Guantánamo Bay detainees to be compensated

DeletedUser

Guest
What answer? This centre is currently a recruitment goldmine for various anti-american terrorist organizations across the world. All they have to do is state the facts of the various people tortured in the centre without charge and they can gain a lot of support in the extreme areas.

You pick the wrong person and you take an innocent civilian through un-needed pain and mental horror, you take the right person and it could take days to crack him seeing as the hardline terrorists have sworn and oath and are extremely religious.

At the risk of sounding inhumane, they should probably kill the people tortured after :icon_evil:.

Note: I said probably, it would be the sensible thing to do but doesn't mean I would.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
I'm going to take the liberty of breaking this down into groups of comments that are related to each other.




[clt]'Innocent until proven guilty' are just words, we all know that isn't how it works, but anyway, compensation i agree with... as long as it is fair to the circumstances.[/clt]


[clt]According to the Director General, i can find you a quote if you like? I'm not stupid though, i know there are things going on that i will never know about and i dont blindy follow my government's word without question.. but as you yourself said earlier, innocent until proven guilty.. i have no evidence that M15 has used torture tactics on detainees.[/clt]

without any insider knowledge or facts. I can only speculate.[/clt]

[clt]I couldnt possibly know for certain, all i have are theoretical possibilities. There is a fine line between probable and possible,


Now to start with you are willing to accept the words of the MI5 of the British government regarding the extent of tortures they admit to using at face value but you are skeptical of accepting the central tenet upon which your justice system is based at face value ?

That there is a very direct double standard but this is a more glaring one :

CLT said:
But as you yourself said earlier, innocent until proven guilty.. i have no evidence that M15 has used torture tactics on detainees.

Err so the M15 (who admits to availing torture) is innocent until proven guilty of using torture methods beyond water boarding but when it comes to the possibly innocent terror suspect, your position is:

CLT said:
How do you know they don't have that information unless you attempt to extract it from them?

Cat Like Thief, I think therein, your double standards and hypocrisy is laid very bare for all to see. I.e. to you, the concept of innocent until proven guilty only applies to people administering the torture, not to the people actually being tortured.

Thats almost an analytical microcosm of the history of the British.



[clt]And the attacks in Spain? Italy? Many other countries that aren't 'lapdogs' to the US?[/clt]

I think you'll find that that Italy and Spain both pledged troops to both Iraq and Afghanistan, which really lends credence to what I just said.


[clt]Then you are obviously a different person to me, given this choice in that scenario, i would put a man through torture, so that my family could live. I think its always difficult to know how you would feel until you are personally confronted by that situation.[/clt]

Of course I'm a different person to you, because I do not believe my family or my people to be more valuable to the world as a whole to another group, nor do I feel that its justified to buy their lives by inflicting suffering on one innocent person after the other until something of value is discovered. Nobody who truly believes in the equality of human beings around the world would feel it is justified to torture one person in the small hope (often, I may even say usually) incorrect assumption that it may save another person's life.
If that were the case, why doesn't the law let the police torture criminals to get information ?
Surely that information may save people's lives.

To this effect and not directed at anyone, I'm reminded of American hicks who believe that the 3000 people or so who died in 9/11 is a bigger deal than the much larger numbers of Iraqi/Palestinian/Lebanese/Afghan civilians that US/Israel military forces kill in collateral damage.

One innocent human life is not valued above another in any way.



[clt]He/She/They may well get compensated to this degree, and even though you arent asking, i'll tell you anyway that i would not agree with it. I would be just as outraged if these detainees were British.[/clt]


Its not a question of may well, they definitely would.
In which case your problem is with the UK judicial system as a whole and not just the compensation paid to the terrorists.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
[clt]16 Guantánamo Bay detainees to be paid compensation by UK government to the tune of £40,000,000 in total for alleged torture. The Tories say they inherited this from the previous government and not settling now will cost £50 million and tie up servicemen who should be out stopping terror. Those who agree with the payout say two wrongs don't make a right and we should be a beacon for human rights. What do you think?[/clt]

Just quickly as I have 5 minutes left at the library :p

I don't necessarily think any money can compensate innocent people who were tortured . However I think the people who allowed it should be brought to justice .
In a time of recession 40 million pounds cannot be justified . As someone else said lots of people are tortured , effected by injustice, war or neglect , they don't all equally get compensated.
I think rather than compensating people with millions , the people responsible for allowing this to go ahead should be accountable .


To pick up on a few points raised . I cannot begin to understand how anyone can advocate torturing innocent people , thats absurd and a significant breach of human rights . It's been said rather that than your own family get hurt, what if someone in your family became the tortured one ? Allowing this to go ahead without proper procedures in place wipes out years of human rights campaigning and opens the floodgates for all kinds of injustice and if 'innocent until proven guilty' isn't the way it works, we must fight harder to ensure it is ... as this is how it should be .However I do think more evidence should be admissible in courts when determining who police can detain . ( in uk )

Other than that I'm absolutely totally in shock at Pervs responses about equality and torture - jaw drop. <3

<3
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser

Guest
Now to start with you are willing to accept the words of the MI5 of the British government regarding the extent of tortures they admit to using at face value but you are skeptical of accepting the central tenet upon which your justice system is based at face value ?

[clt]I know the amazing job that M15 do first hand, i know how they operate and i do believe that they do not resort to using information obtained from torture victims unless they have no other choice. The British justice system, on the other hand, is flawed. This isnt a double standard, i am allowed to view a government agency and the British justice system in different ways.[/clt]

Cat Like Thief, I think therein, your double standards and hypocrisy is laid very bare for all to see. I.e. to you, the concept of innocent until proven guilty only applies to people administering the torture, not to the people actually being tortured.

Thats almost an analytical microcosm of the history of the British.

[clt]The 'innocent until proven guilty comment was in response to your own hypocrisy. You talk of how accused should be innocent until proven guilty, however you go on to say this... [/clt]

Lets assume they stopped at water boarding, which I frankly think is bs because if the British government admits to water boarding, there is no doubt in my mind that they've actually perpetrated a lot worse.

[clt]The concept works both ways.[/clt]

I think you'll find that that Italy and Spain both pledged troops to both Iraq and Afghanistan, which really lends credence to what I just said.

If Britain is involved in wars in the middle east that they have no direct stake in just to be America's international colonial lapdog, then it opens itself up to terror attacks.

[clt]Are you suggesting that Italy and Spain are 'lapdogs' to the US? What direct stake did these countries have if not?[/clt]

Of course I'm a different person to you, because I do not believe my family or my people to be more valuable to the world as a whole to another group, nor do I feel that its justified to buy their lives by inflicting suffering on one innocent person after the other until something of value is discovered. Nobody who truly believes in the equality of human beings around the world would feel it is justified to torture one person in the small hope (often, I may even say usually) incorrect assumption that it may save another person's life.
If that were the case, why doesn't the law let the police torture criminals to get information ?
Surely that information may save people's lives.

[clt]ok.. heres the scenario i posed...

'if one of my family members were in a terror attack and died as a result... and i was given the chance to turn back time and advocate torture in order to prevent it and save their life... i would find it extremely difficult to say no to that'

If i were told that i would never look into the eyes of my loved one again. Words cant describe how i would feel. If i were told that my loved one could live but it meant that 16 men would need to be tortured.. i would. Step outside of the scenario and it becomes a different matter. Human emotion is a powerful factor that you need to consider here.. faced with this scenario, i would be so desperate to have my loved one back, calculating the wider impact of advocating torture would seem insignificant. Really think about how you would feel in that situation.. the anger, fury, rage, at having your innocent loved one taken from you like this, tell me that you would be able to push all of that to one side and deny the opporunity to see them again.[/clt]

Its not a question of may well, they definitely would.
In which case your problem is with the UK judicial system as a whole and not just the compensation paid to the terrorists.

[clt]Yes, i have many issues with the British justice system which i will not go into now.

Let me ask you something... you are head of national security in the UK.. the US has tortured detainees, gained information and has handed you a note which contains the date/time of a terrorist attack in London where thousands of lives would be lost. Would you open that note and use the information to evacuate the area.. doing so would mean using information obtained through torture. On the other hand these men have already been tortured, you dont agree with it, but its happened and you cant change that. Do you throw the note away? You preserve the reputation of your nation, but at the cost of thousands of innocent lives. How long would it take you to reach your decision?[/clt]

However I think the people who allowed it should be brought to justice .

[clt]This is a good point that hasnt been picked up on yet.[/clt]
 

DeletedUser

Guest
[clt]ok.. heres the scenario i posed...

'if one of my family members were in a terror attack and died as a result... and i was given the chance to turn back time and advocate torture in order to prevent it and save their life... i would find it extremely difficult to say no to that'

If i were told that i would never look into the eyes of my loved one again. Words cant describe how i would feel. If i were told that my loved one could live but it meant that 16 men would need to be tortured.. i would. Step outside of the scenario and it becomes a different matter. Human emotion is a powerful factor that you need to consider here.. faced with this scenario, i would be so desperate to have my loved one back, calculating the wider impact of advocating torture would seem insignificant. Really think about how you would feel in that situation.. the anger, fury, rage, at having your innocent loved one taken from you like this, tell me that you would be able to push all of that to one side and deny the opporunity to see them again.[/clt]

But something happening to you would always cloud your judgement.

To make the best decisions to the benefit of society sometimes you have to put your own wants behind that of others.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
[clt]I know the amazing job that M15 do first hand, i know how they operate and i do believe that they do not resort to using information obtained from torture victims unless they have no other choice. The British justice system, on the other hand, is flawed. This isnt a double standard, i am allowed to view a government agency and the British justice system in different ways.[/clt]

Prioritizing the objectives of national security over the justice system - yip, the first few steps to a control state.
And at any rate, regardless of what you believe regarding their individual integrities, the Judiciary is a much more important organ of the state than a national security agency (I really do not believe I should have to explain this). Its principles are much more important to the state than what national security agency considers to be necessary or not.


Cat Like Thief;278559 [clt said:
The 'innocent until proven guilty comment was in response to your own hypocrisy. You talk of how accused should be innocent until proven guilty, however you go on to say this... [/clt]



[clt]The concept works both ways.[/clt]

Errr, no, I'm really surprised that I have to once again tell you to read my post, but I'd draw your attention here, incase you missed it again, and quite frankly that you would provide the quote and yet miss the point of it is beginning to drag this into parody:

Lets assume they stopped at water boarding, which I frankly think is bs because if the British government admits to water boarding,

Regardless of what I personally feel they do or not do, I've stated my willingness to continue this debate of whether the victim's should be compensated or not on the grounds that MI5 and British Government, did only as much as they say they did.

That in itself is me applying the concept of innocent until proven guilty to both the British Government Agencies (torturers) and the (in this case innocent) victims.

You did not apply the same concept to both of them, quotes in this discussion made by you show directly as much and I've provided them.

See when I call you hypocrite, I show extensively why you are a hypocrite and what comments of yours make you a hypocrite, simply calling you a hypocrite as you have done with me does not suffice. And providing a quote which actually reflects the opposite is quite silly.

You can't evade an elaborated charge by simply throwing one word back at me and hoping people don't notice, its not how debates work.


[clt]Are you suggesting that Italy and Spain are 'lapdogs' to the US? What direct stake did these countries have if not?[/clt]


Do those countries have a direct stake in those wars ? Nope.
Did they send their troops to die in it ? Yep.

Hence they are lapdogs of the US.


[clt]ok.. heres the scenario i posed...

'if one of my family members were in a terror attack and died as a result... and i was given the chance to turn back time and advocate torture in order to prevent it and save their life... i would find it extremely difficult to say no to that'

If i were told that i would never look into the eyes of my loved one again. Words cant describe how i would feel. If i were told that my loved one could live but it meant that 16 men would need to be tortured.. i would. Step outside of the scenario and it becomes a different matter. Human emotion is a powerful factor that you need to consider here.. faced with this scenario, i would be so desperate to have my loved one back, calculating the wider impact of advocating torture would seem insignificant. Really think about how you would feel in that situation.. the anger, fury, rage, at having your innocent loved one taken from you like this, tell me that you would be able to push all of that to one side and deny the opporunity to see them again.[/clt]

Oh this is just garbage, its an attempt to emotionalize a rational issue and try and throw people's judgments off by toying with their feelings and attempting to cloud their judgment of right and wrong. Variations of this story has pretty much been used since Nixon era to advocate pro-torture agendas again and again and been rejected as many times. That is why free societies do not consider torture to be acceptable and why UK is paying compensation for it,

When their logic gets hammered out of consideration, pro-torture advocates play the emotional card in the hope of winning support. Whatever your beliefs on the issue are, your pretty much doing the same thing.

[clt]Yes, i have many issues with the British justice system which i will not go into now.

Let me ask you something... you are head of national security in the UK.. the US has tortured detainees, gained information and has handed you a note which contains the date/time of a terrorist attack in London where thousands of lives would be lost. Would you open that note and use the information to evacuate the area.. doing so would mean using information obtained through torture. On the other hand these men have already been tortured, you dont agree with it, but its happened and you cant change that. Do you throw the note away? You preserve the reputation of your nation, but at the cost of thousands of innocent lives. How long would it take you to reach your decision?[/clt]

If your problems are with the justice system, fix the fundamentals that you disagree with first rather than attacking a verdict that you disagree with. Even if you somehow got the verdict overturned, it will recur if you don't fix what you find wrong with the system.

Additionally after that is said and done, you are making a very transparent attempt to derail the debate, for whatever reason. This is not to discuss whether its ethical to use information attained by others using torture but rather whether it is permissible to torture those people yourself to obtain information.

When you cannot make any of your arguments stand, do not wriggle out of the topic of discussion. Rather if you want the other issue discussed, start a new discussion for it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser

Guest
Prioritizing the objectives of national security over the justice system - yip, the first few steps to a control state.
And at any rate, regardless of what you believe regarding their individual integrities, the Judiciary is a much more important organ of the state than a national security agency (I really do not believe I should have to explain this). Its principles are much more important to the state than what national security agency considers to be necessary or not.

[clt]I never prioritised anything over anything else... one organisation i believe to be functioning above expected levels, the other, i believe has fundamental flaws. I never said that one was more important than the other.[/clt]

See when I call you hypocrite, I show extensively why you are a hypocrite and what comments of yours make you a hypocrite, simply calling you a hypocrite as you have done with me does not suffice. And providing a quote which actually reflects the opposite is quite silly.
You can't evade an elaborated charge by simply throwing one word back at me and hoping people don't notice, its not how debates work.


[clt]On one hand you believe that a group of people (detainees) should be treated innocent until proven guilty.. another group (British Government) you clearly believe are guilty despite having no evidence to support the theory. That is a hypocritical statement. As for how the quote i provided reflects the opposite is baffling. Its cut and dry as far as i'm concerned[/clt]

Do those countries have a direct stake in those wars ? Nope.
Did they send their troops to die in it ? Yep.

Hence they are lapdogs of the US.

[clt]Your opinion[/clt]

Oh this is just garbage, its an attempt to emotionalize a rational issue and try and throw people's judgments off by toying with their feelings and attempting to cloud their judgment of right and wrong. Variations of this story has pretty much been used since Nixon era to advocate pro-torture agendas again and again and been rejected as many times. That is why free societies do not consider torture to be acceptable and why UK is paying compensation for it,
When their logic gets hammered out of consideration, pro-torture advocates play the emotional card in the hope of winning support. Whatever your beliefs on the issue are, your pretty much doing the same thing.

[clt]What i'm trying to do is provoke some empathy, yes. But more than that, im trying to make a point, you cant simply bypass human emotion in these issues. This is an important factor that makes a lot of difference.[/clt]

If your problems are with the justice system, fix the fundamentals that you disagree with first rather than attacking a verdict that you disagree with. Even if you somehow got the verdict overturned, it will recur if you don't fix what you find wrong with the system..

[clt]I created this thread as i was interested to hear people's opinions on the subject. You are the one trying to push this issue off topic. As i clearly stated in my last post, i dont wish to comment further on my issues with the British Justice system as it is not within the scope of this discussion.[/clt]

Additionally after that is said and done, you are making a very transparent attempt to derail the debate, for whatever reason. This is not to discuss whether its ethical to use information attained by others using torture but rather whether it is permissible to torture those people yourself to obtain information.

[clt]The details of the court case are classified, but it is in relation to both participating in torture and the use of information obtained from torture. My comments are on topic.[/clt]

do not wriggle out of the topic of discussion.

[clt]Says the guy that didnt answer a single one of the questions from my previous post :icon_rolleyes:

EDIT: Ok you answered one :eek:P[/clt]
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser

Guest
[clt]I never prioritised anything over anything else... one organisation i believe to be functioning above expected levels, the other, i believe has fundamental flaws. I never said that one was more important than the other.[/clt]




[clt]On one hand you believe that a group of people (detainees) should be treated innocent until proven guilty.. another group (British Government) you clearly believe are guilty despite having no evidence to support the theory. That is a hypocritical statement. As for how the quote i provided reflects the opposite is baffling. Its cut and dry as far as i'm concerned[/clt]



[clt]Your opinion[/clt]



[clt]What i'm trying to do is provoke some empathy, yes. But more than that, im trying to make a point, you cant simply bypass human emotion in these issues. This is an important factor that makes a lot of difference.[/clt]



[clt]I created this thread as i was interested to hear people's opinions on the subject. You are the one trying to push this issue off topic. As i clearly stated in my last post, i dont wish to comment further on my issues with the British Justice system as it is not within the scope of this discussion.[/clt]



[clt]The details of the court case are classified, but it is in relation to both participating in torture and the use of information obtained from torture. My comments are on topic.[/clt]



[clt]Says the guy that didnt answer a single one of the questions from my previous post :icon_rolleyes:

EDIT: Ok you answered one :eek:P[/clt]

More trash. I read this about 4 times and I simply cannot find a valid point in this post that I haven't answered already. And if needed I can make a series of quotes to each point from my previous posts showing how I've previously answered every redundant point raised in this post.

I'll reiterate a few anywhos.


CLT said:
On one hand you believe that a group of people (detainees) should be treated innocent until proven guilty.. another group (British Government) you clearly believe are guilty despite having no evidence to support the theory. That is a hypocritical statement. As for how the quote i provided reflects the opposite is baffling. Its cut and dry as far as i'm concerned

See if your logic and information is flawed I can reason with you and enlighten you to improve your state of knowledge, but if your problem is that you cannot read, then I can do nothing to help you, what you need is a school. Re-read:

Pervie said:
Lets assume they stopped at water boarding,

Regardless of my beliefs, I have repeatedly stated that I'm perfectly willing to conduct this debate on the grounds thats that all the British government did to the victims was water boarding.
Either you do not understand the meaning of that statement, or you do not wish to accept that I said it. Either way, your problem of perception.

CLT said:
What i'm trying to do is provoke some empathy, yes. But more than that, im trying to make a point, you cant simply bypass human emotion in these issues. This is an important factor that makes a lot of difference.

Policy is not based on emotion but on reasoning and logic, especially extreme policy such as this. People bring in emotion when their reasoning and logic fails and yours has.


CLT said:
Says the guy that didnt answer a single one of the questions from my previous post

Another unsubstantiated statement. Point exactly which question you raised -up until you made this statement- that I did not address and if I haven't addressed it (unlikely there are any), I'll do so immediately. Make such claims without linking or quoting which questions I did answer = make yourself look evasive and unwilling to actually engage in a discussion.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser

Guest
Regardless of my beliefs, I have repeatedly stated that I'm perfectly willing to conduct this debate on the grounds thats that all the British government did to the victims was water boarding.
Either you do not understand the meaning of that statement, or you do not wish to accept that I said it. Either way, your problem of perception.

[clt]Get out clause so you can say things like this...[/clt]

which I frankly think is bs

[clt]...without being held accountable, there is nothing wrong with my ability to read. Do not make this personal Pervie.[/clt]

Policy is not based on emotion but on reasoning and logic, especially extreme policy such as this. People bring in emotion when their reasoning and logic fails and yours has.

[clt]In the court case we are currently discussing, emotions of the judge, jury, barristers, anyone involved will have played a part in the outcome. No matter how hard they try otherwise.[/clt]

Another unsubstantiated statement. Point exactly which question you raised -up until you made this statement- that I did not address and if I haven't addressed it (unlikely there are any), I'll do so immediately. Make such claims without linking or quoting which questions I did answer = make yourself look evasive and unwilling to actually engage in a discussion.

[clt]...tell me that you would be able to push all of that to one side and deny the opporunity to see them again.[/clt]

[clt]...Do you throw the note away? You preserve the reputation of your nation, but at the cost of thousands of innocent lives. How long would it take you to reach your decision?[/clt]

[clt]Just because you responded, does not necessarily mean you answered the question.[/clt]

= make yourself look evasive and unwilling to actually engage in a discussion.

[clt]You're the one that seems to be losing his cool here buddy :eek:P[/clt]
 
Top