Editor's Blog1 min ago
What next?
24 Answers
I have just read an article on BT Yahoo about a so called British citizen a Mr Tareq Dergoul who is suing the British Goverment for allowing the Americans who captured him in Afghanistan in 2001 to interrogate him. His lawyer (get this) Ms Louise Christian is suing the Attorney General because while he was in Guantanamo Bay he was interrrogated by British officials who did nothing about his situation. If he wins this, he will no doubt be asking for his social security payments he didn't get whilst in captivity, Or even for when he was in
Afghanistan. Of course, he does insist he isn't a terrorist.
Afghanistan. Of course, he does insist he isn't a terrorist.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Billy Reid S. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
If he wins it will prevent british security officers participating in torture!
It's a pretty important point of principal - especially with the CIA secretly flying people around the world to countries where they can have their toenails pulled out.
If we gave tacit approval to that sort of behaviour by attending it it needs sorting out
It's a pretty important point of principal - especially with the CIA secretly flying people around the world to countries where they can have their toenails pulled out.
If we gave tacit approval to that sort of behaviour by attending it it needs sorting out
true story, sp1814
http://www.guardian.co.uk/guantanamo/story/0,, 2167204,00.html
apparently this poor deluded fool thinks British forces should not stand by and let Americans torture Britons. Whatever will they think of next?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/guantanamo/story/0,, 2167204,00.html
apparently this poor deluded fool thinks British forces should not stand by and let Americans torture Britons. Whatever will they think of next?
Hang on jake, how is not being able to convince the US to not do somthing tantamount to doing it themselves?
What should they do eh? tell the yanks how beastly they're being and try and leave with the chap under their arm and take him back to suicide bombers R us?
You'll have to talk me through that piece of illogic!
What should they do eh? tell the yanks how beastly they're being and try and leave with the chap under their arm and take him back to suicide bombers R us?
You'll have to talk me through that piece of illogic!
It's called torture by proxy
You're not allowed to torture someone yourself in your own country so you secretly fly them abroad and invite your british chums over to enjoy the show.
If we were talking about a criminal murder I think we'd call it being an accessory before and after the fact!
But you seem to be skirting the point here Loosehead so let me ask you a simple, straight question.
Do you think the state should be allowed to arrest and torture people?
You're not allowed to torture someone yourself in your own country so you secretly fly them abroad and invite your british chums over to enjoy the show.
If we were talking about a criminal murder I think we'd call it being an accessory before and after the fact!
But you seem to be skirting the point here Loosehead so let me ask you a simple, straight question.
Do you think the state should be allowed to arrest and torture people?
I disagree with Loosehead on one point only. (note this is a general comment, not an answer to loosehead!)
Let's imagine a UK citizen - the question poster Billy reid for example - is captured in a foreign country by, say the Iranians. Would UK forces stand by if he was being tortured? Doubt it.
The principle is - should a UK citizen be held without trial or charge indefinitely by a foreign power and with the tacit collaboration of HM troops?
Now ask yourself - would you allow it if it was your family?
Let's imagine a UK citizen - the question poster Billy reid for example - is captured in a foreign country by, say the Iranians. Would UK forces stand by if he was being tortured? Doubt it.
The principle is - should a UK citizen be held without trial or charge indefinitely by a foreign power and with the tacit collaboration of HM troops?
Now ask yourself - would you allow it if it was your family?
Years ago, my ex-girlfriend used to play 'My Heart Will Go On' by Celine Dion over and over again when she was drunk (ex-girlfriend, not Celine).
Ladies and gentlemen...that was torture.
And it was the principle reason behind me deciding to become gay.
I've never looked back since.
Hang on....there's a joke in there, isn't there?
Ladies and gentlemen...that was torture.
And it was the principle reason behind me deciding to become gay.
I've never looked back since.
Hang on....there's a joke in there, isn't there?
I love the end of your question: Of course, he does insist he isn't a terrorist.
So he was tortured, interrogated etc but then released in 2004 with no charges.
But you seem to imply he is a terrorist? Are you privy to information that the Americans or British don't have? Or is this just your gut feeling - after all I am sure there can't be any smoke without fire can there?
So he was tortured, interrogated etc but then released in 2004 with no charges.
But you seem to imply he is a terrorist? Are you privy to information that the Americans or British don't have? Or is this just your gut feeling - after all I am sure there can't be any smoke without fire can there?
-- answer removed --
Yes of course - bet Ghandi was a terrorist to - I mean he shunned the normal way of life (ignoring the problem) and decided to help people out. I mean, people going out of their way to help those suffering in a war.
Bloody terrorists the lot of them.
I guess that anyone going to help victims of any sort should think about the consequences of their actions. For heavens sake, don't go and help the next flood victims - you could get shot for looting. I mean, what else would you be doing there?
Selfish society? Probably because of people's responses like yours. I bet you think that blokes who want to be primary school teachers are paedophiles as well.
Bloody terrorists the lot of them.
I guess that anyone going to help victims of any sort should think about the consequences of their actions. For heavens sake, don't go and help the next flood victims - you could get shot for looting. I mean, what else would you be doing there?
Selfish society? Probably because of people's responses like yours. I bet you think that blokes who want to be primary school teachers are paedophiles as well.
It doesn't matter what he is Billy, terrorist or saint.
If we torture people or condone the use of it we don't have a leg to stand on if people do it to our forces.
Remember those sailors captured by the Iranians?
Would you approve if they'd been tortured?
Or is your position that it's OK if we do it but not if they do?
If we torture people or condone the use of it we don't have a leg to stand on if people do it to our forces.
Remember those sailors captured by the Iranians?
Would you approve if they'd been tortured?
Or is your position that it's OK if we do it but not if they do?
