Torture? Rendition? Who is safe?

It is far to simplistic to say if we killed Hitler the holcaust would not have happened. The point is there is no way of knowing that. Equally, even if Hitler had been killed and the holocaust had not happened, you cannot know whether something equally or more terrible might have occured as a result. Same goes for anyone else you might want to kll. Worth a chance though in some circumstances.

quote:

Basil

If Attar was on the flight deck, having taken control of the aircraft after killing the flight crew, and was steering straight towards to WTC, even you would not need hindsight to make a reasonable assumption that his motives where not entirely without malice.

Clear?

Not really, I mean it's simple to claim "In my opinion, if one death would save thousands of lives, its a good trade." after the event. But it doesn't really help if we just start killing anyone we think might be planning something along the lines of 11/9/2001 5 years from now. That course of action is far more likely to incite further attacks.

What a surprise!

quote:

Originally posted by Tarquin Maynard-Portly:

quote:

Originally posted by acad tsunami:
Depleted uranium is banned as
a weapon of mass destruction

DU is not used as a WMD. It is used to tip anti-tank or other penetrating munitions as it is particularly tough, and particularly dense.

Safe enough when stored, but problems are thought to arise from the fragments that result from its use as a weapon.

Nasty stuff; the Germans, for example, do not use DU on their rounds ( specifically, armour-piercing fin stabilised discarding sabot ) and instead tip the rounds with tungsten.

Regards

Mike

Depleted Uranium - A Hidden Looming Worldwide Calamity

'Depleted uranium (DU) is a "dense metal" that increases its ability as a weapon to penetrate a target, thus enhancing its destructive capability. Pentagon propaganda and disinformation falsely describe all DU weapons as only being coated. In fact, they are solid missiles, bombs, shells and bullets weighing up to 5,000 pounds in a single "bunker buster" bomb. All these weapons have solid DU projectiles or warheads in them, and their use in combat as the U.S. military has done in 4 wars and is now doing every day in Iraq is the "de facto" use of nuclear bombs. From Nagasaki in 1945 until the 1991 Gulf War, these weapons were effectively banned by common consent (and common sense) and never used (except for one time in the 1973 Yom Kippur war)'.

DU has a life span of 4.5 billion years and its all over Iraq where it causes 100s of babies a year to be born with appalling deformaties.

DU AlertU.S. signs $38 million deal for depleted uranium tank shells

All illegal under the Geneva convention.

NB - Yhe US military used phosphorus in Falluja and this is also illegal un der the rules of the Geneva Convention. When you read about the after effects of the use of DU in weapons you will see why it is regarded as WMD.

Depleted uranium is WMD

The US is so evil and arrogant that it believes Iternational law only applies to its enemies.

quote:

Originally posted by Tarquin Maynard-Portly:
Acad

Your sources are a tad hysterical - DU is not the de facto use of nuclear bombs and DU munitions have never been banned by common consent. The fact is that they where not required to be used until the First Gulf War. I'm not saying DU is a nice, safe material - far from it. But it is not a nuclear bomb.

The use of phosphorous is not banned under the Geneva Conventions per se, but it must not be used to inflict casualties on civilians. This has been discussed here before. It is used to generate smoke screens, and has secondary incendiary effects.

Regards

Mike

Mike,

Maybe a tad hysterical, it is hard to know without first hand involvement, which is at least what the sources claim. It is an alternative view to that put about by the powers that be and deserves some attention. If the many photos of bodies (allegedly)burnt by WP and babies deformed (allegedly)by DU are true (I have seen hundreds)then the world needs to sit up and take note. Some sort of International investigation needs to be implemented to check out these allegations - they are too serious to be ignored and nothing said on this forum by me or thee will prove anything. I dont know the truth. It seems to me that the truth is sometimes harder to find in this information age than it ever has been.

The WWW is the largest battle ground the world has ever known.

Regards,

Acad

quote:

Originally posted by Tarquin Maynard-Portly:

If Attar was on the flight deck, having taken control of the aircraft after killing the flight crew, and was steering straight towards to WTC, even you would not need hindsight to make a reasonable assumption that his motives where not entirely without malice.

But given hindsight, I'd look further into the past - before the WTC attacks - to find where the motives of the killers originated and why they chose that target.

quote:

Originally posted by Tarquin Maynard-Portly:
Deane

In my opinion, if one death would save thousands of lives, its a good trade. Crass and hard-nosed maybe but thats my view. You are of course entitled to take another view which I do not doubt you sincerely believe, its just that I think you are wrong.

Regards

Mike

Mike and Deane

You both hold polar opposite views. Both have valid points. I do not think it will be resolved here, many before have tried. Accept each others differing views and get on enjoying life as only you can. Bye.

Mike TMP

I need to thread carefully here so as not to offend.

Your point about taking a single life to save many is clear enough but how do you know which one to take to make the difference you propose?

There is no fool proof method unless you can tell the future AFAIK. So why do you think your believe will benefit humanity?

I do not think that taking another life is going to avert what you are suggesting.

Regards

quote:

That the death of one Nazi in order to prevent the Holocaust is an obvious circumstance when taking one life would be acceptable if it would save six million lives.

True, if one, single person were responsible for the Holocaust.

quote:

That the death of one of the 9/11 hijackers is an obvious circumstance when taking one life would be acceptable as it would save three thousand lives.

Again true, if one, single person were responsible for the attacks of September 11th 2001.

Also, why is it necessary to kill? When merely arresting and incarcerating the perpetrators would have the same effect?

You don't appear to have any greater respect for human life than the people you advocate killing.

Mike

All that your faulty postulating has proved is that a person possessed of god-like powers, who can survey the entire human race in one glance, see into the criminal mind, see into the future, and take lives at will, will be justified in killing.

That I have failed to engage in such a straw-man argument for torture or arbitrary killing is no indication that my views are null and void.

Deane

Mike

Perhaps you will permit me to ask you a question? (Yes or no answer only, please.)

If Saddam Hussein had been killed when he was captured would fewer people have died in Iraq since the invasion?

Deane

quote:

Originally posted by Tarquin Maynard-Portly:

Another example springs to mind, given that I have business in Hungerford, which you will probably be aware was the scene of a number of cold-blooded murders some years ago by a madman, Michael Ryan, shooting with an AK 47. He basically wandered up and down the High Street, shooting as he went. If he had been seen to have already killed a number of people and was seen to point the weapon at another intended victim, would it be unreasonable to expect say, an armed Policeman to shoot him dead? Deane says not, I say otherwise.

Mike

You have a good point there. I have to concede that you are right that killing is justified in some instances.

Regards
Deane

quote:

Originally posted by Deane F:

quote:

Originally posted by Tarquin Maynard-Portly:

Another example springs to mind, given that I have business in Hungerford, which you will probably be aware was the scene of a number of cold-blooded murders some years ago by a madman, Michael Ryan, shooting with an AK 47. He basically wandered up and down the High Street, shooting as he went. If he had been seen to have already killed a number of people and was seen to point the weapon at another intended victim, would it be unreasonable to expect say, an armed Policeman to shoot him dead? Deane says not, I say otherwise.

Mike

You have a good point there. I have to concede that you are right that killing is justified in some instances.

Regards
Deane

Waaaaiiiiiit a minute, not so fast buster. A similar event occurred locally some years back and the cop did shoot and killed the assailant. However the cop who fired the fatal bullet was taken through the ropes, countless enquiries etc. So it is never as simple in reality as one would like it to be.

Regards.

quote:

Originally posted by wellyspyder:

Waaaaiiiiiit a minute, not so fast buster. A similar event occurred locally some years back and the cop did shoot and killed the assailant. However the cop who fired the fatal bullet was taken through the ropes, countless enquiries etc. So it is never as simple in reality as one would like it to be.

Regards.

wellyspyder

I do hope you're not referring to the fatal police shooting of Steven Wallace in Waitara.

He was wielding a golf club - not a gun. He was smashing windows - not shooting people to death. How on god's earth is that similar to the Hungerford massacre?

Every time a policeman fires a gun in the course of duty in New Zealand there is, automatically, an enquiry into the incident by the Police Complaints Authority. There was an inquest - as per usual - and the family of Steven Wallace exercised their perfect right to bring a private prosecution for murder against the officer who shot Steven Wallace. This was after the family proved a prima facie case existed at a deposition heard by the Chief Justice of New Zealand.

Deane

Mike

Given that you have shown that killing is justified in some circumstances; can you now show that permission to torture confessions or information from suspects is justified in some circumstances - for instance if there is suspicion of terrorism?

And is that something that you would like to see enshrined in the laws of your country (which I'm assuming is the United Kingdom)?

Deane

quote:

Originally posted by Deane F:
I do hope you're not referring to the fatal police shooting of Steven Wallace in Waitara.

Deane

Nooooo! Please do not assume wellyspyder is from Wellington, NZ. You are not the first or going to be the last to do so.

quote:

Originally posted by wellyspyder:

quote:

Originally posted by Deane F:
I do hope you're not referring to the fatal police shooting of Steven Wallace in Waitara.

Deane

Nooooo! Please do not assume wellyspyder is from Wellington, NZ. You are not the first or going to be the last to do so.

I do apologise.

So, to which shooting do you refer?

quote:

Originally posted by Deane F:

quote:

Originally posted by wellyspyder:

quote:

Originally posted by Deane F:
I do hope you're not referring to the fatal police shooting of Steven Wallace in Waitara.

Deane

Nooooo! Please do not assume wellyspyder is from Wellington, NZ. You are not the first or going to be the last to do so.

I do apologise.

So, to which shooting do you refer?

Do you know the judicial process in any ASEAN country?

quote:

Originally posted by wellyspyder:

Do you know the judicial process in any ASEAN country?

Why is that, wellyspyder?

And then there is the case of innocent people being shot.....

The possible break-up of Iraq into three separate states was acknowledged for the first time by Margaret Beckett, the Foreign Secretary,

Obviously she does not read this forum

The soldier in the field, be he a private, a senior NCO or junior officer has to believe in a just cause in order to execute his duties efficiently. He must have perfect trust in his commanders. Doubt in a just cause could lead to confusion and/or lack of resolve and that could lead to a soldiers death or injury. It is easier to kill an enemy if an enemy is hated and even demonised. 'Ours not to reason why, ours but to do or die, its the enemy or me, so its damn well going to be the enemy because Im bloody scared and I dont want to die ....so.. I have a just cause and the enemy are monsters so Im justified and I have to go with the herd because Im scared and we need to stick together, Regimental pride and team work and besides they are murdering rag heads and I could get shot or one of my mates...I dont have time to work it all out I have to clean my kit' etc. This is the kind of chatter going through a soldiers head.

The average soldier on the ground will suck up any amount of bullshit from commanders if it helps him do the job he is trained for and above all survive so from here on in its about fear management, training, resolve and a complete submission to the military and political propaganda machinery. Its easier that way. Its more simple.

Senior commanders however, can't afford to delude themselves like this although they play the game, most of the time, they at least know its a game, albeit a deadly one. Increasingly Generals are required to commit troops in theatres where there is no military justification or hope of a military solution to further the political aims of political fuckwits. One wonders how much longer they will play ball? The UK establishment is gunning for Blair - they might not stab him in the back over iraq as there is too much National face to be lost but they might get him on cash for honours and as long as the grinning tosser gets locked up and publically shamed then thats fine by me. Bush needs to get impeached then given the electric chair.

Here is a book by one of the more intelligent British Generals that is well worth reading for insight about what really goes on at the highest levels of political/military ops. By the way - it is not what you might expect! I think its sad General Sir Rupert Smith was not made CDS - if the world has to have Generals then at least let them be men of intelligence, sound judgement and vision and not just ambitious tools to be used by warmongering cretins like Bush and his poodle Bliar. Why do so many Generals play ball with the political fuckwits? Well, the further up the ladder one goes the more the job becomes political - a commander cannot hope to attain senior Field rank without being a bit of a politician himself and the senior appointments are made (in part) by politicians - and they promote their own. In some countries senior appointments are always made by politicians! A bloody great recipe for disaster in my view but what is the alternative?

quote:

Originally posted by Tarquin Maynard-Portly:

quote:

Originally posted by acad tsunami:
The soldier in the field, be he a private, a senior NCO or junior officer has to believe in a just cause in order to execute his duties efficiently.

No, he must know what he is expected to do.

quote:

He must have perfect trust in his commanders.

See my last.

Mike,

If British soldiers were ordered to invade Switzerland and shoot civilians I doubt many would operate at full efficiency. This is my point. Soldiers are not amoral unthinking robots. Why would they follow orders blindly if they did not have blind trust in their commanders? How does a soldier know what he has to do without being told what to do?

Regards,

Acad

"In the sweltering back seat of a Warrior, sweat running down his face, 2nd Lt Matt Lamber said he couldn't afford to get distracted by the general's comments (General Sir Richard Dannatt's). "I try not to think of that. I try to look at the smaller picture of what we are doing, and enjoy the small victories on the ground, the bad guys we arrest."

Just found the above here which goes to confirm some of what I said in my 24.10.06 post.

Mike

You tender a good argument for the justification of torture in severely constrained circumstances.

However, my attention is not so much on the circumstances; but on whether any free country can successfully legislate a framework which permits such moral largesse to be exercised by its security forces. The constitutional implications are extraordinarily important for any democracy.

Legislation is a very blunt tool. Well drafted laws are neither too narrow to be useless; nor so wide as to criminalise the commonplace. All arms of government (and most especially security forces) must obey the rule of law otherwise the mandate to govern is corrupted.

I would suggest that, in the extreme situation that you have set out for argument's sake, the discretion to allow torture by virtue of legislation ought to rest solely with the judiciary and the courts. By this I mean that the security forces involved in your example should know that their torture will be subject to judicial review after the fact - and that they will not enjoy immunity from criminal proceedings if it is found that they too freely went beyond their ordinary powers.

Regards
Deane