CIA lied over brutal interrogations

[CB Fry]

Don't want to embarrass the Labour government that was aware of the torture, that's the problem with a party based national broadcaster.

 

The "party based national broadcaster" definitely not covering the CIA story on prime time BBC1 right now on one of their most popular entertainment shows. Don't want to embarrass the previous Labour prime minister who they definitely didn't mention or mock.

 

What a whitewash.

[bridge too far]

Just mentioned it on HIGNFY

[CB Fry]

Just mentioned it on HIGNFY

And the "party based national broadcaster" seemed to have run another report on it on their flagship ten o'clock news, again discussing what the Labour government of the day knew/covered up.

 

But still, it weren't on the amoured vehicle of Question Time so the entire BBC are trying to cover it up or something.

[pap]

I'm making a general point on the qualities of Question Time. I suspect the main reason that torture wasn't discussed last night was because Russell Brand was handing Nigel Farage's arse to him. Good work on your theorising though; it's really coming along.

[Batman]

I'm making a general point on the qualities of Question Time. I suspect the main reason that torture wasn't discussed last night was because Russell Brand was handing Nigel Farage's arse to him. Good work on your theorising though; it's really coming along.

 

I do not think he handed anything to him

Guess it depends on what you wanted to hear

[pap]

I do not think he handed anything to him

Guess it depends on what you wanted to hear

 

Did you hear this bit?

 

This man is not a cartoon character. He ain't Del Boy. He ain't Arthur Daley. He is a pound shop Enoch Powell, and we've got to watch him.

 

And if so, what did Farage say that was better?

 

Or was he just relying on his UKIP plant to sort Brand out? Almost worked.

[CB Fry]

I'm making a general point on the qualities of Question Time. I suspect the main reason that torture wasn't discussed last night was because Russell Brand was handing Nigel Farage's arse to him. Good work on your theorising though; it's really coming along.

 

I will never get to your expert level of "theorising" like "see that woman who tried to help the dead Lee Rigby? Reckon she's, like, an actor paid by the UK government". Or theories like your hero Richard D Hall saying the entire 7/7 atrocity was faked and it is libel to say they aren't? Dem theories?

 

Don't try and talk down to me you pig - sh it thick cretin.

[pap]

I will never get to your expert level of "theorising" like "see that woman who tried to help the dead Lee Rigby? Reckon she's, like, an actor paid by the UK government". Or theories like your hero Richard D Hall saying the entire 7/7 atrocity was faked and it is libel to say they aren't? Dem theories?

 

Don't try and talk down to me you pig - sh it thick cretin.

 

Think that's the best of the lot there. Go on. Call me thick again. I could do with more comedy in my life.

[Batman]

Did you hear this bit?

 

 

 

And if so, what did Farage say that was better?

 

Or was he just relying on his UKIP plant to sort Brand out? Almost worked.

 

great point

 

[pap]

great point

 

Get back to junior debaters club, sonny.

[Whitey Grandad]

Get back to junior debaters club, sonny.

 

Oh the irony!

[Batman]

Get back to junior debaters club, sonny.

 

you are in a club of your own. crisis actors and the like

[pap]

Oh the irony!

 

you are in a club of your own. crisis actors and the like

 

Sorry chaps, you'll have to point me to any of your posts where you've merited the ability to credibly take the píss. Batman's content is almost never substantiated, and gives the continual air of a man who just cannot be arsed, not even when starting a thread. Forgive me if I treat his derision with something less than seriousness.

 

Whitey is capable of being alright, but I'm not impressed with any of the arguments made on this thread, which just amount to a baseless fear of the other and an attempt at dehumanising Muslims by claiming they don't use "Western logic", whatever the f**k that is. We don't know, because Whitey couldn't explain it when asked to.

 

Seriously chaps, I don't like to overtly insult, but I feel its justified when people are dishing it out. What the pair of you know about this subject, combined, I could write on my cock in biro.

 

I am not a big man.

[Whitey Grandad]

Sorry chaps, you'll have to point me to any of your posts where you've merited the ability to credibly take the píss. Batman's content is almost never substantiated, and gives the continual air of a man who just cannot be arsed, not even when starting a thread. Forgive me if I treat his derision with something less than seriousness.

 

Whitey is capable of being alright, but I'm not impressed with any of the arguments made on this thread, which just amount to a baseless fear of the other and an attempt at dehumanising Muslims by claiming they don't use "Western logic", whatever the f**k that is. We don't know, because Whitey couldn't explain it when asked to.

 

Seriously chaps, I don't like to overtly insult, but I feel its justified when people are dishing it out. What the pair of you know about this subject, combined, I could write on my cock in biro.

 

I am not a big man.

 

Not fear, just an awareness of the threat.

 

If you had had any dealings with the Arab/Muslim world then you would appreciate my point. If not, then you probably won't.

[pap]

Not fear, just an awareness of the threat.

 

If you had had any dealings with the Arab/Muslim world then you would appreciate my point. If not, then you probably won't.

 

I've got lots of dealings, thanks. A good part of my extended family is Muslim. I've never been over myself, but many of my family have, and many of our family from Pakistan have visited here. We also knew many of the other Muslim families in Southampton, including Iranians, etc. One of my pals during the early 2000s was a Libyan chap that I used to drink down the pub with.

 

I don't appreciate your points because there is absolutely no meat on them, halal or otherwise. It's like watching someone walk in to a room and say "cows can speak French, innit" with absolutely no f**king explanation as to why that might be the case. The facts are that you've made a number of claims you've been asked to back up, and instead of doing so, play the inverse limited experience card. Not good enough, sir.

[Verbal]

Let's just say that they don't need a reason to justify their actions. The Arabic world is not systematic like the West.

 

The simple, unarguable fact is that what we call 'Western logic' derives overwhelmingly from the Arab world.

 

Next time you look at Leonardo's Last Supper or Vermeer's Milkmaid, just keep in mind that the mathematics - the logic - of perspective in these paintings was derived directly from The Book of Optics by the Iraqi scientist al-Haytham. When his works were translated into Latin, and then into Italian, they had a tremendous impact on the Florentine Renaissance. Al-Haytham's theories of light and optics also preceded Newton and Kepler by centuries, and their remarkable works would not have been possible without a thorough grounding in Arabic scientific breakthroughs. Another 'first' for al-Haytham was that he was really the first rigorously experimental scientist (and got into some difficulty because of it).

 

On the flip side, Edward Said has long ago settled the argument that 'Orientialism' - the view that Arabs in particular and the Orient generally have an alien logic to the West - is a byword for a persistent, pernicious racism. There really is little more to be said than that about such 'logic' arguments - they're plainly, unadulteratedly racist.

 

What you really mean, I suspect, is that the ideology of ISIS is self-sealing. Just like a conspiracy theorist who believes and will only believe that, say, Lee Rigby and other brutally murdered or maimed victims were 'crisis actors', Jihadists have an internal logic that allows for the most illogical conclusions. There was a famous Al Qaeda missive a few years back which stated under what conditions it was permissible to murder Muslims. It turned out that so long as the killer 'believes' and is 'devout' then he may take any Muslim life, knowing that that Muslim would be transported straight to Heaven.

 

Where do such bizarre ideas come from? Certainly not 'Arab logic'. They come from where all Salafist ideologies come from - extremist, medievalist ideas that emerged in the eighteenth century with an obscure, ultra-violent cleric called Wahaab, whose vicious nonsense only gained traction with the discovery of oil under the feet of his Saudi acolytes.

 

Please don't be polarised into your position by the narcissistic hissy fits of someone who has turned a serious thread into yet another about himself. There really is no opposition of Western logic/Arab logic. The latter gave rise to the former and actually did all the heavy lifting for it before our own Western scientific greats could add one plus one.

[Unbelievable Jeff]

And the "party based national broadcaster" seemed to have run another report on it on their flagship ten o'clock news, again discussing what the Labour government of the day knew/covered up.

 

But still, it weren't on the amoured vehicle of Question Time so the entire BBC are trying to cover it up or something.

 

I love your obsession with me now. If you want to drop me your address I'm more than happy to send you a signed photo.

[whelk]

Sounds like Verbal knows loads more than Pap?

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

Verbal.

 

It's all well and good lauding the historical achievements of what might be loosely described as Arabic culture - I agree these are real and remarkable - but when you point out their past glories this does kind of raise the uncomfortable question of why this large population group (the 22 members of the Arab League = 280m people) has notably failed to contribute very much towards Human progress ever since medieval/renaissance times.

 

Whatever field you choose to look at, be it Nobel prize winners to politics or science this once advanced and sophisticated culture seems to have stagnated, or even gone into relative decline. The record shows that one in five Arabs still live on less than $2 a day. and growth in income per head, at an annual rate of 0.5%, is lower than anywhere else in the world except sub-Saharan Africa. Ask the average man in the street what the Arab world is best known for and I fear the answer is likely to be oil or terrorism.

 

Uniquely blessed with almost limitless natural resources and with its people sharing this equally rich cultural, religious and linguistic heritage it might be argued that the Arabs really should have done better. It seems to me that they have been faced with neither more endemic poverty nor with more ethnic conflict than many other regions of the world, regions such as Japan or China for instance that have obviously managed to progress in modern times. The Arabs shook off their colonial or neo-colonial legacies long ago but, with barely an exception, its autocratic rulers, whether presidents or kings, give up their authority only when they die; its elections are a sick joke; half its people are treated as lesser legal and economic beings. More than of half its young people, burdened by unemployment and stifled by conservative religious traditions, are said to want to get out of the place as soon as they can.

 

This question of Arabic failure is surely a easier one to ask rather than to answer, but can it be that there is something about the Muslim faith that inhibits its followers from fully engaging with and adapting to modernity? Indeed perhaps progress and strict religious observance are not fully compatible with each other and only when the Arabs finally learn to become less religiously devout will they break out of the state of societal stagnation and extremism they find themselves in.

[pap]

Verbal.

 

It's all well and good lauding the historical achievements of what might be loosely described as Arabic culture - I agree these are real and remarkable - but when you point out their past glories this does kind of raise the uncomfortable question of why this large population group (the 22 members of the Arab League = 280m people) has notably failed to contribute very much towards Human progress ever since medieval/renaissance times.

 

Whatever field you choose to look at, be it Nobel prize winners to politics or science this once advanced and sophisticated culture seems to have stagnated, or even gone into relative decline. The record shows that one in five Arabs still live on less than $2 a day. and growth in income per head, at an annual rate of 0.5%, is lower than anywhere else in the world except sub-Saharan Africa. Ask the average man in the street what the Arab world is best known for and I fear the answer is likely to be oil or terrorism.

 

Uniquely blessed with almost limitless natural resources and with its people sharing this equally rich cultural, religious and linguistic heritage it might be argued that the Arabs really should have done better. It seems to me that they have been faced with neither more endemic poverty nor with more ethnic conflict than many other regions of the world, regions such as Japan or China for instance that have obviously managed to progress in modern times. The Arabs shook off their colonial or neo-colonial legacies long ago but, with barely an exception, its autocratic rulers, whether presidents or kings, give up their authority only when they die; its elections are a sick joke; half its people are treated as lesser legal and economic beings. More than of half its young people, burdened by unemployment and stifled by conservative religious traditions, are said to want to get out of the place as soon as they can.

 

This question of Arabic failure is surely a easier one to ask rather than to answer, but can it be that there is something about the Muslim faith that inhibits its followers from fully engaging with and adapting to modernity? Indeed perhaps progress and strict religious observance are not fully compatible with each other and only when the Arabs finally learn to become less religiously devout will they break out of the state of societal stagnation and extremism they find themselves in.

 

There is one word which explains much of the beginning of the decline. Mongols.

 

Steven Dutch writes of the Mongol sacking of Baghdad:

 

"Iraq in 1258 was very different from present day Iraq. Its agriculture was supported by canal networks thousands of years old. Baghdad was one of the most brilliant intellectual centers in the world. The Mongol destruction of Baghdad was a psychological blow from which Islam never recovered. With the sack of Baghdad, the intellectual flowering of Islam was snuffed out. Imagining the Athens of Pericles and Aristotle obliterated by a nuclear weapon begins to suggest the enormity of the blow. The Mongols filled in the irrigation canals and left Iraq too depopulated to restore them."

 

To be fair to the Arabs, the Mongols completely f**ked over any Europeans they met too. Ukraine, Hungary, Croatia and Romania were all trounced. The reason Belarus has its name it that it's the one part of the Rus lands that the Mongols didn't get to.

 

Then you look at the last three hundred years history. Most parts of the Arab world were under the influence of a colonial power, and when they were given notional independence, Westerners decided the frontiers of their lands, often locking in a degree of divide and rule through the lines of demarcation. You only need to look at the plight of the Kurds to see that one in action. One people in five separate countries. Spin forward to today, and we've the spectacle of Western states propping up the dictatorships you loathe, turning a blind eye to stuff like slavery in Dubai, invading countries that won't comply and conducting drone strikes with 95% collateral damage in countries that we think may hide terrorists.

 

You were wondering why Islamic nations haven't got as "far" as we have.

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

Interesting reply Pap.

 

The Mongols were pretty beastly towards the Arab World for sure, but there again they behaved just as horridly in China and that (admittedly huge) state seems to shaken off the aftereffects in the intervening centuries. Much of Europe has been laid waste of numerous occasions over time and yet we continue to exhibit an ability to recover from devastation. A high degree of resilience is required to succeed in the modern world. As for placing much of the blame on the west because the old colonial powers were (often under the authority of the old League of Nations) instrumental in defining many of today's borders, this is a perfectly reasonable point as far as it goes.

 

I seriously doubt however that it would have been realistically possible to have drawn any set of coherent lines on a map that would have led to the Arab world becoming a revertible haven for peace and progress. The tribal nature of the Arab World is part of the problem and the probability is that there is no easy solution to be discovered on a map here.

 

Perhaps just as individuals are well advised to look first at themselves when seeking a explanation for their unhappiness, we might also say that the Arab world too could do with a spot of 'omphaloskepsis' if they really want to understand why they have failed so obviously to keep pace with the modern world. Blaming your problems on others seldom leads to a satisfactory solution in my experience.

[pap]

History is less about blame and more about cause and effect. When the Mongols were attacking China, it was around three of four largish states they went after, and much of those were not destroyed to the same degree. The Mongols considered the whole world their empire by divine right. Surrender or die was their mantra. Some surrendered, some died. Some surrendered and died anyway, particularly those foolish enough to not make good on their promises to fealty. As it went, the Mongol conquest of the Chinese states allowed them to take to the field against medieval Arabs and Europeans packing gunpowder, augmenting what was an already impressive setup. The expectation at the time was that there was nothing that would stop the Mongols from getting to the Atlantic, and they were never stopped. Western European nations have providence to thank for their existence. If not for the deaths of Khans, and the ensuing succession crises that tied them up internally for years, they might have conquered the world.

 

You don't even have to go that far back. Take the 1953 coup in Iran as an example. Democratically elected president decides to nationalise the oil companies, and is subsequently taken out in an MI6/CIA-led operation. A brutal regime is in place for 30 years, only to be toppled by a fundamentalist regime that exists to this day. How far would Iran have got in the last 60 years if not for the effects that Western intervention in 1953 had caused? What-ifs are always interesting.

 

Those are examples in the Islamic World, but I do think there is a bit of validity in your point. Countries need to be resilient, and you could perhaps point to nations like us or France as examples of success. Despite losing generations of potential, we're still here, right?

 

But not without cost. A hundred years ago, Britain and France were both first-rate powers with overseas possessions in a multi-polar world. In 2014, we're bit part players having to share military resources with each other. That is a shocking dip in the graph there, and it may be that in a couple of hundred years time, the Chinese will be discussing our decline on their football forums. "They were the first power in the world! They had time to invent football and kick our arses. Now we're on top". Shít, they could legitimately say that today if you forget those troublesome human rights and non-lethal employment environments, although to be fair, the Tories are trying their best to achieve parity

Edited 14 December, 2014 by pap

[Unbelievable Jeff]

Well, I've learnt something today.

 

Time to go and read some more on these dastardly Mongols...

[Verbal]

Verbal.

 

It's all well and good lauding the historical achievements of what might be loosely described as Arabic culture - I agree these are real and remarkable - but when you point out their past glories this does kind of raise the uncomfortable question of why this large population group (the 22 members of the Arab League = 280m people) has notably failed to contribute very much towards Human progress ever since medieval/renaissance times.

 

Whatever field you choose to look at, be it Nobel prize winners to politics or science this once advanced and sophisticated culture seems to have stagnated, or even gone into relative decline. The record shows that one in five Arabs still live on less than $2 a day. and growth in income per head, at an annual rate of 0.5%, is lower than anywhere else in the world except sub-Saharan Africa. Ask the average man in the street what the Arab world is best known for and I fear the answer is likely to be oil or terrorism.

 

Uniquely blessed with almost limitless natural resources and with its people sharing this equally rich cultural, religious and linguistic heritage it might be argued that the Arabs really should have done better. It seems to me that they have been faced with neither more endemic poverty nor with more ethnic conflict than many other regions of the world, regions such as Japan or China for instance that have obviously managed to progress in modern times. The Arabs shook off their colonial or neo-colonial legacies long ago but, with barely an exception, its autocratic rulers, whether presidents or kings, give up their authority only when they die; its elections are a sick joke; half its people are treated as lesser legal and economic beings. More than of half its young people, burdened by unemployment and stifled by conservative religious traditions, are said to want to get out of the place as soon as they can.

 

This question of Arabic failure is surely a easier one to ask rather than to answer, but can it be that there is something about the Muslim faith that inhibits its followers from fully engaging with and adapting to modernity? Indeed perhaps progress and strict religious observance are not fully compatible with each other and only when the Arabs finally learn to become less religiously devout will they break out of the state of societal stagnation and extremism they find themselves in.

 

You’ve taken a very specific point I was making about the Arab sources of Western science (and against the view of a 'different' Arab logic) and wafted in a bunch of historical/faux social evolutionary generalisations about ‘faith’ and (by implication) mindset.

 

Firstly, the ‘Arab world’ is not some undifferentiated mass. Try visiting the Levant – Beirut, say, or, in quieter times, coastal Syria. Cultures there are distinctly Mediterranean, outward-looking, secular and modern. Beirut in particular – the ‘Paris of the East’ before the ruinous civil wars and Israeli invasions – has a remarkable capacity for reinvention. It is cosmopolitan, tolerant (surprisingly so, given its recent past) and technologically inventive. On the other hand, try a visit to Dubai or Qatar or Jeddah and you’ll see the dull, baleful dominance of petrodollar wealth, beneath which lies – well, nothing, really. The Arabian Peninsular is culturally as different from Beirut as it is from London. In Dubai, the illusion is in full swing – the ultimate emperor with no clothes. Once its oil-rich neighbours run out of the black stuff or miscalculate the West’s supposedly insatiable appetite for oil, Dubai will follow them into ghost town status.

 

The religious culture of the peninsula is overwhelmingly Wahhabi. The religious culture of Beirut is a mix of Christian and various sects of mostly liberal Shia-ism including the Druze. (Hezbollah fit into this in interesting ways but it’s outside the scope of this thread).

 

Secondly, Arab science flourished by standing on the shoulders of ‘Western’ giants – which underscores how integrated it was into the ‘logic’ of science itself. Ibn al-Haytham resolved, for example, the contradictory positions of Aristotle and Euclid on theories of light and the human eye. Euclid believed that the world was visible as a result of rays projected from the eye (the theory of emission), while Aristotle thought that we saw the world as a result of light reflecting on the apparatus of the eye (the theory of intromission). Al-Haytham resolved the issue in favour of intromission with a brilliant mathematical proof which was then further proven by him experimentally. He also gave the first mathematical expression of the camera obscura – an object credited by some with the linear precision of Vermeer’s work, but which had first been developed by the ancient Chinese.

 

The broader point here is that there is no such thing as an Arab mindset, which could account the brutality of ISIS. Never has been, never will.

 

Nor can such assertions account for any lack of development in the Arab world. Things are far more complicated than that. You cite the Chinese as some sort of contrast – presumably because of their industrial progress – but you seem to have forgotten that they went through a Communist revolution, with collectivisation, Five Year Plans and the Cultural Revolution, all of which were designed to force through – at phenomenal human cost – an Industrial Revolution. The Maoists were merely following the path set out by Stalin, whose brutality, in terms of lives lost, was aimed predominantly at the kulaks (peasant smallholders) because they were the ‘enemies of history’ (ie industrial development).

 

The Ottoman Empire, by contrast, never had an industrial revolution. The Turks – rulers of what was by some distance the longest lasting of the Muslim empires – were and are not Arabs! The Turks ruled large swathes of the Arab world until the First World War, and only finally collapsed in 1923.

 

If you want to grasp something of the complexities as to why an industrial revolution didn’t happen in the Ottoman Empire, try Jared Diamond’s ‘Guns, Germs and Steel’.

 

It’s also worth reflecting on the fact that Lawrence of Arabia, and the British government, chose to arm and fight with what were, a century ago, the ISIS of the Arab peninsula. And when you factor in the British and French colonial influence, however brief, on Arab affairs, as well as post-colonial Western support and encouragement to the most brutal of pan-nationalist dictators (yes, we really are responsible for their longevity), you’re looking at some pretty gargantuan obstacles if you think the end-game is Western-style liberal democracy.

 

There is, though, in all this a connection between religion and under-development. Fundamentalism has always been associated with extremes of under-development, and the Peninsula, and Saudi Arabia in particular, is only able to mask that by its vast oil fields. This connection of religious power and underdevelopment can be found in the Christian world too. You can be sure that where the Catholic Church is not separated clearly from the state, as in some Latin American countries.

 

The Arab Spring has been evidence of the secular, democratic impulse at work – revolting against religious oppression and military tyranny. Too many people seem to think that the Arab Spring is over, but it’s far, far too early to call a result. Much depends on, for example, whether the Green Revolution in Iran can regain momentum. But in any case, we’ll just have to wait and see – if you’d called the result of the Communist uprising in Russia on the 1905 revolution you’d have missed a pretty big picture!

 

As for torture, no one – including, presumably, you – is making the argument for the serial incidents of torture in the CIA and in the US and British Armies being part of a broader ‘cultural/religious failure’ of the West. The tortures resorted to by ISIS, the Assad regime and the CIA are all pretty indistinguishable, both in gruesome technique and in the low desire to humiliate and destroy. They are also, regrettably, sourced in a powerful belief in the cultural/religious inferiority of the victims.

 

So I think a little less of the ‘Arabs don’t think like us’ attitude – so reminiscent of the ‘Vietnamese don’t value human life the way we (Americans) do’ – would be a good thing. At least it would undercut the torturers’ self-serving rationalisations.

[pap]

Well, I've learnt something today.

 

Time to go and read some more on these dastardly Mongols...

Dan Carlin did a very decent series of podcasts about them. Dan Carlin's Hardcore History. Episodes are called Wrath of the Khans ☺

[Unbelievable Jeff]

Dan Carlin did a very decent series of podcasts about them. Dan Carlin's Hardcore History. Episodes are called Wrath of the Khans ☺

 

I'll have a look.

[whelk]

The big CIA torture report - America just shrugged.

http://wapo.st/1sueGTY

[hutch]

You’ve taken a very specific point I was making...

 

...would be a good thing. At least it would undercut the torturers’ self-serving rationalisations.

[pap]

The big CIA torture report - America just shrugged.

http://wapo.st/1sueGTY

 

And whelk didn't read beyond the headline

 

More than a shrug. Almost 30% of people didn't believe that it was justified, despite the word "torture" appearing nowhere in the survey.

[aintforever]

The big CIA torture report - America just shrugged.

http://wapo.st/1sueGTY

 

Probably because, whilst torture is morally wrong, the Yanks don't fancy another 9/11.

[pap]

Probably because, whilst torture is morally wrong, the Yanks don't fancy another 9/11.

 

They've a funny way of going about it. Multiple choice question, aintforever.

 

Have US actions since 2001:-

 

1) Increased the chances of creating more extremists

2) Reduced the chances of creating more extremists

 

?

 

[aintforever]

They've a funny way of going about it. Multiple choice question, aintforever.

 

Have US actions since 2001:-

 

1) Increased the chances of creating more extremists

2) Reduced the chances of creating more extremists

 

?

 

 

Probably increased the chances.

 

But fact is they have been pretty successful at stopping another 9/11 happening.

[pap]

Probably increased the chances.

 

But fact is they have been pretty successful at stopping another 9/11 happening.

 

The fact is that near half of all terrorist prosecutions in the US are the result of entrapment. There is a whole army of extremists camping out in Iraq, whereas once there was just one dictator to deal with. Incidentally, much of the "evidence" that was presented by Colin Powell at the UN was concocted boll*cks from one of the people they tortured, not that it really makes much difference. The US had pre-9/11 plans for going into Iraq, as far as going on to describe who'll get the spoils of war. Bush's cabal was always going into Iraq.

[aintforever]

The fact is that near half of all terrorist prosecutions in the US are the result of entrapment. There is a whole army of extremists camping out in Iraq, whereas once there was just one dictator to deal with. Incidentally, much of the "evidence" that was presented by Colin Powell at the UN was concocted boll*cks from one of the people they tortured, not that it really makes much difference. The US had pre-9/11 plans for going into Iraq, as far as going on to describe who'll get the spoils of war. Bush's cabal was always going into Iraq.

 

I think evidence from Guantanamo helped catch Bin Laden, and the US hasn't had another 9/11. How is that not successful from a US person's point of view?

[CB Saint]

And whelk didn't read beyond the headline

 

More than a shrug. Almost 30% of people didn't believe that it was justified, despite the word "torture" appearing nowhere in the survey.

 

And pap didn't read beyond the first part of the sentence

 

he word "torture," it should be noted, isn't mentioned in the poll, but it has been associated with much of the coverage of the issue. And the numbers align nicely with polls on the use of torture, which shows that relatively few Americans are concerned about it -- especially when you bring the prospect of combating terrorism into the mix.

 

the majority of the US either support the use of CIA interrogation techniques or don't give a feck

[pap]

And pap didn't read beyond the first part of the sentence

 

he word "torture," it should be noted, isn't mentioned in the poll, but it has been associated with much of the coverage of the issue. And the numbers align nicely with polls on the use of torture, which shows that relatively few Americans are concerned about it -- especially when you bring the prospect of combating terrorism into the mix.

 

the majority of the US either support the use of CIA interrogation techniques or don't give a feck

 

Shall I just quote the entire article next time, just so that you don't have the tiniest of platforms to make this semblance of a point?

[pap]

I think evidence from Guantanamo helped catch Bin Laden, and the US hasn't had another 9/11. How is that not successful from a US person's point of view?

 

Depends on who you believe. Benazir Bhutto said Bin Laden died in the early 2000s. She was dead a week after making the claim.

 

[moonraker]

Ah a poll that suggests the electorate in a great democracy does not agree with one of its governments policies. The issue is not whether the majority of Americans support it or not, it is whether it is morally and ethically right to do it. The world is kept at a reasonable level of control by a device called sovereign states. There is no universally accepted model for a sovereign state save that it has control of what goes on inside its own arbitrary borders.

In the west we promote the democratically elected government model, where an elected parliament represents the will of the people. On top of this are a raft of international treaties, agreements and protocols (largely of western origin) with which signatories are supposed to comply.

There are many example around the world of countries that pay lip service to, ignore or are not signed up to various international treaties, agreements and protocols. The common view is that these countries are undemocratic, where law and policy is made without any reference to the will of the people. However it is difficult to believe that there is single country that is not guilty of some lapses in their internationally agreed obligations.

The US is a democracy and a signatory of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, this report demonstrates that it has failed in its obligations.

If the polls are a true reflection of US citizens views on torture then should the US Government not repeal their signature to the convention and act on the will of the people (the will of those polled). Torture will of course no longer need to be limited to use by secret agencies on suspected terrorists, it will be available to the other law enforcement agencies to us on their own citizens and those of any other country who enter its jurisdiction and are suspected of criminal activity.

We have spent a very long time trying to improve the lot of the humane race and our treatment of each other , condoning torture is a retrograde step and its legitimacy can not be left to the views of the mob.

[whelk]

And whelk didn't read beyond the headline

 

More than a shrug. Almost 30% of people didn't believe that it was justified, despite the word "torture" appearing nowhere in the survey.

 

And Pap's insecurity rears its head again.

[aintforever]

Depends on who you believe. Benazir Bhutto said Bin Laden died in the early 2000s. She was dead a week after making the claim.

 

 

Oh not your f*cking fairy tales again, I would have thought you would have knocked those on head after the Lee Rigby episode.

 

Anyway, wether Bin Laden was killed by the Yanks or not is irrelevant, the US has avoided another 9/11 type attack in the years since the original despite becoming even more hated throughout the Middle East so it is hard to criticise it's security services.

[pap]

Oh not your f*cking fairy tales again, I would have thought you would have knocked those on head after the Lee Rigby episode.

 

What, like that paedophilia in the establishment you didn't think was a problem?

 

Which of those two things do you refute, then? She did say those words during the interview. She was assassinated shortly afterward. I'm not actually linking the two - as we've seen today, difficult getting much of a coherent picture of Pakistan. Bhutto had political enemies all over.

 

Anyway, wether Bin Laden was killed by the Yanks or not is irrelevant, the US has avoided another 9/11 type attack in the years since the original despite becoming even more hated throughout the Middle East so it is hard to criticise it's security services.

 

I'd have thought the issue of Bin Laden's corporeal existence would have been hugely relevant to the US. It was among the reasons for going into Afghanistan. Thing is though, you're right. It's irrelevant, and actually pretty harmful to some of the follow-up plans that the US had, such as the invasion of Iraq or a continued presence in Afghanistan.

 

I'm rooting for the official story on the end of OBL, though. The most wanted person on the planet. Forces ostensibly storm in, shoot him in his jim-jams, put the corpse in a box and drop it into an ocean. It's a brilliant and bizarre ending to proceedings.

 

I was expecting a predictable court-room drama as the denouement, played out in an international court or something, in keeping with the values of Western democracies and upholding precedents like Nuremburg.

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

Ah a poll that suggests the electorate in a great democracy does not agree with one of its governments policies. The issue is not whether the majority of Americans support it or not, it is whether it is morally and ethically right to do it. The world is kept at a reasonable level of control by a device called sovereign states. There is no universally accepted model for a sovereign state save that it has control of what goes on inside its own arbitrary borders.

In the west we promote the democratically elected government model, where an elected parliament represents the will of the people. On top of this are a raft of international treaties, agreements and protocols (largely of western origin) with which signatories are supposed to comply.

There are many example around the world of countries that pay lip service to, ignore or are not signed up to various international treaties, agreements and protocols. The common view is that these countries are undemocratic, where law and policy is made without any reference to the will of the people. However it is difficult to believe that there is single country that is not guilty of some lapses in their internationally agreed obligations.

The US is a democracy and a signatory of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, this report demonstrates that it has failed in its obligations.

If the polls are a true reflection of US citizens views on torture then should the US Government not repeal their signature to the convention and act on the will of the people (the will of those polled). Torture will of course no longer need to be limited to use by secret agencies on suspected terrorists, it will be available to the other law enforcement agencies to us on their own citizens and those of any other country who enter its jurisdiction and are suspected of criminal activity.

We have spent a very long time trying to improve the lot of the humane race and our treatment of each other , condoning torture is a retrograde step and its legitimacy can not be left to the views of the mob.

 

I'm not at all comfortable with posts of this ilk that 'deal in absolutes' as the old Jedi saying has it. If in extreme cases adopting a policy of relatively mild torture (such as 'Sleep Deprivation' for instance) were proven to have materially assisted in saving Human life, would that course of action be a moral or a immoral one? I must say that the answer to that question doesn't seem to be entirely clear to me. Is effectively allowing a grave crime to take place also in its own way not a immoral act too?

 

Some attempt to sidestep the moral issue and argue that in practice torture is a ineffectual method of intelligence gathering because those under interrogation simple lie in order to escape their tormentors questions. This will not do. What we might call a 'tell them anything' strategy is of course to be expected under extreme interrogation situations. The guilty undergoing police questioning nearly always lie, or engage in evasions, and the various techniques that skilled interrogators employ to deal with this known problem are (I understand) quite effective.

 

If memory serves both the current and two former Directors of the CIA have publicly stated that information gained in this manner has been of assistance in combating terrorism. A case perhaps of 'Well he would say that wouldn't he?' as Mandy-Rice Davies once memorably said, but I have this nagging feeling that there may well be more than a grain of truth in that.

[aintforever]

What, like that paedophilia in the establishment you didn't think was a problem?

 

Which of those two things do you refute, then? She did say those words during the interview. She was assassinated shortly afterward. I'm not actually linking the two - as we've seen today, difficult getting much of a coherent picture of Pakistan. Bhutto had political enemies all over.

 

 

 

I'd have thought the issue of Bin Laden's corporeal existence would have been hugely relevant to the US. It was among the reasons for going into Afghanistan. Thing is though, you're right. It's irrelevant, and actually pretty harmful to some of the follow-up plans that the US had, such as the invasion of Iraq or a continued presence in Afghanistan.

 

I'm rooting for the official story on the end of OBL, though. The most wanted person on the planet. Forces ostensibly storm in, shoot him in his jim-jams, put the corpse in a box and drop it into an ocean. It's a brilliant and bizarre ending to proceedings.

 

I was expecting a predictable court-room drama as the denouement, played out in an international court or something, in keeping with the values of Western democracies and upholding precedents like Nuremburg.

 

I meant irrelevant in the context of the performance and methods of the US security services, Guantanamo etc. Fact is the US hasn't suffered another 9/11 so as much as torture etc is morally wrong their methods have been successful - that is all the US public will give a sh!te about.

 

As for their methods creating more extremists - the UK doesn't use torture (as far as we know) yet more of our people are going over to fight for ISIS than Americans.

[pap]

I meant irrelevant in the context of the performance and methods of the US security services, Guantanamo etc. Fact is the US hasn't suffered another 9/11 so as much as torture etc is morally wrong their methods have been successful - that is all the US public will give a sh!te about.

 

As for their methods creating more extremists - the UK doesn't use torture (as far as we know) yet more of our people are going over to fight for ISIS than Americans.

 

UK based extremism has been in part driven by UK foreign policy in the Middle East. I keep repeating the stat, but 1 million people estimated to have died as a result of the 2003 invasion of Iraq, and counting. There were cynical voices from the start saying that the war was unjustified, illegal or all about oil. Two million people took to the streets in protest and a number of government ministers resigned their posts because of disagreement with the policy. It was wrong from the start, based on our fabrications and information extracted from torture conducted at the US' behest. Iraq had nowt to do with 9/11, no interest in dealing with those kind of people and no weapons of mass destruction, yet people were tortured until they said there was a link. Fancy that.

 

I'd imagine those voices would be more cynical still if they were speaking on behalf of relatives in the region affected by this turmoil, or been subject to organised groups like the EDL, or seen British citizens spirited away to Guantamano. I'm not condoning any Muslim joining up with ISIS, but it didn't happen out of the blue.

 

A positive from all this is that the US is still free enough for such uncomfortable introspection. As for the practice you're defending? It led to false information that became part of the case for the Iraq invasion, unwittingly parroted by Colin Powell, who had not been informed of the source of the information. It has reduced Western credibility, especially when we wax wonderful about freedom, democracy and due process. Take a look at this Washington Post article, listing the 10 most harrowing excerpts from the CIA report.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2014/12/09/the-10-most-harrowing-excerpts-from-the-cia-interrogation-report/?Post%20generic=?tid=sm_twitter_washingtonpost

 

The problem with some of the justification on here, such as saying that it's only sleep deprivation, or it's only waterboarding, is what happens next after those techniques fail to work. It's a slippery slope and you've already stepped over the edge.

[Batman]

UK based extremism has been in part driven by UK foreign policy in the Middle East. I keep repeating the stat, but 1 million people estimated to have died as a result of the 2003 invasion of Iraq, and counting. There were cynical voices from the start saying that the war was unjustified, illegal or all about oil. Two million people took to the streets in protest and a number of government ministers resigned their posts because of disagreement with the policy. It was wrong from the start, based on our fabrications and information extracted from torture conducted at the US' behest. Iraq had nowt to do with 9/11, no interest in dealing with those kind of people and no weapons of mass destruction, yet people were tortured until they said there was a link. Fancy that.

 

I'd imagine those voices would be more cynical still if they were speaking on behalf of relatives in the region affected by this turmoil, or been subject to organised groups like the EDL, or seen British citizens spirited away to Guantamano. I'm not condoning any Muslim joining up with ISIS, but it didn't happen out of the blue.

 

A positive from all this is that the US is still free enough for such uncomfortable introspection. As for the practice you're defending? It led to false information that became part of the case for the Iraq invasion, unwittingly parroted by Colin Powell, who had not been informed of the source of the information. It has reduced Western credibility, especially when we wax wonderful about freedom, democracy and due process. Take a look at this Washington Post article, listing the 10 most harrowing excerpts from the CIA report.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2014/12/09/the-10-most-harrowing-excerpts-from-the-cia-interrogation-report/?Post%20generic=?tid=sm_twitter_washingtonpost

 

The problem with some of the justification on here, such as saying that it's only sleep deprivation, or it's only waterboarding, is what happens next after those techniques fail to work. It's a slippery slope and you've already stepped over the edge.

 

Again. No one in the country really cares other than showing their "outrage" on public forums like this.

 

Then they really are not that bothered

[Ludwig]

Again. No one in the country really cares other than showing their "outrage" on public forums like this.

 

Then they really are not that bothered

 

I know people don't do this enough on the site or in life generally, but can i just thank you for so eloquently speaking on behalf of everyone in the country.

[aintforever]

UK based extremism has been in part driven by UK foreign policy in the Middle East. I keep repeating the stat, but 1 million people estimated to have died as a result of the 2003 invasion of Iraq, and counting. There were cynical voices from the start saying that the war was unjustified, illegal or all about oil. Two million people took to the streets in protest and a number of government ministers resigned their posts because of disagreement with the policy. It was wrong from the start, based on our fabrications and information extracted from torture conducted at the US' behest. Iraq had nowt to do with 9/11, no interest in dealing with those kind of people and no weapons of mass destruction, yet people were tortured until they said there was a link. Fancy that.

 

I'd imagine those voices would be more cynical still if they were speaking on behalf of relatives in the region affected by this turmoil, or been subject to organised groups like the EDL, or seen British citizens spirited away to Guantamano. I'm not condoning any Muslim joining up with ISIS, but it didn't happen out of the blue.

 

A positive from all this is that the US is still free enough for such uncomfortable introspection. As for the practice you're defending? It led to false information that became part of the case for the Iraq invasion, unwittingly parroted by Colin Powell, who had not been informed of the source of the information. It has reduced Western credibility, especially when we wax wonderful about freedom, democracy and due process. Take a look at this Washington Post article, listing the 10 most harrowing excerpts from the CIA report.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2014/12/09/the-10-most-harrowing-excerpts-from-the-cia-interrogation-report/?Post%20generic=?tid=sm_twitter_washingtonpost

 

The problem with some of the justification on here, such as saying that it's only sleep deprivation, or it's only waterboarding, is what happens next after those techniques fail to work. It's a slippery slope and you've already stepped over the edge.

 

I agree 100% about extremism being driven UK and US foreign policy but there was never enough evidence of WMDs to warrant going to war over wether it was obtained by torture or not. Iraq barely had a working tank use to the years of sanctions let alone a WMD capability. It was always about oil and regime change.

 

Disagree about the slippery slope thing, the CIA have not stepped over the edge they have slightly put their toes over the edge and already been held to account for it. The idea that in today's world it will lead to western countries dragging people off the street and torturing them is just nonsense.

[pap]

And Pap's insecurity rears its head again.

Oh aye, sir. That's why I let this comment sit unchallenged for days.

 

Insecurity.

[whelk]

Oh aye, sir. That's why I let this comment sit unchallenged for days.

 

Insecurity.

 

It has many guises

[Unbelievable Jeff]

Just to back up my previous point, the use of torture on IRA suspects in the 1970's led to a sharp upturn in IRA membership, according to an advisor of Blair's on 5live just now.