kevinunknown's tags:
kevinunknown's most popular posts:
kevinunknown reads (4):
Who's reading kevinunknown (4):

HOW THE USA COULD LEARN FROM BRITTAN ON TORTURE

kevinunknown posted on Jul 09, 2009 | views: 151 | Tags: torture, MI5, MI6, ISI, politics

Recently on both sides of the pond there has been allot of controversy over the torture of suspected terrorist suspects. In America it seems to be that if you’re a suspected terrorist the CIA takes you away to some dark hole in the earth and stick your head underwater until you say what they want to hear. Then they take you to Guantanamo Bay were some angry US soldiers use you as there bit of fun for whenever they get bored and the CIA might show up every now and then.

In Brittan however we have a much better way of doing things. MI5 or the police watch you for a while then if they think you’re a terrorist find a way of sending you to some nasty place were the police aren’t quite as nice as Constable Bob. For example say they know you’re going to visit family or going to learn how to blow stuff up in Pakistan. Once you’re in this country MI5 like to tip of the local ISI that you’re a suspected terrorist and they think the ISI should pick you up. Once this happens the ISI will most probably torture you and ask you questions, on a list MI5/6 have given to them. Every now and then someone called John will turn up form MI5/6 to check up on you make sour they are treating you well and most importantly if you’ve said anything, he’ll  also ignore your bruising. Finally after you have admitted that you’re paling to kill the queen or something MI5 ask the ISI if they can have you back so they can put you up in a court and you have to spend the rest of your life in prison.

It’s a brilliant system, the best bit is though that once you come back to the UK and start accusing MI5/6 with cooperating with the ISI or whoever tortured you all they have to do is say “prove that we knew you were being tortured”. Were as in America everyone knows that it was the CIA and deniability is a bit harder. I think this is a technique the US intelligence should adopt. If the CIA under Obama want to carry on torturing but in a more private manor the I would sajest the speaking to MI6’s new “uncle C” you can add him as a friend on facebook if want!.



send to a friend del.icio.us Digg reddit StumbleUpon

Comments

  • stopmediabias said on Jul 09, 2009....
    We don't torture people and didn't torture people in the past.  I can't figure out, are you pro-torture or con?  Our interrogation procedures work, they probably won't work as effectively as in the past because President Obama has told our enemy exactly what we do. 
     
    And if you are going to make accusations about the CIA and America you have to back them up otherwise no-one will take you seriously.
  • kevinunknown said on Jul 09, 2009....

    I am pro torture under certain circumstances the. CIA did torture people just face it just I done a Google news search for CIA and torture and I got over 2400 pages worth for this week alone I think that’s enough to back me up. But that’s not the point of my blog the point is I think if they are going to do it, the British way works much better because it offers total deniability even though everyone knows they had something to do with it.

    It is one of the things i don’t like about Obama is his decisions regarding the CIA and other intelligence agencies, i fear that Obama’s apparently pacifist views on intelligence might mean that allot of the expertise and experience US intelligence has gained in the past few years due to 9/11 will be wasted.

  • ALIENated said on Jul 09, 2009....

    This is exactly why I do not engage in terrorist activities. That is how I avoid torture, if it even happens. And why would they torture someone just to get them to say what they want to hear? They question people to find out about terrorist activity. They check out what the guy says and probably try again if he was BSing them. That is why they waterboarded that one guy so many times, to get accurate info from him. They are not trying to get people to confess like some yokel town sheriff. They are trying to get information about other terrorists and their activities.

  • stopmediabias said on Jul 11, 2009....
    Torture doesn't work and is counterproductive.  And none of your Google searches or pages is going to prove the CIA tortures people.  You didn't source your information regarding Britains "torture" methods.  So is this all your opinion or do you have valid facts to back it up?
  • kevinunknown said on Jul 11, 2009....

    SMB- if you bothered to read my other blog you will know that i am very good at sourcing my work mostly thanks to a pedantic lecturer. Torture dose work let’s face it if i was to get your nearest and dearest and do nasty things to her in front of you, you would tell me the truth eventually. They’re not going to do it just for the hell of it unless they know it works and it work's, unfortunately. Anyway you wanted some sources so i have went to the bother of getting you some, enjoy!

     

    CIA tourture:

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8102152.stm

    http://www.cnsnews.com/Public/Content/Article.aspx?rsrcid=46949

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/cia-waterboarding-broke-suspect-after-35-seconds-764595.html

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7229169.stm in this one the CIA admits water boarding i hope that is proof enough.

    http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/Investigation/story?id=1322866

    British torture:

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7930888.stm

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/mar/26/binyam-mohamed-torture-solicitor-general

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jul/08/mi5-torture-evidence-david-davis

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/5061702/Binyam-Mohamed-MI5-torture-and-terrorism.html

     

  • stopmediabias said on Jul 11, 2009....
    In regards to torture and in the context of getting valuable and actionable intelligence I don't believe torture is effective.  In a ticking time bomb where minutes can mean thousands of lives then I say we have to use all means necassary.  This is very rare in most cases.  Torture should never be used and this is why it is illegal.
     
    These are not sources.  The enemy saying we tortured them is not proof the CIA tortured anyone.  Waterboarding does not rise the level of extreme pain and suffering.  A source would be a news article that outlines the arrest, trial and conviction of someone acting under orders or acting on their own.  Or an article that has reasonably good evidence.  The ACLU feeding lies from Al Qaeda detainees (who are trained to this) doesn't prove anything.
     
    There is a vast gap between harshly interrogating someone and torturing them. 
     
  • kevinunknown said on Jul 11, 2009....

    I agree with you over your views of when torture should be used, the ticking time bomb scenario.

    In a couple of those sources I gave you there are CIA operatives that have admitted to torturing. No one will ever be charged for torture under the current Obama administration so you won’t get a news report any time soon about a government agent being tried for torture. I think that it’s very hypercritical of him to shut down the places where the torture took place and put an end to the torture programs but then doesn’t bother bringing about criminal charges against the people who ordered the torture, it sends out the wrong message. Water boarding is torture just because Bush changes the definition of torture still means its torture.  

  • stopmediabias said on Jul 11, 2009....

    The burden of proof is on you to dig through your sources and find the CIA operative that admitted to torture.  It doesn't exist because we don't torture people.

    The definition of torture is what it is and you cannot change that.  You can try to redefine it to make everything torture but it won't work because there is a remedy for actual torture victims.  Based on this there is a clear definition of torture and none of the actions by our government rise to the level.  There also has to be a clear intention to torture someone. 

  • kevinunknown said on Jul 12, 2009....

    SMB- “You can try to redefine it to make everything torture” Bush done the opposite he redefined it all to make “harsh interrogation” not torture even though it is.  I have gave you 5 articles there that basically have the CIA admitting they were involved in torture why can’t you just face it America was torturing people and probably still is. No matter what i say you will never agree with me so what’s the point?

  • stopmediabias said on Jul 12, 2009....

    Because you're wrong.  Your articles don't even come close and you are accusing men and woman who serve our country of committing terrible offenses with no substaniated proof. 

    You won't find any proof because it doesn't exist, I've looked.

  • kevinunknown said on Jul 12, 2009....

    What more proof do you want? The CIA has admitted to torturing via water boarding in congress. SMB face it the CIA tortured people it’s all over the press and internet it happened and it still probably is. I do not doubt that they had good reason for it and that other nations do it. Stop being so narrow minded and wake up to the world around you! How do you expect to be taken seriously when you consistently ignore historical fact or any media report that contradicts your deluded world views? You don’t have any structured argument against it hear other than “i don’t like it so it’s not true” it’s a joke!

  • stopmediabias said on Jul 12, 2009....

    You're making me laugh.  You are saying you have proven the CIA intentionally tortured someone in their custody and admitted to it and you post a bunch of left-leaning news sources that say nothing of sort.

    Waterboarding is not torture because it doesn't rise to the level of causing extreme pain and suffering. 

    Countless times I have posed a challenge to Liberals here on this blog and other places: 

    Find me a single substantianted bit of proof that shows Americans tortured people during the Bush Administration as a matter of policy or non-policy.  Torture being the intentional infliction of extreme pain and suffering.

    Take the challenge but I can save you the time.  It doesn't exist because it didn't happen.  We don't torture people.   

  • kevinunknown said on Jul 12, 2009....

    Waterboarding is torture. In accordance with the article 3:1a (and arguably article 4) of the Geneva Convention which outlaws “violence to live and person” in regards to prisoners, waterboarding is torture because it is a violent act being used against a prisoner. Waterboarding is also considered an act of torture under the Convention against Torture of which the United States is one of only 15 states not to sing or ratify the Treaty.

    Waterboarding is torture because it is a violent act being used ageist a person to extract information. The level of pain does not matter because pain is subjective to the person; if I pinch your skin it won’t hurt much but i pinch a baby’s skin it causes enough pain for the child to cry. The aim of waterbording is to create a sensation of downing and imminent death; this can lead to a heart attack in victims in extreme cases. It can also cause respiratory   problems for the victim.  Aside from the physical dangers it can lead to physiological problems such as panic attacks, depression and PTSD these most definitely could cause extreme suffering for the victim and long lasting effects.

    In one of your earlier posts in this blog you said that “Torture doesn't work and is counterproductive” i would like to point you to one of your own blogs: http://www.soulcast.com/post/show/208163/Will-bloc-Retract-His-Torture-Logic%3F. In this blog you argue the exact opposite pointing out the case of KSM being subjected to waterboarding 183 times in order to get information about a possible terrorist attack. You use this argument to put forward your case in support of the CIA’s waterborading program. You also use this source to make your point: http://www.cnsnews.com/Public/Content/Article.aspx?rsrcid=46949. If you recognise it then it’s because I also used this as one of my sources to back up my claims that the CIA have been torturing.

    So am now am confused in this blog you have voiced you disapproval of torture yet in another blog you wrote only a few months ago you supported it.  I have shown you how waterboarding is torture and how it is illegal.

  • javadewd said on Jul 13, 2009....
    MI5 are some tough hombres. I'm just glad they stay on their side of the Atlantic. I wish we could say the same thing about Mossad. Somehow they blend in too easy over here...
  • kevinunknown said on Jul 13, 2009....

    Yeah ano what you mean java i read allot into this sort of stuff Mossad and the MSS are everywhere. I think the “special relationship” between the indigence services of Brittan and America is great! We have to most sophisticate and experienced intelligence services and i think make a good team but the Eastern intelligence services are catching us up.

  • stopmediabias said on Jul 14, 2009....

    First:Waterboarding is torture. In accordance with the article 3:1a (and arguably article 4) of the Geneva Convention which outlaws “violence to live and person” in regards to prisoners, waterboarding is torture because it is a violent act being used against a prisoner.

    By your rational then everything is torture.  The violent act must be in the extreme and it must be intentionally designed to cause extreme pain and suffering in order for it to even come close to the definition of torture.  Waterboarding as performed on the three people it was, was not torture because our people did not intend to cause extreme pain and suffering and the actual action itself does not cause extreme pain and suffering. 

    The Geneva Convention is a joke.  It was designed so the good guys who all ready follow the rules can be criticized by Liberals and the bad guys can do whatever they want.  The Geneva Conventions definition of torture is such that even minor interrogations by regular law enforement could be construed as torture.  If we don't have a real world definition of torture then anyone who has ever been interrogated can claim they were tortured and collect money.

    Then:

    In one of your earlier posts in this blog you said that “Torture doesn't work and is counterproductive” i would like to point you to one of your own blogs: http://www.soulcast.com/post/show/208163/Will-bloc-Retract-His-Torture-Logic%3F. In this blog you argue the exact opposite pointing out the case of KSM being subjected to waterboarding 183 times in order to get information about a possible terrorist attack. You use this argument to put forward your case in support of the CIA’s waterborading program. You also use this source to make your point: http://www.cnsnews.com/Public/Content/Article.aspx?rsrcid=46949. If you recognise it then it’s because I also used this as one of my sources to back up my claims that the CIA have been torturing.

    Everyone knows torture doesn't work and statistically this is correct.  If waterboarding is torture then how did it work in thwarting attacks and getting valuable information?  I don't believe waterboarding (by Americans) is torture because we do it to our own people and it causes no permanent side-effects.  Plus it makes no sense that if it was our intention to torture we'd have a team of people monitoring the situation including a shrink and a medical doctor. 

    There are credible sources it wasn't 183 times is was 183 drops of water. 

    The particular memo released by President Obama in my post states waterboarding causes no pain.  If something can be torture and cause no pain then what isn't torture?  

    Look at your side logically.  If you water down the definition of torture to include "violence to people" then technically you have to say:  All of our prisons both here in the US and every where else allow torture on a daily basis.  Certain jobs that people work in could be construed as torture.  Basic training in the military is torture. 

    There is a clear line between what is torture and what isn't and by softening it you promote smear merchants who make money off of lies. 

  • kevinunknown said on Jul 15, 2009....

    Your arguments just keep getting weaker, now you have just disregarded that Geneva convection and countless media reports that are reporting American torture. The definition of torture as well as severe physical pain also refers to severe psychological suffering; I would say the imamate treat of death to be severe psychological suffering as well as the long term psychological effects I have outlined above.

     The CIA “program” of enhanced interrogation techniques comes from SERE training, a program developed form Chinese torture techniques used on American POW’s now they are using that program against prisoners at places like Guantanamo. It took a whole team of lawyers to basically re-write parts of American law before these techniques could be used legally and now there is allot of debate whether they (the lawyers) should be prosecuted for this. However even before this stuff was made legal under American law according to a high ranking CIA officer the CIA were already using Enhanced interrogation techniques. A SERE training officer was also asked to go and teach American soldiers in Iraq how to carry out SERE interrogation techniques he refused to carry out this order saying it was “an unlawful order”.  

    If you’re in the UK I would strongly suggest you watch this (its bbc iplayer and can only be watched in the uk) http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00kpz21/Panorama_Licence_to_Torture/

  • stopmediabias said on Jul 15, 2009....

    You didn't answer my reasons for disregarding the Geneva Convention.  There are no countless media reports that are reporting American torture unless you call propagandists media. 

      "The definition of torture as well as severe physical pain also refers to severe psychological suffering; I would say the imamate treat of death to be severe psychological suffering as well as the long term psychological effects I have outlined above."

    It is always a totality of circumstances that is taken into account.  For someone to be tortured according to the most basic definition it has to be severe pain and suffering that rises to the extreme.  Every past precedent in which someone was convicted of torture the act was in the extreme.  There is nothing that we have done in our interrogations that rise to the extreme.

    If we get into a bar fight and I knock you down and stomp on your fingers, by your rational I could be charged and convicted of torture.  It doesn't fit because of intent and the extremity of the situation.  It is the same with murder.  In order to prove it you have to prove the plaintiff intentionally with malice wanted to take another persons life.  It's the difference between murder and manslaughter.  

     "It took a whole team of lawyers to basically re-write parts of American law before these techniques could be used legally and now there is allot of debate whether they (the lawyers) should be prosecuted for this."

    Go and read the torture memos, I've read nearly all of them.  They are well thought out and an honest analysis of what does and does not constitute torture.  This was done for the purpose of preserving the law not circumventing it.  They can't prosecute these lawyers and any halfwit knows that, this is all smoke and mirrors from a President who thrives on soundbites. 

    See if you can answer these questions:

    Why has no-one ever been charged or convicted of torture during or after the Bush Administration?

    How does a carreer military man state no torture happened at Gitmo, and even after numerous investigations and tours the only people claiming torture are the people being held in captivity, so why do liberals believe the enemy?  http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/print?id=2126364

    Where is there real substantiated proof of torture during the Bush years that doesn't come from left-wing zealots, liars, the enemy, or cowards?  

     

  • kevinunknown said on Jul 16, 2009....

    Waterboarding causes a drowning sensation thus its aim to make the victim feel like he/she is in danger of death, that dose cause severe psychological suffering and hence it is torture. If you don’t think it constitutes to psychological torture could you please tell me what does?

    You keep talking about “extreme” pain or suffering but you forget that pain is subjective to the person for example you may have a higher pain threshold than me so what causes me extreme pain may not be as painful for you, the same can be said of the mind. There is also the question of how one measure’s another person’s pain, it can’t be accurately done there for the question of how much pain is caused is irrelevant. I would also like to point out with regard to the lawyers that one of them actually said that the president should have the authority to give permission to have a prisoner’s eye gouged out.

    Your argument about the bar fight is irrelevant because in a bar fight i would have the chance to defend myself because i am not tied down on a board also generally speaking the act of violence against the individual is not premeditated and does not take place in a prison of some description. That is the difference between torture and a fight.

    Now I would like to turn your attention to Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq to answerer your question “Why has no-one ever been charged or convicted of torture during or after the Bush Administration?”. Well the answerer is people have been charged and found guilty of breaching the military code or for breaching the Geneva Convention in regards to torture Abu Ghraib prison. In fact 12 in total have received formal punishment for torture. I think the pictures that came out of Abu Ghraib prison are enough proof that torture went on there as well as the whistleblowers form the CIA, FBI and the military. The CIA is currently under investigation for destroying 92 video tapes of what is believed to be proof of torture

    I chose to ignore that article you gave me there at the first line “prison boss: no innocent men in Guantanamo” we just have to look at the case of Omar Deghayes to show that to be false. He was a British citizen who was arrested in 2002 in Pakistan and held for 5 years by the Americans during that time he was tortured.  He was part of the “bush 6” and put on trial in Spain but all charges were dropped after it transpired that the confessions were as a result of their torture in Guantanamo.

    I have answered all of your questions, People have been charged for it, that article is rubbish because innocent people have been tortured at Guantanamo, and there is proof that its happened

  • stopmediabias said on Jul 16, 2009....

    "Waterboarding causes a drowning sensation thus its aim to make the victim feel like he/she is in danger of death, that dose cause severe psychological suffering and hence it is torture. If you don’t think it constitutes to psychological torture could you please tell me what does?"

     Doesn't war itself cause psychological torture?  These people are fighting in a war and are captured by the enemy, that all by its self could be construed as to cause psychological torture.  There are degrees of pain and discomfort.  Psychological is too broad and too easy to fake.  Plus there were shrinks monitoring each waterboarding session. 

    "You keep talking about “extreme” pain or suffering but you forget that pain is subjective to the person for example you may have a higher pain threshold than me so what causes me extreme pain may not be as painful for you, the same can be said of the mind."

    Sorry but if you rip out a person's fingernails I don't care what their pain threshold is they are going to be in extreme pain and suffering.  A controlled supervised session of waterboarding can be done properly without causing extreme pain and suffering.  A controlled supervised session of fingernails being pulled out no matter what circumstance is going to cause extreme pain and suffering and is therefore torture.

    If you are going to drop bombshells you have to source them. (eye gouge comment)  Or like most people I ignore it. 

    "Your argument about the bar fight is irrelevant because in a bar fight i would have the chance to defend myself because i am not tied down on a board also generally speaking the act of violence against the individual is not premeditated and does not take place in a prison of some description. That is the difference between torture and a fight."

    My point was intent.  Stomping on a person's fingers can rise to the level of torture as far as pain, but a person wouldn't be charged with actual torture.

    Spare me any talk about the Geneva Convention.  It is a useless piece of crap that should have been done away with years ago.  If you cannot argue that the GC has any credibility then you cannot use it as some moral bat to swing.  Ask the Viet Cong about the Geneva Convention, or Al Qaeda, or the Japanese, or the Germans, shall I go on? 

    As far as Abu Graib the soldiers who took part in the attrocities were rightly punished.  Abu G was an isolated incident inside a pressure cooker the size of a small town.  Once again not a single soldier was charged or convicted of torture, cruel and usual punishment yes, but torture no.

    "The CIA is currently under investigation for destroying 92 video tapes of what is believed to be proof of torture."

    Do you know how many video tapes and disks and mp3 players the CIA destroys?  It doesn't matter what is on the tapes it doesn't belong out in public.  And what is "believed" is not proof.

    The article is an interview between an ABC reporter and a man in charge of Gitmo, Adm Harry Harris.  If you are really serious about this issue go read the admiral's resume on Wiki, then go read what he states about the process of vetting captured detainees.

    There have been numerous accusations and none of them substaniated.  The United States government doesn't swoop down and take innocent people off the street and keep them for five years without a very good reason.  Al Qaeda members are trained to lie and trained to tell the press they were tortured.

    The men and woman in our Armed Forces are on the front lines risking everything so we can sleep safe at night.  I think it is at the height of disrespect to impune these people without conclusive proof.  In other words proof that would stand up in a court of law.  We have always held a standing policy that we don't torture and I trust the decent people on the front lines to abide by that.   

     

     

  • kevinunknown said on Jul 17, 2009....

    There is a line between violence and tourture. Violence is just assaulting someone; torture is using violence as a means to extract information.

    You can’t just keep dismissing the Geneva convection America have signed it and there for they have to adhere to its text and waterboarding is breaching that convection. I am not using it as a “moral bat” but as a legal one.

    Call it what you will but “cruel and unusual punishment” is just another term for torture.

  • javadewd said on Jul 17, 2009....
    I think you both make some astounding points :

    Kev - One of the reasons the smarter Americans don't like the idea of trying gitmo detainees in the American court system is because [if you're an American citizen -- which the left is portraying non-American citizens as being] you have the right to face your accusers, which would mean that the US would have to pull our operatives out of the field and be present at the trial as witnesses, give testimony and be cross-examined by the defenses' council. It's a big mess! If that operative is on assignment, under deep cover or otherwise 'working' we would have to either pull them out or wait until they are available, and that's ridiculous! At best, we would be treating our CIA or military ops personnel like traffic cops, which to have to go to such lengths to satisfy the defense's ridiculous motion when a rather large dosier of evidence is already available is just simply a waste of time, money and resources.

    SMB - The other side of what I'm bringing up here to Kev is public record. With any trial [especially of US citizens] the evidence presented is a matter of public record. For the defense team of detainees/terrorists to file a motion to face the defendants accusers [again, this is not a non-US right] would mark personnel for death. Good people, however harshly they treated detainees/terrorists, would have a target forever painted on their back by bad people. Such an idea absolutely mars the idea of government authorities in the CIA / military rounding up detainees / terrorists in the first place and marks exactly what the progressive / liberal / America haters want -- to kill our own.
  • stopmediabias said on Jul 17, 2009....

    Kev-First of all the Geneva convention is woefully obsolete because we are no longer fighting wars where armies clash.  We are fighting a bunch of cockroaches who have no flag, specific country, uniform, and want to turn the world into a theocracy and use cowardly tactics to accomplish it. 

    Second, EVERYTHING violates the convention.  HBO had one of their stupid liberals on a documentary stating standing for more than a few hours could be construed as torture.  Plus it is the height of absurdity that we even debate "Americans who torture."  Americans don't torture and if/when we do it is not a part of government policy.  Compared to our enemies who torture everyone.

    Java-We are debating did or didn't the US government or anyone affiliated with torture people during the Bush years.  I say no based on absolutely no substantiated evidence.  He says yes. 

    These detainees have been given unprecedented access to lawyers as well as far better treatment than even our own Americans in our own prisons.  This I agree with you is profoundly ridiculous.  People will never wake up and see that Liberalism is a scourge.  Maybe when Ahmad gets a nuke and drops it on NYC and kills half a million people then maybe people will wake up.

  • javadewd said on Jul 17, 2009....
    Nah, even then they'll just blame Bush... These people are just brain-washed lemmings.

Comment on "HOW THE USA COULD LEARN FROM BRITTAN ON TORTURE"

torture MI5 MI6 ISI politics (Click to add tags below)

(Separate tags using commas, for example: New York, dating, vegetarian)
Comment Anonymously

Trading Freedom for Security.

sheltercrow posted on Nov 04, 2009 | views: 27 | Tags: torture, habeus corpus, civil liberties
People willing to sacrifice freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both.... read entire post 0 comments