Originally Posted by senojekips

Yep,.. cut and run. Don't forget to take a drink of water for your guide dog.

Well lookie here - Class, sheer class!

Wrong again. Not cutting, not running. Please remember that I am ever-ready to return by invitation. Any time old chap, so be nice and just polish up your first serve a bit.

Originally Posted by LeEnfield

It's great to be holier than though on this subject, but if using torture can save a thousand lives if not more then so be it. Like all these bloody little conflicts there are no prisoners taken by the opposition and if you are unlucky enough to fall into their hands, your death is unlikely to be quick but quite the opposite. Many of those that oppose torture will often chage their minds if they found that it might have saved a life of one of their loved ones.

There's nothing holier than thou about it, just the suppression of ignorance. The main trouble being that we were party to the Geneva convention and helped frame these rules. When we break the rules it makes things like the Geneva convention rather pointless, other than the fact that it turns the remainder of the civilised world against us, as the irony of this is not lost on them, something we cannot afford in any conflict. We have in fact left our selves wide open to judgement for War Crimes. Seeing that the crime has already been admitted to we wouldn't have a leg to stand on.

Always remember what happened to other people who thought that the committing of War Crimes would help them win their wars. The very fact that we are resorting to this medieval practice just lets our enemies (and others) that we are feeling frustrated and are not performing as well as we thought we might.

It has also already been admitted that "The ticking time bomb Scenario" just does not happen in real life and in all probability will remain the province of B Grade movies. Also fact that torture is largely ineffective has been amply demonstrated relatively recently by Malcolm Nance an ex US interrogator before a House Committee investigation. I won't provide a source as it's common knowledge and live footage is on Youtube and a dozen other sites.

Torture is the weapon of choice of those who are frustrated and have no where else to go, so they can at least vent their frustration. It's supporters realise that it is largely as a veangance thing rather than a truly viable technique to gain information.

"Even I can make a cat sing The Star Spangled Banner, given a little time and the access to torture". In short, torture only tells you what you wish to hear, not necessarily the truth.

I for one do not support the use of physical torture in the old previously recognised forms, but I have to say that my understanding is that we are in a completely different kind of struggle against a completely different foe who do not play by any rules, and wage war on civilians, widely and as a deliberate policy, to terrorise, and as such are not covered by The Geneva Convention.

Furthermore, the USA conform to certain rules to which they adhere about what they consider acceptable and what they don't. Have there been any known deaths through torture in Gitmo? The guys who came back here from Gitmo did not speak of terrible horrors. I am prepared to give USA the nod in their efforts at Gitmo. I trust them more than I trust their foes. I know which side I am on.

And certainly a great many lives have been saved here by information provided by USA , from some source or another.

Against physical torture, in its worst forms,yes, - but continually against USA and Geo W. etc. as the big bad guys - a resounding no.

Ahh,... back from fishing already. An excellent moral and logical stand you take there Delboy, just about what I would have expected. So,...torture is only torture if it kills you eh?? That's odd, because I was always of the impression that, this was covered by the term "Murder". Such as in these cases, which seem to shoot down your rose coloured view that no one has died as a result of torture.

Over one hundred prisoners have died in suspicious circumstances in U.S. custody during the "war on terror". Taxi to the Dark Side takes an in-depth look at one case: an Afghan taxi driver called Dilawar who was considered an honest and kind man by the people of his rustic village. So when he was detained by the U.S military one afternoon, after picking up three passengers, denizens wondered why this man was randomly chosen to be held in prison, and, especially, without trial?

The US medical officer stated in his Post Mortem report that the dead mans legs had been "pulpified" (there was no other words to describe it) by sustained beating, and that if he would have lived, he would have lost both legs at the hip.

It was later admitted that the man was innocent.

"Four days before, on the eve of the Muslim holiday of Id al-Fitr, Mr. Dilawar set out from his tiny village of Yakubi in a prized new possession, a used Toyota sedan that his family bought for him a few weeks earlier to drive as a taxi. "On the day that he disappeared, Mr. Dilawar's mother had asked him to gather his three sisters from their nearby villages and bring them home for the holiday. However, he needed gas money and decided instead to drive to the provincial capital, Khost, about 45 minutes away, to look for fares. "At a taxi stand there, he found three men headed back toward Yakubi. On the way, they passed a base used by American troops, Camp Salerno, which had been the target of a rocket attack that morning. "Militiamen loyal to the guerrilla commander guarding the base, Jan Baz Khan, stopped the Toyota at a checkpoint. They confiscated a broken walkie-talkie from one of Mr. Dilawar's passengers. In the trunk, they found an electric stabilizer used to regulate current from a generator. (Mr. Dilawar's family said the stabilizer was not theirs; at the time, they said, they had no electricity at all.) "The four men were detained and turned over to American soldiers at the base as suspects in the attack. Mr. Dilawar and his passengers spent their first night there handcuffed to a fence, so they would be unable to sleep. When a doctor examined them the next morning, he said later, he found Mr. Dilawar tired and suffering from headaches but otherwise fine. "In February, an American military official disclosed that the Afghan guerrilla commander whose men had arrested Mr. Dilawar and his passengers had himself been detained. The commander, Jan Baz Khan, was suspected of attacking Camp Salerno himself and then turning over innocent "suspects" to the Americans in a ploy to win their trust, the military official said. "The three passengers in Mr. Dilawar's taxi were sent home from Guantánamo in March 2004, 15 months after their capture, with letters saying they posed "no threat" to American forces."

Five days after his arrest Dilawar died in his Bagram prison cell. His death came within a week of another death of a detainee at Bagram. The conclusion, with autopsy evidence, was that the former taxi driver and the detainee who passed away before him, had died due to sustained injuries inflicted at the prison by U.S. soldiers.

How many lives do you think this little episode saved Delboy?

Incidentally,... water boarding was used by the Chinese 2,600 years ago, and certainly falls well within the boundaries of torture "in the old and recognised forms", about the only "new" torture that has been implemented since that time is the use of the electric probe, so I guess you're really in favour of that. I feel that being beaten to death also falls well within the boundaries of torture "in the old and recognised forms"
It seems that our foes have never played by the "rules" but that in no way excuses us from remaining civilised. We are supposed to be "The Good guys" remember.

Your definitions of "torture" are of absolutely no consequence, as as is your "nod" in approving the actions of the torturers. I believe that Heinrich Himmler gave his "nod" to the death camps, but it in no way exonerated him from blame nor made it right. Your trust does not even enter into consideration in the eyes of the "civilised" world.

The Definition(s) of Torture in International Law. (Oxford University Press), pp.467-493

1. For the purpose of this Declaration, torture means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted by or at the instigation of a public official on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or confession, punishing him for an act he has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating him or other persons. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions to the extent consistent with the Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners.
2. Torture constitutes an aggravated and deliberate form of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

I'll make one guarantee. If you were subjected even to the mildest forms of these acts, you would have a sudden and very permanent reversal of attitude regarding the use of torture. Yep,...I'm alright Jack, I'm on the winning side ,... it won't be of concern to me.

(Added much later after carefully re-reading the thread.)

Oh!,.. and just in case you didn't realise Delboy, the title of this thread is a "statement" not a question, so the damage has already been done and recognised, and as such, is hardly a subject for debate by the "morally challenged".

I think that you'd be far better off if you went back fishing.

Yes, I support the war and the aims of the Coalition, I merely have issues with some of the methods being used to attain them.

Originally Posted by Del Boy

I for one do not support the use of physical torture in the old previously recognised forms,

What exactly does this mean?
You do support torture as long as it is in a new and unrecognised format?

It seems to me that you find torture acceptable as long as we "the good guys" are using it but immoral and barbaric when the "bad guys" do it and what amuses me more is that the hypocracy of this stance doesn't dawn on you.

Originally Posted by senojekips

Ahh,... back from fishing already.

Ah - you noticed. Yes, fish were not biting. I took a peek and decided there were bigger fish to fry here.

Originally Posted by senojekips

An excellent moral and logical stand you take there Delboy, just about what I would have expected.

Yeah - not bad, even tho' I say so myself.

Originally Posted by senojekips

So,...torture is only torture if it kills you eh??

No - not at all. Your words not mine.You draw a very incorrect conclusion, without so much as a 'by your leave'.

Originally Posted by senojekips

That's odd, because I was always of the impression that, this was covered by the term "Murder".

Yes and I have exactly the same impression myself. We are in agreement.

Originally Posted by senojekips

How many lives do you think this little episode saved Delboy?

Well, who knows - maybe the three guys who came to no harm and were released from Gitmo proved helpful .

Originally Posted by senojekips

Incidentally,... water boarding was used by the Chinese 2,600 years ago, and certainly falls well within the boundaries of torture "in the old and recognised forms"

I like to keep an open mind, as you know.

Originally Posted by senojekips

I feel that being beaten to death also falls well within the boundaries of torture "in the old and recognised forms"

Absolutely - we are in agreement yet again.

Originally Posted by senojekips

It seems that our foes have never played by the "rules" but that in no way excuses us from remaining civilised. We are supposed to be "The Good guys" remember.

I believe that your first premise is incorrect as far as warfare is concerned. I believe also that we try to remain civilised and to be the good guys. However , when fighting for the survival of the civilised world it can become very difficult from time to time to maintain everything in bright shining white condition, when your foes are such dedicated murderous
fanatics operating under no rules whatsoever except Kill Americans Everywhere.

Originally Posted by senojekips

Your definitions of "torture" are of absolutely no consequence, as as is your "nod" in approving the actions of the torturers.

I haven't yet specified my definition of torture, are you confusing me with some other guy?

My 'nod' does not extend to approving torture, but in having the confidence to in USA at Gitmo to attempt to walk the straight and narrow, and to believe their account rather than that of their adverseries. Got it now?

Originally Posted by senojekips

I believe that Heinrich Himmler gave his "nod" to the death camps, but it in no way exonerated him from blame nor made it right.

Absolutely. Another agreement there. We are doing well.

Originally Posted by senojekips

I'll make one guarantee. If you were subjected even to the mildest forms of these acts, you would have a sudden and very permanent reversal of attitude regarding the use of torture.

That puts you and I in the same boat then - because a REVERSAL of my attitude would place me FOR torture, when the opposite is true. Also - if even the mildest form led to saving you and yours, your attitude might well change. But of course you are safe and comfortable.

Originally Posted by senojekips

I think that you'd be far better off if you went back fishing.

I heartily agree - not much to get my teeth into here.

Now then - rference your examples, if the first is true and that poor guy suffered that terrible fate at the hands of USA soldiers (IF) -then I am very much against- shocking - got it?

On the other hand- the three companions were taken in, tucked up in Gitmo for a period, while being investigated, and then returned home safely. In a war situation, this seems acceptable to me, and rather defeats your argument. WW11, our local Italians and Jewish Germans were tucked away for 5 years or more.

** You will note that out of respect for you I have completely ignored your little stash of personal insults etc.

Originally Posted by senojekips

Yes, I support the war and the aims of the Coalition, I merely have issues with some of the methods being used to attain them.

Yes and I am very glad to hear it, you are a good man and put a strong case.


***
MontyB - almost missed you there, thought for a minute it was a parrot on Seno's shoulder!

Right then, if you can't fathom it out for yourself then don't worry about it. Thanks, but we've moved on. Fancy a spot of fishin'; I'm just off again.

So,.. you agree with me, on most of your previous statements. I'm pleased to see that, you may be learning, but I'm not holding my breath.

"What say ye Polly, d'ye think ol' Delboy is larnin', or is he just lyin' to ol' Cap'n Spike to haul his ugly butt out o' the cack".

"Arrrwwkk, Out o' th' Cack, Cack, Cack. Make ee' walk th' plank Cap'n,.... Arrrwwkk"!

Nono Cap'n. No problems with bum - your teeth must be sunk in a different bum. Slightly off target there. I see no ships but I ALWAYS defend my rear. Even at the risk of being keel-hauled.

However, I must say that we have closed a gap, simply because I have managed to point out to you that in fact you agree with me on many points. But I had to lay them out before you very carefully in order to get you to listen to my words and not your own delightful interpretations and translations. You have a penchant for putting your own words into other peoples' mouths, you rascal.

However, can overlook that, being such a magnaminous sort of guy, because, as Patten tells us, 'If a man does his best, what else is there.'

I hereby confirm that I am delighted to know that you are, in fact, with the coalition at this time. Why didn't you say that in the first place, and saved yourself a good kicking?

OK. having fished successfully through the night, I am just off to scougie the bulkheads Cap'n. Which is no easy matter with a cutlass between your teeth. As they say in the tropics "Dell Boy never speaks with forked tongue", even if he does like to see two sides of the argument.

Ahh, I knew it would happen, you haven't learned a thing. You ran off, (remember FINITO BENITO), re considered your poor standing and came back agreeing with me. You'll notice it was you who stated

Yes and I have exactly the same impression myself. We are in agreement.

You see, you have left a written record of your agreement with my statement. So it is not "We" as I never agreed with a single thing you've said. I didn't then and don't now, because I believe that you have only "changed your coat to suit the weather".

Never the less it surprises me that you would give in so easily when only confronted with something so simple as facts. That's not like you at all.

In case you've forgotten already,... I'm the one stating that the coalition is making a mess of things, you are the one who says such things as, "What's good for America is good for the world"... "Snort" and that Camp delta has your "nod",... and of course, how could I forget "The guys who came back here from Gitmo did not speak of terrible horrors."

Dergoul, 26, was released at the same time as four other Britons in March, but was too traumatised by his experiences to tell his story until now. While it is shocking, it is also credible: his description of his interrogations and the 'ERF' squad's violent reprisals closely matches that from other released prisoners, including his fellow Britons, while possibly his most important claim, that the ERF was always filmed, has been confirmed by the US military
And guess what, they are refusing to release the videos, I guess they'll get lost or accidentally destroyed??

No,... there is no way that I agree with anything you say on this matter.

I can just see the judges at the war Crimes tribunal, when some poor defendant says, "No, honestly, it''s OK , it has Delboys "nod", along with torture other than, "the use of physical torture in the old previously recognised forms". Hoho.

You're getting a really nice routine going here DB, "open mouth,.... one foot out, other foot in". Don't bother trying, there's no second prizes

Originally Posted by senojekips

Ahh, I knew it would happen, you haven't learned a thing. You ran off, (remember FINITO BENITO), re considered your poor standing and came back agreeing with me.

Don't be so ridiculous. I Finitoed at a stage where I was most comfortable and was merely putting my part in the argument to bed, by not continuing to pick the bones out each others' posts.

However when Le's post appeared and you came again, I came back still in contention with you and pointing out where. No change in my case there.

And AFTER THAT I made a very full and detailed rebuttal of your next post and explained why , post 36. Why should you assume I could learn anything from you? Please.

Originally Posted by senijekips

You'll notice it was you who stated You see, you have left a written record of your agreement with my statement. So it is not "We" as I never agreed with a single thing you've said. I didn't then and don't now, because I believe that you have only "changed your coat to suit the weather".

Nonsense again. I never SOUGHT your agreement, I spelt out where it existed, no coat-changing whatsoever. See post 36. In pointing out that we were in agreement, I was NOT changing my opinion, but that our views on those particular points happenned to be same. On those you had been wrong in assuming that we were opposed. Read my posts. Our views just happened to be the same. No-one was changing position there, it was not necessary. As I pointed out, you are once again trying to put your words into my mouth. Where you see 'I agree with you' understand that I am politely trying to demonstrate that the opinion you happen to hold there is the opinion that happens to be mine. I was simply correcting your take on those points, not changing position.
Obviously I should have taken a bigger stick to make the point, I over-estimated your comprehension. I won't do it again.
Definitely no coat-changing there, and the weather doesn't bother me.

Originally Posted by senojekips

Never the less it surprises me that you would give in so easily when only confronted with something so simple as facts. That's not like you at all.

Well, if ever I 'give in' I will understand this comment - it hasn't happened yet! Post 36 is not capitulation, it is a repudiation of your claims, framed politely.
I had already gone through a full list of the details of your post, my post 36. pointing out the incorrectness of each, either because our views were not in opposition, as you were assuming or because I had something else to say in repudiation.

In all this list, I did not find it necessary to back-pedal at all. On some points we happenned to agree whether you like it or not.
However, at the end, feeling you had put such an effort into putting your case, I simply offered an honest olive branch, in an effort to take any personal animosity out of the situation.

No back-peddling involved there. But I see what a mistake it was to offer a genuine hand. I will not make that mistake again.

Originally Posted by senojekips

In case you've forgotten already,... I'm the one stating that the coalition is making a mess of things.

I forget nothing - and I am the one in support of the USA anti-terrorist efforts, I am more prepared to accept the line as laid by the USA rather than the complaints of their 'victims', at this stage of affairs.

On the other hand, you would have the Americans fight with their hands tied behind their backs.

Originally Posted by senojekips

No,... there is no way that I agree with anything you say on this matter.

Not true - post 36 shows precisely where we are in agreement and where we are not, and is there for all to see. I have made it clear there, not a question of your choice, just a statement of where my opinion matches your own, and has done so from the start, not in response to changed attitudes.

Originally Posted by senojekips

I can just see the judges at the war Crimes tribunal, when some poor defendant says, "No, honestly, it''s OK , it has Delboys "nod", along with torture other than, "the use of physical torture in the old previously recognised forms". Hoho.

More nonsensical tosh from the great man! I am sorry to have to be the one to tell, old chap, that that just ain't going to happen. But of course, yours is the only opinion which counts as your signature indicates.
BTW - have you never heard of the rack, drawing and quartering, the Inquisition practices, the Iron Maiden, the middle-eastern practice of hot-ironing people etc.etc.etc. - perhaps you and your friends cannot see the gap between those and the Coalition behaviour.

And furthermore - The Gitmo regime as being based on revenge. INFORMATION is the quest, and keeping dangerous murderers off the streets is another, until they have been measured. And yes - I do already know that you consider such information useless, but nevertheless.

Originally Posted by senojekips

You're getting a really nice routine going here DB, "open mouth,.... one foot out, other foot in". Don't bother trying, there's no second prizes

You are singing from the wrong hymn-sheet there, the lyrics are ... "'written word, on record, both feet in, take no b/s from inflated egos,
do not change course or give way to stone-throwing or personal abuse, and never seek prizes, stay above such low ideals." Good song.
You will find it on post 36, in detail, confirmed in my later friendly posts, where I honestly sought to heal any personal hurt I had inflicted inadvertantly.

As I have said so many times, with some folk, any compassion is interpreted as weakness.

Well ,thing again, Sir, I offered you my hand only through PITY, believe it or not.

I will never trust you with my hand again, you obviously have confused me with some other guy who doesn't give a s*** for honour.


Now , all that is yesterday's news - back on topic.

I stand on my position and have done so throughout. And now I'm off, unless dragged back in. gone fishin.