So did waterboarding really save british lives?

[dreamz]

guardian said:

British lives were saved by the use of waterboarding on terror suspects, George Bush has claimed in his memoirs.

The former president said the interrogation technique, which was banned by President Barack Obama, helped foil attacks on Heathrow airport, Canary Wharf and a number of US targets around the world.

In Decision Points, published today, Bush insists the practice – which simulates drowning – is not torture, describing it instead as one of a number of "enhanced interrogation techniques".

so just more spin or is there some truth in all this?

[elster]

Who knows?

Bush has a few books to sell, he will have been given advice by the White House Counsel to cover his backside.

[Vipers]

Maybe Bush should try it out, see if he agrees with his comments. tt of the highest order.

[Bing o]

How many British lives have been in Iraq, Afghanistan, and 7/7?



Dubya can fk right off, he's no better than any other crackpot head of state.






(Hi Jimbeaux)

[louiebaby]

For those that aren't sure what it is:

[dreamz]

there was an article i read last night where he's said he stopped caring what the british people thought and all that mattered was blair's premiership was kept intact.

[Victor McDade]

I think the bigger question is does torture actually work?

Putting the human rights issue to one side, when being tortured will suspects tell us the truth and thus potentially save lives or will they just tell us what we want to hear to put a stop to the torture?

[Mr Dave]

Vipers said:

Maybe Bush should try it out, see if he agrees with his comments. tt of the highest order.

He probably has during his escape and evasion and resistance to interrogation training back when he flew in the ANG.

Was suprisingly common back then in the US military to waterboard people to simulate interrogation. ( google us military SERE waterboarding)

I know personally of a RCAF pilot that went through the training in the USA at a similar time as GW probably would have and it happened to him, and his classmates.

So there is a good chance he has. Have you had it done to you?

[ewenm]

Yes, we can definitively prove that waterboarding specifically caused eleventy-thousand British subjects not to be killed.

Proving a negative (number of people un-killed) is impossible so this is all political bluster.

[bobbylondonuk]

Maybe it did, Maybe it didnt...no one actually knows!

Question is..do you agree with it if it did prevent any more attacks?

[elster]

Victor McDade said:

I think the bigger question is does torture actually work?

Putting the human rights issue to one side, when being tortured will suspects tell us the truth and thus potentially save lives or will they just tell us what we want to hear to put a stop to the torture?

Has been working for many many centuries and gets good results from the right interrogator.

The issue is not with quality of information, but with human rights.

[joe_90]

For a start, he claimed he was not sorry about invading Iraq, but the intelligence was incorrect about Sadam working with AQ.. So st me a brick where did this 'info' come from.. you guessed it 'Water boarding', which proves what a crock of ste it is.

Abu Zubaida was waterboarded 83!! times, information about the links are not in any reports until the last few after a month+ of constant interrogation.


He should be put on trial for this, the 'lawyers said it was ok' defence is just bks.

elster said:

Has been working for many many centuries and gets good results from the right interrogator.

The issue is not with quality of information, but with human rights.

Rubbish, provide a citation for that please.

Edited by joe_90 on Tuesday 9th November 12:23

[chopperR]

It proabably did but we don't know.

And we probably never will.

The question is, do you REALLY want to know what goes on behind the scenes to keep you safe..?

[vz-r_dave]

elster said:

Victor McDade said:

I think the bigger question is does torture actually work?

Putting the human rights issue to one side, when being tortured will suspects tell us the truth and thus potentially save lives or will they just tell us what we want to hear to put a stop to the torture?

Has been working for many many centuries and gets good results from the right interrogator.

The issue is not with quality of information, but with human rights.

And I ask why on earth this man (Khalid Sheikh Mohammed) deserves to be considered within the Human rights act of any nation?

Sometimes I just don’t understand the British mentality, why is it that we allow people to impose these acts upon our own people (interrogators in the case) protecting the scum of the planet from getting what they deserve.

[joe_90]

chopperR said:

It proabably did but we don't know.

And we probably never will.

The question is, do you REALLY want to know what goes on behind the scenes to keep you safe..?

100% yes, why would you not, I am an adult and know what the real world is about.

Edited by joe_90 on Tuesday 9th November 12:23

[joe_90]

vz-r_dave said:

elster said:

Victor McDade said:

I think the bigger question is does torture actually work?

Putting the human rights issue to one side, when being tortured will suspects tell us the truth and thus potentially save lives or will they just tell us what we want to hear to put a stop to the torture?

Has been working for many many centuries and gets good results from the right interrogator.

The issue is not with quality of information, but with human rights.

And I ask why on earth this man (Khalid Sheikh Mohammed) deserves to be considered within the Human rights act of any nation?

Sometimes I just don’t understand the British mentality, why is it that we allow people to impose these acts upon our own people (interrogators in the case) protecting the scum of the planet from getting what they deserve.

Because we are better than them, resulting to there tactics validates there points, and shows at the root level we are not difference at all, we just tart it up differently.

We have set a moral code in place, you cannot just say randomly (becuase vz-r_dave says so) that it doesn't apply to X or Y? Where do you draw the line? do you keep moving and eroding at the line? Do you put murders? child molesters? rapists, bank robbers on that side of the line? what happens then when you get the wrong person? I see your point, but we have agreed to have Human rights, this has to be equal for everyone regardless of you emotional sway.

Its a tough subject.. but people like Bush at the top should not be able to do what they want and circumvent these rules without reproductions.

So question.. This clown is responsible for killing lots of people, should Bush, (even though he did it in good faith ) be responsible for the resulting carnage that is still happening in Iraq? All the innocent people killed? His direct actions (with Cheney et all) based on crap intelligence and basically having no understanding of that area and the politics has caused and epic amount of bloodshed and destroyed lives has killed so so many people? Should he be totally let off the hook for this?

Edited by joe_90 on Tuesday 9th November 12:34

[tinman0]

dreamz said:

there was an article i read last night where he's said he stopped caring what the british people thought

So? He's not our President, why should he care what we think? The US public voted for him, not us.

Obama has hardly been any better when talks to France and Germany and conveniently forgets who is backing US troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.

[vz-r_dave]

joe_90 said:

vz-r_dave said:

elster said:

Victor McDade said:

I think the bigger question is does torture actually work?

Putting the human rights issue to one side, when being tortured will suspects tell us the truth and thus potentially save lives or will they just tell us what we want to hear to put a stop to the torture?

Has been working for many many centuries and gets good results from the right interrogator.

The issue is not with quality of information, but with human rights.

And I ask why on earth this man (Khalid Sheikh Mohammed) deserves to be considered within the Human rights act of any nation?

Sometimes I just don’t understand the British mentality, why is it that we allow people to impose these acts upon our own people (interrogators in the case) protecting the scum of the planet from getting what they deserve.

Because we are better than them, resulting to there tactics validates there points, and shows at the root level we are not difference at all, we just tart it up differently.

We have set a moral code in place, you cannot just say randomly (becuase vz-r_dave says so) that it doesn't apply to X or Y? Where do you draw the line? do you keep moving and eroding at the line? Do you put murders? child molesters? rapists, bank robbers on that side of the line? what happens then when you get the wrong person? I see your point, but we have agreed to have Human rights, this has to be equal for everyone regardless of you emotional sway.

Its a tough subject.. but people like Bush at the top should not be able to do what they want and circumvent these rules without reproductions.

So question.. This clown is responsible for killing lots of people, should Bush, (even though he did it in good faith ) be responsible for the resulting carnage that is still happening in Iraq? All the innocent people killed? His direct actions (with Cheney et all) based on crap intelligence and basically having no understanding of that area and the politics has caused and epic amount of bloodshed and destroyed lives has killed so so many people? Should he be totally let off the hook for this?

Edited by joe_90 on Tuesday 9th November 12:34

I agree with you entirely, unfortunately emotion was behind my post. Same goes for capital punishment as well I suppose. Hard to bring yourself round sense when your views are unfluenced my media and the world it is today.

Edited by vz-r_dave on Tuesday 9th November 12:45

[dreamz]

tinman0 said:

dreamz said:

there was an article i read last night where he's said he stopped caring what the british people thought

So? He's not our President, why should he care what we think? The US public voted for him, not us.

he should considering we did get dragged into this mess alongside the US

[Mr Dave]

joe_90 said:

vz-r_dave said:

elster said:

Victor McDade said:

I think the bigger question is does torture actually work?

Putting the human rights issue to one side, when being tortured will suspects tell us the truth and thus potentially save lives or will they just tell us what we want to hear to put a stop to the torture?

Has been working for many many centuries and gets good results from the right interrogator.

The issue is not with quality of information, but with human rights.

And I ask why on earth this man (Khalid Sheikh Mohammed) deserves to be considered within the Human rights act of any nation?

Sometimes I just don’t understand the British mentality, why is it that we allow people to impose these acts upon our own people (interrogators in the case) protecting the scum of the planet from getting what they deserve.

Because we are better than them, resulting to there tactics validates there points, and shows at the root level we are not difference at all, we just tart it up differently.

We have set a moral code in place, you cannot just say randomly (becuase vz-r_dave says so) that it doesn't apply to X or Y? Where do you draw the line? do you keep moving and eroding at the line? Do you put murders? child molesters? rapists, bank robbers on that side of the line? what happens then when you get the wrong person? I see your point, but we have agreed to have Human rights, this has to be equal for everyone regardless of you emotional sway.

Its a tough subject.. but people like Bush at the top should not be able to do what they want and circumvent these rules without reproductions.

So question.. This clown is responsible for killing lots of people, should Bush, (even though he did it in good faith ) be responsible for the resulting carnage that is still happening in Iraq? All the innocent people killed? His direct actions (with Cheney et all) based on crap intelligence and basically having no understanding of that area and the politics has caused and epic amount of bloodshed and destroyed lives has killed so so many people? Should he be totally let off the hook for this?

Edited by joe_90 on Tuesday 9th November 12:34

Their tactics?!

"Torture victims in Iraq have been blindfolded, stripped and suspended from rotating fans as electric shocks were applied repeatedly to their bodies, according to Amnesty International.


Victims described how they were beaten with canes,whips, hosepipes and metal rods, and how other victims were forced to watch as their family members were tortured in front of them.

In a report dated February 11, Amnesty said other methods of physical torture de-scribed by victims include the use of falaqa (beating on the soles of the feet), extinguishing of cigarettes on various parts of the body, extraction of fingernails and toenails and piercing of the hands with an electric drill.

Some victims - both male and female - were sexually abused. Others had objects, including broken bottles, inserted into their bodies. "


Or Al Qaeda methods such as stabbing eyes out, putting peoples head in vices, cutting off limbs, drills to the hands, the old IRA favourite of hanging people up and using a blow torch.

Im sorry but compared to getting my eyeball cut out with a knife and burned with a blowtorch, waterboarding isnt on the same level...