Quote:
Originally Posted by danielf
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.
|
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 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ignitionnet
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.
|
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.