Torture and the British Government

[Begbie]

Episode 26: A shocking tale of torture and indifference - Bateman Broadcasting

A discussion on how much the UK government knew about torture.

[slackula]

Sounds about right.

Blair Christmas card used at Guantanamo to frighten terrorists

Tony Blair has revealed that his 2014 Christmas Card photo was originally intended as part of a Psy Ops campaign to frighten jihadists at Guantanamo Bay.

‘Look, if we want win the war on terror, we have to be prepared to use extreme tactics’, he told reporters. ‘Psychologists have been using pictures of Cherie in experiments for years, so they’d already obtained approval from their ethics committees.

‘Initially they just wanted a giant poster of Cherie looming over the prisoners, with a recording of Ray Winstone speeches on continuous loop, but Cherie wouldn’t agree unless I was in the picture too.

‘The shoot took three days. Apparently my face isn’t scary, just massively untrustworthy, so it was diluting what scientists call the ‘Cherie Effect’. Eventually we hit on the ‘teeth bared’ look and knew we had a winner.

Nude photos of Cherie Blair with a ‘come hither’ look had previously been banned under the Geneva Convention. ‘I don’t know much about the Convention’, said Tony, ‘but they scare the shit out of me’

Blair Christmas card used at Guantanamo to frighten terrorists | NewsBiscuit

[Pragmatic]

Andy McNab is correct on torture in my opinion.

McNab, which is a pseudonym he coined after 20 years of military service, says there are a number of 'quick, harmful, painful techniques' which can be used to effectively extract information from a captive.
He conceded that he only supported the use of torture immediately after a suspect was captured rather than months later, when the information they possessed would be 'out of date'.

[Fozzy]

Needs must when the devil drives.

[taxexile]

indeed, soldiers should be left alone to do their soldiering.

if you want an omelet you've got to break a few heads, err, sorry, eggs.


Don't yell at terrorist suspects, soldiers told


Army chiefs warn interrogations are being hampered by go-softly rules

“Since I was serving, the rules on interrogations have been tightened up because of the lawyers. We [the military] are no longer able to carry out tactical questioning," said Col Tim Collins.
By Robert Mendick and Tim Ross10:30PM GMT 13 Dec 2014

British soldiers have “lost their capability” to interrogate terrorist insurgents because of strict new rules on questioning that even ban shouting in captives’ ears, military chiefs have warned.

The rules — detailed in court papers obtained by The Telegraph — also prevent military intelligence officers from banging their fists on tables or walls, or using “insulting words” when interrogating a suspect.

The regulations replaced a previous policy that had to be withdrawn after a series of legal challenges and the death in custody of Baha Mousa, an Iraqi detainee in Basra.
But there is growing disquiet within the ranks that the latest guidelines, officially called Challenge Direct, are so stringent that it makes interrogation pointless.

There is also concern that the rules can be so easily breached — especially given the pressure under which soldiers are operating — that military personnel will be left exposed to legal claims and possible disciplinary action.



There was global condemnation last week when a Senate report in the United States disclosed how the CIA had systematically tortured detainees in the wake of the September 11 attacks.

Despite this, British military chiefs fear the current restrictions on Army interrogators are hindering the gathering of information. They insist interrogations can be vital in thwarting future terrorist attacks and in combating insurgents in hostile environments.

Col Tim Collins, who made a celebrated eve-of-battle speech during the Iraq war and now runs a private security company with expertise in intelligence gathering, said: “Since I was serving, the rules on interrogations have been tightened up because of the lawyers. We [the military] are no longer able to carry out tactical questioning.

“The effect of the ambulance-chasing lawyers and the play-it-safe judges is that we have got to the point where we have lost our operational capability to do tactical questioning. That in itself brings risks to the lives of the people we deploy.
“These insurgents are not nice people. These are criminals. They behead people; they keep sex slaves. They are not normal people.”


Lord West, the former First Sea Lord and national security adviser, said: “We have gone too far in letting people take us to court.

“While these insurgents are chopping people’s heads off and raping women, the idea they can take us to court because somebody shouted at them is ridiculous.”

In an interview with The Telegraph, Michael Fallon, the Defence Secretary, voices his concern about the legal scrutiny on British troops. He says he is gravely concerned about the rising cost of legal cases “that turn out to be completely spurious”. He added: “What’s important for us is to understand the legal scrutiny that we are under all the time now, the cases that are being brought sometimes spuriously by law firms representing people who claim they were wrongly detained.

“Our Armed Forces are under a huge degree of scrutiny.” He said he feared this could inhibit commanders in the field in future.

The rules on interrogation are contained in a Court of Appeal judgment handed down in the summer and obtained by The Sunday Telegraph.

The policy was introduced two years ago after outrage over the death of Mr Mousa, an innocent Iraqi civilian who was beaten to death while in British custody in Basra in 2003. An inquiry into his death, published in 2011, disclosed that he had been subjected to sustained and gratuitous beatings by soldiers from 1st Battalion the Queen’s Lancashire Regiment.

The legality of the Challenge Direct interrogation technique was disputed by lawyers acting for Haidar Ali Hussein, an Iraqi civilian arrested in 2004 who alleged that during his detention he had been subjected “to substantial periods of shouting”. Mr Hussein was also claiming damages from the Ministry of Defence over alleged mistreatment.

Although Mr Hussein’s detention predated the new policy, his legal team had argued that Challenge Direct should be ruled unlawful because it constitutes “inhumane treatment” in contravention of the Geneva Convention.

The Court of Appeal threw out Mr Hussein’s challenge to the interrogation policy — but in doing so disclosed how the technique works and when it can be applied. It also highlighted a series of breaches.

The judgment handed down by Lord Justice Lloyd Jones, the Lord Justice of Appeal and one of the most senior judges in the country, discloses what appear to be enormous constraints under which interrogators must now operate.

One source said: “This ruling shows just what a nightmare it now is for interrogation teams. Interrogators have been left wondering if it’s worth the bother.”

The previous policy — known as “Harsh” — gave soldiers the right to “shout as loud as possible [with] uncontrolled fury” at a captive. It also permitted soldiers to show “psychotic tendencies”, and aim “personal abuse” at a captive who could be “taunted and goaded”.

The Challenge Direct technique reined in those excesses and allows shouting for only a few seconds at a time — the actual length is redacted for security reasons in the ruling — under strict regulation which is designed only to gain a captive’s attention.

The judgment discloses that under the new policy interrogation “must not be insulting” and that a “captured person’s attributes must not be ridiculed”. The policy adds that “the questioner must not touch the captured person” and “must not shout into the subject’s ear”.

The Challenge Direct approach can only be carried out with prior permission and if the session is being recorded to prevent abuses. “There must be no intimidation of any kind,” state the rules.

Lord Justice Lloyd Jones and two fellow Court of Appeal judges ruled the Challenge Direct policy lawful in itself, but on reviewing many hours of video evidence decided that on a series of occasions, interrogators had breached it. The judges were shown recordings of the interrogations of 13 captives in Afghanistan who were subjected to the Challenge Direct technique. They found a number of occasions when the rules had been broken.

Such breaches, the senior judges found, included an interrogator who “held the hand of the captured person during the use of Challenge Direct, a breach of the prohibition on physical contact”; an interrogator who “slammed the desk with his hand” and one who “slammed the wall with his hand”.

Judges also found other violations, including a soldier who used “insulting words throughout an interview” and “vulgar abuse” at a captive. They said the “most striking example” of a breach of the policy was when an interrogator “suddenly moved forward from a crouching position so that his face was right in front of the captured person’s. This was physically intimidating.”

But the judges said the breaches did not in themselves make the technique unlawful. “I have come to the clear conclusion that the policy which the appellant seeks to challenge does not involve any violation of the duty of humane treatment or any other relevant standard under the Geneva Convention,” said Lord Justice Lloyd Jones.

The judge questioned why Mr Hussein had been allowed to bring the case, given that he was never subjected to the technique. Mr Hussein was represented by Public Interest lawyers, a human rights legal firm which has brought a number of successful claims against the British military. The firm is led by Phil Shiner, who represented Mr Mousa’s family.

Mr Mousa, 26, a hotel receptionist and a father of two children, had been held in custody for 36 hours, for the majority of the time hooded, and suffered at least 93 injuries prior to his death. Practices such as hooding had already been banned by the Army, while the case highlighted the lack of control exercised by senior commanders on the soldiers conducting his interrogation.

The MoD has paid out millions of pounds in compensation and costs to hundreds of Iraqis who complained that they were illegally detained and tortured by British forces. The payouts followed legal rulings that abuse cases can be brought in Britain.

Don't yell at terrorist suspects, soldiers told - Telegraph

[slackula]

Andy McNab is correct on torture in my opinion.

McNab, which is a pseudonym he coined after 20 years of military service, says there are a number of 'quick, harmful, painful techniques' which can be used to effectively extract information from a captive.
He conceded that he only supported the use of torture immediately after a suspect was captured rather than months later, when the information they possessed would be 'out of date'.

Nobody is saying that torture doesn't extract information, that is a straw man that pro-torture people throw up all the time to distract from the point.

The point (and problem) is that torture DOES extract information, but that the information is whatever the prisoner thinks he needs to say to make it stop and so is essentially worthless. A well trained prisoner can draw it out to send his questioners off on wild goose chases for a while (so McNabb's point is rather moot) but if you believe that torture works then the inevitable result is that as the interrogators become more exasperated and ramp up the torture the answers given become ever more fantastic until either the prisoner dies or the interrogators give up.

That is roughly what it says in the US army field manual on interrogation (I've lost the link, but I've put it on this forum before), and that is what report after report by all the agencies that have tried it have said.

If you really think torture works then you must also think that everybody burned in the Inquisition was indeed a witch, after all they confessed. Why would they do that if they were innocent?.

Put it like this:

Somebody sticks a gun in your face and says "Tell me where QC is or I'll shoot you". You believe they will do it so you spout the first address that comes to mind even though you haven't the faintest idea who or where QC is but you know that saying "Who... What?" will get you shot.

The pro-torture side will hold this up as an example that it works: after all they got some info didn't they? Well, they did, but they have framed the debate so narrowly that it ignores that the information is worthless.

When they come back to you empty handed and threaten you again you then say 'Oh, he must have moved, but really I think he is at XXXXX".

Fast forward a few weeks and now you are dressed in an orange jumpsuit and eating your dinner through your arse. At this point you can still keep babbling addresses in the hope they'll finally stop or you can just clam up and see if they shoot you or not. Either way the torture still hasn't worked.

[ENT]

It seems that we can do without interrogation, as it is euphemistically called, as most of the useful information we've needed so far to successfully fight terrorism, was acquired by other means.

[harrybarracuda]

[thaimeme]

It seems that we can do without interrogation, as it is euphemistically called, as most of the useful information we've needed so far to successfully fight terrorism, was acquired by other means.

To fight terrorism would mean that you would have to cease instigating, supporting, and promoting it....

Talk is cheap.

[harrybarracuda]

It seems that we can do without interrogation, as it is euphemistically called, as most of the useful information we've needed so far to successfully fight terrorism, was acquired by other means.

To fight terrorism would mean that you would have to cease instigating, supporting, and promoting it....

Talk is cheap.

Rubbish, there are only two outcomes:

(1) Appease the terrorists.
(2) Eliminate the terrorists.

Given what most current terrorists want, I go for option (2).

[thaimeme]

It seems that we can do without interrogation, as it is euphemistically called, as most of the useful information we've needed so far to successfully fight terrorism, was acquired by other means.

To fight terrorism would mean that you would have to cease instigating, supporting, and promoting it....

Talk is cheap.

Rubbish, there are only two outcomes:

(1) Appease the terrorists.
(2) Eliminate the terrorists.

Given what most current terrorists want, I go for option (2).

Yet, Harry, you don't seem to comprehend that your kind are the true terrorists.
Produced in your good name.

Extermination is the answer.

[harrybarracuda]

It seems that we can do without interrogation, as it is euphemistically called, as most of the useful information we've needed so far to successfully fight terrorism, was acquired by other means.

To fight terrorism would mean that you would have to cease instigating, supporting, and promoting it....

Talk is cheap.

Rubbish, there are only two outcomes:

(1) Appease the terrorists.
(2) Eliminate the terrorists.

Given what most current terrorists want, I go for option (2).

Yet, Harry, you don't seem to comprehend that your kind are the true terrorists.
Produced in your good name.

Extermination is the answer.

Terrorist apologist uses the right to free speech while it still lasts.

More comedy at 11.

[slackula]

Torturers and torture victims to be tortured until they tell truth about torture



After revelations that the CIA used ‘enhanced interrogation techniques’ to torture prisoners, it has emerged that British forces may have to be tortured to see if they admit to having taken part in similar practices after 9/11 and during recent Middle East wars. The army believes that, unpalatable though it is, this may be the only way to the truth.

‘If we simply ask them whether they used torture, they will say no. If we ask their prisoners if they were tortured, they will say yes,’ said Brigadier Sir John Smythe. ‘The best solution is to put both guards and prisoners in a big room, re-torture the lot of them and see if either side changes their story. The nightmare scenario is if the soldiers admit to torture and the enemy changes its tune and says they weren’t tortured after all. It’s a tortuous process, so to speak.’

Smythe told a briefing of foreign and military press that the whole thing has to remain secret. For that reason, he said, ‘we’ll arrange a big curtain between the soldiers and the enemy while the torture goes on, so neither side knows what’s happening, apart from the noise of the torture itself. Other than that, nobody else will know, and we will threaten to use these techniques on anyone who spills the beans.’

He continued: ‘In future we will require active forces to wear little cameras while they are torturing somebody, to see if they are actually torturing them or not. My money is on the cameras showing them not torturing them. I know the CIA said they didn’t torture anyone when it turns out they did. But our men are smarter than that. Way.’
The army has also vowed to ensure that future British torture methods are completely different to American methods and has ruled that only BSI Kite Mark-approved techniques be used. ‘The Americans might play Justin Bieber around the clock to prisoners, but we British have had a lot of success with repeat editions of Gardeners’ Question Time,’ said Brigadier Smythe. ‘Either way, they get the noise treatment, then they’re told their wives have been raped and their children killed. The resulting quality of our joint intelligence can be seen in the success of our campaigns since 9/11 and the peace bought to the region as a result.’

Torturers and torture victims to be tortured until they tell truth about torture | NewsBiscuit

[VocalNeal]

If torture doesn't work to glean information then why even take combatants prisoner? Sorry I rephrase that swarthy looking people acting like combatants who haven't run a way with all the sensible civilians

[pseudolus]

why even take combatants prisoner?

well because if they don't they have no one to torture to get fake confessions from which the politicians can make into huge big whopper lies to scare the shit out of the general public so they can get permission to kill the youth of their countries for profit for their rich friends.