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]

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]

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?

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?

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

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.

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