Are we admitting that we did torture inmates of Guantanemo?

Soldato
Joined
7 Nov 2009
Posts
19,868
Location
Glasgow
Whilst I'm not suggesting that this is any sort of admission of guilt (I don't want to be sued!) it does make you raise your eyebrows at why the government are prepared to settle this out of court. Anything else settled in such a way screams guilt.

What do you guys think?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11762636
 
You don't want to be sued?

Well, I'll take the risk - I believe our government has been complicit in torture at Guantanamo.
 
I was saying it with my tongue firmly stuck in cheek, I forgot the smiley though.
I agree with you, I fail to understand why we are making these payments now though. It goes against conventional thought on what they should be doing. Either they maintain that they haven't been torturing and don't pay out or accept they have and pay out. But instead they've gone down some murky path. Will be very interesting to hear what the report tomorrow says.
 
You don't want to be sued?

Well, I'll take the risk - I believe our government has been complicit in torture at Guantanamo.

Doubtful.

Though I do believe that some civil servants have been - I doubt it got to ministerial level. Tis quite plausible that perhaps some SIS/Security service officer(s) turned a blind eye to water boarding etc...
 
Torture is necessary in times of war.

Ironically, that's one of the times when it's most illegal. The US made a huge deal out of the fact that those being tortured were not "enemy combatants" in a war, because that meant they had no protection under the Hague Convention.
 
no we arent admitting it hence pay out.

i imagine any plea is cross refrenced with intel, so stupidly hard to make stuff up.
 
They're probably just paying up now because the verdict is only going to be one thing, no matter what happened.

At least this way money is saved not having to drag it out.
 
Torture doesn't work, its self defeating as they will make up any story to end it. It also puts our soldiers in danger.

This is frequently used as an excuse, and is largely BS.

Its going to be a VERY rare occurance that we torture someone, they tell us Osama Bin Dodo is in KungpowChickenistan village and our instant response is to nuke it, or send in soldiers, with the outcome being we nuked an innocent village made entirely of schools and 10k children, or a massive battalion of soldiers gets slaughtered.

The realistic outcome is, torture, get a bit of intel, a location or a name, use that location or name to START an investigation into whats going on there, and potentially find something useful some tangible information the inteligence services gather themselves which could then lead on to some kind of action, surveillance, assault, bombing, whatever.

If the intel someone gives gives up a location they look into and find its old intel, purposefully misleading, or nothing there, they go back and ask for more intel, or if the intel was good, say a location, which they check out and find a group of dodgey looking people with ak's, they get pictures, go back and he puts names to pictures, which again they can check out.

I have no idea why people think its goes torture> full on assault on any information without any checking whatsoever.

Torture almost certainly works, the only question is knowing who to torture.

I think there should be limits, if we clean out a hostile cave which is full to the brim of weapons and guy shooting at us, and we take a guy hostage and interogate the crap out of him, I think his guilt is all but certain.

Taking random guys off the street, checking their houses, finding nothing, but torturing them because they go to a mosque where a known terrorist has been, or because they said something extremist like on a forum, etc, etc, is WAY over board.

If we go around torturing people we really really think are terrorists, but have no proof, well, theres no way at least one person won't be completely innocent.

Pretending torturing doesn't happen is stupid, taking it out in the open and putting some very strict guidelines in place and agreeing on a "level of guilt" to establish before proceeding is something that would help prevent random dude being plucked off the street and being put in a prison and tortured for 5 years, having done nothing wrong.
 
Torture almost certainly works

And your experience in the matter to make such a statement is....?

Or we could listen to the views of someone recently who was involved with the US Intelligence interrogation operations in Iraq who wrote the book:-
"How to Break a Terrorist: The US Interrogators Who Used Brains, Not Brutality, to Take Down the Deadliest Man in Iraq"

"It's extremely ineffective, and it's counterproductive to what we're trying to accomplish," he told reporters. "When we torture somebody, it hardens their resolve," Alexander explained. "The information that you get is unreliable ... And even if you do get reliable information, you're able to stop a terrorist attack, Al-Qaeda's then going to use the fact that we torture people to recruit new members." Alexander says torture techniques used in Iraq consistently failed to produce actionable intelligence and that methods outlined in the US Army Field Manual, which rest on confidence building, consistently worked and gave the interrogators access to critical information.

No-one is saying you will never get any information from torture, its just over the last few hundered years it has been shown time and time again to be an extremely unreliable method of getting information which has negative long term effects to your cause due to the use of propaganda against your nation.
 
The payoffs, under current rules, are going to be far cheaper than fighting a case that you might lose, or at least might not win outright.
 
The government wants to put an end to this embarrassing affair. It also wants to avoid further costs and humiliating revelations. So it’s a small price to pay.
 
The government wants to put an end to this embarrassing affair. It also wants to avoid further costs and humiliating revelations. So it’s a small price to pay.

This. The legal charges for fighting the claims alone are likely to exceed the cost of the payout.

On the point of the effectiveness of torture, I'm not aware of how robust the scientific evidence is, but remember some of those wierd experiments in America in the sixties were dubious about its effectiveness.
 
no we arent admitting it hence pay out.

I've never been tortured by the British government, where's my pay out?

Of course we're admitting that we were at least complicit in the torture of these guys. What's the betting that this money ends up in the hands of the Taliban?
 
My take on it. Think how much e.g. the Bloody Sunday report cost, if this was allowed to escalate to inquiries etc and continued legal costs - it would cost a lot more than a few million pounds. I am sure the lawyers would like it to drag out ;):p
 
Back
Top Bottom