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

reply to post by Bunken Drum


I experienced all those tactics and more in my distant youth, and never grassed on anyone...why would a religous fanatic be any different.

For some people there is a code of honour that is hard to be broken.

I asked that question because I don't have the answers; I find torture morally incorrect and the results achieved maybe suspect but, and it's a massive but, for a lot of fanatics I suspect that maybe the only course of action.

reply to post by Daisy-Lola

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.

Well, in the instance where I believed lives could be saved, I would resort to the kind of mental torture I described: ie normal UK police tactics. I would not however threaten to kill someones family. To me that seems like crossing a line.
Nor would I absent myself from a room so that somebody else could do the actual physical torture whilst I turned a blind eye, because morally I know I would be just as guilty. In reality, the only reason to leave the room would be so that I would merely be guilty of conspiracy to torture, which if I were MI5, I would be protected against prosecution for (in the UK only) by 1998 law. I would however realise that should I ever end up in court in The Hague, I wouldn't have a leg to stand on.

Originally posted by Bunken Drum

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

Originally posted by Daisy-Lola

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

No it isn't. Churchill didn't order the bombing of Coventry; we're not guilty of something unless we cause it, or take part in a conspiracy to make it, happen. The allies just refused to act against the bombing so as to save greater suffering. Its the difference between pushing a child in front of a car & refusing to swerve to avoid a child when to do so would endanger you, your passengers, other road users & passers by.
What it comes down to is whether you believe that a govt must be kept within strict boundaries of law lest it turn into out of control tyranny, or not.

reply to post by Daisy-Lola

There must be a reason why they allegedly decided on this course of action

Very trusting of you. Personally, I'd like to think that too, but I cant help thinking "Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely." & so I am not prepared to accept agents of our govt acting illegally because the more they get away with it, the more corrupted they become & thus it'll only be a matter of time before its me being tortured, because my name came up on a screen because I know someone whose brother-in-law was once married to a woman whose aunt's boyfriend is a suspected political dissident (ie environmental protestor).
The rest of your post sounds like you're saying we shouldn't believe the man because his story is believable. Surely not? Anyhoo:Suspiciously similar circumstances...
Perhaps the former Shadow Home Secretary, who recieves the same security briefings the govt do, is making it up, because its believable.

Originally posted by jd140
reply to post by dino1989

 

What is disgusting is that people will automatically believe him.

By now I would think people would have learned that crying torture is a powerful weapon for the terroists.

Does it happen? Of course it does, but nowhere near the freaquncy that is being reported. It doesn't matter though. People will stand behind the terroist as soon as he says the word torture.

No evidence needed.

But how do you know? were you there? haven't you just 'automatically disbelieved him' based on your own philosophy of the world?

Originally posted by jd140
reply to post by dino1989

 

What is disgusting is that people will automatically believe him.

By now I would think people would have learned that crying torture is a powerful weapon for the terroists.

Does it happen? Of course it does, but nowhere near the freaquncy that is being reported. It doesn't matter though. People will stand behind the terroist as soon as he says the word torture.

No evidence needed.

But how do you know? were you there? haven't you just 'automatically disbelieved him' based on your own philosophy of the world?

Originally posted by jd140
reply to post by dino1989

 

What is disgusting is that people will automatically believe him.

By now I would think people would have learned that crying torture is a powerful weapon for the terroists.

Does it happen? Of course it does, but nowhere near the freaquncy that is being reported. It doesn't matter though. People will stand behind the terroist as soon as he says the word torture.

No evidence needed.

Originally posted by jd140
reply to post by dino1989

 

What is disgusting is that people will automatically believe him.

By now I would think people would have learned that crying torture is a powerful weapon for the terroists.

Does it happen? Of course it does, but nowhere near the freaquncy that is being reported. It doesn't matter though. People will stand behind the terroist as soon as he says the word torture.

No evidence needed.

reply to post by Freeborn

I experienced all those tactics and more in my distant youth, and never grassed on anyone...why would a religous fanatic be any different.

The reason I know about how UK police operate is because I've experienced it myself too; good hidings as well back in the 80s. I didn't grass either, but then I, & I suspect you, was never offered a load of money for info, nor faced the prospect of having to go on the numbers in jail. I have to say that had I the choice between a fat cheque & new identity or 30yrs banged up with nonces, I probably would have cracked. I did confess rather than have my girlfriend dragged into it 1 time. But then I'm not a religious nutter. Still, maybe this bloke isn't either. Maybe he just knows some, or its mistaken identity, or maybe he's religious but not a terrorist. Who knows?
Maybe he is tho. I still say we cannot condone torture, even if it definitely would save lives, which couldn't be known in advance, because once you start down that road, where does it stop? We'd be forced to trust the morals of individuals & if that was a safe bet, we wouldn't have law in the 1st place.

reply to post by Bunken Drum


All I can really say to you BD, is that I am really glad that you're not in the Intelligence community.

reply to post by Daisy-Lola All I can really say to you DL is:
1st they came for the communists;
I did not speak out because I was not a communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists;
I did not speak out because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for the travellers;
I did not speak out because I was not a traveller.
Then they came for the muslims;
I did not speak out because I was not a muslim.
When they come for me, who will be left to speak out?
Paraphrased from Martin Niemöller
Although TBH, in the last 2 instances, I was & did & now am doing, but I hope you get the point.