British Terror Arrests Based On Information From Torture In Pakistan?

According to this from The Guardian that appears to be the case:

Reports from Pakistan suggest that much of the intelligence that led to the raids came from that country and that some of it may have been obtained in ways entirely unacceptable here. In particular Rashid Rauf, a British citizen said to be a prime source of information leading to last week’s arrests, has been held without access to full consular or legal assistance. Disturbing reports in Pakistani papers that he had “broken” under interrogation have been echoed by local human rights bodies. The Guardian has quoted one, Asma Jehangir, of the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan, who has no doubt about the meaning of broken. “I don’t deduce, I know – torture,” she said. “There is simply no doubt about that, no doubt at all.” If this is shown to be the case, the prospect of securing convictions in this country on his evidence will be complicated. In 2004 the Court of Appeal ruled – feebly – that evidence obtained using torture would be admissable as long as Britain had not “procured or connived” at it. The law lords rightly dismissed this in December last year, though they disagreed about whether the bar should be the simple “risk” or “probability” of torture.

Personally, I’m not willing to conclude that torture was used as I’m not willing to take some international human rights activist’s word for it. Her definition of torture and mine probably aren’t the same.
That being said, this does pose something of an interesting moral question. The information from this detainee in Pakistan was undoubtedly crucial in thwarting a major terror plot that could have killed thousands and had dire consequences on the global economy. In light of that, how important was it that he have an attorney present during questioning? What if he’d been granted a lawyer and, during the subsequent delays, the terror plot was carried out?
Going even further to the extreme, suppose this guy was subjected to some aggressive interrogation…how far is too far? Is making the room uncomfortably hot or cold torture? How about sleep deprivation? How about humiliation and fear? How about a few slaps to the face?
When we’re talking about stopping a terror attack that is imminent how concerned can we afford to be about the treatment of one informant?

Tags: ,


«
»
  • http://Array robert108

    I thought torture didn’t work…

  • Dave

    Going even further to the extreme, suppose this guy was subjected to some aggressive interrogation…how far is too far?

    I would support all forms of torture as long as the end result would be a reduction of suffering. Obviously, this requires a great deal of guesswork. And ideally, I would like this guesswork to be done by the American military, not Pakistanis.

    I must have just overlooked this post the first time. Interesting, if true.

  • Bat One

    How about this:

    Did the interrogators get the information they needed? Then they didn’t go too far.

  • Dave

    Going even further to the extreme, suppose this guy was subjected to some aggressive interrogation…how far is too far?

    I would support all forms of torture as long as the end result would be a reduction of suffering. Obviously, this requires a great deal of guesswork. And ideally, I would like this guesswork to be done by the American military, not Pakistanis.

    I must have just overlooked this post the first time. Interesting, if true.

  • Angus McMurphy

    Rob, indeed this does bring up an interesting question: when (if ever) is torture allowed (setting aside the issue of definition for a moment)?

    It looks like the bomb plot could actually have presents Pakistani officials with a “24″ situation:

    Pakistani officials say Rashid Rauf’s arrest prompted an accomplice in the southern city of Karachi to make a panicked phone call to a suspect in Britain, giving the signal for the airliner plot to move forward urgently. The intercepted call was instrumental in foiling the bombing plot, officials say.

    [Note: I originally saw this article linked onPower Line]

    If true, it would seem that Pakistani officials had little time to get the information from the prisoner. How far would have been too far in that situation?

    Personally, I think that if there was compelling evidence that 1) there was an imminent threat to innocent lives and 2) there was compelling evidence to justify belief that the prisoner had knowledge that would be useful in stopping the loss of innocent lives, the only thing that would be “going to far” would be killing the prisoner, since dead men tell no tales. But I recognize that others may feel differently.

  • http://www.ski-blog.com/ Justin B

    one word–waterboarding. drown the f*ing rats like the cafe bombing bitches that they are.

    “The ends never justify the means and saving thousands of lives is not worth the dignity that we lose by treating these people who have not been tried and convicted in court in such inhumane ways. We must understand why these people hate us and torturing them only makes the hate worse and produces more terrorists. What we lose in moral high ground by using these tactics is not worth the information gained. We are eroding our liberty and way of life when we resort to these measures.”

    Just a thought–if we killed them when we caught them firing from mosques and operating as essentially spies in our society during wartime after interrogating them per Geneva, there would be less terrorists by exactly the same number as the amount of bullets we put in their heads. Why not follow Geneva’s rules for un-uniformed enemy combatants and spies and saboteurs?

  • Dave

    Going even further to the extreme, suppose this guy was subjected to some aggressive interrogation…how far is too far?

    I would support all forms of torture as long as the end result would be a reduction of suffering. Obviously, this requires a great deal of guesswork. And ideally, I would like this guesswork to be done by the American military, not Pakistanis.

    I must have just overlooked this post the first time. Interesting, if true.

  • http://www.ski-blog.com/ Justin B

    BTW, getting caught and tortured and losing all these Western Civil Rights should act as a discouragement for all the little British and American kiddies that think they want to study Radical Islam in Madrassas in Pakistan and Afghanistan. They do really mean stuff there and if you are involved in illegal shit, they will torture the hell out of you.

    Same principle as we have with Tijuana. You go to Mexico and think you can pull some of the crap you do in the US, you will end up in a Mexican jail or bleeding in a gutter. It acts as a discouragement.

  • Steve L.

    I think by “torture,” the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan means, “Some of the interrogators spoke harshly to the detainees and raised their voices. One of them miht have een said something mean about the detainee’s momma.”

  • http://www.willisms.com/ Ken McCracken

    The term ‘cognitive dissonance’ comes to mind, Rob.

  • Andrew

    Wait the left is claiming this guy gave up valuable information because he was tortured? But I thought they said torture was ineffective and didn’t produce the desired results?

  • LoadTheMule

    Must be a John Kerry phenomenon: Torture didn’t work before it did.

    Regards…

  • http://www.ski-blog.com/ Justin B

    LTM, sorry, sarchasm was implied. Hence the quotes around it. That was not my voice, but a random lefty troll for the ACLU’s response. I was trying to save them the time from having to type the shit that we all know is coming.

  • robert108

    In the spirit of leftie “fairness”, isn’t it “fair” that we show the terrorists exactly the same amount of concern that they would show to us, if the situations were reversed? Sounds fair to me.

  • Bat One

    R108,

    Nah! F**k ‘em!!

  • LoadTheMule

    saving thousands of lives is not worth the dignity that we lose by treating these people who have not been tried and convicted in court in such inhumane ways

    Say again? Please tell me there’s a typo of some sort in there.

    Personally, I don’t give a tinker’s dam what the Pakistanis did or didn’t do to get the information. Nor will I lose one wink of sleep over it. Perhaps preserving your ‘dignity’ is worth losing several thousand lives, but mine certainly isn’t. We’re at war with these people. It is not a law & order issue.

    Regards…

  • http://www.ski-blog.com/ Justin B

    Funny, but the lefties don’t have a problem with Saddam doing it for 30 years before we booted him out of power. We form a human pyramid of naked Iraqis and that it torture.

    I just hope Pakistan did not have dogs barking in their faces or some goofy 20 year old girl photographing them and pointing to their genitals.

    How exactly do they propose we convince these nations where the public supports death penalties by explosive devices for simply being Jewish that “torture” in the Western sense is wrong? Perhaps a starting point would be convincing them that blowing up civilians is wrong and we could work our way through the Western Morality Lessons from there. Let’s start with the easy lessons like “Don’t stone women to death for getting raped”.

  • John Smith

    There is something to be said for Treaty Against Torture and Human Rights declarations to which United States and Britain have signed onto. If you wish to lower yourselves to the terrorists’ level, then you have truly done so by condoning torture.
    The terrorists may not respect the Human Rights treaties, but then again, they have never claimed to. Competing with their cruelty is not a valid reason to do the same. The basis of a civilized society is the practice of law and the fact that we provid equal rights to all and abide by the principles of universal Human Rights.

    If those who wish to practice torture, had better stop publicly declaring to abide by these Human Rights treaties, or better yet, get out and move to a country that doesn’t. Many people on this forum here champion the virtues of torture, but how many of you have been tortured for something you did not do? During the last few years several hundreds of people have been killed by US interrogators, with the most common reason of death being “death by natural causes”. This means a heart failure due to stress caused by the interrogation methods. Autopsy reports are available on HRW site.

  • http://sayanythingblog.com robport

    I notice that not one leftist SA reader has touched this thread.

    Interesting…

Create a SAB Readerblog


Recent Comments

Powered by Disqus

Blog Advice and Support
Installs and Upgrades
Theme Modifications
Custom Plugins
Theme Design
Conversions and Relocations
Hacked Site Recovery
Mobile Apps Development