'Torture' saved British lives...
 

... so claims George Bush and I guess he should know.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11715577

If it's true does this justify the use of waterboarding (or similar) techniques in any circumstances whatsoever? What should HMG do with information gathered using these techniques which could prevent atrocities - ignore it or act upon it and thereby give indirect 'approval' of interrogation methods which are illegal here?

Re: 'Torture' saved British lives...
 

Apart from the fact that it's wrong, the consensus seems to be that info gleaned from torture is about as aseful as a chocolate teapot. People will confess to anything when tortured. So no...

Re: 'Torture' saved British lives...
 

So your contention is that Bush is either just plain wrong or lying?

Yes it is wrong but killing is wrong too yet it's widely accepted that sometimes it's necessary e.g. in 'war' situations. Is employing a technique like waterboarding really any worse than killing people who pose a different type of threat and sometimes, in the process, killing entirely innocent people?

Re: 'Torture' saved British lives...
 

Torture takes many forms and whether people like it or not it can be useful and despite this consensus you speak of Daniel reliable information can be obtained through such methods. What form of torture is used will be dependent on the individual in question for some physical is not an option either because they simply will not break in sufficient time or will give false information too readily. In cases like that and where time frames allow psychological torture is usually the better option but is very time comsuming.

No one ever wants to be seen to condone torture or support it in anyway but given the people we are dealing with these days you cannot take away any tool from the arsenal of those whose job it is to protect us. I know damn well i am going to be well and truly slated for this but i don't care it does work and i know that for fact although it is never a preferred option and it would be lovely if unpleasant people readily gave up information on capture.

Re: 'Torture' saved British lives...
 

I wouldn't trust him as far as I cold water erm throw him.

We're talking about torture, not killing. Anyway aren't we supposed to be the 'good guys'?

Re: 'Torture' saved British lives...
 

Well what we're really talking about is wrong, right and being consistent isn't it? Awful as it is, I don't think waterborading is as bad as killing and was just making the point that how can the former sometimes be deemed as acceptable when the latter isn't? We were the good guys in WWII but still managed to kill and awful lot of people innocent and guilty (and very probably employed techniques a lot worse than waterboarding).

Like most people, I wish none of this was happening but it is and we have to make tough decisions about how we deal with the threats we face. Our current stance doesn't seem to be logical.

Re: 'Torture' saved British lives...
 

Yes. Killing is part and parcel of war. Yet we don't go around killing just anyone, and when someone surrenders we tend to take them prisoner. We've signed up to all sorts of convention on how we treat prisoners. Waterboarding is not among them.

Re: 'Torture' saved British lives...
 

It doesn't justify the use of waterboarding in any circumstance. By all accounts interrogation was far more effective with conventional techniques and the flows of information either totally dried up or became fictional once torture was involved.

We're supposed to be setting higher standards than those we claim the moral high ground from, not joining them in the gutter.

I can easily suspect George Bush of either out and out lying or deception over this matter. He has had ample opportunity beforehand to claim that waterboarding saved British lives, yet only now has he chosen to mention it. Dick Cheney has had ample opportunity to say likewise.

I can easily suspect that the 'conventional' interrogation yielding the intelligence, but because the same person who gave up that information was waterboarded he claims it a success for waterboarding.

I doubt that the US, when passing us the information, tells us how they obtained it. That would probably be more information than we want to know to be honest. Regardless to be passed that information and to not action it, regardless of how it was obtained, is unfortunately not an option. It would be a dereliction of duty by those whose job it is to protect us and not their call to judge the source of the information.

Re: 'Torture' saved British lives...
 

Yes, I know the rules but when bombs are dropped they do often kill just anyone don't they? Despite all the technology employed, that's been proved in the Gulf wars and since - vast numbers of entirely innocent people killed - it's called collateral damage.

On our city streets people get killed by the police just for pointing guns. Who knows what risk such people really posed and what they might have done had deadly force not been used. The accepted argument is that if the 'perceived risk' is severe enough they can be shot and killed. Surely, in the real world, that's all that can be done isn't it and how is that so different from obtaining information by waterboarding, for example, in a genuine effort to prevent carnage of innocent people.

I'd still like to know what people here think about what HMG should do if they've received information gathered using such techniques. Act upon it or ignore it?

---------- Post added at 09:44 ---------- Previous post was at 09:37 ----------

Oh yes I'd certainly agree with you about the motives, operations and agenda of the US.

None of that though takes away from the point i.e. the inconsistency in the UK deeming waterboarding illegal but being willing to use the information gained from it. The acceptance that deadly force is OK in certain circumstances (including those in which there is no concrete evidence of intent to do harm) but waterboarding is never OK in any circumstances seems rather contradictory.

I'd hate to the the Home Secretary who had to face the nation the day after a major terrorist act and admit that we had some intelligence which would have prevented it but didn't, as it was gained illegally. Surely in the real world we're faced with the decision on whether to compromise on our worthy ideals simply because those we're fighting don't share them and will use any means by which to win their war.

Re: 'Torture' saved British lives...
 

I would contest that instead of saving lives it has led to more deaths as a consequence and will just raise more martyrs to the cause.:mad:

Re: 'Torture' saved British lives...
 

Yes that could well be true and the same could be said of our involvement in the Gulf and Afghanistan from day one. Sadly' we're there, are now reaping the 'rewards' of that involvement.

With hindsight, I'd much rather we'd left it all alone but then we'd also be guilty of turning a blind eye to what Saddam was up to (as we have done with many other despots). Damned if you do and damned if you don't really. When it comes to terrorism here and now, HMG is in the very same position and facing the problem of preventing carnage whilst reconciling ideals with necessities.

I don't know what the answer to all this is and am very glad I don't have to sign off the decisions but isn't it true that sometimes wrong has to be done in the pursuit of good?

Re: 'Torture' saved British lives...
 

btw, it's torture, not "torture" - HMG treats it as illegal.

As to the efficacy of it - BBC

Re: 'Torture' saved British lives...
 

Yes I deliberately used the quotes to draw attention to the difference between its legal status here and in the US which is at the centre of the debate. I think waterboarding is a terrible torture but the debate is about whether it's ever justified when worse things clearly are.

Re: 'Torture' saved British lives...
 

Taking the moral high ground against an enemy who appears to have no morals is laudable, but it can mean they have you over a barrel and you're going to lose. Which means they have won of course.

Re: 'Torture' saved British lives...
 

But if you behave as badly as them, they have also won.....

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.

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?

Re: 'Torture' saved British lives...
 

ok then ..deemed acceptible by Bush and the cia ;)

Re: 'Torture' saved British lives...
 

Marty, in all seriousness and with all due respect, what the perpretators "think" in relation to the degree of severity is irrelevant.

This is an irrelevance, and a clearly medically disputed irrelevance at that.

Yes Marty but in this particular case regarding Bush - as anyone with an ounce of common sense can see - any "ambiguity" or alternative interpretation exists only when it suits.

Bush presided over the jailing of a Texas police officer for torture by waterboarding before he himself advocated the intelligence bodies use of it as a viable method of "enhanced interrogation". Did he pardon the police officer and have his sentence commuted or was he pardoned? No.

EDIT:

Thank you for that Hugh.

Re: 'Torture' saved British lives...
 

yes that does smack of double standards and does prove that Bush and chums were desperate to legalise some forms of torture by twisting definitions .I take it that Bush will now be arrested and tried now he has admitted openly to allowing waterboarding along with the perpetrators and those who issued the orders ,after all he has broken USA law at the very least and international law at worst

Re: 'Torture' saved British lives...
 

The waterboarding didn't take place in the US. Therefore US law hasn't been broken. Clever no?

Re: 'Torture' saved British lives...
 

too damn clever

Re: 'Torture' saved British lives...
 

"well it's very relavent if ever the perpetrators are arrested and a descision has to made if torture has been used"

Why would it be relevant? Is "We personally didn't think it was severe" a plausible defence?

If you go back through the links I've used (sorry I can't remember the specific one) you'll see that there were moves to bring charges already underway before he made these recent admissions.

The fact that he has now done so makes for an interesting development.

Re: 'Torture' saved British lives...
 

This is what puzzles me ,why admit to something so openly knowing that there may be charges brought because regardless of what opinion you or i may have regarding the use of waterboarding and if it is or is not torture it is most definately classed as torture by the bulk of the international community and that is what matters ,so he is either massively arrogant or extremely stupid imo ..or he could just be getting his excuses ready via his memoirs prior to charges being brought

Re: 'Torture' saved British lives...
 

Two words frequently used in conjunction with George Bush.

Re: 'Torture' saved British lives...
 

Ultimately if it is necessary and does save lives then I think it can be justified. In the context of what happens in the War on Terror - and I am talking about acts from both 'sides', it is not that bad.

The root of the problem though has been the West’s response to 9/11 – it was the response Osama Bin Laden wanted. We were manipulated.

Osama bin Laden knew on the eve of the 9/11 attacks that his recreation of a Muslim State would only succeed if he could build-up ‘mass participation’ in his project. The violent attacks on the World Trade Centre’s were of course not supported by the majority of Muslims. The attacks did not directly encourage more bombings or create more terrorists.

But America’s response has aligned Muslims with Bin Laden’s ideas. Many ‘Al Qaeda’ attacks since 9/11 have been aimed at the West’s occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan. The occupation of these states has caused many Muslims to the belief that the West is not simply targeting the small lunatic fringe of Islam but actual Islamic states.

So Bin Laden did not attack the World Trade Towers to simply cause mass destruction but to provoke a crusade merciless style response from Bush and Blair. This is what has mobilised and radicalised so many against us.

(Al Qaeda is an ideology Blair et al used it as name for all fundamental Muslim groups none of which now are likely to be under the direct control of mentioned big timers such as Bin Laden)

We are now in a situation where we have to gather intelligence on a determined and sophisticated enemy.