Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Flip

1 2 3 4

Original poster

to not give a shit about terror suspects being 'tortured'.

93 replies

BigMommaOfAlmost4 · 07/07/2010 10:39

and to be fucking pissed off that taxpayers money will be used to 'compensate' this pond life.

Do not believe for one minute that they are all completely innocent people picked up at random by the security forces.

Feel that it they had even the slightest inclination to repeat 9/11 or 7/7 they deserve a good slapping and more. Talk about biting the hand that feeds you .

Rant over. Am feeling highly irritated today so bring it on!!

OP posts:

gorionine · 07/07/2010 11:00

By Callisto Wed 07-Jul-10 10:53:00
I think the torture is 'justified' on the grounds that the security forces are attempting to stop further terrorist attacks, rather than prove guilt.

really Calisto, would you see torture as a deterrent for other "wannabe terrorists"? I see torture as something that acould make a person want to be one rather.

2shoes · 07/07/2010 11:03

yab fucking u
they are suspects

megapixels · 07/07/2010 11:04

Don't be so stupid. Are you even listening to yourself?

And what do you mean by "biting the hand that feeds you"?

cory · 07/07/2010 11:04

Torture is not only wrong (for all the reasons given by other posters), it is also totally stupid.

Do you imagine people tell the truth when they're being tortured?

Of course they don't: they say whatever they think is going to make the torture stop!

And if that means they confesses to things they haven't done or implicate innocent people- do you think that doesn't matter?

If guilty people go free, because of misleading confessions and allegations wrung out by torture- do you think that doesn't matter?

The problem with torture is (amongst other things) that it helps lazy questioners to escape the trouble of a real investigation: they just have to pick up the first few people they come across, torture them until they get a confession- and that saves months of tedious work to find the real perpetrators.

In the meantime, the real perpetrators go free and can get on with planning their next atrocity.

Lovely.

camaleon · 07/07/2010 11:05

My first ever

it is so difficult to understand that law, human rights and all that stuff is not only for the the perfect good citizen. Obviously you believe you are part of the decent/good crowd. You are not.

TheMysticMasseuse · 07/07/2010 11:07

OP, are you interested in discussing this or were you just kicking up a fuss for the sake of it?

Callisto · 07/07/2010 11:07

'Justified' as in someone elses opinion, not mine.

Though I do wonder if, for instance, a dirty bomb was going to be detonated in London and MI5 had the suspect who knew where the bomb was, would it then be justifiable to torture said suspect for the info to prevent the bomb going off?

TheMysticMasseuse · 07/07/2010 11:09

'hough I do wonder if, for instance, a dirty bomb was going to be detonated in London and MI5 had the suspect who knew where the bomb was, would it then be justifiable to torture said suspect for the info to prevent the bomb going off?"

How could they know, beyond a doubt, that the suspect 'knows'?
How could they be sure that the information they obtain was reliable?

cory · 07/07/2010 11:09

And what would be the guarantee that the person interrogated told the truth under torture, Callisto? They might send you off on a complete wild goose chase, precisely because they were tortured.

Callisto · 07/07/2010 11:11

x-posted with you Cory. Having read Le Carre with it's torture scenes, I think special forces and security forces are trained to withstand torture. I guess then that, for eg, Al Quaeda camps use the same training techniques. Is intelligence garnered from torture really useless? If it was then surely torture wouldn't be used as an interrogation technique?

BTW I'm not justifying it, just wondering.

gorionine · 07/07/2010 11:12

Calisto Thanks for clarifying that. TheMysticMasseuse you bit me to it!

Callisto · 07/07/2010 11:13

x-posted again.

That is part of it, really. How do you know? I guess the intelligence would have to be pretty watertight to go down that route in the first place.

MissWooWoo · 07/07/2010 11:13

get a fucking grip OP

YouKnowNothingoftheCrunch · 07/07/2010 11:16

Seriously?!!

But any idiot can see that torture doesn't get to the truth, it just gets to a confession.

I can guarantee you that we all have a limit. I am sure that given enough pain I would admit to having done something I hadn't do just to make you stop. Thereby ruining the investigation and letting a guilty person walk free.

Torture is wrong; bot morally and for the simple reason that it doesn't mean a definitive lead to "the truth".

This has made me quite

YouKnowNothingoftheCrunch · 07/07/2010 11:17

done not do

Original poster

BigMommaOfAlmost4 · 07/07/2010 11:17

Sorry but how is this racist EricNorthernMistress? Am not sure of what thread you are referring to as I am not a racist (but of course the fact that I deny it means I am, right .)

IMHO ANYONE who goes to a country that we are at war with under dubious pretences and is found in a compromising position, i.e. not on our side, by the security forces (as I said I do not believe the security forces picked up these guys without reason) deserves all they bloody get!! They should not them come 'home' and start bleating about what the nasty men did to them and demanding money.

Of course I do not agree with the torture of 'innocent' people but really do not care in this case.

OP posts:

TheMysticMasseuse · 07/07/2010 11:17

i think the issue is not really whether torture "works", although that certainly comes into it.

There is an ethical and moral dimension to it which is absolutely paramount. Do we believe in basic human rights? Do we believe everyone has human rights? Or do we believe that there are circumstances or individuals when human rights don't matter?

IMO it is imperative to be absolutely, 100% black and white on these moral issues. if you introduce even the slightest element of qualification you open the door for all sorts of erosions in everyone's rights.

Still, torture does happen. But fuck, if it happens in my country, I would at the very least expect that those who perpetrated it in the full knowledge that what they were doing was illegal be held accountable for it!

jeee · 07/07/2010 11:18

The chances of capturing the one person who knew all the details of the dirty bomb are remote... unless you believe everything that happens in Spooks.

It's an uncomfortable truth, but I doubt very much that torture would have been outlawed if it was effective.

There is inevitably an overlap between legitimate interrogation, and illegal 'cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment', (torture is much further down the scale), but it's still necessary to ensure interrogation does not become abuse.

DemonChild · 07/07/2010 11:20

You are innocent until convicted of a crime in a court of law.

Most terror suspects have not been convicted of anything at the time of their torture.

Therefore you are for the torture of innocent people.

And very very unreasonable, to boot.

TheMysticMasseuse · 07/07/2010 11:21

'IMHO ANYONE who goes to a country that we are at war with under dubious pretences and is found in a compromising position, i.e. not on our side, by the security forces (as I said I do not believe the security forces picked up these guys without reason) deserves all they bloody get!! They should not them come 'home' and start bleating about what the nasty men did to them and demanding money.'

I don't even know where to start unpicking this delirious statement. I am going to go with the charitable assumption that you are 8 yo and therefore cannot be expected to have any grasp of a war situation, let alone the almost unpronounceable "extaordinary rendition".

Truly

gorionine · 07/07/2010 11:21

"IMHO ANYONE who goes to a country that we are at war with under dubious pretences and is found in a compromising position, i.e. not on our side, by the security forces (as I said I do not believe the security forces picked up these guys without reason) deserves all they bloody get!! They should not them come 'home' and start bleating about what the nasty men did to them and demanding money."

could you explain a bit more because I am not sure I understand. You think that if someone goes to let's say Afganistan and is found in a compromising position (need clarification on that as well) they deserve anything happening to them because UK are involved in a war there?

MrsC2010 · 07/07/2010 11:21

YABVU. How can we keep the 'moral highground' when we do this sort of thing?

Original poster

BigMommaOfAlmost4 · 07/07/2010 11:22

How can I make it any clearer that I do not agree with torture per se, just think that in THIS case I am not bothered about it and am getting fed up of seeing it plastered all over the media?

OP posts:

DuelingFanjo · 07/07/2010 11:23

you do agree with torture.

you say so in your OP and in the title. It can't be any clearer than that.

jeee · 07/07/2010 11:23

So you don't agree with torture, unless it's justified?

Flip

1 2 3 4