According to a report by the Council of Europe, Poland and Romania allowed the CIA to run "secret prisons" for terrorist suspects. Practice at the prisons included "shackling and handcuffing inmates, keeping some naked for weeks and reducing contact with the outer world to masked and silent guards".
What sort of world do we live in where terrorist suspects are put in shackles in handcuffs? How demeaning is that? It's outrageous? Even more so, what is the world coming to where someone is forced with the metal anguish of "not being talked too"?
Something should be done shouldn't it? I mean this terrorists shouldn't be treated in such inhumane ways should they? Handcuffs are clearly a massive abuse of their human rights. It's shocking that anyone should do such a thing!!
Note: The post was brought to you by the International Sarcasm Network.
39 comments:
"shackling and handcuffing inmates, keeping some naked for weeks and reducing contact with the outer world to masked and silent guards"
If it was B’Liar that was the prisoner I would say that they were being too lenient on him.
However, el Gordo would think he was in paradise.
Shackling them terrible, so much worse than shooting them
Doesn't it rather depend on whether the "terrorists" were convicted criminals or not?
Once again Dizzy Thinks doesn't think before opening his big mouth. Have you not heard of due process? When the forces of law and order break the law then there is no difference between good and evil. Suspected terrorists were subjected to kidnap, false arrest and false imprisonment and subjected to torture. Begging your pardon, but does this not make George Bush and the CIA terrorists?
Fuck off you humourless cunt.
My bad
He may be humourless, but he has a point. Do we stand for liberty (freedom), or do we just pay lip service to it to get votes. Surely liberty includes due process. Else we are no better than those hidden-agenda socialists. I'd rather live in a world were there is a tiny chance of being blown up in a train, than have a government that feels it is free to disregard the laws to achieve an end. Remember, last big fuck up was a brazilian, next time it could be you.
Actually I don't think he does for a few reasons. Firstly, I was evidently being sarcastic as the post said. Secondly, seems to be based on the assumption that "due process" is some sort of immutable philosophical principle, which it's not, and what's more he seems to think that it should be applied cross border between states.
His point may hold relevance for domestic affairs, but they don't in international affairs. The whole "BUsh terrorist" line is tedious and boring too because it's based on making bizarre moral equivalences.
Plus he really is a humourless cunt.
"Plus he really is a humourless cunt."
Yes, but you can't be jailed for that. Murder, on the other hand..... ;)
This is true, although in fairness to him, if it is indeed possible, he was convicted of manslaughter. Whether one accepts that judgement as being correct is of course down to personal choice. A conviction in law is after all not closure based on truth but closure based on who put forward the most convincing argument in front of 12 people.
Therefore if one wishes to throw that back at him it is more accurate to call him an "axe killer" rather than an "axe murderer" as he did kill someone with an axe. Motivation for that act is one which remains firmly known between two people, one dead and the other not.
Perhaps, you will also find this amusing aswell:
http://prisonersvoice.blogspot.com/2007/06/us-used-psychologists-in-torture-of.html
Hahahah actually you know what, I do.
What I find most amusing is that a man who said "I enjoy mind games. I'm a master at it" would then argue that mind games were torture in the next breath.
You've got to admit, it's funny on multiple levels. First the rank hypocrisy is delicious. Second, the display of intellectual vacuousness is even funnier given your self-rpclaimed virtual genius.
You should do stand up John.
LOL.
"Lizzie Borden took an axe
And gave her mother 40 whacks.
When she saw what she had done,
She gave her father 41."
John Hirst, shut up.
Dizzy is right about equivalency between states. There isn't any. Terrorists operate on a different set of rules from civilised Judeo-Christian based jurisprudence. And while not being able to speak to another human for a few weeks may be uncomfortable and disturbing, it is not as disturbing as, say, kidnapping an innocent person, taunting him or her with beheading for three or four weeks, then beheading them, not forgetting to make a video of it for your future viewing enjoyment while you spoon up a tub of Haagen-Daz.
No, I don't think mild psychological pressure to encourage terrorists to spill what they know is too much to protect our civilisation.
they are only suspected of being terrorists.
Perhaps, you would like to undergo some of this so-called "mild psychological pressure" which is in reality not only severe psychological but also physical torture.
Like Dizzy, you don't think you only gob off...
verity: few of the prisoners have been convicted of "kidnapping an innocent person, taunting him or her with beheading for three or four weeks". In fact, few of them have been convicted of anything. Nor will they be, even in those excuses-for-courts, the military tribunals.
So why do child rapists deserve better standard of care than someone who is possibly only in the wrong place at the wrong time (osama's driver)? If the american's want us (NZ or UK) to send an "ordinary" murder suspect to them for trial, they have to go through extradition proceedings. Why not with so-called terror suspects?
I like the phrase: "bizarre moral equivalences". With no equivalences it becomes acceptable to blow up an entire building full of people because you believe Sadam H was inside. Turned out he wasn't, but that's okay, all those lives weren't Americans.
If a UK or US prison kept prisoners shackled or naked for weeks on end, there would be (some!) outrage.
For fucks sake, if UK prisoners can have access to laptops, surely prisoners in these "terror" prisons can have acceess to clothes...
ANd verity, they are "terror suspects" not terrorists. Where's your sense of Liberty and Justice?
flash, are you one of these people who believes that war should be free of civilian casualities?
Not at all. I just believe that the invasion of Iraq was dumb. Fucking dumb. The dumbest thing that Blair has done. Even the dumbest thing that Bush jnr has done.
Aside from the fact that it is a stupid waste of money to (pick your reason below) is the certainty that death and destruction would ensue.
Reasons to invade (you have to pick your own as no one is sure what Bush & Co had in mind
a) Liberate Iraq (how the fuck is it our business? Would we seriously consider "liberating" China, where they [allegedly] kill prisoners for spare parts, threaten Taiwan, suppress minorities in the minority’s own region/former country, engage in counterfeiting like it’s a national sport, etc, etc)
b) Steal their oil
c) Go after WMD when told by those in the know there appears to be none
d) Get even for dear old Pa (Bush Snr)
e) Destabilise the Middle East to such an extent that Armageddon would ensue, to the delight of “Christian” evangelists.
I don't want my government wasting money on bludgers, fact finding missions and unnecessary quangos, why the fuck would I want them to pour money into the bottomless pit called WAR?
Oh, yes, the Americans are our friends and we need to stick with them.
I recycle my response to a comment about sticking with our friends, standing together, being united, etc:
"I have a good friend. I would not help him kick in the head of someone who looked at him a bit queer. In fact, as good friend, I would try to prevent him doing something so stupid, the bad consequences of which far outweigh the satisfaction derived from the endeavour."
http://hatfieldgirl.blogspot.com/2007/05/just-looking.html
My point is that we (although I no longer live “here” in the UK) should have been trying to persuade Bush not to invade. Somewhere between appeasement (North Korea) and invasion (Afghanistan, Iraq) lies an inexpensive solution that is not war. Or maybe there is no real “solution”: maybe at all points in history there are countries that go through a period of being basket cases. Certainly the invasion has not helped Iraq become less of one.
Maybe when it comes time to “deal” with Iran, Bush (or his successor) will have learn that might is not right.
I’ve been accused of being an appeaser by suggesting that we (the west) don’t invade Iraq. Well, if not invading a country is appeasement, then our governments are appeasing a lot of fucked up regimes and countries.
With apologies for spelling and swearing.
a) Liberate Iraq (how the fuck is it our business? Would we seriously consider "liberating" China, where they [allegedly] kill prisoners for spare parts, threaten Taiwan, suppress minorities in the minoritys own region/former country, engage in counterfeiting like its a national sport, etc, etc)
Simply answer is why isn't it our business? And yes, if we could liberate China then why not? Of course they have nukes, that's the big difference there. And before you mention WMD not being found, I never supported the war on that basis anyway. There were good strategic and global interests to starting a fight in Iraq.
b) Steal their oil
We havn't stolen their oil. Not sure if you've noticed but the price has gone up. If we'd stolen it then the price would've come down. Also I love this way that "war for oil" is used as a reason not to act militarily. Why do you think we acted in Kuwait under Bush Sr? You think it was really all about our disgust at naked territorial expansion? That was just the excuse for what was, quite rightly, our strategic interests in oil supply. Now I;m not saying that because I think it's wrong, I'm saying that because I think it's right.
c) Go after WMD when told by those in the know there appears to be none
The WMD arguemnt was never something I bought and was merely a trading horse argument to sop the British Left with a "threat" and to play the game at the UN in the bizarre hope that it would actually have some balls.
d) Get even for dear old Pa (Bush Snr)
What's wrong with that? The Gulf War was never completed properly. We should've gone to Baghdad in 1991.
e) Destabilise the Middle East to such an extent that Armageddon would ensue, to the delight of Christian evangelists.
Armageddon has not ensued, and the Middle East remains the desert with lots of oil and loony violence that it always has been. On the plus side the concentration of Islamist medievalist appears to be directed there rather than on Western based civilian targets.
And before you say it, yes I am a harsh bastard realist. I also don't think it wrong to take out dictators when we can, esepecially if they pose a threat to our strategic interests. Feel free to call me an amoral scumbag on this.
One hundred per cent with Dizzy on this.
But first,Flash Gordon (can't be bothered to copy the cutesy spelling) writes: "if UK prisoners can have access to laptops, surely prisoners in these "terror" prisons can have acceess to clothes..."
UK prisoners should not have access to laptops. Nor should they have access to television. They're supposed to be being punished.
I am with Dizzy in that I never supported the WMD reason for the war. There were, as Dizzy said, global and strategic reasons for fighting in Iraq, and those reasons are ongoing, which is why we should not be leaving. We should be in this for the long haul.
I also agree George Herbert Walker Bush should have finished the job in Operation Desert Storm. I found it perplexing that he wound it down.
"global and strategic reasons for fighting in Iraq"?
So that makes it alright?
"I also don't think it wrong to take out dictators when we can"
In the process destroying a whole country. So the guy is gone, but the cost (and I'm not just talking about western tax dollars, I'm talking about the lives of people that were oppressed under Saddam Al Nutjob, which have been simply lost under Bush McNutjob and Blair Lapdog.
"Bush should have finished the job" Amen, but he didn't and the opportunity was lost. Lesson learned I hope.
Instead of using taxpayers money to start wars in order to protect the interests of "our" oil companies, why don't we just give the money direct to the companies? Higher share prices for them and me (a shareholder) but no deaths. I for one would sleep a lot sounder at night.
I enjoy reading your blog, Dizzy, because you are good at highlighting the antics of the looney left. But in attacking Iraq, the NuLab we all despise have partnered with the looney right (inspired by evengelists?), and you (and verity and newmania) seem to have no problem with this. SO the naughty nanny state must never dare nanny the citizenry but can feel free to interfer in the lives of people in other countries, kill them even...
Ha ha ha ... or are you conflating SUSPECTS and CONVICTS? Internment with all internees tortured is what is being described.
Flash Gordon - You clearly don't understand what we are going in Iraq. Do try to think outside the circle.
How much do you know about the ME?
How much do you know about islam?
And Flash Gordon, I'd be interested in what authors you read on the ME. I'd like to know what has informed your ignorance, if that's not a oxymoron.
Your'e an amoral scumbag on this. The people of Iraq, most of whom are not terrorists or even trouble makers, had a hard enough time unedr Saddam but their life is much worse now. With the exception of expatriate troublemakers like Chalabi, there were no Iraqis asking for their country to be invaded. Sure they would all like to have seen the end of Saddam Hussein, but for whatever reason (probably for fear of something worse given the state of the countries around them) they chose not to do anything about it.
As for Iraq posing a threat to this country, there were self evidently many greater threats and the military resources of this country would have been put to better use in Afghanistan rather than helping the strategic ambitions of Perle, Wolfowitz, Cheney and the rest of the Likud party members in the US government.
Indeed I am Mark, but then foreign policy has never really been about morality and ethics has it?
Of course, it is easy, as an arm chair analyst to make glib reference whcih contain jaded anti-american, anti-israeli insinuation. But when you're really there, when you're really in the situation of PM and you have to decide what to do, it comes down to realism and interests.
Blair's analysis, in a rare moment where he was correct, was very clear and simple, as he and officials detailed to Peter Stothard.
1: Saddam Hussein's past aggression, present support for terrorism and future ambitions made him a clear threat to his enemies. He was not the only threat, but he was a threat nevertheless.
2: The US and Britain were among his enemies.
3: The people of the US, still angered by the September 11 attacks, still sensing unfinished business from the first Gulf war 12 years before, would support a war on Iraq.
4: Gulf war 2 - President George W Bush v Saddam Hussein - would happen whatever anyone else said or did.
5: The people of Britain, continental Europe and most of the rest of the world would not even begin to support a war unless they had a say in it through the UN.
6: It would be more damaging to long term world peace and security if the Americans alone defeated Saddam Hussein than if they had international support to do so.
THere was nothing lapdog about supporting the Iraq war, it was a cold and realistic case that considered the reality that Iraq was an enemy, the yanks were going to do it anyway, and the precedent of them doing it absolutely alone would be far worse than if they had an international coalition.
Sometime in politics you have to make hard choices. Blair made the right one.
Sure, you bought those arguments.
I didn't buy them at all. I actually came to the same conclusion long before the war started.
I do notice that you have not disputed their consequential logic.
"war should be free of civilian casualities"
Yes actually it should. OK we know it won't but it *should*.
"There were good strategic and global interests to starting a fight in Iraq."
And better ones for not doing so:
Oil is much more expensive now.
Iran, Russia and Venezuela have made a *lot* of money and trouble because of this.
Al Qaeda actually wanted us to invade Iraq and want us to go to war with Iran! Why are we doing their bidding? Al-Qaeda have stated that their goal is to bleed the US by provoking them into a series of unwinnable wars.
China - while we're busy bungling in the middle-east they are making serious inroads in Africa.
"the greatest strategic disaster in American history" according to this guy. Pretty strong words - more than just "I think we made a mistake here".
Sorry but I just don't the benefits for us.
dizzy said:
"I do notice that you have not disputed their consequential logic."
Sorry, I had to go to bed: we're 12 hours ahead here.
1. He was little direct threat to US. Only to cheap supplies of oil for the west.
2. Sure, but so is Russia, when will we invade them? And the French piss people off from time to time, too, no?
3. What a fucking dumb reason to go to war. All the main sources of trouble are in Afghanistan and even "friendly" Pakistan. But that’s ok, a war is cathartic, and the folks demand blood, so pick a country and let’s move ‘em out. “Unfinished business” sorry, he hadn’t stepped out of his country in a meaningful way since that last war. Nasty countries in far off places are having border disputes all the time and sending bullets, shells even soldiers across from time to time. Should we get involved every time?
4. Sure, but why should my hard earned tax dollars get involved (I was still a UK resident at the time)? (Fictitious): my cousin is eventually going to crack and slap his lippy wife. Should I try to prevent this (after all there are consequences for both the wife AND my cousin) or should I help slap her around a bit because she gets on my nerves as well?
5. Sorry I’m not even sure what this point of yours means. Few countries supported the war and the wishes of the UN were overridden by Sherriff bush. He has (I believe this, rather than know it as a fact, because I haven’t had an opportunity to ask him) a need to marginalise the UN and its processes because they don’t give him and his mates what they want. Sure, as an organisation there are some fucked up countries who get to put their penny’s worth in, but that does not give the US (and UK, Italy et al) the right to take the law into their own hands. If a citizen of the UK took the law into their own hands, we won’t be too impressed (although I bet I could be wrong there).
6. This point is, err, pointless. Now, because other countries were sucked into it, the loony terrorists can choose more targets. This smacks of deliberate policy to spread the risk around a bit rather than have just Uncle Sam as a target.
Sorry, I think every other country that got involved either had a nutter as a leader, or were marks in a great con pulled by the bush administration:
1. They didn’t want others to be able to turn round and say “told you so” when it turned to custard. And let’s face it, loads of people (admittedly some flakes) predicted a disaster.
2. They wanted to create numerous targets in the west for when it comes time for the terrorists to retaliate (and they are likely to)
3. They wanted to increase legitimacy by having everyone on board, so that if there were (are?) legal challenges either from within or without, they could point to the support and say “All these people can’t be wrong” Like RT HON LORD GOLDSMITH QC. Wow.
I guess we have to agree to disagree on this war, Dizzy!
(PS i zpellt checked this in word, and for RT it was suggested that Rat might be the correct spelling. LOL)
He was little direct threat to US. Only to cheap supplies of oil for the west.
I didn't say he was a direct threat. I said he was a threat. They are two different things.
Sure, but so is Russia, when will we invade them? And the French piss people off from time to time, too, no?
The second point is a direct logical step from the first. He was a threat. We we're his enemies. Other countries are superfluous to the logic.
What a fucking dumb reason to go to war. All the main sources of trouble are in Afghanistan and even "friendly" Pakistan. But that’s ok, a war is cathartic, and the folks demand blood, so pick a country and let’s move ‘em out. “Unfinished business” sorry, he hadn’t stepped out of his country in a meaningful way since that last war. Nasty countries in far off places are having border disputes all the time and sending bullets, shells even soldiers across from time to time. Should we get involved every time?
I did not say it was a good reason to go to war. It was a statement of reality at the time. America was in a state that meant it would support war - right or wrong - and any British policy needed to take that into account when it was formulated.
Sure, but why should my hard earned tax dollars get involved (I was still a UK resident at the time)? (Fictitious): my cousin is eventually going to crack and slap his lippy wife. Should I try to prevent this (after all there are consequences for both the wife AND my cousin) or should I help slap her around a bit because she gets on my nerves as well?
So you accept the reality but think it was wrong. Fine. It remained the reality at the time and any British policy needed to take that into account when it was formulated.
Sorry I’m not even sure what this point of yours means. Few countries supported the war and the wishes of the UN were overridden by Sherriff bush.
The point here relates to British policy of trying to use the UN until the last hour in order to create maximum support. Also, just for a point of clarity, the wishes of the UN were not overridden. There was no reoslution that said "you cannot do this". Plus, as another point of fact, the UN has no sovereignty over the foreign policy of its constiuent parts. But I digress, the point here related - specifcally - to British policy and the need to try and get the UN to agree on a course of action that was already set in stone by the White House anyway.
This point is, err, pointless. Now, because other countries were sucked into it, the loony terrorists can choose more targets. This smacks of deliberate policy to spread the risk around a bit rather than have just Uncle Sam as a target.
Actually it is not irrelevant at all. The precedent that would have been set had America acted alone would have been far worse than that which transpired, and any British policy needed to take that into account when it was formulated.
Using hindsight to make judgement on the rightness or wrongess of such actions is flawed because they can, and should, only be understood in the reality under which they are made. The argument for Britain support the USA were logically consistent and logically sound. The was was going to happen anyway whether we were there or not. In light of our own strategic interests it is inconceivable to think that we wouldn't be there.
It is frightfully easy to act all moral after the fact though.
ACtually, I (and many others, including those on the right and left) used foresight to predict desaster. Okay, not the nitty gritty detail, but that there would be "consequencses".
"The precedent that would have been set had America acted alone would have been far worse than that which transpired" Precedents are overturned and overruled all the time, especially if found, by better heads, to be "wrong".
See, I think your point 3 "The people of the US, still angered by the September 11 attacks, still sensing unfinished business from the first Gulf war 12 years before, would support a war on Iraq." This reads of a power crazed maniac relying on the knee-jerk anger of a moronic public. With apologies to Americans...
How come few in the UK bleat on about the right to bear arms and shoot trespassers (and string up non-pink persons) and yet so many in the US do? Because their brains are (effectively) wired differently than those of Europeans. This wiring occurred due to a slightly different history. You only have to look at religious fundamentalism in the US (versus the Marxists in Europe) to see how differently people think. People in the UK were not against the war because they were against the US. Most people in UK have been shown to admire the US.
But most people in the UK (and the rest of Europe) have fresher memories of war. Not “going off to war” but war in their own country, close to home. Ducking bombs, losing loved ones or neighbours who were NOT in the armed forces.
No living Americans have this memory. The last war IN America was the civil war. So maybe, just maybe, Europeans have more empathy with the average (non-terrorist, non-soldier) Iraqi (also know to admire the US). And it’s the average Iraqi who everyone knew would be the one to suffer if invasion occurred. Rocket science. Not.
In a nutshell, Dizzy:
1. Tell me why the invasion was considered to be a good idea. Your arguments seem to say it was inevitable, rather than explain why it should happen.
2. Tell me what good has come out of the invasion, other than the demise of Madman Hussein.
RE: forsight I think what you mean is speculation. And as for "disaster" that a value judgement which is entirely subjective and usually defined by whether one was for or against the war.
See, I think your point 3 "The people of the US, still angered by the September 11 attacks, still sensing unfinished business from the first Gulf war 12 years before, would support a war on Iraq." This reads of a power crazed maniac relying on the knee-jerk anger of a moronic public. With apologies to Americans...
So what? Foreign policy is based on reality, not value judgements.
1. Tell me why the invasion was considered to be a good idea. Your arguments seem to say it was inevitable, rather than explain why it should happen.
Foreign policy isn't about subjective values like "good" and "bad". The Iraq War was neither a "good idea" or a "bad idea", it just was, it was an event in history like all the others. As for inevitability, my argument was that its inevitability in terms of American policy was what shaped British policy. Remember something here, Britain chose to support America's policy which was going to happen even if she didn't. That was, and remains, the correct course of action for the reason I gave above.
Tell me what good has come out of the invasion, other than the demise of Madman Hussein.
Well there's no point for two reasons. Firstly, good and bad when talking about observed things tend to be rather subjective. And second whatever I say I consider good you will say is bad (see point one for why).
Fro example, if I point out that they had free elections for the first time in over 30years and risked their lives to vote en masse, you will probably argue that the Government is a puppet of America, or that because elected officials have died that negated the positive side of the elections.
"Foresight I think what you mean is speculation" true, I do not possess a crystal ball!
"Disaster is a value judgement which is entirely subjective and usually defined by whether one was for or against the war." No, it's a value judgement which is entirely subjective and based on whether you value human lives in similar terms in different parts of the world. In your posts you speak up in favour of the defence of liberty, so what about the liberty of the “ordinary” Iraqi in the street? Do only your liberties matter? As a globalist, I feel that everyone’s liberty matters. The ordinary Iraqi’s liberty was not good under S.H., but it is pretty piss poor under current conditions. I think it is pretty piss poor for two countries with flawed respect for liberty feel they have the mandate to “liberate” the Iraqis.
“Foreign policy isn't about subjective values like "good" and "bad". The Iraq War was neither a "good idea" or a "bad idea", it just was, it was an event in history like all the others. As for inevitability, my argument was that its inevitability in terms of American policy was what shaped British policy. Remember something here, Britain chose to support America's policy which was going to happen even if she didn't. That was, and remains, the correct course of action for the reason I gave above.” The American invasion was inevitable? Who knows, if we tried to talk them out of it, it may never have happened. Are you sure “inevitable” is not a conclusion you draw from hindsight? “Correct” is entirely subjective and depends whether you believe there is justification in firing first shots, whether you believe that might is right, whether you believe your religion is the “right” one, whether you value the civilian lives in the target country.
What’s that echo? Shit, Dizzy, there’s a brick wall between us. I know I will never convince you and I’m fine with that. But if I didn’t try, I’d never know...
;^)
I'm sorry, but you are again conflating foreign policy to "right/wrong" moral concepts. Foreign policy is not about making moral decisions, it is about making decisions based on the interests and wider considerations of what is going to happen.
We were never going to talk George Bush out of this war, it was set in stone from 10th September. That is not hindsight telling me that, it is known reality and well documented. General Franks was involved almost instantly in drawing up plans.
I;m afraid that being globalist is all very noble, but it isn't realistic. The world is made of nations and competeing powers. There is no world government and trying to ignore the power relationships is too ignore reality.
Incidnetally, you extrapolated the word "correct" and call it subjective, but you removed it from the context of the six point arguments which were the logical steps to producing the course action that was the one that Britiain did, should and was correct to take. Whether it was morally right or wrong is irrelevant.
If we start allowing such things to jade the logical and strategic decisions we take on the world stage in which there is nothing but competing powers then we're fucked. Whether might equals right (in the moral sense) is irrelevant, what matters is that we act according to the considered reality of what we believe to know.
There isn't a brick wall between us though. The difference is that I'm a realist and you're an idealist. Sadly idealism has sod all place in international affairs when it actually comes down to it. But when you're sitting in an armchair looking in it is very easy to wring one's hands at the moral outrage of it all.
The consequence of allowing America to "own" the Middle East alone was not in Britain's interests. Simple as that really.
I'm curious though, given your argument is wrapped within question about morality and the concept of that with which good and bad, right and wrong, do you think of the firebombing of Dresden? Of the nuclear attack on Hiroshama and Nagasaki?
Post a Comment