Re: 'Torture' saved British lives...
 

But fewer innocents may not have died at their hands perhaps?

Re: 'Torture' saved British lives...
 

Or more, perhaps, as our behaviours encourage recruitment to the "cause", leading to more incidents/attacks (just like internment did in Norn Iron in the 70s).

Re: 'Torture' saved British lives...
 

I'm from the Jack Bauer school of thought.

Re: 'Torture' saved British lives...
 

This really isn't the black and white issue that some would like it to be.

Re: 'Torture' saved British lives...
 

Correct. Isn't it the unpalatable truth that, sometimes, awful things have to be done (quite possibly as a last resort) to prevent even worse things from happening.

Re: 'Torture' saved British lives...
 

I think if it stopped an IMMINENT tragedy, many people would be all for it, but not if it was just for general intelligence gathering.

Re: 'Torture' saved British lives...
 

Truth is it has stopped imminent attacks in the past and it has also contributed to the saving of a great many lives. Also please don't lump everyone into the category of the americans who take a rather blase attitude to such things, as few countries have that while most like it or not indulge these practices and benefit from them. When people repeat the often quoted line of "it has been proven to only get you told what you want to be told" it makes me laugh at the end of the day it is a practice that has been going on for centuries and it wouldn't have if it never delivered results. Sadly it does, sadly it is necessary and more sadly i don't see a day anytime soon where it will not be used or needed.

By all means take the moral high ground that is your right in a free country and condemn it to your last breath those people that have had to do it in the past and will be doing it in the present and future for the security of this country don't expect thank you's or credit. They are happy that people can continue to by and large live their life normally without attacks often being committed and people killed doing the shopping and other normal everyday things. As for george bush he really is the last person on the planet that should start this debate he really is but he has and people will have to make their minds up do a bit of thinking and decide on their personal position on this issue.

Re: 'Torture' saved British lives...
 

Well it's not like either of them hasn't happened before, the man is plank and proud of what he has done, he should feel nothing but shame for his mistakes and lies but instead is trying to leave a twisted, sugar coated, spun legacy in the form of these memoirs, I wouldn't trust a word of it.

Re: 'Torture' saved British lives...
 

But where is the proof of that? :erm:

Re: 'Torture' saved British lives...
 

The proof for that was obtained using a notoriously unreliable method which makes it somewhat dodgy as proof.

Re: 'Torture' saved British lives...
 

We'll never know in which cases torture has been effective in preventing attacks or securing vital information and in which cases it hasn't.

---------- Post added at 17:06 ---------- Previous post was at 17:00 ----------

Can't deny any of that - the motives behind what Bush has said and the US does certainly have little to do with what the UK thinks is right or wrong.

Anyway, most of us agree torture's wrong but I'd still like to know why killing's deemed legal and justifiable in certain circumstances and yet torture apparently isn't. :confused:

Re: 'Torture' saved British lives...
 

Because killing is par for the course for war, and civilian casualties can't (always) be avoided. Torture is completely avoidable, and we signed up to treaties banning it.

It's a bit like it's OK to eat animals but not to impart unnecessary cruelty on them. You could argue that an animal is better of being subjected to cruelty than being slaughtered, yet the cruelty against animals is illegal and slaughtering/eating them isn't.

Re: 'Torture' saved British lives...
 

Maggy as someone married to an ex forces server you know damn well i wouldn't mention even if i could and you know why as well ;). Daniel you can continue to believe if you like that it never yields reliable information but again answer me this if it never does why has the practice continued for so long. Torture in media terms is very simplistic waterboarding is the favourite thing for them to pick up on but in the terms of the field that is a crude completely unreliable way of obtaining information and thats why americans love it.

Because they don't care so much about real information more that they can report anything as real information obtained from someone they regard as an enemy. Bit like the vietnam war and their body counts which were so massively exaggeratted i cannot remeber who it was but someone added them all up and if they were true there would have been hardly anyone left in north vietnam. This is a complicated field that has many approaches some of them subtle and effective others not so subtle and effective. But the people involved are trained believe it or not to spot information that is genuine from information that is being given to stop whatever procedure is happening at the time. Add to that the vast vast majority of prisoners\captives will never be subjected to any form whatsoever and it is hardly a widespread popular practice.

Re: 'Torture' saved British lives...
 

Nobody, bar Bush himself, appears to believe 100% that any information gleaned by the use of torture saved British lives.

The head of MI6 is very recently quoted as saying "Torture is illegal and abhorrent under any circumstances, and we have nothing whatsoever to do with it. If we know or believe action by us will lead to torture taking place, we're required by UK and international law to avoid that action. And we do, even though that allows the terrorist activity to go ahead."

To assert that torture is "hardly a widespread popular practice" is a bit silly given this ongoing allegations in relation to same. Take for example this weeks developments involving over 200 allegations against British military personnel.

Endorsing or encouraging the use of torture is a very dangerous and foolhardy thing to do.

What position can you possibly adopt thereafter when the shoe is, inevitably, on the other foot?

Re: 'Torture' saved British lives...
 

Show me where i have said george bush is reliable or that i believe what he says on this matter i merely stated he had started a debate on the issue and i also said he wasn't the person to start such a debate. Secondly what do you expect anyone in an official position to say "oh damn ok hands up in certain cases we use extreme interrogation methods" come on everyone denies doing it.

Detainees complaining of being mistreated and everyone inside a prison is innocent it wasn't them guv honest. Even though i am sure there was mistreatment the scale of it right now is not known and until it is and the extent in terms of staff at that facility involved is also clear i don't think bringing it into this debate is constructive

I have said this goes on anyone with a brain knows it does they might not like admitting it is being done, hell they might not even like it being done but in some part of most people's brains they know it happens and they know why it happens. Also there is a difference between field interrogations and intelligence interrogations those in basra falling firmly into the field area.

Look personally i could happily live in a world where things like this never happened, where no one planned mass murder and killing of innocent civilians and we all got along accepting each other for who and what we are. But lovely as that would be it isn't going to happen anytime soon and harsher realities will continue until such time as humanity can evolve or we wipe ourselves out.