Judges torture ruling harmed UK security, says Foreign Offi

#21
Torture is a sordid, ugly thing. Most importantly, from an operational viewpoint, it is highly inefficient; hurt someone badly enough and they will tell you whatever they think will make you stop. And this might not be the truth.

However, I must admit to a certain amount of hypocrisy; I would shed no tears if, for example, the murderers of Baby Peter were tied to chairs while several muscular chaps went to work on them with baseball bats, pliers and a blow-torch.
 
#22
I have no doubt the CIA will take this extremely seriously and will put it on their to do list just after

Capture Osama Bin Laden, pending
Recruit CHIS for new Mars colony, pending.
 
#23
John_D said:
I believe that judges are only ever invited to rule with authority on questions of law. Who, exactly, are you suggesting is better qualified to do so? Or do you think that law should be interpreted only for the convenience of the government?
John_D said:
So by your reasoning, if anyone wasn't guilty of an offence, they wouldn't be charged. A huge administrative convenience, to be sure, as we can do away with the whole tedious business of trial by jury or indeed by anyone, but, on the whole, not a view that suggests your knowledge of the elementary principles of justice has yet evolved beyond the level of harmfully fcukwitted.
Justice, I believe in, I really do. However (and here comes the caveat), British judges, who likely have no concept of what is involved in counter-insurgency operations, or the cost of mounting them, should not be of the impression that they can overrule the Government. I completely agree that the law of the land is just that, the law of THIS land. My original argument was that these British judges should not be under the impression that they can force our Government to reveal US-owned information that is classified, and the revealing of which could do nothing but harm the Government, UK interests, and the ‘special relationship’.
 
#24
Tango said:
However (and here comes the caveat), British judges... should not be of the impression that they can overrule the Government.
I find it quite scary that so many people in the UK can think like that, given how long our forebears fought to get away from just such a situation. The government should []i]always[/i] be subordinate to the rule of law and judges should always be able to strike down its decrees in law.

Believe me, the alternative can be pretty uncomfortable. Rule by law is always, always, always preferable to rule by man.
 
#25
smartascarrots said:
Tango said:
However (and here comes the caveat), British judges... should not be of the impression that they can overrule the Government.
I find it quite scary that so many people in the UK can think like that, given how long our forebears fought to get away from just such a situation. The government should []i]always[/i] be subordinate to the rule of law and judges should always be able to strike down its decrees in law.

Believe me, the alternative can be pretty uncomfortable. Rule by law is always, always, always preferable to rule by man.
True, in principal. But it depends on the quality of the men making and enforcing the law. Given that most judges are so far out of touch with reality they could not make contact even by hitting it with a ten foot pole and shouting loudly, this does present something of a problem. :roll:

As it happens, in this case I broadly agree with the stance taken by the judges; torture is worse than evil, it's....bad taste :twisted:
 
#26
Werewolf said:
True, in principal. But it depends on the quality of the men making and enforcing the law. Given that most judges are so far out of touch with reality they could not make contact even by hitting it with a ten foot pole and shouting loudly, this does present something of a problem.
The problem in any situation is usually one of the calibre of humanity. Any system of rule should take into account the fact that we're a pretty sorry bunch as a general rule and have the split of authority and oversight arranged accordingly. Politicians - people who depend for their livelihood on pandering to the lowest common denominator in the quest for popularity - need to have their powers held in check.

Now, if we had Direct Democracy instead of Representative 'Democracy'...
 
#27
smartascarrots said:
Werewolf said:
True, in principal. But it depends on the quality of the men making and enforcing the law. Given that most judges are so far out of touch with reality they could not make contact even by hitting it with a ten foot pole and shouting loudly, this does present something of a problem.
The problem in any situation is usually one of the calibre of humanity. Any system of rule should take into account the fact that we're a pretty sorry bunch as a general rule and have the split of authority and oversight arranged accordingly. Politicians - people who depend for their livelihood on pandering to the lowest common denominator in the quest for popularity - need to have their powers held in check.

Now, if we had Direct Democracy instead of Representative 'Democracy'...
Democracy is like Relgion: it's a lovely idea that falls apart when people get involved.

Cynical? Moi? :wink:
 
#28
Werewolf said:
smartascarrots said:
Werewolf said:
True, in principal. But it depends on the quality of the men making and enforcing the law. Given that most judges are so far out of touch with reality they could not make contact even by hitting it with a ten foot pole and shouting loudly, this does present something of a problem.
The problem in any situation is usually one of the calibre of humanity. Any system of rule should take into account the fact that we're a pretty sorry bunch as a general rule and have the split of authority and oversight arranged accordingly. Politicians - people who depend for their livelihood on pandering to the lowest common denominator in the quest for popularity - need to have their powers held in check.

Now, if we had Direct Democracy instead of Representative 'Democracy'...
Democracy is like Relgion: it's a lovely idea that falls apart when people get involved.

Cynical? Moi? :wink:
Without getting too theological about the nature of man etc., suffice it to say that history is replete with examples of political, social and economic systems across the entire "liberal"-"conservative" spectrum that appear to be wonderful ("fair," "enlightened," "tolerant" etc.) but when implemented they eventually fail due to the ever-present and immutable nature of the people within them.
 
#29
Which is why Communism will never work. "From each according to his means, to each according to his needs" fails to take into account one simple fact: humans are greedy b@stards and we don't like sharing.

Which is why every attempt at Communism has been doomed to failure and resulted in societies where a tiny elite enjoyed almost unlimited power and wealth.
 
#30
You're right in that humans are greedy bastards who don't like sharing, that's why every attempt to set up a Communist system has been born in violent revolution or war. The pre-existing system of checks and balances had pretty much by definition ceased to function and there was nothing to stop the most vicious greedy bastards bending things to their advantage.

I don't believe pure Communism can ever work given the state of humanity but I disagree with your reasoning as to why the previous experiments have failed.
 
#31
Werewolf said:
True, in principal. But it depends on the quality of the men making and enforcing the law. Given that most judges are so far out of touch with reality they could not make contact even by hitting it with a ten foot pole and shouting loudly, this does present something of a problem. :roll:
Broadly, this is roughly what I was trying to get at (and failed). Whether or not torture is condonable in our current climate, these judges forcing the release of this information will set a precedent, and who's to say that next time the information they order to be released won't cause (either directly, or indirectly) the loss of life?
 
#32
Who's to say that being complicit in covering up torture wouldn't cause the loss of innocent life? The (unconvicted and possibly wrongly-identified) suspect's?

If the security organisations have nothing to hide, they've nothing to fear. :twisted:
 
#33
John_D said:
Tango said:
How can judges, who for the most part (I believe) have NO experience of what does or does not constitute national security be asked to make such choices?
I believe that judges are only ever invited to rule with authority on questions of law. Who, exactly, are you suggesting is better qualified to do so? Or do you think that law should be interpreted only for the convenience of the government?

Tango said:
My bold, and without wishing to start another 'Is torture right?' thread, if he wasn't 'up to no good', then he wouldn't have been rendered, asymmetric warfare demands an asymmetric response. In my (not official) opinion.
So by your reasoning, if anyone wasn't guilty of an offence, they wouldn't be charged. A huge administrative convenience, to be sure, as we can do away with the whole tedious business of trial by jury or indeed by anyone, but, on the whole, not a view that suggests your knowledge of the elementary principles of justice has yet evolved beyond the level of harmfully fcukwitted.

Do please go about the business of getting yourself a clue at your earliest convenience.

All the best,

John.
The suggestion that our top Judges haven't the know how to decide whether something as basic as torture or methods of interrogation, are a threat to our national security is surely somewhat naive. What it boils down to is whether or not recorded evidence of such, should become public knowledge. Milliband is as good as admitting our involvement in this and to try and justify it under a veil of threat to our security and possible US refusal to cooperate in future, is tacky at best. The CIA are a law unto themselves and will cooperate with MI6 in the same way that they encourage, advise and cooperate with a number of 'dubious groups in Pakistan etc.

Are we saying that it's ok for us, the CIA and Mossad, but not the Gestapo and KGB, oh, and all terrorist groups.

Quote:
The judges made it clear they were exasperated by the attitude of the foreign secretary and British officials. There was no "rational basis" for claims made by Miliband and Hillary Clinton, the US secretary of state, that disclosure of the CIA material would put British lives at risk.

I think that I trust our Top Judges more than Milliband or Clinton.

I don't side with Binyam Mohamed, in fact if he and others like him were to be found guilty by due process, execute them or give full life.
 
#34
smartascarrots said:
Who's to say that being complicit in covering up torture wouldn't cause the loss of innocent life? The (unconvicted and possibly wrongly-identified) suspect's?

If the security organisations have nothing to hide, they've nothing to fear. :twisted:
There is also a saying in the law "Bad cases make bad law" and I think that is apt in these situations. It is not the "fault" of the judicial system that they have to make otherwise unpopular decisions or ones that some may perceive as weakening national security.

If policy makers and intelligence agencies do not like the oversight of the judiciary that is otherwise called for under the then-prevailing system, then they have 2 "simple" choices:

1. Effect legitimate systemic change in the government (for example in the US an appropriate amendment to our Constitution to exempt certain actions or policies from the prohibitions elsewhere in the Constitution---something that our founders purposely made quite difficult to do) or

2. Conform their actions and policies to the then-existing Constitutional requirements and applicable law.

This is the essence of the rule of law. Indeed, it is precisely in the more difficult circumstances that we must rely on and trust in the rule of law. If we are unwilling to act lawfully in the difficult situations, then we really are not a nation of laws but rather are one of situational ethics where anything can be justified and rationalized if the circumstances are sufficiently "extreme" (as interpreted by those who intend to violate the rule of law).
 
#35
Monty417 said:
John_D said:
Tango said:
How can judges, who for the most part (I believe) have NO experience of what does or does not constitute national security be asked to make such choices?
I believe that judges are only ever invited to rule with authority on questions of law. Who, exactly, are you suggesting is better qualified to do so? Or do you think that law should be interpreted only for the convenience of the government?

Tango said:
My bold, and without wishing to start another 'Is torture right?' thread, if he wasn't 'up to no good', then he wouldn't have been rendered, asymmetric warfare demands an asymmetric response. In my (not official) opinion.
So by your reasoning, if anyone wasn't guilty of an offence, they wouldn't be charged. A huge administrative convenience, to be sure, as we can do away with the whole tedious business of trial by jury or indeed by anyone, but, on the whole, not a view that suggests your knowledge of the elementary principles of justice has yet evolved beyond the level of harmfully fcukwitted.

Do please go about the business of getting yourself a clue at your earliest convenience.

All the best,

John.
The suggestion that our top Judges haven't the know how to decide whether something as basic as torture or methods of interrogation, are a threat to our national security is surely somewhat naive. What it boils down to is whether or not recorded evidence of such, should become public knowledge. Milliband is as good as admitting our involvement in this and to try and justify it under a veil of threat to our security and possible US refusal to cooperate in future, is tacky at best. The CIA are a law unto themselves and will cooperate with MI6 in the same way that they encourage, advise and cooperate with a number of 'dubious groups in Pakistan etc.

Are we saying that it's ok for us, the CIA and Mossad, but not the Gestapo and KGB, oh, and all terrorist groups.

Quote:
The judges made it clear they were exasperated by the attitude of the foreign secretary and British officials. There was no "rational basis" for claims made by Miliband and Hillary Clinton, the US secretary of state, that disclosure of the CIA material would put British lives at risk.

I think that I trust our Top Judges more than Milliband or Clinton.

I don't side with Binyam Mohamed, in fact if he and others like him were to be found guilty by due process, execute them or give full life.
I believe it is dangerously niave to trust the judges; how many times have ARRSEr's fought for a place on the Outrage Bus because some fcukwit in a wig has let a dangerous criminal off with what in real terms is a slap on the wrist? :roll: The latest instance was just a couple of days ago.

As to your second point, the moral hyporacy of saying that it's OK for the CIA and Mossad to use torture but that the Gestapo, Al Queda etc were evil for doing the same thing - I'm afraid that horse has already bolted, old boy. Because that's EXACTLY our position on Nuclear Weapons; we tell Iran and North Korea that they are not allowed to play with the Big Boy's toys. :roll: And rightly so, IMHO.

One more time for the cheap seats: I agree with the judges in this case, because I believe torture is both immoral and, much more importantly, inefficient. That does NOT mean that judges have the wisdom of Solomon and should ALWAYS have the last say on the security of the nation.
 
#36
Werewolf said:
Monty417 said:
John_D said:
Tango said:
How can judges, who for the most part (I believe) have NO experience of what does or does not constitute national security be asked to make such choices?
I believe that judges are only ever invited to rule with authority on questions of law. Who, exactly, are you suggesting is better qualified to do so? Or do you think that law should be interpreted only for the convenience of the government?

Tango said:
My bold, and without wishing to start another 'Is torture right?' thread, if he wasn't 'up to no good', then he wouldn't have been rendered, asymmetric warfare demands an asymmetric response. In my (not official) opinion.
So by your reasoning, if anyone wasn't guilty of an offence, they wouldn't be charged. A huge administrative convenience, to be sure, as we can do away with the whole tedious business of trial by jury or indeed by anyone, but, on the whole, not a view that suggests your knowledge of the elementary principles of justice has yet evolved beyond the level of harmfully fcukwitted.

Do please go about the business of getting yourself a clue at your earliest convenience.

All the best,

John.
The suggestion that our top Judges haven't the know how to decide whether something as basic as torture or methods of interrogation, are a threat to our national security is surely somewhat naive. What it boils down to is whether or not recorded evidence of such, should become public knowledge. Milliband is as good as admitting our involvement in this and to try and justify it under a veil of threat to our security and possible US refusal to cooperate in future, is tacky at best. The CIA are a law unto themselves and will cooperate with MI6 in the same way that they encourage, advise and cooperate with a number of 'dubious groups in Pakistan etc.

Are we saying that it's ok for us, the CIA and Mossad, but not the Gestapo and KGB, oh, and all terrorist groups.

Quote:
The judges made it clear they were exasperated by the attitude of the foreign secretary and British officials. There was no "rational basis" for claims made by Miliband and Hillary Clinton, the US secretary of state, that disclosure of the CIA material would put British lives at risk.

I think that I trust our Top Judges more than Milliband or Clinton.

I don't side with Binyam Mohamed, in fact if he and others like him were to be found guilty by due process, execute them or give full life.
I believe it is dangerously niave to trust the judges; how many times have ARRSEr's fought for a place on the Outrage Bus because some fcukwit in a wig has let a dangerous criminal off with what in real terms is a slap on the wrist? :roll: The latest instance was just a couple of days ago.

As to your second point, the moral hyporacy of saying that it's OK for the CIA and Mossad to use torture but that the Gestapo, Al Queda etc were evil for doing the same thing - I'm afraid that horse has already bolted, old boy. Because that's EXACTLY our position on Nuclear Weapons; we tell Iran and North Korea that they are not allowed to play with the Big Boy's toys. :roll: And rightly so, IMHO.

One more time for the cheap seats: I agree with the judges in this case, because I believe torture is both immoral and, much more importantly, inefficient. That does NOT mean that judges have the wisdom of Solomon and should ALWAYS have the last say on the security of the nation.

Sorry Werewolf, haven't been around to answer. I don't think that I said that I trust our Judiciary 100%. In fact far from it, especially their rigid interpretation of the human rights act, brought in by this same crowd who are apparently denying someone that same right in this case, just such another case of hypocrisy as that mentioned by yourself. What I was trying to say is, that it doesn't take a genius to determine whether torture or employed methods of interrogation are or are not, a threat to our national security. Also, as much as I don't agree with our Judiciary and their wishy washy sentences handed out, again, they are following the guide lines laid down by the Home Office, and what a shower of shite have been I/C of that dept since this Govt took over. If they'd have carried out their promises on building more prisons, they wouldn't have to tell the Judiciary to limit prison sentencing. So yes, in this instance, certainly I trust our High Court Judges more than Milliband. Also, I think that you know my take on crime and punishment, being virtually the same as your own. :wink:
 
#37
No argument there, Monty. Christ, I'd trust a Nigerian Banker before I'd trust the Millipede! 8O

And like I say, I'm siding with the judges on this one; people who think torture is an effective counter-terrorist technique have been watching too much 24... :roll:
 
#38
Werewolf said:
No argument there, Monty. Christ, I'd trust a Nigerian Banker before I'd trust the Millipede! 8O

And like I say, I'm siding with the judges on this one; people who think torture is an effective counter-terrorist technique have been watching too much 24... :roll:
Erm....tell me more about this Nigerian banker chap-I just sent all my account information to one to help the poor fellow with some money he needs to get to the US.
 
#39
jumpinjarhead said:
Werewolf said:
No argument there, Monty. Christ, I'd trust a Nigerian Banker before I'd trust the Millipede! 8O

And like I say, I'm siding with the judges on this one; people who think torture is an effective counter-terrorist technique have been watching too much 24... :roll:
Erm....tell me more about this Nigerian banker chap-I just sent all my account information to one to help the poor fellow with some money he needs to get to the US.
I can help you, old chap. I just need your full credit card and bank account details... :twisted:
 
#40
jumpinjarhead said:
Werewolf said:
No argument there, Monty. Christ, I'd trust a Nigerian Banker before I'd trust the Millipede! 8O

And like I say, I'm siding with the judges on this one; people who think torture is an effective counter-terrorist technique have been watching too much 24... :roll:
Erm....tell me more about this Nigerian banker chap-I just sent all my account information to one to help the poor fellow with some money he needs to get to the US.
Yeah, cause you have you gullible old leatherneck. :wink:
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top