74 2 mins 14 yrs

binladen_b203_ap.jpgPathetic!

It is revealed today that Ministers in the British Government insisted that British secret agents would only be allowed to pass intelligence to the CIA to help it capture Osama bin Laden if the agency promised he would not be tortured, it has emerged.  MI6 believed it was close to finding the al-Qu’eda in Afghanistan in 1998, and again the next year. The plan was for MI6 to hand the CIA vital information about Bin Laden. Ministers including Robin Cook, the then foreign secretary, gave their approval on condition that the CIA gave assurances he would be treated humanely.

Give me a break. Had Bin Laden been captured, and been physically tortured live on prime time TV, if that could have gained the intelligence to stop  the awful atrocity on 9/11, it would have well been worth it. Being nice to Mr Bin Laden, treating him decently and kindly, is absolute nonsense. This man delighted in planning the mass murder of innocents all around the world – and yet ALL the self righteous shills in the Labour Government could do was concern themselves about poor Mr Bin Laden.

Pathetic.

Click to rate this post!
[Total: 0 Average: 0]

74 thoughts on “THE ETHICAL FOREIGN POLICY AT WORK…

  1. Give me a break. Had Bin Laden been captured, and been physically tortured live on prime time TV, if that could have gained the intelligence to stop the awful atrocity on 9/11, it would have well been worth it.

    Too right David. We’re becoming more European day by day, the human rights act, laws against treason repealed, control on immigration given to the EU in the 1997 Amsterdam treaty and now the EU constitution will be fully implemented in Brussels, which will hand over all military assets to the EU.

  2. Will the Euroweenies assist in the capture of Bin Laden even though the death penalty is in force in the US? They won’t.
    Bin Laden’s rights are greater than those of the dead and those who will die in the future as a result of this man’s actions.

  3. There is no mission to capture Bin Laden. And there never was.

    He is an agency made "bete noir"

    “the goal has never been to get
    Bin Laden” General Myers JCS (AP 2002)

    the War on Terror is utterly bogus.

  4. We see these things being played-out using various issues: religion, land, fuel, good verses evil, etc etc.

    Has anyone got a grasp of what’s going on? Can they sum it up in a few words?

  5. Instead of prioritizing victory, we prioritize the protection and rights of the enemy. This prolongs the fight, and increases the destruction.

    Daytripper: Denial of jihad doesn’t make it go away.

  6. Patty,

    "Denial of jihad doesn’t make it go away."

    But denial of rights does make them go away.

  7. thesis, antithesis, synthesis

    Sam Flanagan, I liked that summary. Any idea who’s fighting who?

  8. Allan,

    "What was the goal, daytripper?"

    Energy Security.

    Ulster-Scot

    Has anyone got a grasp of what’s going on? Can they sum it up in a few words?

    To tell truth or real motives of these actions would be impossible. But I can tell you for sure that the biggest motovation is oil and gas. Primarily free access to it.

    "840. IEA confesses too

    The International Energy Agency, which is the official institute responsible for monitoring energy supply, has long been in vigorous denial of any notion that the supply of oil is resource constrained. But now its economist has given a forthright interview to the Le Monde Newspaper (27th June) admitting the truth. He says that non-OPEC production will peak shortly and that the world is in serious trouble if Iraq does not provide an exponential increase in production."

    http://www.aspo-ireland.org/contentFiles/newsletterPDFs/newsletter79_200707.pdf

    Remember the Iraq oil bill is one of the benchmarks set by the Whitehouse. Sure it will help provide stability through resouce sharing between the ethnic groups in Iraq, but only after Big Oil has taken its (way above average) share.

    Read Crude Designs;

    http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/oil/2005/crudedesigns.htm

    PDF

    http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/oil/2005/crudedesigns.pdf

    /////////////////////////////////////////////

    Daytripper: Denial of jihad doesn’t make it go away.

    Patty,

    History has shown how easy it is to demonise entire peoples. And as hitler himself said (and i paraphrase) "The greatest gift to those in power is that most people dont think."

  9. Ulster-Scot asked:

    Has anyone got a grasp of what’s going on? Can they sum it up in a few words?

    daytripper said:

    To tell truth or real motives of these actions would be impossible. But I can tell you for sure that the biggest motivation is oil and gas. Primarily free access to it.

    That’s what I think when I look at America and the middle-east. I see them as the oil kings, both perceived as the aggressors in this war?

    When I look at Europe I see their biggest motivation in there being no oil, no fossil fuel, no carbon emissions, no dependency on imports, new laws to enforce such, a new government, a new outlook, a new territory, a new perspective, a new ambition and ultimately a new people.

    In my world new ideas, mean new laws and new laws mean new people……..how do you bring about all this?….[yet to be concluded]

  10. You get rid of the old people.

    What do you mean Colm?, do we burn them for fuel?

  11. how do you bring about all this?

    localisation is the only option. people working together.

    the age of capitalist growth will end when oil goes into definite decline. so the only way to maintain some of the society we currently have is to reduce our dependance on oil, which powers everything, not just cars. Fuel, food, pharmacueticals, everything.

    capitalism need not die though. but that is up to our leaders who should lead. though they wont.

    for me it explains everything we currently see. the relatively sudden rise in concern for global warming (look at the demands for carbon reduction and hubberts peak), the wars (for resources) and the slow slide towards authoritarianism.

    we have an interesting two decades ahead of us, is my laymans estimate.

  12. I do appreciate the frustartion of many when it comes to criminals etc and the issues of rights. But do we not lose what little is left of our humanity if we choose to fight on the floor like the scum who kill and main and try to destroy what people beleive in?

    Each time a state engages in torture, the death penalty, inhuman degradimng treatment or punishment then we contribute to the problem and become the perpetarters. Enough life has been lost. Punishment doesn’t have to be so violent for it to work.

    On the issue of publically torturing Bin laden or something like that… do you honestly beleive that evidence obtained from torture would be reliable? I mean, if someone was inflicting those targeted levels of pain and anguish on me, i would say anything to make it stop – true or untrue-

    Have we not progressed further than resorting to torture? Scum and criminals like Osama use it, saudi arabia, iran, russia- these arethe type of people and regimes who employ this disgustimg practice… perhaps we should start leading by example.

    I think part of the problem is that individuals do not have the moral, political and legal responsabilties of a state… But if you think that it should be ‘like for like’ then you are so so wrong. Lead by example and don’t resort to barbarsim.

    What was it Ghandi said ‘and eye for and tooth for a tooth leaves the whole world blind and toothless…

  13. Ciarnan,

    "On the issue of publically torturing Bin laden or something like that… do you honestly beleive that evidence obtained from torture would be reliable?"

    Does it matter? Maybe it is. Perhaps the regimes you mention wouldn’t use it if it didn’t work.

    The question is where do we stop. Is it just a case of whatever works? If torturing the five year old child of a terrorist would avert another 9/11, then should we do that too?

  14. That’s a good point Frank. I wonder if any ATW regulars would be prepared to answer yes and give reasons for doing so.

  15. DT wrote:
    "the age of capitalist growth will end when oil goes into definite decline. so the only way to maintain some of the society we currently have is to reduce our dependance on oil, which powers everything, not just cars. Fuel, food, pharmacueticals, everything."

    When the price of oil drilled from wells exceeds a threshold and remains above it, other sources (shale, coal) will be synthesible into oil.

    On the matter of torture, regimes such as those of Saddam used torture for pleasure – and I’m pretty sure that it goes on in Iran, Syria, and throughout the Middle East. But on getting reliable information, evidence obtained under torture from one terrorist can be reliable if corroborated by information obtained (by torture) from another, separate terrorist.

    Let’s consider the fall-out when an atrocity takes place and it became known that suspects held had preventative info but had NOT been forced to divulge it. This may soon not be merely hypothetical!

  16. The question is where do we stop. Is it just a case of whatever works? If torturing the five year old child of a terrorist would avert another 9/11, then should we do that too?

    Saturday, July 28, 2007 at 04:58PM | Frank O’Dwyer

    Under what circumstances would the torture of a 5-year-old child be considered? Where did that come from? Besides, I don’t think that it would work anyway: the RoPers are quite prepared to inflict torture on their own children through circumcision and genital mutilation.
    Why not torture the suspect’s budgie or pet rodent?

  17. Allan

    It’s a hypothetical question but it raises the issue of where does principle take second place to expediency. If interrogators genuinely believed a known terrorist with vital information would not succumb to personal torture but would relent if his child was to be tortured would that be an acceptable course of action for our authorities to take.

  18. Colm

    Can’t contenance either option. I know that is a cop out.

    So I suppose logically that defaults to the do nothing otption which allows for another 9/11.

    Of course the reality is that it is hypothetical, as you could never be 100% sure that even by doing that you would a) get meaninful (accurate) information and b) be able to act on it to avert the atrocity.

    Horrible thought!

  19. Aileen

    I think Frank’s point was that even if such torture worked in some cases is it acceptable in principle for civilised societies to ever permit such behaviour. Is it not better that we should always maintain certain civil standards whatever short term difficulties it causes us.

  20. Frank

    "Perhaps the regimes you mention wouldn’t use it if it didn’t work"

    -I i’m not sure if’Jutice’ or actually finding the responsible is very high on the agenda in the case of the regimes i mentioned… thats why they use torture. Even if they arrest an innocent person… a confession will be obtained. Its more about fear and brutalsing the individual concerned.

    The measure of our humnaity surely should be the lengths we are prepared to go in order to achieve our aims. I think that the use of torture highlights a fundemental failing on the part of thsoe who use it. I do however appreciate that there are those who disagree.

    No system is perfect and the chances are that innocent people will be caught and potentially totured… and then what? Where ar ewe? Morally bankrupt and discredited.

    The very word ‘torture’ illcits something barbarous… what then would its sanctioned practice illcit? and what does that say about the state and society which allows it?

    to turn to the 5 year old child discussion. Lets say that yes indeed toture was used – and it turns out the child knew nothing (a very real possibility)… who here is prepared to accept that outcome?

  21. Colm yes I know, that that was Franks point, which is why I answered it before saying that it was hypothetical.

    The rest of your post sounds like you think I opted for the torture, which by default, I didn’t, more or less because of the reason you give.

  22. Ciarnan

    I don’t think the issue of torturing the 5 year old was about getting information from the said child, but as a matter of forcing his father to give information.

  23. Aileen

    No I didn’t think you opted for the torture at all, it’s just that if we believe that such torture shoudl always be beyond what a civilised society should allow then the matter of whether it would work in some cases becomes irrelevent.

  24. Colm,

    sorry i mis read it there… even still the point remains – if the childs father knows nothing…. where do we stand?

  25. So Colm, what happens if there is a suspect seized prior to an atrocity and he had NOT been forced to divulge his (preventative) info?

  26. Colm

    Yes but you are still answering me as if we view this differently [as if ;o)] and you are tyring to convince me.

    The fact that it may not work makes the "right" decison "easier" in real life.

  27. Aileen

    Now I get you and I I accept your point. Yes of course it is difficult to refrain from torturing someone in the knowledge that such action may yeild information that would prevent an atrocity and I fully agree it is easier to maintain such standards if we believe they don’t work. Sticking to principles can cost a heavy price.

  28. Colm
    Phew!! ;o)

    Of course what should you do and what would you do are not the same question.

  29. This was nine years ago and obviously pre-9/11 and 7/7. There would be no British scruples today about handing him over to the CIA. Hell, we’d probably torture the scumbag ourselves.

    It would be nice to put Bin Laden on public trial, just like Eichmann or Milosevic. But I’ll settle for seeing his corpse.

  30. I’ll assume by ‘known terrorist’ that we are discussing a member of the RoP, in which case he/she would regard the prospect of his/her child being subject to torture as preparation for martyrdom and would provide even more motivation than what they already have to kill kufr en masse. They use their own children for suicide missions against Israel and, in the link hereafter, there are children expressing desire for martyrdom. Threats of torture directed against the children of these evil bastards wouldn’t work: it would probably have worked against IRA bombers.

    http://news.sky.com/skynews/video/videoplayer/0,,31200-1277340,.html

    So Colm, what happens if there were an RoP terrorist suspect seized prior to an atrocity and he had NOT been forced to divulge his (preventative) info?

  31. Sticking to principles can cost a heavy price.

    Saturday, July 28, 2007 at 06:05PM | colm

    And who pays the price of your principles, Colm? Not you for sure: other people do!

  32. Allan@Oslo,

    "And who pays the price of your principles, Colm? Not you for sure: other people do!"

    May we take it then that if the authorities arrest you "knowing" that you are a terrorist they have your permission to torture you?

  33. Here we go with the ‘what if it was a cute fluffy bunny’ questions…easy answer Colm, no the torture for information of a young child should never be countenanced.

    I answered yours, so now I’ve got one for you.

    *Define ‘torture’.*

  34. We have been willing to harm the children of our enemies in previous conflicts. After World War 2 for example British troops managed to find Rudolf Hoss, the commandant of Auschwitz, by making it clear to his wife that if she didn’t reveal his whereabouts then her two children would be sent to the Soviets and almost certainly killed.In that case the consequences of not doing what they did would have been to allow Hoess to escape and many other Nazi war criminals go free at Nuremburg through lack of evidence.

    I’m not sure of my own views on that particular case but not many people would complain that it was an unreasonable method of interrogation in retrospect because the consequences of not doing so were so momentous.

    Personally I have little objection to torturing terrorists themselves for information but hurting innocent people could only possibly be justified in cases where not doing so would certainly result in a large number of deaths in the very near future.

  35. Frank+s point could be more focussed by asking who would be prepared to torture his or her own child (just as innocent as OBL-s) if he thought it would avert another 9-11.

    It-s like the Churchill dilemma of deliberating letting in certain German air raids and letting certain ships be sunk by the enemy – of which he had advance knowledge – as he knew such losses would galvanise British support for a greater war effort.
    He thought the probable result was worth the loss, but of course would have thought differently if he-d known that his own children, and not someone else-s, would die.

  36. "And who pays the price of your principles, Colm? Not you for sure: other people do!"

    May we take it then that if the authorities arrest you "knowing" that you are a terrorist they have your permission to torture you?

    Saturday, July 28, 2007 at 09:08PM | Frank O’Dwyer

    One can only wonder at the mind which would have deduced the latter from the former. Just amazing, and pure entertainment!

  37. OK Allan@Oslo, you’re not willing to pay the price of your principles.

    I didn’t really think you were.

  38. We are in a war with religious fanatics. Torture has always been used in wartime, and this war will be no exception. End of.

  39. DSD

    Thank you for at least answering my question which is more than Allan did.

    Torture at the very least is the deliberate infliction of physical pain. Infliction of mental torture is proably harder to define.

    Allan –

    "And who pays the price of your principles, Colm? Not you for sure: other people do!"

    What a silly statement. Am I somehow immune from being a victim of terrorism. There is just as much chance of me being killed by a tube bomber in London as anyone else.

    Ps – Thay are not ‘my principles’ – they are the principles that seperate civilised people from savages.

  40. ". I’m not willing to pay the price of Colm’s principles."

    Yes but the alternative doesn’t come without a price either. The choice is accept that innocent people may be tortured by the state or accept that innocent people will be blown up by the terrorists..

  41. Colm,

    "Torture at the very least is the deliberate infliction of physical pain. Infliction of mental torture is proably harder to define."

    The definition generally refers to severe pain (mental or physical) – i.e. there is implicitly some level of pain which is not torture.

    And there are definitions by the way, in international conventions to which the UK and US are signatories. They explicitly state that no justification is sufficient for torture.

    Of course Peter is right that it will happen, but it is illegal and if it came to light it would be denied or the people that did it would be disowned.

  42. The fact is that there is war being waged against our society by adherents of a virulent strain of nazism which was allowed into our society. How many would-be suicide bombers are the intelligence services currently tracking – about a couple of thousand. Yet the attackers at Clasgow Airport and London were not known to them.
    So what happens when the hypothetical matter becomes reality and there are bombers en route to targets, but one of whom has been taken alive before detonation?
    Then, what happens if the bombers have reached their ‘targets’, killing 50 people, and the ‘suspect’ has had his rights respected i.e. he was not forced to reveal what he knew?

    The left ask about the ‘before’ without considering the ‘after’.

    I want the detainee to be made to talk, by whatever means are necessary: those who don’t would have condemned OTHER people to death, and it is other people because nobody really thinks it would be him/her or anyone they know. That’s why it’s so easy to adhere to one’s ‘principles’.

  43. Just as it is easy for you to condemn OTHER innocent people to be tortured because you don’t think it will be you.

    "The fact is that there is war being waged"

    No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.

    – article 2, UN convention against torture

  44. No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.

    – article 2, UN convention against torture

    And those words were drafted and typed by people in high places who were and are totally shielded from the repercussions – as always. And they were/are wrong!

  45. "by whatever means are necessary…

    I take it that is a yes then to our govt. giving approval to torturing a 5 year old child.

    Of course I accept that in very testing times it is hugely tempting to torture individuals you KNOW are planning disgusting acts of mass murder, and I can even see the argument in favour of it, all I am saying is that we shouldn’t dismiss the dangers inherent in allowing ‘us’ to use a bit of ‘their’ barbarity to help defeat them. Once the state starts to go dowm the route of behaving ike that, for whatever noble purposes, the possibility of extending such ‘official’ licence wider and wider cannot be ignored.

    It isn’t easy to say we should never use torture no matter the provocation but I do lean towards that view for reasons of broader and more long term defence of civilised society

  46. Errr Colm. Where is this 5-year-old child coming from? You asked for a response on that highly imaginative scenario and I replied as you asked. Now, I put a more realisitic scenario to you and you attempt to deflect it. Please formulate a response.

  47. Allan

    You copped out. You didn’t answer. You waffled about Muslim terrorists not caring if their own children died. That is evading the question.. Frank in his original hypotheses mentioned a scenario where the torture of a five year old child WOULD cause a terrorist to reveal information. Now once again, in that scenario would it be permissible ?

    Ps – I did answer your question. I believe, no matter what the situation (including the one you outline above) is a civilised state should not practise torture.

    Over to you and let’s see if you answer the question now.

  48. Guys, (I suspect I’ll be branded a butter after this post), consider that Bin Laden has not been/will never be captured because he may well be a CIA/MI5 asset.

    Just like the so-called mastermind of the July 7 bombings and July 21st attempted bombings in London. Google his name – "Haroon Rashid Aswat" and see for yourselves.

    He was allegedly working for both US and UK intelligence for many years, as reported on Fox News’"Dayside with Linda Vester" in July 2005.

    It’s a murky world out there.

  49. James,

    "that should of course have been Nutter, not Butter! ;-)"

    I can’t believe it’s not Butter.

    🙂

  50. Oh I don’t know James, some people would say believeing that theory shows you up as a right Anchor.. geddit!

  51. Colm, are we in agreement about who the likely perpetrators are because they’re not quite the same, you know?

    If the perps are RoP suicide bombers, threats of torture directed against their own child would not work:
    a) because they are hell-bent on their own destruction and,
    b) because their co-religionists use children in ‘martyrdom’ operations.

    If the perps were, say, the IRA, then such threats would work because none of the IRA terrorists who were paernts would want to see their own child tortured. As to whether it should be done, the answer has to be no, in both cases.

    But when you write that "a civilised state should not practise torture", I would put it to you that a civilised state should do all that it can to protect its own people at the expense of those who would harm its own people and, in the UK, that means me. That is to say that the rights of us to live, in our land, prevail over the rights of those who would wish to kill us, in our land.

  52. Ok Allan, thanks for answering, but think about it you have just answered no to a scenario that involved torturing one person (a 5 year old child) to potentially prevent the murder of scores of people. You agreed it would be unacceptable, regardless of the benefits, which only shows we only differ on the extent to which a principle should apply not necessarily the principle itself.

  53. Ok Allan, thanks for answering, but think about it you have just answered no to a scenario that involved torturing one person (a 5 year old child) to potentially prevent the murder of scores of people. You agreed it would be unacceptable, regardless of the benefits, which only shows we only differ on the extent to which a principle should apply not necessarily the principle itself.

  54. Colm, I don’t think that the civilised values of the west have faced such an uncivilised force as that which is loose in the UK right now. The IRA did not intend the destruction of the west given that they, in a detached manner, were of the west. Islam does seek our demise in one way or another so the usual niceties will have to be shelved.

  55. Colm,
    I agree with you theres certain lines that just shouldn’t be crossed however good the ends

    the 5 year old scenario is a non runner either way.

    [1]the child is tortured and an 9/11 type atrocity is prevented due to his father talking and giving away crucial information–then your left with a child who has been tortured and wondering whether the attack would have failed or been prevented some other way–an alert baggage clerk,policeman,any number of things could have gone wrong for the terrorists ,all people will see is a tortured 5 year old, remember the atrocity didn’t happen.

    {2}the child is tortured and the father still doesn’t talk–the attack goes ahead and now you have 3000 people dead and 1 5 year old who has been tortured

    {3}The child is tortured and the father does tell everything he knows–but he was not privy to all the information–just say he was to deliver a bomb and hand it over to someone else for planting——this would be common in terrorism,some people playing large roles but they don’t know everything—-the attack goes ahead same result as 2 above.

    *And all the above depends on finding someone who would be willing to torture the 5 year old–I’d like to think there are not many people out there capable of doing it*

  56. Good points Martin

    Are you the same Martin where we had the back and forth about the Bible on some thread of yesteryear?

  57. Frank
    ,don’t think so ,ive mentioned the bible a couple of times not much though, im a believer but non fanatic, I am the fellow who mentioned to you last night about satan being behind self assembly furniture though,and Im also the de jure king of Ulster, beware of imposters ,theres alot of martins sprouting up around since i was here about 6 months ago

  58. Martin,

    "im a believer but non fanatic"

    OK then you’re not the same Martin. 🙂 As far as I rememember he was a nice guy but he believed every single word of the Bible was the literal truth and said something to this effect. Also if he was the king of Ulster he never mentioned it.

  59. ”he believed every single word of the Bible was the literal truth”

    Even the bit about God keeping the sun where it was for 24 hours so that Joshua could win a battle—even though we now know the sun doesnt move–(well not much}-so then the earth mush have stopped rotating instead–but then continent would have been flung on top of continent–does he really believe that

  60. other sources (shale, coal) will be synthesible into oil.

    Allan

    enough to maintain our current socio-economic system?

    bear in mind, both are still finite sources with low in/out return ratios. there is a reason they have not been expoited until now.

    David said

    The question is where do we start. I say with Bin Laden. I can think of almost 3000 good reasons why so.

    Allan said

    And who pays the price of your principles, Colm? Not you for sure: other people do!

    Peter said

    We are in a war with religious fanatics. Torture has always been used in wartime, and this war will be no exception. End of.

    so when people complain about the likes of Iran, Saudi Arabia and China etc torturing people and claiming it to be wicked, they are infact lying?

    its either acceptable or unacceptable. take your pick people.

    there are major flaws in the "ticking bomb" scenario. There are many debates and articles on this issue, try HRW or other bodies for more in depth analysis.

    Of course Peter is right that it will happen, but it is illegal and if it came to light it would be denied or the people that did it would be disowned.

    i agree with peter also. Tragically it happens. and nowadays some of the liability is being outsourced to private industry (many interrogators at abu ghraib etc were private contractors, working for companies like CACI). This is very distrubing.

  61. Colm: It would be manifestly unjust to torture a fice year old. Period. We are not them.

Comments are closed.