Judges torture ruling harmed UK security, says Foreign Offi

#41
Monty417 said:
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:
Calling IT help desk now......
 
#42
jumpinjarhead said:
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).
Although I disagree with your stance on a good many things, sir, I think we stand shoulder to shoulder on this one. If I may say, you put it to perfection.

We've seen too many occasions in human history on which the Devil has quoted scriptures to his purpose. I can't see any possible justification for walking headlong and eyes open into another one.
 
#43
smartascarrots said:
jumpinjarhead said:
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).
Although I disagree with your stance on a good many things, sir, I think we stand shoulder to shoulder on this one. If I may say, you put it to perfection.

We've seen too many occasions in human history on which the Devil has quoted scriptures to his purpose. I can't see any possible justification for walking headlong and eyes open into another one.
Thanks SAC-I think we might find we agree on more than we disagree but the nature of these forums makes it often difficult to communicate fully and accurately. More broadly on the rule of law aspect in the US on the way the US has handled detainees etc since 9/11, it has been telling I think that the strongest yet well-reasoned objections to some of the ill-conceived and ultra vires policies of our civilian political masters have been from those in uniform. I was quite proud of the testimony and other efforts the senior judge advocates of all our services gave in Congress in trying to get the rest of the government to do what was lawful and right rather than what their antagonists considered expedient.
 
#44
jumpinjarhead said:
smartascarrots said:
jumpinjarhead said:
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).
Although I disagree with your stance on a good many things, sir, I think we stand shoulder to shoulder on this one. If I may say, you put it to perfection.

We've seen too many occasions in human history on which the Devil has quoted scriptures to his purpose. I can't see any possible justification for walking headlong and eyes open into another one.
Thanks SAC-I think we might find we agree on more than we disagree but the nature of these forums makes it often difficult to communicate fully and accurately. More broadly on the rule of law aspect in the US on the way the US has handled detainees etc since 9/11, it has been telling I think that the strongest yet well-reasoned objections to some of the ill-conceived and ultra vires policies of our civilian political masters have been from those in uniform. I was quite proud of the testimony and other efforts the senior judge advocates of all our services gave in Congress in trying to get the rest of the government to do what was lawful and right rather than what their antagonists considered expedient.

Possibly even more applicable today, than it was then. Could well have been written today regarding the UK.


"I apprehend no danger to our country from a foreign foe...Our destruction, should it come at all, will be from another quarter. From the inattention of the people to the concerns of their government, from their carelessness and negligence, I must confess that I do apprehend some danger. I fear that they may place too implicit a confidence in their public servants, and fail properly to scrutinize their conduct; that in this way they may be made the dupes of designing men, and become the instruments of their own undoing."
-- Daniel Webster, Works 1:403 (June 1, 1837)
 
#45
Monty, I think you should bung that in the site quotes.
 
#46
smartascarrots said:
Monty, I think you should bung that in the site quotes.

Roger that sac.

I might try this one too :)

"Government is like a baby: An alimentary canal with a big appetite at one end and no sense of responsibility at the other."
-- Ronald Reagan
 

Latest Threads