Quote:
Originally Posted by martyh
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
|
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 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osem
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.
|
The various ongoing cases alleging torture by or on behalf of British intelligence would suggest you are absoulutely right to suspect as much.