Abu Muqawama: Post
Abu Muqawama retains its autonomy and the views and beliefs expressed within the blog do not reflect those of CNAS. Abu Muqawama retains the right to delete comments that include words that incite violence; are predatory, hateful, or intended to intimidate or harass; or degrade people on the basis of gender, race, class, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, or disability. In summary, don't be a jerk.
Torture and the UK
Does Britain collude in the torture of terror suspects or not?
The head of MI5 said in a speech the other day that torturing people might be OK for Jack Bauer, but it's not OK for his officers.. Well, he basically said that without the television reference.
However, Londonstani has a good friend who went to Pakistan totally off his own bat and filmed interviews with Pakistani military people saying that British officials had asked them to obtain information through torture. The material was not broadcast or developed as UK news organisations couldn't afford to buy the footage and repay their costs.
In Londonstani's experience, nothing has been as damaging to the fight against radicalisation, extremism and terrorism as accounts and images of people being tortured by UK and US personnel, or those acting on their behalf. This isn't to say information of such occurences should be suppressed, rather that they should just plain not happen. Anyone who has spent time in the places between Casablanca, Cairo, Karachi and Jakarta and talked to people about al Qaeda/terrorism etc will have heard pre-2006 that AQ's fight was justified by the US and UK's practices. And after 2006 would have heard that AQ was no worse in its actions than Washington and London. Even that change in view came about because of AQ's bloodlust in Iraq and not actions undertaken by the international community.
Hiding information about torture is counterproductive. It gets out anyway. And if it's seeping out through the families and friends of people who have suffered it, the shadowy details will be much worse than the actual facts. This isn't to say that the UK did collude in torture, but rather that the sense of doubt is harmful. If Londonstani was a government accused of involvement in torture (the government of Londonistan, maybe), he would put it out in the open, denounce it as an abberation of normal conduct, hold people accountable and make sure it doesn't happen again
"Ooooh, Londonstani, but
"Ooooh, Londonstani, but that would be apologizing to the terrists! We never apologize to terrirsts! NEVER. Even when they are completely innocent. Dont you know the ayrab only understands the heavy hand?"
Sigh. Of course, I agree with you. I wonder how much Bangram and stories from there are affecting the human terrain in Afghan.
Does anyone know how the UK
Does anyone know how the UK legally defines torture and, if so, how it varies (if at all) from the US definition?
Amen. Of course, you
Amen. Of course, you couldn't take the course of action you recommend if it turned out that, err, you had authorised such actions at the highest levels.
Anyway, Londonistani, very much enjoying your reporting from Pakistan, thanks
Of course they do. That's
Of course they do. That's the whole point of extraordinary rendition. You don't send 35 pages of interview questions to a Commonwealth country (where you're free to investigate assassinations) unless the point is for you to not be doing the interviewing.
Personally, I find the US reaction far more telling....
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/10/17/mohamed/
Just for old time's sake, let's hear the argument that secrecy is required to preserve intel rather than protect officials against prosecution. That if al Qaeda finds out exactly how they slice the cock up they'll be able to adapt. It won't be any less convincing than the same argument about waterboarding, as though that involved fkn quantum theory.
I am a regular reader of
I am a regular reader of Michael Yon's dispatches, and I am aware that his attitude to torture is unambiguous: it is not acceptable for him. Neither it is for me.
But I am always stunned by the number of awful beings that react to any condemnation of torture by vehemently condoning it, and heaping abuse from "pussy" to "traitor" on anyone who disagrees. And you just can't explain them your perspective in good faith.
I wonder if the same effect will be seen on this thread.
There are no awful beings on
There are no awful beings on this thread, so don't worry.
And did this good friend get introduced by a cousin's brother-in-law's schoolmate to these Pakistani officers who so amicably agreed to be filmed testifying about the nefarious British? I guess they were so accomodating because they feel the Pakistanis' honor has been impugned by being associated with torture, and this story REALLY needs to get out, and there just haven't been any reporters in Pakistan trying to get such a story.
And "The material was not broadcast or developed as UK news organisations couldn't afford to buy the footage and repay their costs" seems very plausible to me. After all, they are all poor, and who could imagine a news organization wanting to get proof to catch the government committing crimes?
Sounds like a front page headline for the NYT to me.
Schmedlap, Responding to the
Schmedlap,
Responding to the first part of your question: Does anyone know how the UK legally defines torture.
A quick check on UK legal sites found the answer: The basic human right not to be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment is contained in Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Article 3 of the ECHR was enshrined in UK law by the Human Rights Act 1998 which came into force in October 2000. Torture is deliberate ill-treatment of a human being which leads to very serious suffering. Torture may be mental or physical or a combination of the two. Definitions often exclude any suffering caused by the execution of a lawful punishment or sanction. Of course, any punishment which in itself amounted to torture is unlikely to be lawful. (Refer: http://www.abouthumanrights.co.uk/freedom-from-torture-inhuman-degrading... Note Torture is not on the police's legal reference website).
As for the second part: how it varies (if at all) from the US definition? I'll shall avoid a precise answer, but I understand from a quick read there are differences between the UK and USA. Note in international law the USA is a signatory to the 1975 UN Convention aainst Torture. The convention's definition is:
Any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions. (from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Convention_Against_Torture )
I am not a lawyer so cannot judge if there is a difference; we both know someone who can!
"The material was not
"The material was not broadcast or developed as UK news organisations couldn't afford to buy the footage and repay their costs."
BBC doesn't have enough money? Your friend must be asking for an awful lot of cash for this material. Unless there are other reasons the BBC doesn't want to air these allegations.
There is a long running
There is a long running thread 'Crimes, War Crimes and the War on Terror' on Small Wars Council, that has some of the open source material and commentary from both sides of the Atlantic: http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showthread.php?t=4921
Within are numerous items on torture and a seperate, shorter thread on waterboarding: http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showthread.php?t=4230
Enjoy.
The British used torture on
The British used torture on the Irish not that long ago, not that anyone cares.
Present day: Brown terror suspects are good and most likely are innocents being framed by racist neo-colonials. The media latches onto the story in order to denounce the government for employing Dick Cheney tactics.
Re-wind 25 years ago: white terror suspects, especially Catholics, are bad and deserve a trip to the romper room at Castelreigh. Media turns a blind eye, no people marching in streets, they are only Paddies after all.
http://www.independent.co.uk/
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/illegal-tactics-used-in-i...
PC: There were quite a lot
PC: There were quite a lot of us protesting against the treatment of IRA prisoners back then already. You may despise us hard-lefties on many issues with good points, but the fight against prison-abuse has been a pretty constant factor.
On a personal level, I remember the hate that welled up in me first time I lay cuffed and listened to the cops kicking the shit out of one of my comrades in the room next door. That impotent rage, knowing something bad is happening to a brother and not being able to do something about it is a very deep human factor. I think the mechanoids at the top forget this too often.
Quote HoolaBandoola band, on the ones at the top:
"And if someone needs to die
or if someone needs a kicking
there are others
to effectuate decisions.
They never hear the sound of screaming
or of shootin."
PC- what rubbish. don't you
PC- what rubbish. don't you remember Edge of Darkness? it was all about holding hands with people after you'd thrown them out a fifth floor window.
that's not torture. that's trying to escape and trauma counseling.
"don't you remember Edge of
"don't you remember Edge of Darkness"
Thank god it's being remade by Mel Gibson. Presumably the grand conspiracy turns out to be a bit more Jewey this time.
In anticipation of the
In anticipation of the upcoming film version I am re-reading the Men Who Stare at Goats by Jon Ronson. There are some strange things that have occurred in shipping containers in the dark and dusty parts of this world over the course of the GWOT.
As to the validity of information gained from torture, well better persons than myself have shown that if you hurt someone enough they tell you what you want to hear.
It was Smiley who showed me that a well orchestrated conversation can reveal far more then wailing on the soles of someones feet with a bamboo cane.
"Thank god it's being remade
"Thank god it's being remade by Mel Gibson."
Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I suppose Jedburgh's
I suppose Jedburgh's biblical quotes will be in latin as well
Fnord, depends on what you
Fnord, depends on what you call a hard-lefty... Even the semi-anarchist rulers of Barcelona in 1936-9 were happy to torture caught nationalists or perceived traitors/ideological heretics. That was an import from Stalin's Moscow, but it proves that torture is sort of "contagious", especially in wartime. Humans are weak.
"Men Who Stare at Goats by
"Men Who Stare at Goats by Jon Ronson"
I read this a few weeks ago. I don't know what to make of it other than it's a great buy if you (a) want to read a book and (b) feel like you're stoned and (c) don't have enough money for both.
Kechlibar: Good point. I was
Kechlibar: Good point. I was referring more to the modern protest-movement past the 70s. Let me note that I do not see soviet-communists (or trotskists) as the left, or at least not the same left as the anti-authoritarian left..
I agree with your point,
I agree with your point, please share with us more good articles.2008 Cadillac STS AC Compressor
Add your comment