'Torture' saved British lives...

Originally Posted by Hugh

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?

ok then ..deemed acceptible by Bush and the cia

[Mr Angry]

Originally Posted by martyh

well that bit there seems vague ,what would be severe to some is not severe to others.

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

Originally Posted by martyh

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

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

Originally Posted by martyh

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 .

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.

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

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

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



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

accepted

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.

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

[danielf]

Originally Posted by martyh

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

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

Originally Posted by danielf

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

too damn clever

[Mr Angry]

Originally Posted by martyh

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

"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.

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

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.

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

[Mr Angry]

Originally Posted by martyh

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

Two words frequently used in conjunction with George Bush.

[domo247]

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.