MI6 Torture

Discussion in 'Current Affairs' started by Ja5on, Aug 10, 2009.

Welcome to the Navy Net aka Rum Ration

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial RN website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8188307.stm

    I think it's fair enough if it saves lives, I am sure they always have good grounds to suspect someone is plotting an attack before they torture them. Anyway we are nowhere near as bad as some of the countries around the world. I can't remember who it is but one country chops off your hands if you get caught stealing. Human rights is going too far over the top in my opinion.
  2. If torture is needed to prise info out of fanatics then so be it lifes a bitch !!
  3. Although i agree in principle lesbryan its a bugger for the poor twat who really trully is gen not ferkin giulty, :D maybe i am a little out of date here because when i hear of torture i imagine a good old fashion SS style beating,but if it means truth drugs and so on then yeh no probs,
  4. In my opinion, come on it's MI6. How else can the British public imagine their secret intelligence service besides being a bunch of well hard secret agents who all look like Daniel Craig, being led by Yorkshire's very own Judy Dench. If Bond can take the torture of being sat naked on a chair and having an iron ball on a long chain swung into his testicles, then I'm pretty sure it's only fair that HM government gives as good as it gets.
  5. MI6 is a necessary evil to keep us all safe, they are our guard dogs with big scary teeth and thats the way they should remain.
  6. It seems that 007 did.

    Anyway, Scarlett had better watch out. Shami Chuckabutty is on his case now!

  7. I see your point NZ, and agree, mostly, but don't think for a second that they are defending 'Democracy' - it can look after itself.

    What they ARE doing if protecting lives, not a lofty ideal.

    To be honest looking t our un-elected cabinet and cash for honours Lords i'm not sure we even live in a democracy anymore...
  8. Saw this term used somewhere a little while ago.. Elected Dictatorship
  9. I donr think the gestapo turtures even come into it all of them were against the convention (for what is worth )
  10. quote]

    Although i agree in principle lesbryan its a bugger for the poor twat who really trully is gen not ferkin giulty, :D maybe i am a little out of date here because when i hear of torture i imagine a good old fashion SS style beating,but if it means truth drugs and so on then yeh no probs,[/quote]

    They are probably made to watch Big Brother like the rest of us poor gits and if they are really bad then they have to watch Trinny and Suzanne 8O :lol:
  11. Torture is quite rightly considered to be a crime againsty an individual, but more importantly the information so gathered must always be considered suspect. All to often the subject will tell his interogator what the interogator needs to hear to stop the torture even if it is not the truth.

    Here in the UK we have seen far to many cases where 'robust' interrogation has resulted in false confessions to the plods
  12. Could you tell me why you are sure? Surely they had good evidence to arrest numerous suspects lately, would that have been enough evidence for you, no sorry they then let them go didn't "they".
    Back in 2007 this was well debated ; http://www.navy-net.co.uk/Forums/viewtopic/t=9788/postdays=0/postorder=asc/start=0.html. But again to the supporters of terrorism, oops Freudian slip, I meant torture, I ask these questions.

    Can you define what you consider torture is and therefore what you are asking to be done in our names?
    How can many members cite the right to free expression, etc fought for, etc, etc then in the next breath condem INNOCENT men and women to torture? Yes they may be related to Saddam, have traces of Anfo on their hands but they aren't guilty until they have been tried, unless you are advocating a different take on judicial procedure for terror suspects (would that include anyone arrested under anti-terror legislation?).
    The "ticking bomb" argument supposes that if "they" believe someone knows of an imminent attck that will cost lives then "they" (follow this now) can torture those British PWs in order to find out when the attack starts. Simply if we can legitimately torture to save lives then obviously we must accept that so can they (they being everyone we fight for the next 50 years).
    "If it was one of your family you'd feel different..." Of course but psychological pressure does that to people, whereas rational minds are supposed to reject such methods as unnacceptable, aren't they?.
    We would, naturally, select and train the most efficient sociopaths for this task. What would their retirement plan be :wink:
    Last times this was debated I was told I was merely trying to occupy the moral high ground, well better that , in my opinion, that ditching a thousand years of social development and linking us to every reppressive regime we've fought since WW2.

  13. Torture is ineffective despite the eedjits opinions. Just goes to show how morally bankrupt the UK has become when people on this thread attempt to defend the indefensible. We fought the Nazis without resorting to torture and yet now it is acceptable?

    Acceptable like the innocent young Afghan taxi-driver captured by the US Army and tortured for 5 days at Bagram? The autopsy states that he had been hung with his arms behind his back and his legs so badly beaten with steel bars that the bones and muscles in his legs had effectively pulpified.

    Acceptable like Abu Ghraib? Where the CIA are fighting to prevent thousands of photographs being released. Photographs that show the torture of women and kids. Photographs that shocked the US Congress and which even Rumsfled described as depraved.

    Acceptable like Abu Ghraib where even a captured Iraqi General was beaten to death during interrogation?

    The advocates of allowing torture will do well to remember this when British troops are captured [as they surely will be]. By condoning torture we leave our troops horribly exposed to it.

  14. I know that if i was being tortured or being given a jolly old rodgering i would tell the torturer or the scrout who was rodgering me exactly what he/she wanted to hear,ie jepp i planted the ferkin bomb,or jepp i am sorry i insulted your transgender way of life,

    so any info recieved whilst the use of torture is being used must be suspect,except in the case of truth drugs,
  15. My limited idea of torture is truth drugs and hard interrogation using mind tricks to reveal the truth. MI^ are not going to use torture lightly what I meant was that they would have pretty good grounds of suspicion before acting they don't just torture people for the fun of it. Although saying all this Bergan has raised some good points which has made me think about this more carefully.
  17. Echoing what has been said already really. But all the Human rights issues aside (Although I realise that is one of the most important issues in this discussion) Torture is not fit for purpose. If you are torturing people to supposedly gain information, when research etc has shown that the information is wholely unreliable, what is the point?

  18. Regrettably truth drugs do not seem that effective or I an sure our transatlantic cousins would be using them.

Share This Page