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.

 

British MPs call for torture inquiry

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 4 2009 @ 06:24 AM
link   
This is a step in the right direction. The UK govt was complicit in the torture conducted by CIA. The British govt now must conduct an independant inquiry and anyone guilty of torture, abuse and human right violation must be punished


Parliament’s Joint Human Rights Committee has called for an independent inquiry into allegations that the British Government was complicit in acts of torturing terror suspects.

The cross-party group of MPs and peers examined details of several cases where it was alleged individuals detained as terror suspects were mistreated by Britain’s allies abroad.

Shadow foreign secretary William Hague said: “The Government’s failure to answer growing questions about torture and rendition are damaging the good name of this country.”


Source: rinf.com...




posted on Aug, 4 2009 @ 06:52 AM
link   
I have conflicting emotions over this.

Of course I recognise that extreme forms of torture are unacceptable.
But I also recognise that when questioning anyone there has to be an element of fear there.

And if by instilling and bit of fear allied soldiers lives were saved or the war shortened, is it justified?

I genuinely don't know.

I know that in my less law abiding early years whenever questioned by the Police, I never grassed on anyone; i felt no fear except the fear of betraying friends etc....now imagine a religous fanatic....what is going to get him to talk?

But I recognise that morally torture of anykind is inexcusable.

But war of any kind isn't nice, and not nice things happen.

So I guess I am of the opinion that some sort of fear is both inevitable and necessary when questioning the enemy during times of war etc.

I am also aware that i'll probably be in the minority in saying that and will probably get flamed, but....?

Should there be an inquiry?
Of course, any extreme forms of torture must be condemned and goverments must start being transparent and honest.



posted on Aug, 4 2009 @ 07:19 AM
link   
Of course our Government is complicit in torture and do you seriously expect anyone to Government to publically admit this.

If some people have to be tortured to protect this country, so be it and I would expect my Government to take all and any means to protect me.

An enquiry is just another waste of taxpayer money so a few liberals can beleat on my human rights. What about the rights of the vast majority of citizens who expect to be protected as a right?



posted on Aug, 4 2009 @ 07:21 AM
link   
reply to post by Freedom ERP
 



If some people have to be tortured to protect this country, so be it and I would expect my Government to take all and any means to protect me.


How can torturing terrorists help the govt protect us?

Torture cannot be a means of protecting people



posted on Aug, 4 2009 @ 07:29 AM
link   
reply to post by sunny_2008ny
 


Torture for torture's sake or pleasure etc is obviously wrong.

Torture as part of questioning the enemy and seeking information that could save lives, shorten the war, provide important intelligence etc is a necessary evil.

There is a massive difference.



posted on Aug, 4 2009 @ 07:40 AM
link   
I think its been proven that torture doesn't gain any further information, But what it does do is make Innocent people confess to things they didn't do !

We signed up to the "Geneva Convention" to stop Barbaric practices and we must abide by it.

Anyone found guilty of torture should have the FULL force of the Law brought upon them.....No exceptions.



posted on Aug, 4 2009 @ 07:50 AM
link   
reply to post by ken10
 


I understand that.
But there has to be an element of fear.
How else do we extract information?
Tickle their feet?
Give them chinese burns?
Make them watch Eastenders for hours non-stop?



posted on Aug, 4 2009 @ 07:57 AM
link   
reply to post by sunny_2008ny
 


INTELLIGENCE

Government is advised on threats by our intelligence services, and they use a varity of means to gather intelligence. There is a requirement to verify intelligence or to add to an incomplete picture and human based intelligence or information is always going to be a key element. There will always be a question mark after intelligence gained via torture and on occasion, the kind of intelligence can be used to confirm an existing element of intelligence or provide clues on the trail of intelligence.

Just imagine if one of our allies protected themselves from a terrorist attack because of intelligence partially gained from torture and we refused to look or have anything to do with intelligence gained from torture and hundreds of British people were killed and/or injuried.

We are unlikely to know if any attacks on the country or citizens have been prevented by intelligence gained in part of torture, but I am happy that my Government uses any means to protect me.

We have charged our Government to protect us. Do you want to opt out of this protection?



posted on Aug, 4 2009 @ 07:59 AM
link   
reply to post by Freeborn
 



How else do we extract information?


By torture the authorities extract information or make a suspect confess what they want him to confess, but only a court can decide whether it is true or not. Torture is not a replacement for a fair trial, and confessions before the police or outside the court cannot be evidence of guilt, if I am correct



posted on Aug, 4 2009 @ 08:01 AM
link   
reply to post by ken10
 


Show your proof rather than just state some bland fact. What evidence is there that torture does not work?

It would not have survived as a tool of gaining intelligence for thousands of years unless it has some value.

And the people who are attacking us, have of coursed signed up to the Geneva Convention. I am sure that those who lost family in 7/7 are delighted to hear this.



posted on Aug, 4 2009 @ 08:08 AM
link   
reply to post by sunny_2008ny
 


You seem to be missed the point of Intelligence. It is about give an assessment to our leaders so that can make decisions and that information can not be subject to the normal reviews of the courts.

The information may need to be confirmed quickly or of such a nature that it must be kept secret to protect other intelligence sources.



posted on Aug, 4 2009 @ 08:25 AM
link   
reply to post by Freedom ERP
 


From a very quick Google



"if I take a Bunsen burner to the guy's genitals, he's going to tell you just about anything," which would be pointless.





Aside from its immorality and its illegality, says Herrington, torture is simply "not a good way to get information." In his experience, nine out of 10 people can be persuaded to talk with no "stress methods" at all, let alone cruel and unusual ones.


The Torture Myth

SOURCE




[edit on 4-8-2009 by ken10]



posted on Aug, 4 2009 @ 08:46 AM
link   
reply to post by sunny_2008ny
 


And The Taliban etc are renowned for the humanitarian way they treat their prisoners and hostages.

Grow up.

War is not fought according to The Marquis Of Queensberry Rules.

It is a horrible, nasty thing where horrible nasty things happen.
Which is why it should only be a last resort.
But once entered into it is not touchy feely time.
PC driven nonsense has no place in war.

As I have intimated earlier, there is a massive difference in instilling fear whilst questioning opposition fighters etc and torturing people just for fun.
If there has been any instances of that then the perpetrators deserve to be prosecuted.



posted on Aug, 4 2009 @ 09:21 AM
link   
reply to post by ken10
 


And the internet is a great tool to prove any case. The Washington Post author had an agenda.

And look at what I have posted. Intelligenced gained from torture is typically not used as quality intelligence but to confirm information.

A good torturer will not lead the answer by the way the question is asked. I have not denied that if you ask a question and the intended answer is included in the question, you will typically get the answer you are looking for.



posted on Aug, 4 2009 @ 09:44 AM
link   
reply to post by Freedom ERP
 





The Washington Post author had an agenda.

Are you serious ?

Another source

Or another source

Or have they an agenda too ?



A good torturer will not lead the answer by the way the question is asked.


Don't you mean a good "Interrogator"



posted on Aug, 4 2009 @ 09:52 AM
link   
reply to post by Freeborn
 


Those being tortured will say anything they think will make the pain stop.
Information from torture is not reliable.

With nothing more than a pair of vicegrips, I guarantee that I can make almost anyone admit they ate their children, blew up the pentagon, and are madly in love with President Obama.

Adolescent reasoning of "well they do it" is no reason for civilized societies resort to torture. Want real freedom? Seek Justice.



[edit on 4-8-2009 by whaaa]



posted on Aug, 4 2009 @ 09:57 AM
link   
reply to post by ken10
 


And just look at the sources for your information - All left leaning and naturally in favour of nature justice and have a view that we all live in a perfect, well ordered world, where everyone obeys the rules.

And are there likely to be plenty of articles that counter your view point. No.

If intelligence gained from torture has ensured our safety, we are unlikely to know so just finding information that says torture does not work is no real argument.

If you want to use Interrogator OK.

Again, I make the point that intelligence gained under torture is not considered quality information and is typically used to confirm other information or to provide avenues of new research.



posted on Aug, 4 2009 @ 10:15 AM
link   
reply to post by whaaa
 


I would never use the 'look what they do' as justification but merely to provide a bit of balance.

Trained and skilled interrogators don't use the vice on the bollocks approach to interrogation.
They are much more subtle and skilled than that.
But I repeat, there has to be an element of fear otherwise these people would divulge absolutely nothing.
And if that was the case we would fail to gain valuable information that could help save lives and shorten the war.

There is no excuse for things like the gang rape of SUSPECTS just to instill fear.
But the use of fear against KNOWN enemy is an imperative part of interrogation, to suggest anything other is, imho, naive.

War has never been nice.
War will never be nice.



posted on Aug, 4 2009 @ 01:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by FreebornAnd if that was the case we would fail to gain valuable information that could help save lives and shorten the war.



And just for the sake of presenting another side....
Is is possible that the info gleaned from fear based torture is fictitious also
and just given to the torturers to make the pain stop and actually contribute to even more death and lengthen the conflict.

I submit that anyone with the predilection to torture, doesn't really want facts; they want sadistic/sexual gratification.

How is the truth going to be known except after the fact?



posted on Aug, 4 2009 @ 02:11 PM
link   
reply to post by whaaa
 


Information gained from interrogations must have corrobative evidence if it is to be acted upon.
Which is why skilled interrogators are used, who know when to use the fear card...and when not to.

But the fact remains, fear is an important tool of the interrogator and must remain so.




top topics



 
2

log in

join