Where have we admitted it.
The pay outs are for exactly that reason, it stays out of court and no evidence or admittance made.
Are we admitting that we did torture inmates of Guantanemo?
- Thread starter Ahleckz
- Start date
Where have we admitted it.
The pay outs are for exactly that reason, it stays out of court and no evidence or admittance made.
We've admitted it by paying them. Outside of the improbable and illogical world of the British Justice system, that is exactly how it looks, is and will be taken by every other nation state on the planet. By paying them we've essentially said to the entire world, there's some damning evidence here about the way the British SIS goes about its business which we don't want anyone to see, we'd rather lose face here and give the Taliban a massive recruitment tool.
No, you can make all sorts of assumptions but there is no official admittance of guilt.
According to British law, which it totally irrelevant outside of Britain.
according to everyone. We haven't admitted anything, nothings gone to court. Payment for being wrongly confined or any other number of things.
However you look at it, it is not an admission.
So where's my payment for not being tortured then? Governments are not prepared to lose face by paying out like this unless they would lose even more face due to a ruling against them. Talk of trying to save on legal costs is ridiculous, it might be the case for unfair dismissal claims but not on the issue of whether or not we tortured anybody. They're not going to put our troops at risk by handing Al-Queda a huge PR victory to save a few bob on solicitor's fees.
No evidence you where even their. So why would they give you a claim.
Just because they have paid out does not automatically mean torture. It can be any number of things and also cheaper than a court case.
We simply have not admitted to anything. As i said everyone can make assumptions, but it is not a confession.
Just because they have paid out does not automatically mean torture. It can be any number of things and also cheaper than a court case.
We simply have not admitted to anything. As i said everyone can make assumptions, but it is not a confession.
You seem to think that the British government just pays out millions to people because they haven't been tortured, surely everyone who hasn't been tortured should get the same pay out? The rest of the world is laughing at the UK now, of that we can be sure.
Where did I say that?
I said we are not admitting anything.
And the case wasn't just about torture either. They where suing for several things.
Well whatever, two things that cannot be doubted is that we've effectively admitted that those several things are true also so we've lost any moral high ground we had on the international stage. How can we lecture North Korea or China on human rights now when we are complicit in the torture of our own citizens? We've also handed a massive PR and recruitment boost to our enemies such as Al-Queda and the Taliban.
Again where have we admitted torture?
Giving compo for undisclosed reasons is not a confession. Really only people like you will think like this.
We will still do what we can around the world for humans rights.
And the PR for Taliban is next to nothing. collateral damage from the war is a far better PR story and unfortunately un avoidable.
Again your assumptions are that assumptions, there is no confession in there.
While i'm sure you have extensive experience in torture when people refuse to make you a fish finger sandwich but the head of the SiS says it does not work.
You would have to be incredibly naive to think the odd prisoner hasn't had a tap at the hand of our security services.
Again where did I say anything like that.
we start a war and kill / maim thousands of people, yet we are concerned about pouring water over a few people to "trick" them into thinking they are drowning so they might tell us something useful....
which one would you rather have done
1) water boarded
2) have a bullet rip your insides out and be left for hours in agony until you slowley bleed to death
3) loose you legs and arm, and get half of whats left of your body burnt, and spend the rest of your life as a criple...
4) jsut be shot and killed
I would not vote to torure people usually, however in a war you are trying to KILL people so a little bit of torture is the lesser of too evils...
which one would you rather have done
1) water boarded
2) have a bullet rip your insides out and be left for hours in agony until you slowley bleed to death
3) loose you legs and arm, and get half of whats left of your body burnt, and spend the rest of your life as a criple...
4) jsut be shot and killed
I would not vote to torure people usually, however in a war you are trying to KILL people so a little bit of torture is the lesser of too evils...
Soldato
- Joined
- 25 Nov 2007
- Posts
- 5,581
- Location
- London
I really dont care what he says..
If people are innocent, then its impossible to extract information which doesnt exist. Thats not the point, the point is when you have someone who has information.
Im not talking about waterboarding either..
Im talking about skinning peoples families alive infront of them.
If they have the info in that case they will (most likley) tell you?
you can verify is a base is or is not where they said, if its not you dont loose anything if it is well you got your info...
obviously torturing a confession and anything that cannot be verified out of someone is pointless
