Re: 'Torture' saved British lives...
 

My husband believes as I do,that torture can never be right..Just because the fact that people will say anything about anyone and anything just to make torture stop.It's unreliable.

Re: 'Torture' saved British lives...
 

If waterboarding was so effective, why was it only used three times? - Bush

Re: 'Torture' saved British lives...
 

I didn't say you did say or believe he was reliable. However your assertion " those 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" Certainly suggests (very clearly) that you believe what he says on the matter as far as this particular context is concerned.

I think you'll find that rendition (extraordinary or otherwise), together with the deployment of intelligence officers in the field, put an end to any such distinction quite some time ago.

Re: 'Torture' saved British lives...
 

Without some "unethical" things being done, a lot of lives will be saved.

Look at Burke and Hare, if they hadn't had done what they did, the medicine wouldn't have been as good as it is to day.

Re: 'Torture' saved British lives...
 

"Waterboarding is torture, Downing Street confirms"

Re: 'Torture' saved British lives...
 

Consequently their actions also brought about criticism of the then Government's complicity whereby the Lancet journal announced "Government is already in a great degree, responsible for the crime which it has fostered by its negligence, and even encouraged by a system of forbearance".

The analogy you present is too similar in that those charged with the ethical guardianship of the sanctity of life have, in both circumstances, criticised actions which undermined their very own integrity.

Not something to be either proud or tolerant of.

Re: 'Torture' saved British lives...
 

As Rizzyking said earlier ,torture takes many forms ,from physical to mental and i would say that waterboarding falls mainly into the mental catorgory ,although i accept there is a physical aspect it is mainly mental torture.The dilemma facing governments is what is an acceptible method of extracting information ,does the interogator ask politely or does he scream and shout or does he employ methods such as waterboarding which although distastful and illegal in this country is deemed acceptible in the US and will yield results in some cases ,because as has always been said torture is unreliable which by definition means it works some times

Re: 'Torture' saved British lives...
 

I know about the treaties, the question is why have we signed treaties making torture illegal whilst we reserve the right to kill other people and let's not pretend that the consequences of bombing can be controlled, aren't terrible and don't often amount to torture for those affected. There are always alternatives to any military action - the choices made more usually depend more upon such things as equipment, manpower and political will than a desire to minmise all risk to the innocent.

In conflict situations (military and otherwise) we justify all sorts of things on the basis that the risk of not taking that action far outweighs the likely consequences of it. Are we really saying that there no circumstances whatsoever in which, in order to prevent carnage, torturing suspects for information is justified? If so, then I can understand why torture has been made illegal. However I have a feeling that all the illegality in the world wouldn't prevent us using such methods if the stakes were high enough.

I'm not questioning the worthy aims behind making torture illegal as much as I am the contradictions apparent in making that argument.

Re: 'Torture' saved British lives...
 

You are of course correct ,we have signed treaties banning torture but can anyone give a clear ,consise definition of what actions during interogation are defined as torture ,what is the line when interrogation stops and it becomes torture ?

Re: 'Torture' saved British lives...
 

From here:

..any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him, or a third person, information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in, or incidental to, lawful sanctions. —UN Convention Against Torture[1]

Re: 'Torture' saved British lives...
 

so it's wide open to interpretation then ,and that's the main issue here i think .Bush obviously thinks waterboarding is acceptable because it doesn't cause severe pain ,HMG on the other hand doesn't think it is acceptable because it causes mental distress .The other issue i see is that if a government is prepared to see waterboarding as acceptable what other forms of interrogation do they see as acceptable and how far are they willing to bend the spirit of the treaties they have signed

Re: 'Torture' saved British lives...
 

No it (torture) is not wide open to interpretation. It is very clearly defined.

You obviously haven't read either anything by a medical professional on the matter of waterboarding or any of the accounts which contradict Bush's assertions on this matter.

HMGs position, as quoted today, is that they consider waterboarding to be torture - plain and simple. They do not labour the semantics or split hairs as you seem to be attempting to do.

Here is another informative tract:

But since shortly after the September 11, 2001 attacks there has been a debate in the United States about whether torture is justified in some circumstances. Some people, such as Alan M. Dershowitz and Mirko Bagaric, have argued the need for information outweighs the moral and ethical arguments against torture.[55][56] However, after coercive practices were banned, interrogators in Iraq saw an increase of 50 percent more high-value intelligence. Maj. Gen. Geoffrey D. Miller, the American commander in charge of detentions and interrogations, stated "a rapport-based interrogation that recognizes respect and dignity, and having very well-trained interrogators, is the basis by which you develop intelligence rapidly and increase the validity of that intelligence."[57] Others including Robert Mueller, FBI Director since July 5, 2001, have pointed out that despite former Bush Administration claims that waterboarding has "disrupted a number of attacks, maybe dozens of attacks", they do not believe that evidence gained by the U.S. government through what supporters of the techniques call "enhanced interrogation" has disrupted a single attack and no one has come up with a documented example of lives saved thanks to these techniques.[58][59] On June 19, 2009, the US government announced that it was delaying the scheduled release of declassified portions of a report by the CIA Inspector General that reportedly cast doubt on the effectiveness of the "enhanced interrogation" techniques employed by CIA interrogators, according to references to the report contained in several Bush-era Justice Department memos declassified in the Spring of 2009 by the US Justice Department.[60][61][62]

As to "how far" certain countries are prepared to bend the spirit of treaties they have signed I'm afraid that until such time as countries are brought to book for doing so you may as well ask "how long is a piece of string".

---------- Post added at 22:06 ---------- Previous post was at 21:48 ----------

The various ongoing cases alleging torture by or on behalf of British intelligence would suggest you are absoulutely right to suspect as much.

Re: 'Torture' saved British lives...
 

[QUOTE=Mr Angry;35120052]No it (torture) is not wide open to interpretation. It is very clearly defined.

You obviously haven't read either anything by a medical professional on the matter of waterboarding or any of the accounts which contradict Bush's assertions on this matter.

HMGs position, as quoted today, is that they consider waterboarding to be torture - plain and simple. They do not labour the semantics or split hairs as you seem to be attempting to do.
QUOTE]


well that bit there seems vague ,what would be severe to some is not severe to others.

if you read my post i stated that there is a physical aspect to waterboarding (meaning physical pain perhaps i should have been clearer)but i stand by the fact that the psychological issues can last far longer than the physical pain

I am aware of HMG's position and fully agree with their stance ,the point i am trying to make is that not all governments will see some forms of interogation as torture as we do simply because the definition can be seen as ambiguous and in some cases open to interpretation .

Re: 'Torture' saved British lives...
 

The fact that the Bush administration felt the need to invent a euphemism like enhanced interrogation techniques, speaks volumes in my opinion.

Re: 'Torture' saved British lives...
 

Erm, no.

The USA tried and hanged Japanese soldiers who carried out waterboarding during the Second World War - John McCain


Also, in the US of A, it's banned by domestic law link and international treaties, but those policies don't cover CIA personnel - the advice GWB was given was the advice he wanted - link GWB signed an Executive Order in 2007 which exempted the CIA from the same rules as the US Armed Forces and US Civilians - it it wasn't illegal, why wasn't it illegal for all of them?