British Justice?

[kevin_struggles]

We'll have to agree to differ then cos I don't

 

 

 

Cos there are rules and our soldiers know that and agree to abide by them

 

 

 

 

 

I am sure they will only do so when they belive the suspect is likely to be involved etc. I simply don't agree with using torture on suspects..if it's proven they are involved then by all means

 

 

 

 

Would it only be regrettable if it was one of your loved ones or would it be much worse than regrettable?? IMO a lot of people advocate such bthings cos they think it will never affetc their own. Advocate this and it makes it OK for British soldiers to be tortured cos the enemy suspects they know womething that will help..if it's Ok for us then we're saying it's Ok for them

 

 

It is indeed a fact...don't we have responsibility to minimise the innocents that are hurt? Torturing someions whois only a suspect makes it far more likely

 

 

 

hang on..when did we start linking torture with armed conflict...we can be torturing suspects withiout being in an armed conflict.

 

 

 

You know I disagree..cos we can fight, we have a duty to protect those unable to fight

 

 

 

So you agree that out enemy can also do whatever they want to us and our forces? If they torture Brits you're saying it's Ok for them to do so cos they susepct they will divulge useful info.

 

 

 

I have been very clear on this..we don't go in to fight but if we have to then we do

 

 

 

 

That is indeed my whole argument..we have a duty to do what we see as good

 

 

 

Sometiems soldiers are the only solution in a humanitarian crisis when the odds are overwhelmingly in favour of one side

If they would be effective I'd agree ;) The SBS (Special Bishop Service) have had some notable successes..but mainly notable failures :(

 

It would be nice if our enemies treated our prisoners well if we treat theirs well, no evidence to suggest its true but I agree it would be nice.

 

unfortunately terrorists by their very nature rely on terror tactics to achieve their goals, being nice to their prisoners would go against everything they are trying to achieve.

 

If one of my family was involved in terrorist acts or were supporting them or aiding them in any way I would not expect our security forces to treat them any differently than anyone else. If torture doesnt work then they will surely stop doing it on their own, why do we think they would continue to do it if it doesnt work?

 

As far as moral duties and doing things right go I think we in the west are a bunch of hypocrits. We are as nasty and dangerous as anyone else on this planet we just wont admit it.

 

As I have said to you before one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter and we have caused the deaths of many more people than IS have with our meddling. Its a bit rich us chastising other people for killing when us and the americans are probably the biggest group of mass murderers on earth.

 

Its time we admitted that and stopped all this false morality.

[geosname]

So you agree that if some small nation is a threat to us then we might as well just nuke them before they get a chance to kill us? Why take the chance of trying anything else? An extreme example I know but it highlights the principle

 

If we were at war with the nation [small or not] we are fighting to win, if it takes the total destruction of the enemy to accomplish that task then thats what we do.... usually nations surrender before that point.... if it takes one or two nukes to bring about the surrender then nuke em... the point is being at war not just an argument or a threat.

[JOHNNYAITCH]

If we were at war with the nation [small or not] we are fighting to win, if it takes the total destruction of the enemy to accomplish that task then thats what we do.... usually nations surrender before that point.... if it takes one or two nukes to bring about the surrender then nuke em... the point is being at war not just an argument or a threat.

 

Then we disagree with each other profoundly..we don't slaughter non-combatants indiscriminately just cos it will achieve our ends. We should exhaust other options first.

[Davebrad]

We don't but your saying it's Ok if we do

 

No I,m not saying it's ok, we don,t do them sort of thing,s anyway it,s not in our manner of thing,s to be suicide bombers, place mine,s liable to kill innocent people, kill our own people if they don,t agree with us it just seems to be a middle and far eastern trait. If your mugged by 2 or 3 cretins on your way home from the pub you kick,bite and do what,s necesary to hurt them before they hurt you.

 

 

Would torturing a suspected terrorist who knew nothing about it be a case of the ends justifying the means? That's my whole point...anything fgoes cos of the end we are aiming for?

 

when a suspected terrorist is questioned he,s probably known, and been watched for a while, not just been picked of the street at random, there,s been cases where he knew nothing of what they wanted to know but let something slip about a different case. There are innocent,s but we are at war with terrorism and they don,t play by our tried and tested rules (Geneva convention). Japan did,nt and look what they did to their prisoners, Germany did in the main but there were instances with the SS. So I say again if it saves one life so be it... our security services arn,t infallible but we have to trust them.

[JOHNNYAITCH]

It would be nice if our enemies treated our prisoners well if we treat theirs well, no evidence to suggest its true but I agree it would be nice.

 

Now to do with being nice..about being better than our enemies and not losing our values

 

unfortunately terrorists by their very nature rely on terror tactics to achieve their goals, being nice to their prisoners would go against everything they are trying to achieve.

 

So you agree that we can do what they do and so we become like them?

 

If one of my family was involved in terrorist acts or were supporting them or aiding them in any way I would not expect our security forces to treat them any differently than anyone else.

 

If one of your family was only suspected of being involved?

 

If torture doesnt work then they will surely stop doing it on their own, why do we think they would continue to do it if it doesnt work?[/qyote]

 

We need to ask those in the US why they continued when it didn't achieve much iof anything? Cos they'll get it right occasionally maybe?

 

As far as moral duties and doing things right go I think we in the west are a bunch of hypocrits. We are as nasty and dangerous as anyone else on this planet we just wont admit it.

 

Indeed we have done much worse..it was us who dropped the atomic bombs..the only ones used. Even more reason to do right when we can

 

As I have said to you before one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter and we have caused the deaths of many more people than IS have with our meddling. Its a bit rich us chastising other people for killing when us and the americans are probably the biggest group of mass murderers on earth.

 

I'm being very specific though...torturing of suspects

 

Its time we admitted that and stopped all this false morality.

 

I'm in no way claiming that we have not done terribnle things..this for me is about one specific issue and by torturing suspects we lessen ourselves

[geosname]

Then we disagree with each other profoundly..we don't slaughter non-combatants indiscriminately just cos it will achieve our ends. We should exhaust other options first.

 

Hamburg (September 1939-April 1945) – 42,600 killed

Dresden (October 1944-April 1945) – 25,000 killed

Berlin (1940-1945) – 20,000-50,000 killed

Swinoujscie (12 March 1945) – 5,000-23,000 killed

Pforzheim (April 1944-March 1945) – 21,200 killed

Darmstadt (September 1943-February 1944) – 12,300 killed

Of course it wasnt us but Nagasaki and Hiroshima could also be included in the list, which isnt exhaustive.

[JOHNNYAITCH]

No I,m not saying it's ok, we don,t do them sort of thing,s anyway it,s not in our manner of thing,s to be suicide bombers, place mine,s liable to kill innocent people, kill our own people if they don,t agree with us it just seems to be a middle and far eastern trait. If your mugged by 2 or 3 cretins on your way home from the pub you kick,bite and do what,s necesary to hurt them before they hurt you.

 

I quite agree but you would not would you grab someone you thought might have done and beat the cr@p out of them into admitting that they had or keep attacking people you thought might have doen it until you got to the ones that had?

 

 

when a suspected terrorist is questioned he,s probably known, and been watched for a while, not just been picked of the street at random,

 

I'm not suggasting in anyway that suspects are people picked off the street at random

 

there,s been cases where he knew nothing of what they wanted to know but let something slip about a different case. There are innocent,s but we are at war with terrorism and they don,t play by our tried and tested rules (Geneva convention).

 

Those innocents possibky do. Your advocating that cos they don't play by our 'rules' we throw those rules away..we reduce ourselves to their level

 

Japan did,nt and look what they did to their prisoners, Germany did in the main but there were instances with the SS. So I say again if it saves one life so be it... our security services arn,t infallible but we have to trust them.

 

So you are advocating that we lower ourselves to their level , we torture people who we deem worthy of torture. I disagree..do that and they are winning the war. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

[JOHNNYAITCH]

Hamburg (September 1939-April 1945) – 42,600 killed

Dresden (October 1944-April 1945) – 25,000 killed

Berlin (1940-1945) – 20,000-50,000 killed

Swinoujscie (12 March 1945) – 5,000-23,000 killed

Pforzheim (April 1944-March 1945) – 21,200 killed

Darmstadt (September 1943-February 1944) – 12,300 killed

 

This was largely part of a strategic bombing campaign but many if not all of those have been condemned and nothing like them repeated..proving the point. You might as well argue for the use of the rack, hung drawing and quartering etc cos we've done it before

 

Of course it wasnt us but Nagasaki and Hiroshima could also be included in the list, which isnt exhaustive.

 

And we've not done so since..we learned and grew...seems we now want to go backwards

[Davebrad]

So you are advocating that we lower ourselves to their level ,

 

you,ve only got 2 cheeks to turn...

 

we torture people who we deem worthy of torture. I disagree..do that and they are winning the war. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

 

no they only win the war if we give in, which we don,t or they kill us all.

 

not deem worthy of torture, but are a creditable risk to us as a nation, better torture or death to them than one more British life lost which could with his information have been prevented...

[geosname]

This was largely part of a strategic bombing campaign but many if not all of those have been condemned and nothing like them repeated..proving the point. You might as well argue for the use of the rack, hung drawing and quartering etc cos we've done it before

 

 

 

And we've not done so since..we learned and grew...seems we now want to go backwards

 

you should read up on some of the strategic targets... we havent done so since because we havent been at war since although we have been in combat to repel invaders... if "the rack, hung drawing and quartering etc" were effective I dont see a problem if its whats needed to get the job done... although the yanks reportedly napalmed large areas.

There are reports that allied forces in WWII didnt take many SS prisoners, thats not to say they didnt capture many.

To fight a war effectively there has to be a will of the people... fear and intelligence are two of the key elements of winning a war a third is breaking the will of the people... if that takes carpet bombing or nukes then they have to be an option... not just a threat but a belief that they will/can be used..... hiroshima and nagasaki being bombed saved hundreds of thousands of lives

[JOHNNYAITCH]

no they only win the war if we give in, which we don,t or they kill us all.

 

I don't agree..there desire is to change us, to undermine our ways then to oveerwhelm us...behave as is being suggested and they are winning

 

not deem worthy of torture, but are a creditable risk to us as a nation, better torture or death to them than one more British life lost which could with his information have been prevented...

 

Come come..it is about deming people worthy of torture to help achieve our ends

 

Better torture or death to one we believe is one of them?

[JOHNNYAITCH]

you should read up on some of the strategic targets

 

As I said many have since been condemned

 

... we havent done so since because we havent been at war since although we have been in combat to repel invaders

 

Come come..surely we should have nuked Argentina as it would have seen them off from the Falklands with no British soldiers killed?

 

... if "the rack, hung drawing and quartering etc" were effective I dont see a problem if its whats needed to get the job done...

 

I do..we are better than that..if it's a matter of doing what's needed to get the job done then we cannot condemn the Taliban for example for doing what they believe is necessary to get the job done..we're no better

 

There are reports that allied forces in WWII didnt take many SS prisoners, thats not to say they didnt capture many.

 

Indeed tehre were many instances of captured German soldiers being tortured and executed..many in reprisals by Eastern European forces

 

To fight a war effectively there has to be a will of the people...

 

Indeed there does

 

fear and intelligence are two of the key elements of winning a war a third is breaking the will of the people... if that takes carpet bombing or nukes then they have to be an option... not just a threat but a belief that they will/can be used..... hiroshima and nagasaki being bombed saved hundreds of thousands of lives

 

Exactly...we could have just wiped Japan out but we didn't. And we've grown even from those days..why do we now want to go backwards? We want to be the same as the evil that we claim to be trying to halt..cos they do whwtver they feel they need to do then we shoukld do the same? The ony difference becomes which side you are on..nothing else..and so they win

[geosname]

As I said many have since been condemned

I do..we are better than that..if it's a matter of doing what's needed to get the job done then we cannot condemn the Taliban for example for doing what they believe is necessary to get the job done..we're no better

 

You are starting from the premiss that they should have the same moral code that we credit ourselves with, its a mistake because they havent, what we think they should have and what they present is worlds apart.... they bomb indiscriminately and we reprimand them, they kill women and children and we verbally chastise them, they crate havoc and slaughter and we condemn them... if you want them to understand you have to talk their language... its no good the daily fail screaming atrocity and thinking the job is done because thats what they want.

the idea [re japan] was to win not annihilate... the idea, I would suggest, of some of the german raids was to weaken the will of the people... what you visit on my house I will return two fold on yours... I dont advocate annihilation just doing what needs to be done to win ... you can have the best moral code of all humanity but it means nothing if you lose.

[JOHNNYAITCH]

You are starting from the premiss that they should have the same moral code that we credit ourselves with, its a mistake because they havent, what we think they should have and what they present is worlds apart

 

I am doing the exact opposite and saying we are in dnager of changing to their moral code..

 

.... they bomb indiscriminately and we reprimand them, they kill women and children and we verbally chastise them, they crate havoc and slaughter and we condemn them... if you want them to understand you have to talk their language... its no good the daily fail screaming atrocity and thinking the job is done because thats what they want.

 

No they want us to change..that is their aim

 

 

the idea [re japan] was to win not annihilate... the idea, I would suggest, of some of the german raids was to weaken the will of the people... what you visit on my house I will return two fold on yours... I dont advocate annihilation just doing what needs to be done to win ... you can have the best moral code of all humanity but it means nothing if you lose.

 

But you advoctae doing whatever is necessary to win and i say no we have to have limits or we are not better than our enemnis who will slughter etc

 

Anyway..the wife's family have just arrived safely from Manchester so for me Christams can now start so I'm staying off such subjects for a few days and focussing on eating too much, talking too much, singing too much, mucking about too much and generally relaxing too much

 

Merry Xmas to all

[kevin_struggles]

Now to do with being nice..about being better than our enemies and not losing our values

 

 

 

So you agree that we can do what they do and so we become like them?

 

 

 

If one of your family was only suspected of being involved?

 

If torture doesnt work then they will surely stop doing it on their own, why do we think they would continue to do it if it doesnt work?[/qyote]

 

We need to ask those in the US why they continued when it didn't achieve much iof anything? Cos they'll get it right occasionally maybe?

 

 

 

Indeed we have done much worse..it was us who dropped the atomic bombs..the only ones used. Even more reason to do right when we can

 

 

 

I'm being very specific though...torturing of suspects

 

 

 

I'm in no way claiming that we have not done terribnle things..this for me is about one specific issue and by torturing suspects we lessen ourselves

 

JA,

 

Anyone who hasnt been tried and found guilty has to be called a suspect, that doesnt meant the security services dont know who they are an what they have or havent done, or at least believes that the person has information that could aid us in the fight against terrorism. what are they supposed to do send them through the justice system and then question them a year or two later after they are tried?

 

I wouldnt like to do the job and I note how they are slaughtered in the press after 911 and other atrocities, everyone wanting to know what they knew and when and asking why they didnt prevent it.

 

Bottom line for me is that I trust them to do whats necessary to keep the majority of us safe, I take my hat off to them.

 

However I dont want to know how they do it and I dont want to make their job more difficult by adding red tape.

 

And you cant reply until you have posted on two vale related topics and I have proof that you arent supposed to be working when you post them. Cos your not a real vale fan and I shouldnt be talking to you.