Dual standards apply

Discussion in 'The Intelligence Cell' started by OldRedCap, Mar 10, 2005.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. From today's Times On Line
    I suppose the difference between these guys who will not be charged and soldiers who have been imprisoned is that there was no photographic evidence. We have same thing where they ignored rulesand failed to effectively report such abuses as they did see. One might say that as intelligence officers they would have better idea of moral standards than infantry as their work is likely to involve such considerations.
  2. "In a report today, the parliamentary Intelligence and Security Committee said that MI6 officers were twice involved in questioning Iraqi detainees while they were hooded, in breach of the Convention.
    As a consequence of this failure in training, MI6 officers in Iraq twice interviewed detainees who were hooded - which is a breach of UK policy."
    In April 2004 a second detainee who was arrested by the Iraqi Civilian Defence Corps was handed over to British military personnel whilst hooded, and remained hooded during an interview with an MI6 officer, who was also not aware of any rules against hooding and thought it was a reasonable measure to protect his own identity."

    The mind boggles.
  3. One wonders how the Saudi and other ME Intelligence organisations view such reports; 15 'bad guys' were scooped today in a town to the North of Riyadh. I expect their Human Rights in the matter of hoods, white noise, stress positions etc will be fully respected.
  4. Personally, I could care less if we tortured those prisoners. If it saved one American or Brit life, I say go ahead and do what needs to be done. Get the intel and save some lives...
  5. IMHO the most basic Human Right is the 'Right to Life'; if an individual or organisation is proven to be or implicated in breach of that basic tennant or is actively organising or preparing to deny other individuals of that most basic right then morally they who would break such a law have no redress under it.
  6. IMO it all boils down to whether you believe that those in the prisons are guilty or innocent (The principle of innocent until proven guilty, obviously dosn't count when you are scooped up on a battlefield) If you believe all mankind is good then you will believe whatever excuse you are given, If you think they are all bad you won't. Armed forces, security services etc are all a lot more "conservative" than other political sides and therefore are willing to "go the extra mile" in order to achieve the aim. Does it really matter that the information was gained by MI? or Pte/LCpl etc on the ground, if it helps to save "our lives" then go for it. Having served there I know even the prisoners segregate thmselves from "common " and politicals. Everybody out there knows who has the information it all boils down to how much you want it and what you will do to get it.
  7. Ah yes - but how do you determine "proven to be or implicated" ? They usually do not truthfully answer polite queries and it is rare that their first answer is same as final answer.
  8. Probably being a bit controversial here, but I've never understood the concept of people having a "right" to life. The creation of new life & the loss of life is largely whimsical.
  9. Yeah there never was any right or wrong any good guys live bad guys die, as one Wit said, Life is'nt fair, never was, never will be.
    You can go through life trying to live a decent one but we all make mistakes and providing they aren't the sins of idle or I donn't give a FCUK I don't FCUKing care then generally speaking fair enough.
    Do your best and put your faith in whatever God you choose.
  10. Heh - Jon. You been on the waccy baccy? I cannot make sense out of your

    "You can go through life trying to live a decent one but we all make mistakes and providing they aren't the sins of idle or I donn't give a FCUK I don't FCUKing care then generally speaking fair enough."
  11. No smoke.
    I would always try on behalf of a guy if he was having problems.
    However to the best of my memory I only ever threw, two to the dogs and both because they convinced me that basically they didn't care about anyone but themselves.
    What I used to call the scouse attitude, I don't give a dam I don't fcuking care.
    They all cared when it was their neck on the line, but for others, fcuk em.
    I never killed anyone, helped others do the job. I do beleive that if I had to then fair enough, but I would have never have been able to live with myself if somone had lost their life or limbs, through my ignorance, idelness or so what attitude.
    PS. I have never claimed to be a writer and just bang out my posts as quickly as the words form in my head.
  12. yea you liberal do-gooders make me mad. they dont think of our human rights when they cut off peoples heads in the name of their jihad do they :evil: :evil: ??.
    i say fight fire with fire and Fu*&k them.
  13. Liberal Do gooder Who? Me ?
    More a hanger and a flogger
  14. Good grief, you don't need to torture anyone, just tell em your going to slot them and bury them in a pigskin coffin.