Article

2005-10-21 Terror Networks & Islam

MI5 'acts on facts gained under torture'

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Captain America, esq 2005-10-21 00:00|| || Front Page|| [11132 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 that evidence obtained by abuse of detainees overseas may be admissible in a British court

I always wanted to ask someone pushing this agenda: If you knew as an almost absolute certainty that a terrorists had information about where your kidnapped daughter was being held...and the kidnappers were threatening to gang-rape, mutilate, and then kill her...would you feel the same way? Any qualified answer other than "yes" would be hypocritical.

Posted by anymouse">anymouse 2005-10-21 07:59|| 2005-10-21 07:59|| Front Page Top

#2 The good of the many outweighs the good of the few.

That's not mine I saw it on Star Trek III.

Posted by bigjim-ky 2005-10-21 12:04|| 2005-10-21 12:04|| Front Page Top

#3 It's a good question to ask. Similar to "If you knew beyond a doubt that the person infront of you has killed and raped your daughter (in whichever order), would you really care to bother about a trial and a lawful conviction? Wouldn't you just want to lynch them?"

Ofcourse I would just want to lynch them and put them to a slow death. Doesn't mean that the state should cater to my desires. Because if the state catered to *my* desires, time would come that you wouldn't like it either, anonymouse.

So, anonymouse, the other good question to ask here is this: "Are you sure that the tools you've legitimized to use against the guilty (but without any real assurances that they're indeed guilty) won't be in time come to be used against the innocent as well?"

When times comes, anonymouse, that the MI5 or MI6 tortures *you* for any possible information you may or may not have, I expect you not to complain overmuch about it.

----

Roper: So now you'd give the Devil benefit of law.
More: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?

Roper: I'd cut down every law in England to do that.

More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!

--

Anonymouse, since you're probably Christian, you're probably not too concerned about such usages of torture against innocent muslims, but I'm sure there are many left-wing dictatorships around the world, who truly *love* your defense of torture as a useful instrument to root-out right-wing terrorism : and most Rantburgers would be suspects of such.

But feel free to see all the above as "hypocrisy".

Posted by Aris Katsaris">Aris Katsaris 2005-10-21 12:51|| 2005-10-21 12:51|| Front Page Top

#4 I have no problem with it, thankyouverymuch

Posted by Frank G">Frank G 2005-10-21 13:02|| 2005-10-21 13:02|| Front Page Top

#5 Nah, I'd rather strap the sumbitch to the front of my car, douse him with water, cruise the Southeast Expressway during a January snowstorm and tap a few cars, Jimmie Johnson style.

Posted by Raj 2005-10-21 13:51|| 2005-10-21 13:51|| Front Page Top

#6 MI5 isn't doing the torture, it is acting on information that a foreign power may have obtained by torture. MI5 isn't endorsing or part of the act of torture. This is sound reasoning. To not use the information is foolish.

Posted by Sock Puppet OÂ´ Doom 2005-10-21 15:31|| 2005-10-21 15:31|| Front Page Top

#7 Aris:

The "Rule of Law" card doesn't play in this game. "Rule of Law" does not apply anymore than the does the Geneva Convention (though the US is plaing like it does) in a war zone.

The cockroaches that are imprisoned in theater are not there because they forgot to get a permit to sell hotdogs on the corner. They are there because they killed someone, tried to kil someone, or were caught plotting to kill someone. It's crystal clear and simple if you have been there.

It's also obvious that islamo-fascism in all of its manifestations is a world-wide cancer...a cancer that has to be eradicated at any cost (it's obvious to all but the blind).

It's a good question to ask. Similar to "If you knew beyond a doubt that the person infront of you has killed and raped your daughter (in whichever order), would you really care to bother about a trial and a lawful conviction? Wouldn't you just want to lynch them?" That's called a non sequitur and has nothing to do with my statement.

When times comes, anonymouse, that the MI5 or MI6 tortures *you* for any possible information you may or may not have, I expect you not to complain overmuch about it. You again commit a non sequitur. You are confusing a war zone with a country where citizens and government (UK) agree to follow the "Rule of Law" (e.g., even at the height of the IRA-Protestant violence "Rule of Law" was almost always followed by the governement).

Posted by anymouse">anymouse 2005-10-21 15:31|| 2005-10-21 15:31|| Front Page Top

#8 The cockroaches that are imprisoned in theater are not there because they forgot to get a permit to sell hotdogs on the corner. They are there because they killed someone, tried to kil someone, or were caught plotting to kill someone.

Or perhaps because they happened to be living near the neighbourhood where a bomb exploded and thus they were seen to suspiciously linger on the area, or perhaps somebody with a grudge against them informed on them with an anonymous and unverifiable tip, or for many other reasons.

It's crystal clear and simple if you have been there.

You've been in *all* the theaters of war in the world and can thus know the professionalism and integrity of all military and police personnel of all third-world nations? Everywhere?

Wow.

MI5 isn't doing the torture, it is acting on information that a foreign power may have obtained by torture. MI5 isn't endorsing or part of the act of torture.

Now who's being naive? If cooperation by third-world governments wasn't rewarded by western powers, then they wouldn't be cooperating with said powers. But if the cooperation means torturing their own citizens, many of whom may be innocent until they happen to find a few guilty parties as well, this means that rewarding them for said cooperation means rewarding the use of torture against innocents in the hopes of catching the guilty.

It's also obvious that islamo-fascism in all of its manifestations is a world-wide cancer...a cancer that has to be eradicated at any cost (it's obvious to all but the blind).

Islamofascism is a world-wide cancer, but it's not the *only* world-wide cancer: and more importantly, being an ideology, it can't be defeated with police measures or interrogations, no matter how brutal or lenient. It can only be defeated via:
a) Crushing the governments that support it via external interventions
b) The propaganda war which will lead to the populaces of said nations to revolt against their oppressors.

The use of torture doesn't help us one iota for (a) and is extremely detrimental for (b). It would have been much better for the propaganda-warfare of our side if only our enemies tortured.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2005-10-21 15:54|| 2005-10-21 15:54|| Front Page Top

#9 Torture may not help us one iota for (a) and may be extremely detrimental for (b), but if it keeps us safe from any London Tube attacks, Baltimore harbor tunnel explosions, airplane attacks, or stadium explosions I'm willing to let our allies use their own judgment. But I can understand that your opinion there on the front lines of a Greek resort island are not the same as mine here in the NY, Baltimore, Washington area.

Posted by Darrell 2005-10-21 16:48|| 2005-10-21 16:48|| Front Page Top

#10 I'm going to have to say I halfway agree with Aris here.

I say halfway because the left here has used allegations of torture and recorded instances of nonsanctioned torture by US troops (that would have never come to light if the army had given in to the blackmail and dropped the prosecution of the troops involved) to basically push for the idea that captured combatants must fall into one of only two categories: either they are prisoners of war accorded all the protections of the Geneva Convention, or they're criminals deserving of a trial in the same "Court-TV" distorted system of "if the glove don't fit you must acquit," while much of the evidence that would be used in their trial is of a classified nature, would put sources at risk, et cetera.

I am also of the opinion that the above legal analysis happens to be wrong. With few exceptions having to do with the opening stages of an invasion (I believe it's the first three days or so) by a foreign power, _according to the geneva conventions_, then they are unlawful combatants.

Now unlawful combatants _do_ have rights. They have a right to a trial at a military tribunal, and they have a right to representation during this trial. And if found guilty there must be at least a six _month_ delay between the finding and the execution of their sentence, which is usually death.

NOW... if you want to make a case for not executing them... you could. I think the case for such, and for holding until the end of hostilities (with the caveat that communication be much more limited than is normally the case with POW's, given the nature of modern terrorism) is probably much stronger for Joe Insurgent from some town in Iraq than for some "insurgent" from Yemen who gets caught planting a roadside bomb in Anbar. (The former does get more leeway under the conventions than the latter, although you may want to consult with a real JAG lawyer, which I am not).

OTTH, from my point of view, reviewing if these guys are under indictment already in their home countries and handing them over if they are is to me not in our interests.

I do NOT think that the unnamed middle eastern countries the unlawful combatants are remanded to are exactly truthful to the US about what information they obtain during their interrogation sessions.

Take, for instance, the spate of bombings in the Sinai over the past couple years. The "official" explanation is that they're all the work of Bedouin extremists, but the bombings mainly target foreign tourist groups (European and Israeli) that the Bedouin in particular have little history of animosity towards, and the Bedouin don't have very much power in mainstream Egyptian society, BUT MEANWHILE there exist terrorist groups in Egypt that are more urban in character that do have animosity towards those groups, (The Islamic Brotherhood, for example, which was the antecedent group to Al Qaeda itself, involved in previous attacks, and was even involved in the first WTC attack) and do have a history of trying to blow up tourists.

If they're not telling the truth about that what makes you think they'll be telling the intelligence agencies the truth about interrogations?

Posted by Phil 2005-10-21 16:51|| 2005-10-21 16:51|| Front Page Top

#11 Darrell, look up the recent history of Cyprus some time...

Posted by Phil 2005-10-21 16:52|| 2005-10-21 16:52|| Front Page Top

#12 Wait until the splodeydopes start detonating in Athens Aris, then repeat these arguments.

We are dealing with 'people' that want the total destruction of everything the West stands for, and will replace it with a misogynist, anti-democratic, theocratic, fascist caliphate where the liberal views you expouse will be ground underfoot. They are the enemy, and the sooner we all realise that fact, and destroy them, the better.

It's like all the bullshit after 9/11 when 1/3 of people getting on a plane were being searched in detail, whether they were old ladies with a bible or some Arab with a gleam in his eye and a boxcutter in his pocket.

Do I trust my government? NO of course not, but I expect them to use a modicum of intelligence (at least to save resources) and to the best of my knowledge, it's basically males of middle-eastern extraction that have been responsible for virtually *all* the terrorism in the West in the last four years - so nail *them*, and nail them bloody hard. If they get hurt, too bloody bad.

Posted by Tony (UK) 2005-10-21 17:25|| 2005-10-21 17:25|| Front Page Top

#13 Darell> Nice jab, Darell, but you probably don't know that Thermopylae used to be a resort place also. And the task of those in Samos (1 km from Turkey) in case of war will be the same as there. "Stand and die, delaying the enemy as much as possible".

In the current circumstances of mostly peace and pretense-friendship between Greece and Turkey, it won't be *me* who'll have to die ofcourse, but still I won't have you dishonourably jest about *everyone* who's served at such a place in past or future.

Posted by Aris Katsaris">Aris Katsaris 2005-10-21 17:34|| 2005-10-21 17:34|| Front Page Top

#14 Aris: Whatever. I really don't give a rat's rear-end about your opinion...any more than you care about mine.

Just remember your words.

Posted by anymouse">anymouse 2005-10-21 17:56|| 2005-10-21 17:56|| Front Page Top

#15 Wait until the splodeydopes start detonating in Athens Aris, then repeat these arguments.

Unfortunately, Greece is too friendly to the Russia-China-Iran axis to suffer from Islamofascist attacks.

I'm more worried about you clowns tearing down the laws in which we might have found cover when the devil turns to us and seeks to transform us to one of those eastern and third-world torture-supporting fascisms that you endorse.

Do you people REALLY want a world where every nation in the world trusts the various government to torture "terrorist suspects" as you will?

If so, then *you* end the hypocrisy and secrecy. If torture is justified, then record it, photograph it and (once immediate security concerns have passed) televise it. If you are to argue that torture is necessary then don't be ashamed to have it photographed, shown, revealed in all its glory, and offer your justifications for it in the broad light of public opinion, as *all* governmental actions must in the end be justified, if we are to remain democracy. I may object to the death penalty, but atleast you have it out in the open, you ain't being secretive about when and where it happens, and the American people supports it. Make it so with torture as well, *if* you are ready to support it in a democratic forum.

We are dealing with 'people' that want the total destruction of everything the West stands for, and will replace it with a misogynist, anti-democratic, theocratic, fascist caliphate where the liberal views you expouse will be ground underfoot. They are the enemy, and the sooner we all realise that fact, and destroy them, the better.

Start telling me things I don't know.

But the sooner you realise this global war won't end by the number of people you torture, the better also.

Posted by Aris Katsaris">Aris Katsaris 2005-10-21 18:02|| 2005-10-21 18:02|| Front Page Top

#16 Aris: the Michael Dukakis of Greece.

thought you were banned, soldier?

Posted by Frank G">Frank G 2005-10-21 18:15|| 2005-10-21 18:15|| Front Page Top

#17 thought you were banned, soldier?

So did I. Perhaps it's because I'm using a different provider than the last time I was in Athens.

Sunday I'm going back to Samos so no worries: I'll be out of your hair again.

Posted by Aris Katsaris">Aris Katsaris 2005-10-21 18:25|| 2005-10-21 18:25|| Front Page Top

#18 you don't bother me, sorry

Posted by Frank G">Frank G 2005-10-21 18:30|| 2005-10-21 18:30|| Front Page Top

#19 :>

Posted by Shipman 2005-10-21 18:41|| 2005-10-21 18:41|| Front Page Top

#20 What kind of torture are we talking about? Sleep deprivation? Humiliation? Subjection to fear?

*yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaawn*

Posted by Rafael 2005-10-21 18:56|| 2005-10-21 18:56|| Front Page Top

#21 Rafael has the right angle.

Seems to me that Aris would prefer that, in a situation of doubt, that innocent people should run the risk of dying in order to spare a suspect pain and discomfort,on the legal principle that the suspect is innocent himself until proven guilty. I think the label of someone who prefers that the law be upheld rather than spare the lives of innocents is "pharisee". Pharisees have forgotten the design basis of Law derived from the Romans: it is more important that the innocent not be punished than that the guilty be punished. Thus, they adhere to the letter of the law rather than to the spirit: They whine about the violation of International law when a dictator who murders millions is deposed than that dictator's victims before he was deposed.

Another interesting thing to point out is that, when presented with the hypothetical situation, Aris puts himself in the shoes of the terrorist while the other commentators put their loved ones in the shoes of the potential victims. One skilled in deconstructionism would read WORLDS into that observation, but I am not, so leave that task to another.

Posted by Ptah">Ptah 2005-10-21 19:43|| http://www.crusaderwarcollege.org]">[http://www.crusaderwarcollege.org] 2005-10-21 19:43|| Front Page Top

#22 Facts are Facts
Bad facts should be acted upon. To refuse to act is criminal.

The conditions the facts are aquired under is disconnected from the facts. You can apply morality to the conditions the are aquired under but not to the facts discovered. Facts are neither moral nor amoral.

Posted by 3dc 2005-10-21 20:14|| 2005-10-21 20:14|| Front Page Top

#23 Ptah, don't read too much into Aris putting himself into the position of the target. He's right about the dangers. Think about what kind of person can inure themselves to do what's necessary for torture; and watch your back. (And when I think of torture I think of pre-invasion AbuGrhaib rather than post-invasion, though there were a few incidents that qualified.)

Posted by James">James 2005-10-21 21:17|| http://idontknowbut.blogspot.com]">[http://idontknowbut.blogspot.com] 2005-10-21 21:17|| Front Page Top

#24 But feel free to see all the above as "hypocrisy".

We should all thank Aris for his kind permission to think critially.

Thanks, Aris!

Posted by badanov 2005-10-21 22:07|| http://www.freefirezone.org]">[http://www.freefirezone.org] 2005-10-21 22:07|| Front Page Top

#25 Ptah, I'm glad that you trust your government enough to let it torture at will, uncontrolled by anyone.

No, wait, I'm not.

Actually I'm horrified by it. If I had my way, I'd not allow the government to touch a schoolbook, let alone torture implements.

As for the concept of innonence-until-proven-guilty, and the whole idea of the right-to-trial to ascertain guilt... they're not mere legal principles. They're the bare minimum limitations imposed on the power of the state in any democratic society. If you break even *these* limitations on state power down, what else remains?

Another interesting thing to point out is that, when presented with the hypothetical situation, Aris puts himself in the shoes of the terrorist

Mmm, no, I think I put myself in the shoes of the *innocent* torture victim.

But ofcourse in *your* universe there are no innocent torture victims, are there? Nowhere in the world. Not even in the third-world "allied" dictatorships of yours.

They whine about the violation of International law when a dictator who murders millions is deposed than that dictator's victims before he was deposed.

Hello, what kind of dictators offering intelligence-under-torture do you think we're talking about?

If Bush had decided to zig instead of zagging, Saddam might have been one of those "allied" third-world dictators that was offering you "intelligence obtained under torture in the fight against terrorism".

Posted by Aris Katsaris">Aris Katsaris 2005-10-21 22:10|| 2005-10-21 22:10|| Front Page Top

#26 Ptah, I'm glad that you trust your government enough to let it torture at will, uncontrolled by anyone.

As far as I can tell, it isn't doing so; it merely has extradition treaties with countries that do. This is something I don't like, but I think it's as much a consequence of a refusal to recognize what legal status a lot of the unlawful combatants actually have.

If there were a solid legal foundation in place for dealing with guys who are a) illegal combatants, but b) that we don't feel like killing, nor c) allowing the sort of communication POW's are allowed, nor d) funnelling them into the "If the glove don't fit you must acquit" system... they probably wouldn't find themselves rendered back to their home countries.

Actually I'm horrified by it. If I had my way, I'd not allow the government to touch a schoolbook, let alone torture implements.

Well, that part goes along with government-funded universal education...

Posted by Phil Fraering 2005-10-21 22:30|| 2005-10-21 22:30|| Front Page Top

#27 Well, that part goes along with government-funded universal education...

I can think of several ways to fund education without having the government also choose the textbooks, but this is now wildly off-topic, nor is it a matter I've researched very much.

Posted by Aris Katsaris">Aris Katsaris 2005-10-21 22:37|| 2005-10-21 22:37|| Front Page Top

#28 If they broke it up into manageable pieces it would help more, but as it is there are school districts in metropolitan areas (like, for instance, Los Angeles) that are larger than my entire _state_'s combined school districts, and they make purchasing decisions as a whole (as does Texas...); this actually encourages the textbook companies to write their books to the lowest common denominators in the very large districts and lets everyone else live with the results.

Posted by Phil Fraering 2005-10-21 22:41|| 2005-10-21 22:41|| Front Page Top

#29 Anyway, I'm turning in for the night in a couple minutes; I thought I'd ask, before I go, if Aris has read this report. I linked to it from here way back when, and it's something you may find interesting and/or useful in your current job. It's apparently from an old press briefing regarding "lessons learned in the Iraq conflict."

Take a look at item 7 in particular.

Posted by Phil Fraering 2005-10-21 22:44|| 2005-10-21 22:44|| Front Page Top

#30 No, I hadn't read it -- but thanks, I will read it now.

Posted by Aris Katsaris">Aris Katsaris 2005-10-21 22:57|| 2005-10-21 22:57|| Front Page Top

23:52 .com
23:24 Sock Puppet OÂ´ Doom
23:15 Phil Fraering
23:10 Barbara Skolaut
23:06 Phil Fraering
23:04 Barbara Skolaut
23:03 .com
22:57 Aris Katsaris
22:55 Scott R
22:44 Phil Fraering
22:41 Phil Fraering
22:37 Phil Fraering
22:37 Aris Katsaris
22:35 Phil Fraering
22:30 Phil Fraering
22:27 AzCat
22:23 Penguin
22:21 Mr. XXX
22:10 Aris Katsaris
22:09 CrazyFool
22:07 badanov
22:01 Raj
21:48 anon
21:34 Glereck Slosh9221