It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

'If I didn't confess to 7/7 bombings MI5 officers would rape my wife,'

page: 3
6
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 2 2009 @ 11:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by jd140
reply to post by andrewh7
 


And the acts of the few have clouded the judgement of people like you.

Now everytime a terroist cries torture people like you are quick to automatically believe them. That is what makes it a perfect weapon for them.

They know people will believe them, no questions asked.

I find it odd that he was tortured and was told that if he didn't confess that they would rape him and his family. Yet he doesn't mind going public with his claims now.

Doesn't he worry for his families safety?

What is to stop these officers from killing his family and making it look like an accident?

Either he is lying or he doesn't care for the welfare of his family.


Or, as is often done by those debating, you could bring up yet another more viable option. The man figured it out that if he does go publice, he will get enough attention and coverage that it should, hopefully, act as a defense barrier for the safety of him and his family. You see, there are other possible reasons for coming out when initially you were scared to do so. Fear is a great thing. Once it is overcome it is amazing at how strong one can become.

Not saying I believe him, just trying to point out some of the obviously (possibly on purpose) ignored options.




posted on Jul, 2 2009 @ 12:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by jd140
[ People will stand behind the terroist as soon as he says the word torture.

No evidence needed.


You sound just like this guy from the article (link in OP):


Mr Rahman has made a lot of unsubstantiated allegations. They have not been evidenced in any court of law.'


Sounds an awful lot like every accusation the British gov't and the US gov't made against various "terror" suspects and even the case to go to war with Saddam.

Lots of allegations absolutely no evidence being presented in a court of law.

I find it odd that people who say, "Where's your evidence?", are also the ones to quickly believe what the government says without producing a shred of evidence to the public.

Yeah, the allegations are unsubstantiated, but how in the world do you expect these guys to produce evidence when the only people who have the evidence are the one's your making accusations against and have complete control over the evidence and the flow of information.

Both are conveniences. But some people chose to blindly believe the official story given by those in power and some chose not to.


edit: missing punctuation

[edit on 2-7-2009 by nunya13]



posted on Jul, 2 2009 @ 12:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by jd140

Now everytime a terroist cries torture people like you are quick to automatically believe them. That is what makes it a perfect weapon for them.

They know people will believe them, no questions asked.


And now every time the government cries "terrorist, terrorist" people like you are quick to automatically believe them. That is what makes it a perfect weapon for them.

They know people will believe them no questions asked.

See how easy we are ALL manipulated?

edit: forgot a "t"

[edit on 2-7-2009 by nunya13]



posted on Jul, 2 2009 @ 01:10 PM
link   
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
 


Ask yourself this, Do you really think the 'terrorists' (I use that word lightly) would just bomb London once and then say oh well enough is enough bye bye and then nothing,

Do you honestly think the 'terrorist' would just fly a plane into the WTC and then just say bye bye thats our work done.

Come on.



posted on Jul, 2 2009 @ 01:21 PM
link   
Lets back up a slight second and examine the newspaper article:




HEADLINE = 'If I didn't confess to 7/7 bombings MI5 officers would rape my wife,' claims torture victim


Then in the article:




He says he was beaten repeatedly by local officials who also threatened to rape him and his wife.

It's the local officials who was on about rape. MI5 allegedly threatened to blow up his family




'They threatened my family. They go to me, "In the UK, gas leaks happen, if your family house had a gas leak and everyone got burnt, there's no problems, we can do that easily".'





He described how two men he believes were British agents would leave the room for 'a break' while he was beaten. They often asked: 'We're not torturing you, are we?' and recorded his confirmations that they were not, he alleges.


My opinion is that this man is attempting to discredit MI5 (which they're quite capable of doing themselves).

Do I believe that torture works as a means to an end? Actually, sometimes yes, and I'm not happy with saying that. How else is some intelligence gathered? Is it morally right? No. How about if it saves lives? Now it starts getting greyer

My approach to all of this is that none of the people involved can be trusted. The Governments, the bombers, the religions, the media, this man - all liars, all with their own agenda, and all with dirty hands. The trick is, who is better at bluffing?



posted on Jul, 2 2009 @ 02:08 PM
link   
reply to post by nunya13
 


You figured me out.

Good job



posted on Jul, 2 2009 @ 02:22 PM
link   
To those who have posted along the lines of 'How do you expect to get anything out of these people without hurting them?'
All morality aside, torture is pointless: We suspect they're bad, so we treat them badly until they confess. Then we dont know if it really was them or if they just said it to avoid worse. The real terrorist may very well still be out there.
How do we get confessions then? We have law which doesn't need a confession. When the authorities suspect someone of wrongdoing but cant prove it, they use surveillance & investigation until they can catch someone with credible evidence around them to put before a jury. If the jury is convinced, they get convicted. If not, they go free.
Oh but terrorists right? So much more scary than criminals? How about armed drug gangs? Psychopathic killers, or religious cults holed up in compounds? Yet we expect the law to be upheld & for good reason, because if we allow the authorities to ignore it for some then we know it'll not be long before they're doing whatever they like to anyone. How about the IRA, were they more scary than Al Qaeda? Look what happened when due process of law was abandoned: the terrorism just got worse & also convictions were overturned.
But hey, perhaps we should repeal Magna Carta & go back to relying on the benevolence of authority? After all, I'm an ordinary person doing no harm, so what do I need an established legal code that protects me from summary judgement for? If the authorities want to tax me punitively, or restrict my free speech, movements or right of assembly, they have good reason surely. Anyone who protests should be punished & a code of law just gets in the way of that.
Oh but wait, the authorities are doing a lot of that stuff already. When did it start to get so bad? Yeah, when Al Qaeda became the super bogey man & we allowed the state an inch. How long before they've taken the mile?



posted on Jul, 2 2009 @ 02:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Daisy-Lola
 
It doesn't matter if MI5 were actually in the room or not, the man was arrested on their behalf & if they were part of an interrogation that involved torture in any way & did nothing to stop it, not even filing a complaint, then they are guilty of conspiracy to torture. That's the law.
Also, 'threats to kill' (ie blow up his family) is a crime which can carry a life sentence.
When it comes to fundamental laws concerning the nature of our freedom, there are no grey areas. It doesn't matter if torturors think they may save lives with info they obtain, the risk to us all cannot be allowed. Habeus Corpus & due process are a cornerstone of our civilisation. If we erode it, what are we actually defending by doing so?
Tyranny is what. Just a different flavour than somebody else's.



posted on Jul, 3 2009 @ 06:04 AM
link   
reply to post by Bunken Drum
 


I've made my position clear on torture. If a bomb goes off and takes out your loved ones, would you feel better knowing that the bomber wasn't tortured when they had him in custody earlier? Well my family is dead, but at least the bomber wasn't tortured when the police had him in custody previously. The idea of torture repulses me, but I understand that the world is not black and white, no matter how much you hope it is.




Habeus Corpus & due process are a cornerstone of our civilisation. If we erode it, what are we actually defending by doing so?

How does that work where he was arrested?
One law in one country is not the same law in another.

Another important thing is, all this depends on this man's word for what happened.

I don't know about you, I only take somebody at their word if I trust them, or they give me a reason for me to trust them. Instead he's had his photograph with his face turned away from the camera. Why? Apparently MI5 know who he is already. He's prepared to tell the world all about it, but not if his face is shown?



posted on Jul, 3 2009 @ 06:45 AM
link   
uh huh...but the thing is you can torture all you want. I will feed you any line of BS to get you to take the cattle prod off of me

-Kyo



posted on Jul, 3 2009 @ 07:07 AM
link   
reply to post by KyoZero
 


Possibly, but I bet you provide better quality & quantity BS with the cattle prod than without.

Do you even know how torture works? Apart from the unpleasant detail? For information, there would be no point torturing someone, just to get them to talk. The torturers know this, because they tend to be fairly good at their job. They'll have key facts that they know and can easily verify and wont tell the suspect about. If they're a well trained torturer, they'll know the truth when they hear it as well.

Torture is not about pain, its all about breaking.



posted on Jul, 3 2009 @ 01:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Daisy-Lola
 

If a bomb goes off and takes out your loved ones, would you feel better knowing that the bomber wasn't tortured when they had him in custody earlier?
Obviously I would be deranged by grief. But my personal feelings hardly matter in setting national policy, or we'd have legalised revenge for the victims of crime. In WW2 the Allies let Coventry get flattened rather than reveal they had cracked the Enigma code. The suffering of a city full of people was necessary to prevent greater suffering.

One law in one country is not the same law in another.
Actually by UN resolution, torture is illegal everywhere. Also, by UK law (see my earlier link), crimes that are committed elsewhere can be tried here so long as the deed is an offence under UK law. Except for those acting for the govt. Why would they create such a legal loophole?
I dont judge a story by pictures of people, I compare it to what I know. This man's story sounds very similar to what Chris Murray was sacked for revealing so I find it credible. Until such times as past guilt is admitted, heads roll, compensation is given to survivors & a new clear 'no torture' policy is stated by parliament, then all I can believe is that it's business as usual.
Let me ask you, if our flagrant disregard for law & our hypocrisy in bemoaning others for similar recruits the terrorist that kills your loved ones, would you feel better knowing that the security services had only sunk so low trying to protect us? I submit that we'd be simply told terrorists are evil & we bear no responsibility for the evil done in our name.



posted on Jul, 3 2009 @ 05:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by dino1989
reply to post by jd140
 


what are you saying ? you do know 7/7 was a inside job too right?



You and your amazing knowledge Dino.




posted on Jul, 4 2009 @ 03:59 AM
link   
reply to post by triplesod
 


you think your government loves you?



posted on Jul, 4 2009 @ 07:51 AM
link   
I agree that extreme forms of torture should not be used whilst interrogating or questioning anyone.

However, I would like to ask an open question to everyone here;
If you were questioning a terrorist or an opponent in war, how would you extract information that would determine the truth / prevent further terrorist acts / help you win a war and reduce fatalities on your side?

I ask this because I know for a fact that I would not divulge anything whatsoever under 'normal' questioning.

There has to be an element of fear during questioning, especially when we are talking about extremists and fanatics.



posted on Jul, 4 2009 @ 10:22 AM
link   
reply to post by Freeborn
 


I think that once you start torturing people to extract information then the information you get is tainted and will include anything that the interigator wants to hear! They would say anything just to stop the pain.
However, if I put myself in the role of the questioner then I would find it extremely hard to keep my hands off the scum who had tried to attack innocent people.
Perhaps it should be done on an evidence scale? If you have caught someone red handed then use any means at your disposal to extract information, but don't just pick people off the streets on the word of one stooly and start hurting them on the off chance that they may know something important.



posted on Jul, 4 2009 @ 04:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by dino1989
reply to post by triplesod
 


you think your government loves you?


Not particularly but I do know that the government needs us to survive, so whatever you might think, their actions are still the result of the peoples wishes, generally.

Anyway, the point is not whether they love me or not, it is whether they would commit the levels of complete insanity that you allege but of course, I cannot comment on that now, can I, seeing as you have edited every single part of your allegation out of your post!! I presume, or rather I hope, that you have realised just how ridiculous your thoughts on the matter were.



posted on Jul, 8 2009 @ 01:54 AM
link   
Look 7/7 was a inside job

if you dont think it is ,and you think they are people want to kill you for your freedom, than be a complete idiot and believe your government



posted on Jul, 8 2009 @ 02:50 AM
link   
reply to post by Freeborn
 

If you were questioning a terrorist or an opponent in war, how would you extract information that would determine the truth / prevent further terrorist acts / help you win a war and reduce fatalities on your side?
I would do what the police do. Start by offering a deal: info for less jail time or better conditions. If the info was valuable enough, they could go free; if the info led to major arms seizure or military victory, I'd offer them money too.
If they wont deal, I'd put together what info I knew with that I strongly suspected, add a few nasty allegations against the subject & tell the subject it was the statement of 1 of his own, that that person was making a deal & it looked like they were going to blame most of it on the subject.
I'd then remind them that even on segregation in prison, where the only people they'd meet would be kiddy fiddlers & rapists, they still wouldn't be safe cos even the worst scumbag thinks he's better than terrorists & has a right to kill them.
Still no joy? I'd tell the subject we were going to falsify a statement of his & let it be known to his own side that he was making a deal, so he'd never be safe. Then offer the 1st deal again.
No joy? Ok, well in that case, we'll have to bring your family &/or friends in & charge them as co-conspirators.
This approach seems to work well enough for UK police that they keep doing it, so I expect it would work. "Terrorists" are just people after all. If it didn't? I'd accept that I'd done all that was right & proper. To brutalise someone would be wrong & I wouldn't do it.



posted on Jul, 8 2009 @ 04:36 AM
link   
reply to post by Bunken Drum
 


In summary, you would change physical torture for mental torture. Well, that's OK then!

So you agree with what the MI5 allegedly were doing, and not with what Bengali forces were doing.




The suffering of a city full of people was necessary to prevent greater suffering.


So we're talking about 1 person, in the prevention of possible terrorist threat against many, which is OK by your quote.




Let me ask you, if our flagrant disregard for law & our hypocrisy in bemoaning others for similar recruits the terrorist that kills your loved ones, would you feel better knowing that the security services had only sunk so low trying to protect us?


Actually yes I would feel better. Torture is not common practice, intelligence gathering is. There must be a reason why they allegedly decided on this course of action. It's OK to sit on a high horse dictating morals and ethics with clean hands, but you'll find it's the the people who actually do the work that get their hands coved in sh*t

In response to your earlier post, of course it sounds credible. If it didn't sound credible the papers wouldnt have published it.
If he had said Elvis was sat in the corner strumming on a banjo, would that have sounded as credible and made the papers? Not by any reputable paper.
If he had said he had just been sat been questioned in a room for 48hours by British Intelligence, would that have made the papers? No, it's a dull story



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join