Advanced search

Apparently "waterboarding" saved London from a terrorist attack according to The Mail.

(43 Posts)
TheJollyPirate Tue 09-Nov-10 09:50:27

Now correct me if I am wrong but surely if you are being tortured you will eventually say whatever your torturers want to hear - even if it isn't true. confused.

I don't know if The Mail have their facts right or wrong with regard to the possibility of a terrorist attack but I do know that under torture people will crack and possibly implicate themselves in anything - regardless of whether or not it is true.

Torture can never be justified.

CoteDAzur Tue 09-Nov-10 09:55:07

So water boarding was used as an interrogation technique in the UK?

TheJollyPirate Tue 09-Nov-10 09:57:10

Don't think so Cote - I suspect The Mail is referring to Guantanamo (sp) etc but justifying the use of torture there.

LauraNorder Tue 09-Nov-10 09:58:52

No not the UK this is about George Bush & the USA isn't it? I briefly heard about it on the radio this morning. I think he has done his first interview in 4 years.

sarah293 Tue 09-Nov-10 10:01:32

Message withdrawn

Chil1234 Tue 09-Nov-10 10:03:23

Bush claims that information gained through torture means that attacks were averted in the UK at Heathrow and Canary Wharf. Attacks on those locations were averted and he is probably right on that score. However, information gained through torture was also at the root of the whole 'Weapons of Mass Destruction' in Iraq deabacle.

We can't be naive about it. If intelligence information comes our way - however it is derived - we have to check it out. But we shouldn't condone or encourage torture because it is not a particularly reliable method of extracting information.

Guacamole Tue 09-Nov-10 10:04:05

Not that I want to defend the DM, but... This is directly from GWB's book and not from them, I think they must just be quoting him.

McDreamy Tue 09-Nov-10 10:06:46

Doesn't GB think water-boarding isn't a form of torture? Way to go George hmm

edam Tue 09-Nov-10 10:07:55

Yes, it is from GB's book so entirely legitimate for the DM to report it. In fact it would be negligent had they not.

However, it is almost certainly bollocks. Bush wants to justify his appalling crimes against humanity. So he makes up this claim which we have no way of verifying. He is a proven liar and a war criminal so there is no reason to believe him and plenty of reasons to doubt him.

Torture is illegal. It is wrong for the pragmatic reasons given and on moral grounds.

edam Tue 09-Nov-10 10:08:31

IF GB thinks water-boarding is not torture, maybe he should try it and then tell us how it feels.

McDreamy Tue 09-Nov-10 10:09:48

Absolutely Edam

BadgersPaws Tue 09-Nov-10 10:45:54

I wonder if George has given any thought to how many acts of terrorism were caused, and will be caused, by people who saw the water boarding as proof of Al Qaeda's claims that the nations of the west were evil and inhuman?

McDreamy Tue 09-Nov-10 11:20:28

That's the thing isn't it? They don't see themselves as terrorists, they call themselves freedom fighters fighting against what they see is the evil of the west - GB hasn't exactly helped dismiss that image with actions such as water-boarding!

begonyabampot Tue 09-Nov-10 14:07:35

I find this hard. Part of me is of course against torture and part of me is happy to let the secret service get on with what is necessary in avert some of these terrorist attacks. it is right for human rights groups etc to fight for and raise these issues but I also think many of us are happy to not really know what it takes sometimes to carry out this kind of work.

BadgersPaws Tue 09-Nov-10 14:35:40

"I also think many of us are happy to not really know what it takes sometimes to carry out this kind of work."

But we have to know what's being done in our names.

This matters because:

1) What happens if one day it happens to someone you know?

2) What about the "proof" that it gives to Al Qaeda that we're "evil" and they're the "good guys"?

3) When the US is pretty clear that it believes that the "ends justify the means" won't other people then feel even more justified to do bad things to achieve a "good" end?

4) What about the "noise" generated when tortured suspects will confess to just about anything and overwhelm with all sorts of made up reports.

begonyabampot Tue 09-Nov-10 14:42:44

I agree with what you say BadgersPaws. I'm torn on this though. I support the ideal of no torture etc but I also know if i was involved in secret service line of work and everything that entails, I might see it differently and think that the end justifies the means. I think it is very difficult - but methods and so on should always be open to question and we need people to push and protest for this.

josie14 Tue 09-Nov-10 14:59:36

I think it is almost impossible to believe a word that comes from Bush (or Blair) for that matter. They both have an extensive record of lying to get what they want. Nothing that comes from either of them is worth listening to.

CoteDAzur Tue 09-Nov-10 20:38:04

I agree. If Bush said the sun rises from the East, I would not believe him.

I once read a short story about a town where everyone was happy, nobody needed anything, where all earthly goods were free for all. However, all that depended on a child being locked up in a cell. As long as he was kept there, the whole town would forever be happy.

The question is: Can it ever be justified for one person to be locked up and tortured, even for the good of others?

The answer is: No.

Itsjustafleshwound Tue 09-Nov-10 20:46:28

As per my copy of the Times - GB sees waterboarding as 'morally defensible, legal and effective.'

All sides have blood on their hands, and if it means that a few more lives are spared, I can turn a blind eye ... sorry, but I don't think taking a moral high ground is the best strategy to deal with those who are hellbent on destroying our lives.

begonyabampot Tue 09-Nov-10 21:12:39

Cote - it might not be justifiable but under certain circumstances I would do it and probably be grateful to those who do if i found out that a terror attack had been averted which would probably have killed me and my children. Hypocritical maybe, but that's life. And your example is totally hypothetical - terror groups and attacks have been averted due to the secret services investigations - whether using torture , i don't know.

CoteDAzur Tue 09-Nov-10 21:32:58

How can what I have said be "hypocritical"? It is the plot of a book. hmm

CoteDAzur Tue 09-Nov-10 21:33:55

Ah, "hypothetical". Of course it is. It is fiction.

begonyabampot Tue 09-Nov-10 21:36:49

hypocritical! Where did I pull that one from - is it actually a word? Maybe should proofread my replies! blush

begonyabampot Tue 09-Nov-10 21:44:00

God, i haven't even been drinking! Yes hypocritical as in i'm against torture and nations should be condemned but i'd still do it anyway if i had to. Also hypothetical as in your example - right where's me bottle of wine!

CoteDAzur Tue 09-Nov-10 22:56:06

This is why I wish Game Theory were a subject taught in schools.

I would also torture and kill if it meant I could save my babies. That is not the point.

We are talking about what a state should do. States have other priorities. They have rules to uphold, lest all they stand for be null and void.

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, watch threads, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now »

Already registered? Log in with: