

Well here's what some folks round here were saying about this subject in 2004:

Subject: RE: BS: The US Military'sTorture Training Manual
From: GUEST
Date: 03 Jun 04 - 04:38 AM

The following methods were used by Britain during 1971 and 1976 on both occasions they were found guilty by the European Court of Human Rights,

1 Hair pulling

2Punching to back of head. Heavy slaps across the face and head.

3 Simultaneous slapping of ears with both hand sometimes perforating eardrums.

4 Strangling neck, chops to the throat, gripping and pulling of Adam`s apple. Pushing fingers into pressure points of neck.

5 Punches and kicks to stomach, buttocks, kidneys, spine, stiff finger prodding to ribs.

6 Manual squeezing of testicles, punching and kicking testicles, lifting naked prisoner by placing stick between his legs.

7 Arm twisting, Bending wrist backwards both above and below arm. Finger twisting.

8 Positions of stress - search position against wall, sitting on non-existent chairs, squatting on hunkers.

9 Press-ups to point of exhaustion, super press-ups, legs on chair, hands on ground. Running on spot to point of exhaustion.

10 Wrestling holds until prisoner vomits.

11 Strangling neck and forcing neck down to the point of asphyxiation.

12 Trailing alon floor; prone on floor while personnel stand and jump on back riding prisoner like a horse.

13 Made to lie centre back across a table or chair face backwards. Interrogators then jump on legs causing intense pain to back.

14 Placing plastic bag, hood, jacket, or underpants, over head to restrict flow of air.

15 Throwing prisoner from one interrogator to another.

16 Simulated execution by clicking gun behind the head, simulated electrouction by putting plug into mouth and putting on switch.

17 Singing skin with matches and cigarettes.

18 Degradations - making prisoner lick water or vomit of floor; behave like a dog; spitting in face; stripping prisoner naked and making obscene remarks about his body, his wife, his children.

19 Pouring liquid into ears.

20 Threats to shoot prisoner in lonely place, hand prisoner over to UVF, threats to parents and children.


Subject: RE: BS: The US Military'sTorture Training Manual
From: Wolfgang - PM
Date: 03 Jun 04 - 03:01 PM

Since the Jan 18th 1978 decision of the European Court of Human Rights has been mentioned in this thread about torture let me add that the court has ruled that the treatment was 'inhuman and degrading' but not 'torture'.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: The US Military'sTorture Training Manual
From: Wolfgang - PM
Date: 02 Jun 04 - 10:42 AM

The torture and kidnapped child case has actually happened in Germany quite recently.

A young boy had been kidnapped and his banker father had paid 1,000,000 ransom. The boy didn't come back. The police arrested a suspect, well, let's say they had not the slightest doubt they had the right man: This man had already admitted the kidnapping and collecting the ransom money at that time but refused to tell where the boy could be found.

Then the deputy leader of Frankfurt police decided to threaten the suspect with torture by one of his policemen. The threat was very believable and the suspect gave in and led the police to the place where the boy was found. It then became clear why he had not told before: The boy had been dead since very short after the kidnapping.

Several things are unusual about this case: In the trial, the judge told the defendant explicitely that all his confessions in police custody might perhaps not be useable due to the threat of torture. The defendant insisted on repeating the confessions in court. The deputy police leader could make his case easier for himself by saying it was only a threat and he would not have done it. But he insists in several interview that it was not an empty threat and that he would have ordered to actually start the torture. He says he would do it again in similar circumstances.

I think he'll has to be punished (and will be; no trial yet) but I would act like he has acted. Some things have to be forbidden by law but I can picture me doing them in extreme circumstances.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: The US Military'sTorture Training Manual
From: Teribus - PM
Date: 02 Jun 04 - 10:54 AM

"the whole concept of information gathering through gossip collecting, innuendo, accusation, leading to torture - these are all medieval methods fuelled by bias and necessity.

but they are not accurate."

But under certain circumstances in the light of absolutely nothing else, while not being necessarily accurate - it is a damn sight better than nothing.

Oh and your first part about "intelligence" being "such a useless word, describing information gained through any ways but through verifiable evidence." What about independent corroboration Freda? In interrogating a large number of people who are kept apart the likelyhood of them holding to a lie while under pressure is a great deal less likely than than coming out with something that is true. Because when someone is disorientated, tired and apprehensive to tell a lie is something you have to think about and have the mental discipline to tell that same lie the same way time after time. The truth on the other hand just comes out.

Situations vary as do time scales for getting results an ordinary soldier captured will probably have to remain quiet for about six hours before any information he had becomes useless - dark, quiet, no means of marking the passage of time, let his own fear and apprehension get the better of him. Wheel him out after a couple of hours into a prepared environment make him think and believe that it is later than it is, sit him down give him something to drink and talk quietly to him - you will get information that you can use.

Another instance - an attack swimmer pulled out of a naval anchorage - now the information he has got you need to get rather faster, otherwise a ship and it's crew could be lost. This individual is going to be handled that much rougher, if placed with the choice of bruising someones feelings or suffering the loss of a ship and her ships company - them feelings is going to get rather severely bruised.

Subject: RE: BS: The US Military'sTorture Training Manual
From: Amos - PM
Date: 02 Jun 04 - 11:11 AM

Intell in a hot operations scenario such as the ambush incident described above is a different situation with different rules than academic or scientific information. When you are fighting for your own life and the lives of your friends, all bets are off, and you can make a lot of differnece with very little information if you know how to use it correctly.

This is not meant as a rationalization for torture. I am simply saying that extreme conditions bring out extreme measures and solutions.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Torture!!!!
From: GUEST,Hawkwind
Date: 30 Apr 08 - 08:06 PM

Hi Teribus.

Can I ask you please, Do you support the use of torture by the British intelligence services or the military in the United Kingdom ?

Subject: RE: BS: Torture!!!!
From: Teribus
Date: 01 May 08 - 01:14 AM

Of course you can, the answer is that I do not support the use of torture by the British intelligence services or the military in the United Kingdom.

Subject: RE: BS: Torture!!!!
From: GUEST,Egan
Date: 01 May 08 - 03:34 AM

I imagine this has to be one thread Teribus wished he had given a wide berth !

Subject: RE: BS: Torture!!!!
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 May 08 - 06:45 AM

No, I am sure he enjoyed every challenge.

Subject: RE: BS: Torture!!!!
From: TIA
Date: 01 May 08 - 11:43 AM

Teribus should change his name to Cool Hand Luke.

" Nothin'. A handful of nothin'. You stupid mullet head. He beat you with nothin'. Just like today when he kept comin' back at me - with nothin'. He keeps comin' with nothin' "

Last person standing owns the truth.

Subject: RE: BS: Torture!!!!
From: GUEST,Bjælkehuse
Date: 01 May 08 - 05:30 PM

Just like in the schoolyard - you may be big and strong, and do as you feel, but that doesn't make it right.


Bjælkehuse - Denmark
(small and scared)

Subject: RE: BS: Torture!!!!
From: GUEST,Richmond
Date: 01 May 08 - 06:04 PM

Your dead right Bjælkehuse but no one here is scared of Teribus.

Subject: RE: BS: Torture!!!!
From: Teribus
Date: 04 May 08 - 12:38 PM

Good God anothercrop of mushrooms

Guest Hawkwind

Guest Egan - Why would I have wished to avoid this thread Egan or whatever-it-is-you-wish-to-call-yourself-next-time.

GUEST,Bjælkehuse

Guest Richmond.

Oh yes woodwind asked me about supporting torture, and I answered. Now what about supporting the use of treatment that the European Court of Human Rights considered was 'inhuman and degrading' on someone caught planting explosives or prepping a car bomb. Now what was that list again, would I object if someone, who was fully prepare to plant an explosive device with the premeditated intent of taking innocent life, was subjected to any of the items described on that list? Of course I wouldn't, I would not lose one wink of sleep over it? The would be bomber would be accorded all the consideration that he or she would show his/her victims.

Stand by for the next burst of "one-off" Guest names and postings.

Subject: RE: BS: Torture!!!!
From: GUEST,Chief Chaos
Date: 04 May 08 - 08:24 PM

I think we're seeing that our "opponents" in this "war" don't mind going down with the ship. Numerous bombs have gone off killing the builders and yet they continue. Their comrades rode the planes into the world trade center, the Pentagon, and who knows what the other target(s) was or were. They are young, old, male, female carrying these bombs strapped to their bodies and blowing themselves up. They aren't afraid of torture and dying. They know it makes them Martyrs to the cause and guarantees them a place in heaven with 72 virgins.

Without stone cold in your face evidence that they are indeed terrorists and might actually know something (see previous about compartmentalization) the odds are that the even the "judiscious use" of torture and improper treatment would increase recruiting for Al Quaida and possibly increase the use of suicide bombing.

The chance that even this limited use would deliver any useful information has got to be incredibly low when most people on earth will tell you anything, factual or not, just to get you to stop!

Subject: RE: BS: Torture!!!!
From: Amos
Date: 10 Jun 09 - 11:03 AM

A new history on the DOJ's analysis of torture under GW Bush provides interesting insight into those who wanted torture and those who said it wasn't legal. Worth a read.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Torture!!!!
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 10 Jun 09 - 03:04 PM

From The TimesJune 10, 2009

London's Metropolitan Police accused of waterboarding suspects
Sean O'Neill, Crime Editor
June 10, 2009

.....

Metropolitan Police officers subjected suspects to waterboarding, according to allegations at the centre of a major anti-corruption inquiry, The Times has learnt.

The torture claims are part of a wide-ranging investigation which also includes accusations that officers fabricated evidence and stole suspects' property. It has already led to the abandonment of a drug trial and the suspension of several police officers.


http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article6466430.ece

Subject: RE: BS: Torture!!!!
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 10 Jun 09 - 06:44 PM

Let's hope that this gets thoroughly investigated, and anyone who's done stuff like that gets tried, convicted and severely punished. And that especially goes for anybody higher up in the system who may have encouraged, colluded in, or tried to cover up such activities.

Which is the only way to deal with this kind of betrayal on the part of those entrusted with power and authority, in any country, and no matter how high in the system.

Agreed, bruce?

Subject: RE: BS: Torture!!!!
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 10 Jun 09 - 06:49 PM

Agreed, as long as we apply it to everyone, not just the people YOU don't like.

Subject: RE: BS: Torture!!!!
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 10 Jun 09 - 07:27 PM

No disagreement there then.

Subject: RE: BS: Torture!!!!
From: GUEST,Falco
Date: 24 Nov 09 - 08:28 AM

Interesting story making the news today, Tony Blair was aware of the UK role in torture of British citizens in Pakistan.

Pakistani intelligence agents involved in torture say their British counterparts were 'grateful' they were 'using all means possible' to extract information from terror suspects.

Britain's role in the torture of its own citizens in Pakistan is condemned today by one of the world's leading human rights organisations as being cruel, counter-productive and in clear breach of international law.

Human Rights Watch says the UK government today finds itself in a "legally, morally and politically invidious position" because of its complicity in torture, and warns that its moral legitimacy could be undermined.

Pakistani intelligence agents involved in the torture who say their British counterparts knew how they were mistreating young British terrorism suspects. These agents said British officials were "breathing down their necks for information" while they were torturing one young medical student from London; and that British intelligence officers were "grateful" they were "using all means possible" to extract information from a man from Luton who was being beaten, whipped, deprived of sleep and threatened with an electric drill.

The report adds that British involvement in the unlawful activities of Pakistani intelligence agents has interfered with attempts to prosecute terrorism suspects in the British courts. It quotes a British intelligence source as saying one of the alleged masterminds of the 2006 airline plot, Rashid Rauf, was badly tortured in Pakistan, and that this had been a "disaster" that made any "successful prosecution in Britain most unlikely". Tony Blair, when prime minister, was aware of the existence of this policy.


The HRW report says that as long as the government asserts its duty to act upon intelligence extracted under torture if to do so may save lives, that it must "proactively and strenuously intervene" to prevent mistreatment by friendly intelligence agencies. "In countries like Pakistan where there is a high likelihood of torture taking place, the UK should take special steps to prevent torture and to avoid being placed in the legally, morally and politically invidious position the UK government now finds itself."

Subject: RE: BS: Torture!!!!
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 24 Nov 09 - 12:50 PM

Tony Blair was aware of the UK role in torture of British citizens in Pakistan.

And the Pope is a Catholic.

Subject: RE: BS: Torture!!!!
From: ard mhacha
Date: 24 Nov 09 - 01:09 PM

Torture?, read all about it, nothing new here.http://www.irishresistancebooks.com/guineapigs/guineapigs.htm