Disbelief
There are some hard hearted morons in this place
I cannot believe what I am reading in the comments section of this article in The Times about Binyam Mohamed’s alleged torture, let’s make it clear and simple:
- Whatever information was gleaned was not sufficient to lead to ANY charges
- Torture is a notoriously poor tool for extracting genuine information, most victims will tell their inquisitors what they want to hear, just to escape the pain.
- If he was a great international threat, would the Americans have released him?
- Do these people feel no shame that the UK allegedly colluded with these medieval methods?
- Have we not got sufficient surveillance methods, data capture tools, electronic intelligence gathering, and human intelligence to form a case?
- Don’t we believe in the rule of law?
- There have been many miscarriages of justice since this War Against Terror began, you wouldn’t want to be one of the mistakes.
- The risk of being blown apart by a terrorist bomb in the UK are far less than those for being killed by a car when you cross the road.
- Mohamed’s allegations need to be viewed seriously and a full and proper criminal examination of MI5′s involvement needs to take place NOW.
- The Foreign Secretary and South Shields MP David Miliband needs to be more frank, open, and forthcoming with the House of Commons over Britain’s involvement with the whole of the rendition process, the selection of suspects, the sharing of information, and the operation of the US bases at Diego Garcia and Guantanamo.
:: 
:: 
:: 
:: 
:: 
:: 
:: 
:: 
:: 
:: 
:: 
Me? Hard-hearded..yes…moron…no.
1. There was obviously compelling reason to ask in the first place. Not every arrest in the UK leads to charges let alone a conviction.
2. But any information can be corroborated independently to see if it checks out.
3. To monitor him and see what he does, maybe?
4. Not only no shame but I fully support it.
5. No. Any technique to save lives from terrorists is reasonable.
6. Well Labour have just said they want to ignore hundreds of years of contract law in the case of Sir Fred. Everybody seems to be treating the law as a Pick’n'Mix nowadays.
7. Many? Define ‘many’. Hundreds of innocent people sit in UK jails as convicted criminals. Mistakes happen, and its usually juries who make them.
8. Don’t want to be run over, don’t want to be blown up. Don’t want to die actually but I’d like to delay the situation.
9. No, this would bring things out into the open that would harm national security.
10. Ditto 9.
Geoff
March 8, 2009 at 3:40 pm
Fine Geoff, if that’s your considered opinion. Would your views be the same if his name was John Smith a 35 year old white married Christian Missionary from Godalming, Surrey, who was being held and tortured by a foreign state on suspicion of conspiracy to murder? Would you consider their methods of torture to be appropriate in the modern ethical world or would you express shame? Would you consider that the treatment of Mr. Smith might inflame the sensibilities of other Christians in that country?
Decency for some may not be decency for others.
curly
March 8, 2009 at 5:11 pm
Hmm, interesting point. I would argue that your scenario wouldn’t cover our mutual (2) of independently checking stories through a complex intelligence system and the opportunity to also question (potential) co-conspirators. You’ve chosen a single perp who, as you rightly say in your post, could lie to save a beating…and we would be right to object to that.
Also, despite our Govt routinely printing off the default Word doc letter of complaint every time a Brit is caught smuggling drugs into Thailand, I have no sympathy if they are stuck in the most squalid prison and left there because *you abide by the rules of the country you are in*. Sharia Law shouldn’t be allowed in the UK, and I won’t drink in Middle Eastern countries.
Wouldn’t you agree that if you come to my country you have implicitly agreed to play by my rules?
Final point…Mr Smith wouldn’t be tortured in the sense that your use of the word implies. A good kicking or two maybe, but you’ll get that in Pentonville or the Scrubs too.
Mr. Smith isn’t potentially going to launch a chemical weapon attack on London or fly a plane into a building. Please take no offence, but I don’t think your analogy stands up. The stakes are much higher.
Geoff
March 8, 2009 at 7:03 pm
After seven years incarceration in Guantanamo, torture, and questioning in a number of countries, Binyaman Mohamed has faced no trial either in front of or without a jury, faced no charges either.
I think my analogy stands up better than the American’s case against him. In many ways I wish we could say with absolute certainty that he is a terrorist and a dangerous man, at least we could then attempt to justify our behaviour both to him and to the public conscience.
However , we cannot do any of those things.
Personally, I feel it would have been a better course of action to return him to the country that he was rendered from, despite the personal risks that he may face there.
curly
March 8, 2009 at 7:46 pm
Although we are diametrically at odds on this issue I’d like to thank you for an interesting and civilised swapping of views. Cheers.
Geoff
March 8, 2009 at 11:02 pm
Condoning torture doesn’t sound very ‘civilised’ to me.
Bryan
March 9, 2009 at 9:24 am