Khalid Shaikh Mohammed...should they torture him?

Nagilum

If there is no question about his guilt and the information is highly time sensitive, should all possible means not be used to extract as much information as possible as quickly as possible?

If there is an operation planned in the very short term, the decision not to torture him could cost hundreds or thousands of lives.

Chaos-Engine

Originally posted by Nagilum
If there is no question about his guilt and the information is highly time sensitive, should all possible means not be used to extract as much information as possible as quickly as possible?

If there is an operation planned in the very short term, the decision not to torture him could cost hundreds or thousands of lives.

WHAT evidance do you have to confirm his guilt in any way?
What trial has found him guilty?

Torture is ILLEGAL
It is a crime of humanity
No matter what the circumstance I would never ever condon the use of torture any another person

How dare u start such a thread? Base your argument on FACTS and not CNN/BSKYB

Moderators perhaps a little editing is in order. I'm all for free-speak but not slander. This is a politics forum and not a tabloid

Nagilum

Forget the indignation, this thread is totally serious!

The evidence that he is guilty? Perhaps the fact that he was caught with his laptop detailing plans? Maybe because he admitted to orchestrating the 9/11 attacks in an Al Jazerra interview? In fact, he was quite proud of it.

His guilt is NOT the issue. The issue is what if, hypothetically speaking, there was reason to believe that a massive attack, like with a nuke, was going to be used in the next couple days somewhere in a major city in the world and this guy is the technical planner for all operations? You know he knows. You know he can tell you what you need to stop it. You wouldn't use everything in your power to get him to sing? You would send millions to their death because you would not torture ths guy? That is what it amounts to.

By the way, this guy singlehandedly sucessfully planned the deaths of more than 3500 people. That seems like a crime against humanity to me. The torture of this guy is a necessary evil! What he knows must be obtained as quickly as possible. Unfortunately, the US govt doesn't seem to see it that way. I only hope that is not a decision they live to regret.

davelerave

[edit]
Unless you have something constructive to say, don't say anything
[/edit]

swiss

Link to news site

Originally posted by Nagilum:

If there is no question about his guilt and the information is highly time sensitive, should all possible means not be used to extract as much information as possible as quickly as possible?

Ah but if you use that as a basis for allowing torture in this case, you are implicitly condoning the torture of all those who have suffered under the premise that it is done for the 'greater good' and for security and societal reasons of paramount importance.

Of course, you may say that this is a 'special' circumstance, that in order to save many lives we would only have to sacrifice the comfort of one. I disagree with this quite fundamentally for two main reasons

The first is down to do with the application of the authority to decide who is to be tortured. What level of 'persuasion' must be applied before torture is considered an option? How can we be certain that ulterior and personal agendae will not interfere with the (proposed) ultimate objective of the torture.

Secondly, as a signatory of the Geneva convention of human rights, we have agreed that the torture of a human, for any reason is an abhorrant act, and a breach of their fundamental human rights. Fundamental rights. Some may argue that acting as Mr Mohammed has done abrogates that right, but in my opinion, were we to lower ourselves to acts of torture, then we would be no better than the man himself. Our reasons may be different, but our machiavellian methods would bear a chilling similarity.

It is also illegal, as Chaos-Engine has pointed out. America, as a signatory of the Geneva convention must respect this, or risk violating international law.

How dare u start such a thread?

This drives me nuts. This is a bulletin board. Anything may be posted as long as its within the rules, and i don't see this topic being banned in the rules.

Base your argument on FACTS and not CNN/BSKYB

I agree that CNN/BSKYB are not valid references, but where do you get your "facts" from? where is this fountain of unbiased information?

Perhaps the fact that he was caught with his laptop detailing plans?

Good evidence. I'm guilty cause i have a computer game, that features the Twin Towers in it. Perhaps he downloaded it off the internet? Its hardly firm evidence. Besides if he masterminded such an attack don't you think his computer would have been set up, to dump everything, if he was caught?

Maybe because he admitted to orchestrating the 9/11 attacks in an Al Jazerra interview? In fact, he was quite proud of it.

Unknown. Was he just boasting? Was he taking the rap to save a higher ranker?

His guilt is NOT the issue.

Of course it is. Otherwise this would never involve the justice department at all. The US would simply use a black-op organisation, and torture him that way, without anyone knowing, and he would quietly disappear afterwards.

By the way, this guy singlehandedly sucessfully planned the deaths of more than 3500 people

You're assuming that he did. It hasn't been proven that he did.

It is also illegal, as Chaos-Engine has pointed out. America, as a signatory of the Geneva convention must respect this, or risk violating international law.

I don't think the US are too worried abt this one. They'll break it, if they want, just as they're likely to do so in Iraq.

Of course, you may say that this is a 'special' circumstance, that in order to save many lives we would only have to sacrifice the comfort of one.

Thats nice. Nagilum, what if you're the person that needs to be tortured, before Khalid will say anything? Just say it was his requirement.

pickarooney

Weird, the exact same scenario happened on a recent episode of 24. They tortured the guy a bit, and then pretended to kill his kids, for what it's worth.

Nagilum

Perhaps absolute certainty is not attainable, but consider a case like this one, as close to absolute certainty as it gets in any case, and 99% sure that he has planned more operations that will surely kill hundreds more if you do not find out about them. If you can't justify using all available means to get the information out of him, how would you, as a leader, explain your convictions to hundreds or thousands of family members who lost their loved ones because of your decision?

Hobbes

Originally posted by Nagilum
The torture of this guy is a necessary evil!

There is no thing as necessary evil. You don't get a get out of jail card for pulling that sort of crap. If you condone torture then you basically stand for everything the terrorists do.

The guilt or innocence of one person doesn't change that.

Cork

By the way, this guy singlehandedly sucessfully planned the deaths of more than 3500 people

The guy needs to be brought to justice. Giving him a hiding would only be stooping to the level or al-queda.

But it great that he was cought.

gandalf

Cork has a point here. Whats the point in fighting for your way of life when you swoop to their standards to protect your way of life.

As far as I can see OBL has succeeded in destroying all America stood for with Sept the 11th and the his biggest allies have been the Bush Administration. Unfortunately the American People have been deceived by all the propaganda being spewed by their "free" press.

Basic question Nagilum if you don't respect human life does that not make you as bad as the terrorists, and if thats the case the only difference between you and them is that you have bigger guns.

Gandalf.

bertiebowl

Remember someone is innocent until provent guilty - just ask the guilford 4, bermingham 6 etc.

But to answer the question - NO torture is not right - if you stoop to the level of the terrorists then the terrorists have won for sure

dathi1

We're on the brink of a new era in World politics for the 21st century...The Christian crusaders and the Muslim fundamentalists kill, bomb and torture each other. The militarists on both sides are happy....a new war to replace the cold war....and the super arms race begins. Africa and the third world was the battle ground then....nobody will be safe now.
now........Stocks in GEC look good
Last Sale $ 25.84
Change Net / % 0.04 0.16%
Best Bid / Ask N/A N/A
Today's High / Low $ 25.89 $ 25.75
Share Volume 20,400

If you like dealing in death...I'd go for securities.

bonkey

Originally posted by Nagilum
You would send millions to their death because you would not torture ths guy? That is what it amounts to.

Well, tv and movie fiction to the contrary, its not quite often that the intelligcence services would know that something of that scale was going to happen, but have no clue of where to look or what to do.

So, for a start, you'd be torturing this guy on the suspicion that millions might be at risk.

Lets say thats acceptable. How about if its only thousands? Hundreds? Tens? Individuals?

Where do you draw the line? You'll say to the dozens of families affected by a "small" disaster somehing like sorry folx, but there just weren't enough of you at risk to warrant the use of torture?

Or do we go the other way, and make torture acceptable as long as the threat of life is involved? Then what about "lesser" crimes like rape, etc. etc. etc.

Its an often-used cliche, but if you wish to advocate the use of a tecnique like torture, then consider where the line will be drawn, and explain why your arguments only apply on one side of that line and not the other.

jc

mike65

Would torture even work? maybe, I heard it said that this guy is on the
"cheese and wine" wing of the movement, he likes his comforts unlike his boss does these days.

Not that one should torture suspects of course....

Mike.

Dr_Teeth

Torture makes people tell you what you want to hear, nothing more.

Teeth.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Éomer of Rohan

Sure, under the Patriot Act the Americans are going for Oceania style security anyway, why stop them torturing one man eh?
And lets not forget who supposed Al-Quaeda and Taliban prisoners are going to be tried!! In a specially made military tribunal. Guess who is the only recourse of appeal? You got it, the National Command Authority, ol' GWB himself. But sure he will let them off if there is any doubt as to their guilt - whoops there goes another flying pig!!

Victor

Originally posted by Nagilum
His guilt is NOT the issue. The issue is what if, hypothetically speaking, there was reason to believe that a massive attack, like with a nuke, was going to be used in the next couple days somewhere in a major city in the world and this guy is the technical planner for all operations? You know he knows. You know he can tell you what you need to stop it. You wouldn't use everything in your power to get him to sing? You would send millions to their death because you would not torture ths guy? That is what it amounts to.

The problem here is that you are mixing fact with hypothesis and hyperbole, they make strange and dangerous bedfellows.

Its like that old adage, do you kill a baby because it might bring pain to the world?

davej

Interestingly enough there was a poll on Sky News last night about the very question of whether he should be tortured or not for information.

The results were 86% in favour of torture when I checked.

Maybe this is more a reflection on those who watch and vote on sky news polls but at the same time you can't ignore the result.

davej

dougal

What use would the torture be anyway, any plans he has knowledge of will be drastically changed now that he has been caught anyway.

any plans he has knowledge of will be drastically changed now that he has been caught anyway.

or his plans had contingencies just in case he was caught? Another side is, he gets tortured, they find a nuke, they ask him how to difuse it, he tricks them, and half of LA disappears.

Torturing someone generates unknown info. There is no guarantee that the info given is 100% correct.

Clintons Cat

The broad intelligence of Project Bojinka was known before the World Trade Centre attacks,yet it was impossible to prevent it occuring.Foreknowledge of a terrorist attack is not the same as prevention.
That said i feel a whole lot safer knowing the authorities have caught up with such a dangerous individual.Hopefully he will be tried as quickly as possible in a proper court of law.

Oh torture is wrong and probally an ineffective way of gathering intelligence for what its worth.

Xterminator

I think that 'torture' is a very broad catchphrase.

I dont think they would be justified attaching electrodes to the chaps gonads and frying them.

But i do think sleep deprivation and psychological tricks would be acceptable given the grave suspicion that he may b planning to kill people. I am unsure as to whether administering drugs might be overstepping what is acceptable. it, but if there are administered by a physician, then perhaps yes.

It a bit like to right to search someones home. You cant let them search just anyones home, but if there is enough evidence to get a warrant ... then it is acceptabe. In this situation is there enough evidence to show that he might be plannng terror attats, or in possesion of such knowledge, and or know where OBL is etc.

I think there is enough evidence to warrant that he be questioned.

X

xm15e3

Originally posted by Nagilum
If there is no question about his guilt and the information is highly time sensitive, should all possible means not be used to extract as much information as possible as quickly as possible?

If there is an operation planned in the very short term, the decision not to torture him could cost hundreds or thousands of lives.

We won't torture the Panty waste simply because we want reliable information. Torturing people will get them to say whatever they think will stop the pain. We want facts so we can kill his friends as efficiently as possible.

Torture is only useful to the sadistic for get their little rocks off. Now, providing discomfort (by stuffing him in a box ala "Gimp"), sleep deprivation, sensory deprivation, fatigue, hunger, ect. Those are useful ways to "Break the Ice" in the conversation. It works wonderfully.

Éomer of Rohan

Trust an American. Sensory and sleep deprivation are forms of torture as well - and starvation most definitely is in violation of the UNDHR

xm15e3

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
Trust an American.

Who else are you going to trust, the French, the UN, Iraq? LMAO

Sensory and sleep deprivation are forms of torture as well

Not in the English language

- and starvation most definitely is in violation of the UNDHR

Cool then so is Communism, what was the death toll? 30 Million in China by starvation, about the same as for Russia.

Starvation is more an exaggeration, I should have called it Caloric Reduction Therapy. They are fed, just not enough to feel spunky and chipper. But why bother chosing nice wording, since " ultimately everything defined by a human being is an abstraction". The word "torture" can mean whatever we want, right?

gandalf

Originally posted by xm15e3
Who else are you going to trust, the French, the UN, Iraq? LMAO

Compared to the current US administration YES ! (except for Iraq obviously!). And thats even considering the French have extensive interests in Iraq at least they are trying alternative to bombing.

Not in the English language Cool then so is Communism, what was the death toll? 30 Million in China by starvation, about the same as for Russia.

Is that the definition from Fox News. In the civilised world Sensory & Sleep deprivation coupled with starvation are forms of torture. As for the Communism but why do Americans always bring that up, is it like a comfort blanket when people are saying things that disagree with your position.

[/B]Starvation is more an exaggeration, I should have called it Caloric Reduction Therapy. They are fed, just not enough to feel spunky and chipper. But why bother chosing nice wording, since " ultimately everything defined by a human being is an abstraction". The word "torture" can mean whatever we want, right? [/B]

Oh look lets get other nice names for nasty things eh, Collateral Damage (blowing up innocent civilians), Friendly Fire (watch out GI's incoming and its ours).

To be honest xm15e3 given I have the luxury of knowing where you posted from and as your employer has a vested interest in war breaking out I am judging this is effecting your thought process in expressing your opinions here

Oh welcome to boards.

Gandalf.

xm15e3

To be honest xm15e3 given I have the luxury of knowing where you posted from and as your employer has a vested interest in war breaking out I am judging this is effecting your thought process in expressing your opinions here

Oh welcome to boards.

Gandalf. [/B]

Well, sense you point that out. My opinion is not that of my company. My opinion also is not to buy stock on your analysis of vested interests. WWII, maybe, not these days. Peace is almost always better for business. Most Corporations, are better off with many affluent traiding partners and low inflation. Rebuilding destroyed infrastructure, ala he Marshall Plan only causes inflation. It is an expenditure of wealth, nothing is created.

Compared to the current US administration YES ! (except for Iraq obviously!). And thats even considering the French have extensive interests in Iraq at least they are trying alternative to bombing.

Definetly the US have never been a nation that one could trust to follow thru with agreements. They're more than willing to make them, but they'll forget them as soon as its convenient. The US have their own interests in Iraq. At least Frances interests have some benefit to Iraq.

quote:

---

Sensory and sleep deprivation are forms of torture as well

---

Not in the English language

Of course they're forms of torture. Anything that causes any form of pain is a form of torture.

bonkey

Originally posted by xm15e3
We won't torture the Panty waste simply because we want reliable information. Torturing people will get them to say whatever they think will stop the pain. We want facts so we can kill his friends as efficiently as possible.

Torture is only useful to the sadistic for get their little rocks off. Now, providing discomfort (by stuffing him in a box ala "Gimp"), sleep deprivation, sensory deprivation, fatigue, hunger, ect. Those are useful ways to "Break the Ice" in the conversation. It works wonderfully.

Pulled from random sites by throwing the words "sleep deprivation Geneva Convention" and "sensory deprivation torture" into google :

The U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights, the authoritative interpreter of the international Convention Against Torture, has ruled that lengthy interrogation may incidentally and legitimately cost a prisoner sleep. But when employed for the purpose of breaking a prisoner's will, sleep deprivation "may in some cases constitute torture."

The State Department's annual human rights report routinely denounces sleep deprivation as an interrogation method. In its 2001 report on Turkey, Israel and Jordan, all U.S. allies, the department listed sleep deprivation among often-used alleged torture techniques.

Goodness. The US State Department decries sleep deprivation as a torture technique, as does the UN.

As for sensory dep.....

thereby enhancing the overall effect of sensory deprivation; a form of torture expressly prohibited in America and most other civilized nations.

Oops...there we go again. The US decries sensory deprivation as torture

Not in the English language

Guess your version of the English language isnt the same one used by your government or other western powers.

It is interesting to note, however, that the dictionary apparently employed by the US government appears to have changed its meanings somewhat since the creation of Camp X-Ray. Not that the US is in any way unique in this regard....

jc

Victor

Originally posted by bonkey
Oops...there we go again. The US decries sensory deprivation as torture .... It is interesting to note, however, that the dictionary apparently employed by the US government appears to have changed its meanings somewhat since the creation of Camp X-Ray. Not that the US is in any way unique in this regard....

The US constitution and Bill of Rights only extends to citizens / those in the USA, not to those outside. Remember the USA is a constitutional democracy, if the constitution doesn't prohibit something the governemt is allowed do it.

bonkey

Originally posted by Victor
The US constitution and Bill of Rights only extends to citizens / those in the USA, not to those outside. Remember the USA is a constitutional democracy, if the constitution doesn't prohibit something the governemt is allowed do it.

Yes, but when that nation also condemns the use of such techniques by other nations as a method of torture, it would be nothing short of hypocrisy in the extreme for them to claim otherwise for themselves.

They may not break any US laws in doing so, but they have classified it as torture.

Interestingly...does US law not apply to the torturer, and anyone in the chain of command who would be aware of the actions if they are American, or is it only that its illegal to torture Americans?

jc

Clintons Cat

The US constitution and Bill of Rights only extends to citizens / those in the USA, not to those outside. Remember the USA is a constitutional democracy, if the constitution doesn't prohibit something the governemt is allowed do it.

Which is why Camp X-ray is at Guatamo bay,Cuba rather than on US soil.

Its kind of bizarre that pre sept 2001,if someone had claimed the US were planning to hold political prisoners in Cuba in violation of the Geneva Convention 1 and the spirit of the us constitution.And subject them to sensory and sleep deprivation and Then they would have been laughed off the soap-box as tin-foil hatted fools.

1 Are they still being held as Battlefield Detainees?

Victor

Originally posted by bonkey
Interestingly...does US law not apply to the torturer, and anyone in the chain of command who would be aware of the actions if they are American, or is it only that its illegal to torture Americans?

Laws usually attach to a crime i.e. location (specific exemptions are being made to jurisdiction for child abuse and crimes against humanity). The US military are obliged to follow all orders, not just lawful orders (as it is in many other countries).

Cork

I don't think this guy should be tortured. Interrogated? Yes.

The people who go on about Guatamo miss the point of September 11th.

What justice did the people of the Twin Towers get. This was an evil and calas act. Just as the suicide bombers are doing nothing for the Palastenians. Al- Queda are doing nothing only inflicting hurt & despair.

It is crazy for "do-gooders" coming out in defence of past members of Al-Queda. These terrorists did not give a hoot about human life.

Clintons Cat

so try them for their crimes.
Just like John Walker Lindh.

FreeJohn Walker.Net
Observer
Lew Rockwells Voice Of Reason Half Hour

Victor

Originally posted by Cork
What justice did the people of the Twin Towers get.

Two wrongs do not make a right.

Originally posted by Cork
It is crazy for "do-gooders" coming out in defence of past members of Al-Queda. These terrorists did not give a hoot about human life.

First, what is the proximity of these individuals to the events of Sept. 11th? sEcond, if no one defends the rights of prisoners, where do we draw the line on who to defend at all?

First They Came for the Jews

First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out--
because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out--
because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out--
because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out--
because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me--
and there was no one left to speak out for me.

Pastor Martin Niemöller

PS I think there are different versions of this, but the sentiment is the same.

Hobbes

Originally posted by xm15e3
Not in the English language

You might want to go read up on history concerning "Internment". According to the English language it is torture.

Here is a link to start you off...

We consider that the following actions constitute physical ill-treatment; posture on the wall, hooding, noise, deprivation of sleep, diet of bread and water.

You will also find more on the effects of what happended to the people who went through it.

Starvation is more an exaggeration, I should have called it Caloric Reduction Therapy. They are fed, just not enough to feel spunky and chipper.

Also want to read up on torture and effects? try this link

What are the most common forms of torture?

Physical torture may include suspension, beatings, electric shock, deprivation of food and water, sexual abuse and forced ingestion of chemicals. Other types of torture that have primarily psychological effects include solitary confinement, threats, witnessed torture or execution, sham executions, deprivation of sleep, and monopolization of perception.

Of course that's an American site listing places in America to deal with the effects of Torture, so America at least knows exactly what torture is.

What justice did the people of the Twin Towers get

I don't mean to be calas, but they're dead. Justice is not going to matter one way or another to them.

And i don't see justice comes in the form of torturing people, or the bombing of foreign cities. Don't talk about Justice when all people want is revenge.

Al- Queda are doing nothing only inflicting hurt & despair

And fear. Don't forget that below this rightous anger that Americans have, a fear simmers. So in a way Al- Queda have succeeded in some of their goals.

It is crazy for "do-gooders" coming out in defence of past members of Al-Queda

They're not defending Al-Queda members, or what Al-Queda members have done in the past. I thought you would understand since you're always talking about Human Rights. Well let me explain it a bit. Even the lowest scum of the earth, has basic human rights. What America is doing is taking those away. That's what is wrong.

Two wrongs do not make a right

Exactly. But you'll find that America will take that concept a few steps further, by blaming Iraq, Iran, & possibly N.Korea for the Sept 11.

The US military are obliged to follow all orders, not just lawful orders (as it is in many other countries).

Actually they're not. Due to changes in military law after ww2, the laws were changed. Considering what German troops did while under Orders, the world decided that excuse could not be available to any troops. Most Armies out there will have a clause whereby a soldier can question & refuse an order, they deem to be breaking the Geneva Convention, or the conventions of their own armed forces.

Following an order is no excuse.

Also, most military forces garrisoned in foreign nations will be obliged to follow the host country's laws. The base itself is american property, but the host nation has some juristiction.

Victor

Originally posted by klaz
The US military are obliged to follow all orders, not just lawful orders (as it is in many other countries).

Sorry, what I mean is they have to follow all orders and are liable to US law / the chain of command on them. International law is another matter.

Sorry, what I mean is they have to follow all orders and are liable to US law / the chain of command on them

I understand, and to a certain degree i agree. However, when the american soldier is ordered to gas ten thousand people, there is a regulation/guideline whereby the soldier has the right (without receiving a court marshel) to refuse.

Basically, soldiers if ordered to torture, do not have to do so.

But outside of these circumstances then yes, the soldier is reliant upon the laws of the US, and its chain of command.

Cork

There is a big differance between the US army and terrorist groups intent in causing misery to the people of the US or Israel.

There was debate on Red FM last night (www.redfm.ie) on this subject. Certain groups within our socierty were criticised for advocating a victim mentality to excuse acts of terrorism.

There is a big differance between the US army and terrorist groups intent in causing misery to the people of the US or Israel.

big difference? i don't see it that way. If the US army bombs civilian centres, and a terrorist bombs a civilian area, i count both as being terrorism. It doesn't make the act ok, if its an actual army or a recognised nation.

bug

In relation to torturing/killing suspected Al Qaeda members..(trying to link this up, its not worth a new thread) There was an article yesterday on BBC world news about two suspected Al Qaeda members who were prounouced murdered on post-mortem whilst in th custody of american soldiers in Afghanistan on a base. I can't find it now on the site..did anyone else see it? Am I imagining things....again....Please dont bash me moderators!

gandalf

No bug your right I saw it there myself as well. Should have fired it up myself. I'll see if I can find it.

Gandalf.

gandalf

From the UK Independent newspaper

America admits suspects died in interrogations
By Andrew Gumbel in Los Angeles
07 March 2003


American military officials acknowledged yesterday that two prisoners captured in Afghanistan in December had been killed while under interrogation at Bagram air base north of Kabul – reviving concerns that the US is resorting to torture in its treatment of Taliban fighters and suspected al-Qa'ida operatives.

A spokesman for the air base confirmed that the official cause of death of the two men was "homicide", contradicting earlier accounts that one had died of a heart attack and the other from a pulmonary embolism.

The men's death certificates, made public earlier this week, showed that one captive, known only as Dilawar, 22, from the Khost region, died from "blunt force injuries to lower extremities complicating coronary artery disease" while another captive, Mullah Habibullah, 30, suffered from blood clot in the lung that was exacerbated by a "blunt force injury".

US officials previously admitted using "stress and duress" on prisoners including sleep deprivation, denial of medication for battle injuries, forcing them to stand or kneel for hours on end with hoods on, subjecting them to loud noises and sudden flashes of light and engaging in culturally humiliating practices such as having them kicked by female officers.

While the US claims this still constitutes "humane" treatment, human rights groups including Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have denounced it as torture as defined by international treaty. The US has also come under heavy criticism for its reported policy of handing suspects over to countries such as Jordan, Egypt or Morocco, where torture techniques are an established part of the security apparatus. Legally, Human Rights Watch says, there is no distinction between using torture directly and subcontracting it out.

Some American politicians have argued that torture could be justified in this case if it helped prevent terror attacks on US citizens. Jonathan Turley, a prominent law professor at George Washington University, countered that embracing torture would be "suicide for a nation once viewed as the very embodiment of human rights".

Torture is part of a long list of concerns about the Bush administration's respect for international law, after the extrajudicial killing of al-Qa'ida suspects by an unmanned drone in Yemen and the the indefinite detention of "enemy combatants" at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, a number of whom have committed or attempted to commit suicide.

President Bush appeared to encourage extra-judicial solutions in his State of the Union address in January when he talked of al-Qa'ida members being arrested or meeting "a different fate". "Let's put it this way," he said in a tone that appalled many, "they are no longer a problem to the United States and our friends and allies."

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/politics/story.jsp?story=384604

Some American politicians have argued that torture could be justified in this case if it helped prevent terror attacks on US citizens

strange, sounds alot like Hitler justifying gassing the Jews. They were a threat to the Third Reich so any methods are acceptable. Nice justification.

(before anyone jumps in, i am not comparing the US with Nazi Germany, I am comparing the argument)

Cork

These are members of Al-Queda. I hope Mary Robinson does issue a statement on the Al-Queda members in Cuba. It is amazing She is not making statements on this.

What Al-Queda was responsible for was the horror of 9/11.

They sat down & planned this carnage.

These were members of an organisation that planned these acts.

bonkey

Originally posted by Cork
These are members of Al-Queda. I hope Mary Robinson does issue a statement on the Al-Queda members in Cuba. It is amazing She is not making statements on this.

What Al-Queda was responsible for was the horror of 9/11.

They sat down & planned this carnage.

These were members of an organisation that planned these acts.

And what part of this means that these humans should be denied rights which signatory nations of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights have declared inalienable?

I saw a comment recently that it is no longer the case that the victors write history...the victors now write dictionaries. This strikes me as a classic case, because statements like that from Bush, and indeed Cork's followup argument seems to be doing just that.

Unkess, of course, Cork would like to explain why inalienable rights do not apply to some people.

jc