Planetarion Forums

zakoff · 2 Mar 2005, 04:38

Anyone been watching the programmes on Channel 4 (uk) about Torture and the war of terror?

They pretty horrific insights into the world of torture and the internation network of intellegences use of rather harsh methods to gain information (this obviously is well known...)

What i found most unbelievable is that the Americans have actually been partaking - in coordination with Britain - in kidnapping of Muslim people from certain countries and then taking them to countries that allow torture. One example of this was a Syrian born Canadian citizen: a normal family guy with two kids working as a software engineer. He was arrested at JFK, returning to work, after a holiday in Tunisia with his family. The American authorities then flew him in an executive jet to Syria, a country that they are actually complaining to about their use of torture, and he was tortured by the Syrians. After admitting that he was Al-Queda he was kept for 10months in an underground cell, after which he was released without charge. During all this time, the family were not even told of his situation. Apparently the only intel the Americans had on the person in the first place was that he was a friend of a friend who had a friend that was involved in terrorism.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3421743.stm

Apparently, according to Channel 4, this is frequent occurance. The use of a third party country to torture people, on the programme they had numerous examples of people being jetted around the World in an American owned jet. I must admit that i found this rather terrifying. I really recomment that everyone watch the next programme that is at 11pm wednesday on channel 4!

CamelToe · 2 Mar 2005, 04:45

Channel 4 (uk): the definitive source on everything.

zakoff · 2 Mar 2005, 04:48

the report is by Andrew Gilligan. Who is famous in the UK for a David Kelly stuff... He is probably one of the best investigative journalists in the World.

Hicks · 2 Mar 2005, 05:06

There was a thread on this on another forum I read, they all seemed to agree that torture, detention without trial and the abolition of innocent until proven guilty was fully justified when "evil" terrorists are involved. That thread is a very good example of why I can only be bothered reading that forum once every 6 months.

CamelToe · 2 Mar 2005, 05:14

Without getting too technical or involved in this conversation, torture is like racial profiling: it sucks, its unfair, but it works. Granted there's a limit that you can only approach before the torturee will confess to anything you accuse him with. The bottom line, in my ever so humble opinion, you must treat savages savagely.

Hicks · 2 Mar 2005, 05:27

Oh Rehs this does make me terribly sad. Ignoring the moral objections torture is ineffective especially when you're using it on foot soldiers who could barely spell Bin Laden let alone point to which country he's in.

zakoff · 2 Mar 2005, 06:23

Quote:

Originally Posted by CamelToe

The bottom line, in my ever so humble opinion, you must treat savages savagely.

that sounds very similar to Colonialism in the 19th century. I'd life to thing that we have moven on from then. I'd also like to know how you distinguish between normal people and 'savages'?

CamelToe · 2 Mar 2005, 08:13

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hicks

Oh Rehs this does make me terribly sad. Ignoring the moral objections torture is ineffective especially when you're using it on foot soldiers who could barely spell Bin Laden let alone point to which country he's in.

As I implied: torture is a complex subject to which I gave a simple opinion on. I'll leave it to the relative policy makers to decide the rules, as that is their job and what they get paid to do (my job keeps be busy enough).

However, forcefulling removing information from someone who clearly isn't apart of the useful echelon is inhumane. But if there is a chance to get information that could save lives (be it troops, civilians, or insurgents), or serve some other important purpose out of someone, then I am all for it and I hope we are using it as often as necessary.

And yes, Islamic fundamentalists are savages. Here is my now removed definition of a savage. Right click and save. Please keep the "We're just as bad" arguments to yourself. I got no time to waste talking to hippies (not a slam towards Hicks or zak, just anyone else who wants to flame me for my opinion).

Ste · 2 Mar 2005, 10:45

Some of the people in Guantanamo have been there 3 years. You really think they know anything worthwile about the world today?
As far as anyone is concerned they are all innocent men who are being held indefinately in awful conditions and being tortured almost every day.
Does it not worry you that not one single case has gone to trial and that every person released has been subsequently released without charge?
There are kids as young as 15 in Guantanamo. And the US has set up a network of these prisons around the world - in Iraq, Afghanistan etc.

It's sick, inhumane and immoral.

Perhaps torture is required in certain conditions. But these conditions would have to be extreme and are certainly not met in most uses of it today.

ceres · 2 Mar 2005, 12:42

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hicks

Oh Rehs this does make me terribly sad. Ignoring the moral objections torture is ineffective especially when you're using it on foot soldiers who could barely spell Bin Laden let alone point to which country he's in.

You dont need a doctorate to set off a bomb.
________
Web shows

Banned · 2 Mar 2005, 12:48

Quote:

Originally Posted by CamelToe

Without getting too technical or involved in this conversation, torture is like racial profiling: it sucks, its unfair, but it works. Granted there's a limit that you can only approach before the torturee will confess to anything you accuse him with. The bottom line, in my ever so humble opinion, you must treat savages savagely.

But then we'd be savages too. And people would have to treat us savagely. OH NOES, LOGIC STRIKES AGAIN.

Ninja_spammer · 2 Mar 2005, 13:02

I want to see them do a program where the one of the guys from the birmingham 6 follows through on his offer to torture david blunkett for a week and get him to confess to being osamy bin laden.

I doubt that torture over a prolonged period of time will reveal any genuinely useful information when you are dealing with 'suspects' (many whom are turning out to be innocent) and even when you do get information out of a 'known' terrorist the info will probably be out of date and all you're doing is confirming what you already know, which is falls far short of the 'justifiable torture' scenario (Oh noes nuke in manhattan, have man we know did it, must get info in 3 hours) .

I really liked the US official (was it richard perle?) who said that if they had a 'terrorist' who liked his wife and child and he wouldn't crack he would freely torture his (presumed) innocent wife and child .

Freedom and Democracy at work.

JonnyBGood · 2 Mar 2005, 14:20

Quote:

Originally Posted by CamelToe

Without getting too technical or involved in this conversation, torture is like racial profiling: it sucks, its unfair, but it works. Granted there's a limit that you can only approach before the torturee will confess to anything you accuse him with. The bottom line, in my ever so humble opinion, you must treat savages savagely.

Do you just stick random words together and hope it all comes out sounding vaguely coherent or is there something more mysterious at work here?

Marilyn Manson · 2 Mar 2005, 14:24

Quote:

Originally Posted by CamelToe

And yes, Islamic fundamentalists are savages. Here is my definition of a savage. Right click and save.

Access from the University Network to this site has been blocked

If you require access to this site for purposes related to your academic studies or your employment at the University, please contact your academic supervisor (if you are a student) or your line manager (if you are a member of staff).

Clearly you're a degenerate fag if the university has chose to block you.

JonnyBGood · 2 Mar 2005, 14:28

It's the decapitation videos.

Marilyn Manson · 2 Mar 2005, 14:29

Yuk!

Nodrog · 2 Mar 2005, 14:35

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toccata & Fugue

My girlfriend was tortured by the Turkish police. There was no special materials used, it turns out having the shit kicked out of you by half a dozen policemen is enough to make most people break. The information she gave probably caused a bunch more people to be arrested but they just did it for fun really.

There is no "should we, shouldn't we" dimension here. If you're happy to stand by and watch another human being torutred to "save lives" then where do you stop. Presumably you would be happy to ban cars, since life is so important to you, in fact you should probably get rid of freedom all together.

Perhaps if the person you were torturing was threatening your family then that would be a different case of affairs, but leaving it to policy makers to decide doesn't remove relieve you of tacit endorsement.)

Are you saying that torture is bad, or just that you dont trust the government when it comes to torturing people? Would you support it if the government were more trustworthy?

Marilyn Manson · 2 Mar 2005, 14:36

P.S, this Camelman amuses me.

I particularly like the phrases "forcefulling removing information " and the part about someone being part of "the useful echelon"

It's like Blairite management talk meets Dan Quayle.

zakoff · 2 Mar 2005, 17:03

Quote:

Originally Posted by CamelToe

As I implied: torture is a complex subject to which I gave a simple opinion on. I'll leave it to the relative policy makers to decide the rules, as that is their job and what they get paid to do (my job keeps be busy enough).

However, forcefulling removing information from someone who clearly isn't apart of the useful echelon is inhumane. But if there is a chance to get information that could save lives (be it troops, civilians, or insurgents), or serve some other important purpose out of someone, then I am all for it and I hope we are using it as often as necessary.

And yes, Islamic fundamentalists are savages. Here is my definition of a savage. Right click and save. Please keep the "We're just as bad" arguments to yourself. I got no time to waste talking to hippies (not a slam towards Hicks or zak, just anyone else who wants to flame me for my opinion).

There is no way to accurately extract information from someone 'forcibly'. In a battle situation it is perhaps useful to learn from the enemy what the plans are etc. How does this work in the so called 'war on terror'? Most the information held by anyone who actually is a terrorist, which most of those getting tortured aren't, is going to be too old to be useful once it is extracted. Torture is not going to save lives in this way because the information they give is always going to be old and tainted due to the forceful extraction. Torture just doesn't get accurate information.

However, neo-cons don't need accurate information, their power is assured by telling people there is a threat and it is a victory for them if terrorism isn't happening on US soil. So its easy for them to say that torture is working, because there are no attacks.

I don't think anyone would disagree that the fundamentalists who are killing people in this way are 'savage'. However combatting savagery with savagery is certainly not the answer and it is not the people who are doing the beheading that are getting tortured.

This is not a Hippy view at all, it is what Democracy and freedom are about. Freedom against torture, Freedom unless found GUILTY through fair trials etc. How can we profess to be free and democratic if there is this scab on our civilisation. Calling it a hippy thing is ridiculous, most of the anti-torture laws were agreed on by right wing governments in the first place.

Banned · 2 Mar 2005, 18:17

WE ARE LOSING THE WAR ON DRUGS^H^H^H^H^HTERROR

MrL_JaKiri · 2 Mar 2005, 18:39

My favorite bit about the Guantanamo Bay thing is that they've been defined as "not prisoners of war" so they apparantly don't get any rights under the geneva convention, but the geneva convention actually grants more rights to people who AREN'T prisoners of war. Or love.