Quote:
Originally Posted by Osem
... 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? |
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.