'Torture' saved British lives...

[Osem]

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

British lives were saved by the use of information obtained from terrorist suspects by "waterboarding", according to former US President George W Bush. He said the interrogation technique - which simulates drowning - had helped to break up plots to attack Heathrow airport and Canary Wharf.

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?

[danielf]

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?

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...

[Osem]

Originally Posted by danielf

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...

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?

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.

[danielf]

Originally Posted by Osem

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

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

Yes it is wrong but killing is wrong too yet it's widely accepted that sometimes it's necessary e.g. in 'war' situations.

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

[Osem]

Originally Posted by danielf

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'?

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.

[danielf]

Originally Posted by Osem

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.

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.

[Ignitionnet]

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.

[Osem]

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 ----------

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.

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.

[Osem]

Originally Posted by Maggy J

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.

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?

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

As to the efficacy of it - BBC

According to ex-CIA officer John Kiriakou, al-Qaeda suspect Abu Zubaydah "broke" within half a minute. Abu Zubaydah said later that he had made things up to satisfy his interrogators.

However, the New York Times reported on 19 April 2009 that a Justice Department memo revealed that CIA interrogators used the waterboarding technique 183 times on Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the admitted planner of the September 11 attacks, and 83 times on Abu Zubaydah.

The figures undermine the suggestion that the technique produces rapid results.

[Osem]

Originally Posted by Hugh

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

As to the efficacy of it - BBC

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.

[Taf]

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.

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