• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

CIA and MI6 worked with Libya/Gaddafi to carry out torture on suspected terrorists

Status
Not open for further replies.

nib95

Banned
It's all over the news here in the UK at the moment. Did a quick search and didn't see a new thread and thought it deserved one. Supposedly both the US and UK had a very close and often cozy relationship with Libya and Gaddafi's highest, up until the 18th of Feb (when the uprising began). Some of the objectives/benefits of the close relationship are often more distasteful. According to reports the CIA and MI6 evidently had much use for some of Libya's more immoral and illegal possibilities.

Kind of sickening, but upsettingly, not really surprising.

Oddly, one of the most powerful generals currently heading much in Tripoli post up-rising, claims to have been illegally tortured by Libyan and CIA officials and is demanding an apology.

US and the UK failing yet again and completely embarrassing themselves in the process.


Guardian said:
Libyan papers show UK worked with Gaddafi in rendition operation
A secret CIA document shows that British and Libyans worked together to arrange the removal of a terror suspect to Tripoli


Documents found in Tripoli suggest that MI6 enjoyed a close relationship with Gaddafi's intelligence services. Photograph: Martin Argles for the Guardian
Evidence that British intelligence agencies mounted their own "rendition" operation in collaboration with Muammar Gaddafi's security services has emerged with the discovery of a cache of Libyan government papers in an abandoned office building in Tripoli.

A secret CIA document found among the haul shows that the British and Libyans worked together to arrange for a terrorism suspect to be removed from Hong Kong to Tripoli – along with his wife and children – despite the risk that they would be tortured. The wording of the document suggests the CIA was not involved in the planning of the rendition operation, but was eager to become engaged during its execution and offered financial support.

Other papers found in the building suggest MI6 enjoyed a far closer working relationship with Gaddafi's intelligence agencies than has been publicly known, and was involved in a number of US-led operations that also resulted in Islamists being consigned to Gaddafi's prisons.

On Sunday, one of the victims, Abdul Hakim Belhaj – now commander of the anti-Gaddafi militia in Tripoli – demanded an apology from London and Washington and said he was considering suing over his rendition to Tripoli and subsequent torture.

For several years, senior MI5 and MI6 officers have sought to deny that their agencies have been guilty even of complicity in the rendition operations mounted by the US after 9/11, and the subsequent torture of the victims.


The discovery of the papers suggests that on one occasion, at least, the British ran their own "rendition to torture" operation. The victim was named by the CIA as Abu Munthir. He is thought to have been a man who used this nom de guerre while living in the UK, where he is said to have encouraged a group of British Muslims to mount a bomb attack on an unspecified target in the south-east of England. The plotters were under surveillance by MI5 and counterterrorism detectives at the time that Abu Munthir was detained in Hong Kong in March 2004 before being sent to Libya.

While five members of the gang were jailed for life after a trial at the Old Bailey, and a sixth received a 10-year sentence in Canada, the fate of Abu Munthir and his family remains unknown.

The papers were discovered by staff of Human Rights Watch, the New York-based NGO, in the unmarked offices of Libya's external security agency. A number of the documents detail meetings between the British and Libyans during the period of rapprochement that followed the 2003 invasion of Iraq, when Gaddafi was being persuaded to abandon his nuclear weapons programme.

The fact that MI6 and Libyan intelligence enjoyed a close relationship at this time is known: the Secret Intelligence Service made no secret of its role in the successful WMD negotiations, and when Gaddafi's former intelligence chief Moussa Koussa defected last March, MI6 organised the flight. The papers show that Sir Mark Allen, the former head of counterterrorism at MI6, played a key role in nurturing this relationship.

The documents also show that British intelligence agencies provided intelligence reports on individuals of interest to Tripoli, helped the Libyans identify at least one organisation using particular telephone numbers in the UK, and were intimately involved in a number of US operations that saw Islamist terrorist suspects rendered to Libya. Since the ousting of Gaddafi it has become apparent that the regime's enemies were tortured routinely while imprisoned, and at least one rendition victim, Ibn Sheikh al-Libi, later died in what the Libyans claimed was a suicide.

The CIA fax that details the UK-Libya rendition operation is potentially the most damning for the UK authorities, however. It was sent to Tripoli on 23 March 2003 and marked SECRET/US ONLY/EXCEPT LIBYA. "Our service has become aware that last weekend LIFG [Libyan Islamic Fighting Group] deputy Emir Abu Munthir and his spouse and children were being held in Hong Kong detention for immigration/passport violations," it says. "We are also aware that your service had been co-operating with the British to effect Abu Munthir's removal to Tripoli, and that you had an aircraft available for this purpose in the Maldives."

The fax goes on to explain that although Hong Kong had no wish to see a Libyan aircraft land on its territory, "to enable you to assume control of Abu Munthir and his family", the operation would work if the Libyans were to charter an aircraft registered in a third country, and that the US would assist with the cost. The Hong Kong authorities were also insisting that the Libyans offer an assurance that the family's human rights would be respected, but human rights groups would say that such assurances were worthless.

Whitehall officials on Sunday defended the actions of the intelligence agencies and their links with Libya, saying this was "ministerially authorised government policy". They said there were genuine fears some Libyan dissidents living in the UK posed a potential threat to national security, because of the group's links to Islamic extremists. They were cut in 2009.

MI5 and MI6 have continued to maintain they have not been complicit in torture and rendition despite the emergence of a growing body of evidence to the contrary.
For example, the last Labour government tried, unsuccessfully, to prevent the high court disclosing evidence that MI5 knew Binyam Mohamed was being tortured in Pakistan before an officer was sent to interrogate Also, a secret telegram signed by Jack Straw while he was foreign secretary, which was disclosed in a second court case, showed that the government had decided a number of British nationals should be sent to Guantánamo Bay, but only after MI5 had interrogated them in Afghanistan.

him. Despite this, the agencies have continued to insist they were guilty only of being "slow to detect the emerging pattern" of rendition by the US, a defence that was accepted by the intelligence and security committee, the Westminster body that was established to offer political oversight of the agencies.

The secret CIA fax is the first sign that the British went much further than being merely complicit, and were directly involved in rendition to a country where the victim could expect to be tortured.


Abu Munthir was thought to be the link man between a group of British jihadists, whom he had met in Luton, and Abdul Hadi al-Iraqi, who has been accused of being a senior figure in al-Qaida.

A month after Abu Munthir's detention in Hong Kong and removal to Tripoli, 18 men were arrested in police raids across the south of England. Two other men were arrested in New York and Ottawa and several were seized in Pakistan. It was alleged at a trial at the Old Bailey that Abu Munthir had encouraged members of the group to mount attacks in the UK, rather than wage jihad in Afghanistan.

One of those held in Pakistan was Salahuddin Amin, then 29, from Luton, who was questioned 13 times by MI5 officers in between being tortured by agents of Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI). He was shown a photograph of Abu Munthir, and told that he too was in detention. The secret interrogation policy that MI5 and MI6 officers were instructed to follow during such operations was disclosed by the Guardian last month. Amin was later deported to the UK and is one of the men now serving life sentences.

The questioning of Amin by the ISI, under torture, appears to have been co-ordinated with the questioning of other suspects held by Scotland Yard at Paddington Green police station in west London. It now appears that it was also co-ordinated with the questioning – quite possibly also under torture – of Abu Munthir in Tripoli.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/sep/04/libyan-papers-show-uk-rendition


Guardian said:
CIA worked with Libya in terror suspect renditions, documents show
Documents found in the offices of former head of Libyan intelligence also reveal MI6 gave Gaddafi regime information on dissidents



The CIA worked closely with Muammar Gaddafi's intelligence services in the rendition of terrorist suspects including Abdel-Hakim Belhaj, the rebel commander in Tripoli, according to documents found in Tripoli.

The documents, found in the offices of the former head of Libyan intelligence Musa Kusa, also show that MI6 gave Gaddafi's regime information on Libyan dissidents living in the UK.

The files, uncovered by Human Rights Watch, provide details of the close relationship between western intelligence services, including MI6 and the CIA, and the ousted dictator's regime.


Two documents from March 2004 appear to be American correspondence to Libyan officials to arrange the rendition of Belhaj, the former leader of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, a now-dissolved militant group with links to al-Qaida.

Referring to him by his nom de guerre, Abdullah al-Sadiq, the documents say he will be flown from Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, to Libya, and asks for Libyan government agents to accompany him. They also request US "access to al-Sadiq for debriefing purposes once he is in your custody".

Belhaj has said he was tortured by CIA agents at a secret prison before being returned to Libya.

"Please be advised that we must be assured that al-Sadiq will be treated humanely and that his human rights will be respected," the document states.

Peter Bouckaert, the emergencies director of Human Rights Watch, called the ties between Washington and Gaddafi's regime "a very dark chapter in American intelligence history, and it remains a stain on the record of the American intelligence services that they cooperated with these very abusive intelligence services".

Jennifer Youngblood, a CIA spokeswoman, declined to comment on any specific allegation related to the documents.

She said: "It can't come as a surprise that the Central Intelligence Agency works with foreign governments to help protect our country from terrorism and other deadly threats. That is exactly what we are expected to do."

The documents referring to MI6 contain communications between British and Libyan security services before the former prime minister Tony Blair's desert tent meeting with Gaddafi in 2004. British officials are said to have helped the Libyan dictator with his speechwriting.

The foreign Secretary, William Hague, told Sky News the had no comment to make on intelligence matters.

But he added: "On the subject of these apparent disclosures, first of all they relate to a period under the previous government so I have no knowledge of those, of what was happening behind the scenes at that time."

The documents emerged as the Ministry of Defence (MoD) disclosed that British forces have so far hit more than 900 targets in the Nato campaign to protect Libyan civilians from the Gaddafi regime.

The latest strikes came during armed reconnaissance patrols around buildings in Bani Walid, where rebels believed Gaddafi may have been hiding.

Among the 910 targets damaged or destroyed since operations began in March were secret police headquarters and command bunkers, the MoD said.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/sep/03/cia-libya-terror-suspect-renditions



And more.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/sep/04/mark-allen-mi6-libya-profile

http://www.guardian.co.uk/
 

Huff

Banned
If people are shocked that either of these two countries will torture, I don't know know... Wake up?
 
Two documents from March 2004 appear to be American correspondence to Libyan officials to arrange the rendition of Belhaj, the former leader of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, a now-dissolved militant group with links to al-Qaida.

Okay, so whats the outrage here?
 

nib95

Banned
Teh Hamburglar said:
Okay, so whats the outrage here?

Outrage is that US/UK implore illegal torture of suspected (not even convicted) criminals. And do so by working closely with some of the very people they ironically vilify for doing the same things they themselves made specific use of. Naturally many of these torture victims are likely later found to be guilty and thus it's not as bad, but chances are, like the general asking for an apology, many are simply innocent. Point is, torture is immoral and against human rights....with good reason.


BroHuffman said:
If people are shocked that either of these two countries will torture, I don't know know... Wake up?

Just because you're not surprised by something, doesn't make it any less heinous or subject to being free from outrage. I'd also say that the fact that something so negative is potentially not surprising, poses a bigger cause for outrage and/or concern.

I'm not American so won't comment on that, but as a Brit, I'm asking myself, why the fuck IS my country involved in this shit, and more importantly, getting away with it? I will be writing to relevant bodies and university groups and hopefully joining any protests or mass condemnations against this, however big or small. Point is, I'll make my disdain for such antics apparent, even if in a small way.

.
 

akira28

Member
SxYMh.jpg


This can only lead further down the rabbit hole and eventually leads to Dick Cheney's formerly secure hiding space. But of course the Obama DOJ won't investigate or prosecute. Why doesn't Dennis Kucinich or someone latch on to an issue like this?


The outrage is that War on Terror short sighted dumbasses would ally with former enemies and killers of Americans to have them torture and extract faulty information from prisoners that we've secretly shipped, to take advantage of our former enemy's enemeaness. Shit's insane. Of course it's also par for the course of business and politics, there are no morals, there are no values, everything is relative, trust is a tool, and there are no friends or enemies. Fuck that.
 

SoulPlaya

more money than God
nib95 said:
Outrage is that US/UK implore illegal torture of suspected (not even convicted) criminals. And do so by working closely with some of the very people they ironically vilify for doing the same things they themselves made specific use of. Naturally many of these torture victims are likely later found to be guilty and thus it's not as bad, but chances are, like the general asking for an apology, many are simply innocent. Point is, torture is immoral and against human rights....with good reason.
Maybe so, but this has been going on for decades (not Libya, but other countries). It's why I always found the outrage over water boarding to be pretentious. The fact of the matter is that the US has been torturing suspects for years, they just use proxy nations indirectly.
 

Gregorn

Member
Nice going CIA, now everyone know's that we're both dicks. China will never go out with us if you keep posting about what we get up to at parties.
 

Huff

Banned
akira28 said:
SxYMh.jpg


This can only lead further down the rabbit hole and eventually leads to Dick Cheney's formerly secure hiding space. But of course the Obama DOJ won't investigate or prosecute. Why doesn't Dennis Kucinich or someone latch on to an issue like this?


The outrage is that War on Terror short sighted dumbasses would ally with former enemies and killers of Americans to have them torture and extract faulty information from prisoners that we've secretly shipped, to take advantage of our former enemy's enemeaness. Shit's insane. Of course it's also par for the course of business and politics, there are no morals, there are no values, everything is relative, trust is a tool, and there are no friends or enemies. Fuck
that.

I have no idea what you're going on about.
 

akira28

Member
SoulPlaya said:
Maybe so, but this has been going on for decades (not Libya, but other countries). It's why I always found the outrage over water boarding to be pretentious. The fact of the matter is that the US has been torturing suspects for years, they just use proxy nations indirectly.

It's not common knowledge to citizens or voters or their representatives, and when it went out over the news lines, the President assured all Americans they everything was still cool. This was a dirty secret, so the outrage wasn't fake. That's the problem. That's our problem as citizens. People literally don't know how to separate the actions of a government from it's people. So we take the fall for bad actions of our fucking employees, when we should finally be grabbing them by the neck and kicking their asses. And we have no idea how many bad actions or bad actors there are out there "working" on our behalf.
 

Huff

Banned
akira28 said:
It's not common knowledge to citizens or voters or their representatives, and when it went out over the news lines, the President assured all Americans they everything was still cool. This was a dirty secret, so the outrage wasn't fake. That's the problem. That's our problem as citizens. People literally don't know how to separate the actions of a government from it's people. So we take the fall for bad actions of our fucking employees, when we should finally be grabbing them by the neck and kicking their asses. And we have no idea how many bad actions or bad actors there are out there "working" on our behalf.

Honestly can't tell if you are being serious or not.
 

nib95

Banned
BroHuffman said:
If people are shocked that either of these two countries will torture, I don't know know... Wake up?

BroHuffman said:
I have no idea what you're going on about.

BroHuffman said:
Honestly can't tell if you are being serious or not.

Excellent contributions thus far...lol.

And just for you....I'm being sarcastic.
 

akira28

Member
BroHuffman said:
I have no idea what you're going on about.

Well, part of it was a joke. i wanted to say Dick Cheney's colon, but that's probably a joke too well traveled. Part of it was a dig at Obama's patented inaction, and then there was the dig at Congress.

If you don't understand the whole 'allying with former enemies because they have lower moral standards and will get all blackguard on your prisoners for you is wrong' thing, then that's something you need to deal with.
 
Not surprising at all really. The CIA could care less what regime they are dealign with as long as that regime will give them what they want. Same with all other intelligence agencies. They all want to get their jobs done in the most efficient way possible. Its black ops anyway so who gives a fuck about morality or politics.
 

MThanded

I Was There! Official L Receiver 2/12/2016
nib95 said:
Excellent contributions thus far...lol.

And just for you....I'm being sarcastic.
You forgot to sign out of your alternate account i think. Two of those replies werent even for you.
 

akira28

Member
hahah am I being summed up as part of a collective now? can I be the head? :)

Are you ok with your head being pony?

No folks I think he was just eager to reply so he replied to mine as well. Which I'm cool with.
 

Huff

Banned
akira28 said:
Well, part of it was a joke. i wanted to say Dick Cheney's colon, but that's probably a joke too well traveled. Part of it was a dig at Obama's patented inaction, and then there was the dig at Congress.

If you don't understand the whole 'allying with former enemies because they have lower moral standards and will get all blackguard on your prisoners for you is wrong' thing, then that's something you need to deal with.

Do I think it is morally wrong? Yes.

Do I think morals should have anything to do with black ops and counter terrorism? No.
 

akira28

Member
BroHuffman said:
Do I think it is morally wrong? Yes.

Do I think morals should have anything to do with black ops and counter terrorism? No.

Morals ought to have a play in almost every decision you make, or they should have no impact on your decision making at all. You can't just decide to be immoral one moment and moral the next. That's....

Oh my God.
 

nib95

Banned
MThanded said:
You forgot to sign out of your alternate account i think. Two of those replies werent even for you.

Huh? Also, I didn't realise GAF posts were so individual in direction and proposed reception? Far as I could tell this was still an open discussion.
 
BroHuffman said:
Do I think it is morally wrong? Yes.

Do I think morals should have anything to do with black ops and counter terrorism? No.
Killing every person in a given city would statistically reduce the likelihood of a terror attack. You are the president. You as president with no moral calculation needed in your counter terrorism activities send the order out to exterminate the entire population. No morals makes for awesome scenarios.
 

Huff

Banned
nib95 said:
Huh? Also, I didn't realise GAF posts were so individual in direction and proposed reception? Far as I could tell this was still an open discussion.

Only discussion so far has been bad shit crazy responses and shrugs.
 

akira28

Member
nib don't you realize that sometimes in order to defeat the terrorists, that we must become terrorists ourselves? Know this. I'm in the mood for pancakes.

he means to say that if you're not at least willing to consider the necessity, they you're crazy.
 

Blackace

if you see me in a fight with a bear, don't help me fool, help the bear!
nib95 said:
Huh? Also, I didn't realise GAF posts were so individual in direction and proposed reception? Far as I could tell this was still an open discussion.

Well when someone is targeting another poster's comment and you answer like it was your comment you could see how people would be confused..

Poster A: "Very unclever Obama ramblings..."
Poster B: Notsureifserious.jpg
Poster C:
Notsureifserious.jpg
I was just joking!
 

Blackace

if you see me in a fight with a bear, don't help me fool, help the bear!
BroHuffman said:
Do I think it is morally wrong? Yes.

Do I think morals should have anything to do with black ops and counter terrorism? No.

huh... really?
 

leadbelly

Banned
akira28 said:
nib don't you realize that sometimes in order to defeat the terrorists, that we must become terrorists ourselves? Know this. I'm in the mood for pancakes.

he means to say that if you're not at least willing to consider the necessity, they you're crazy.

Is this Batman speaking?
 
leadbelly said:
The CIA and MI6 are both clandestine organisations. I am sure they have done worse things.
This makes it right, and we should not condemn horrible behavior when we discover it, because we could easily speculate that worse things have happened. And we all know if worse things have theoretically happened, we simply cannot criticize bad things that we know have happened.
 
BroHuffman said:
Do I think it is morally wrong? Yes.

Do I think morals should have anything to do with black ops and counter terrorism? No.

Black Ops people usually dont care about morals but counter terrorism in general? Comon morality is key here. Thats why Americans don't just execute 100 Iraqi's in the middle of the street for every terrorist attack like the Nazi's did in Europe.
 

Blackace

if you see me in a fight with a bear, don't help me fool, help the bear!
elrechazao said:
This makes it right, and we should not condemn horrible behavior when we discover it, because we could easily speculate that worse things have happened. And we all know if worse things have theoretically happened, we simply cannot criticize bad things that we know have happened.

that's exactly what he said aright.. uh.. what?
 

leadbelly

Banned
elrechazao said:
This makes it right, and we should not condemn horrible behavior when we discover it, because we could easily speculate that worse things have happened. And we all know if worse things have theoretically happened, we simply cannot criticize bad things that we know have happened.

I didn't say it was either right or wrong. I just pointed out the way they operate. It's a philosophy that anything is okay as long as it contributes to the common good.
 

Huff

Banned
elrechazao said:
Killing every person in a given city would statistically reduce the likelihood of a terror attack. You are the president. You as president with no moral calculation needed in your counter terrorism activities send the order out to exterminate the entire population. No morals makes for awesome scenarios.

To start, does that have to do with morals or with expected consequences and counter actions from other countries/regions?

Way to pick a great scenario btw. And it there was a "city" that was totally bred to train terrorists, and we could take it out without the knowledge that it was us, why shouldn't we? Who says the US/UK hasn't done this before?

Blackace said:
huh... really?

Not being morally involved doesn't mean not using good judgement and reason.
 

nib95

Banned
Blackace said:
Well when someone is targeting another poster's comment and you answer like it was your comment you could see how people would be confused..

Poster A: "Very unclever Obama ramblings..."
Poster B: Notsureifserious.jpg
Poster C: Notsureifserious.jpg
I was just joking!

The reason I responded to him was because all of BroHuffmans posts to me seemed quite dismissive. I.e, either, yea and? Or, what are you talking about, not sure if serious etc. Despite my personal opinion that the said posts were actually quite straight forward.


akira28 said:
nib don't you realize that sometimes in order to defeat the terrorists, that we must become terrorists ourselves? Know this. I'm in the mood for pancakes.

he means to say that if you're not at least willing to consider the necessity, they you're crazy.

Lol.
 
Blackace said:
that's exactly what he said aright.. uh.. what?
I like to make extreme leaps in reading between the lines.
BroHuffman said:
To start, does that have to do with morals or with expected consequences and counter actions from other countries/regions?

Way to pick a great scenario btw. And it there was a "city" that was totally bred to train terrorists, and we could take it out without the knowledge that it was us, why shouldn't we? Who says the US/UK hasn't done this before?
I was positing a scenario where morals would require a decision on a specific course of action. You just confirmed that the ends justify the means, which is pretty shockingly horrible.
 
BroHuffman said:
To start, does that have to do with morals or with expected consequences and counter actions from other countries/regions?

Way to pick a great scenario btw. And it there was a "city" that was totally bred to train terrorists, and we could take it out without the knowledge that it was us, why shouldn't we? Who says the US/UK hasn't done this before?

This "city" you speak of is what is in reality a terrorist training camp and the US doesn't need to bomb/destroy these in secret. They do it in public and brag about it because they are valid military targets.
 

akira28

Member
Actually it's anything's ok as long as all proof is recovered and the truth is never discovered. You can still hang in the hague for following what you thought was for the greater good.


oh blackace, you're talking about me? Come at me bro. You know Obama has been sitting on his goddamned hands in relation to WoT offenses. I know why he is, political and maybe literal suicide and all, but that doesn't hide the fact that he's doing it. His Atty Gen has been a major disappointment.
 

nib95

Banned
BroHuffman said:
Do I think it is morally wrong? Yes.

Do I think morals should have anything to do with black ops and counter terrorism? No.

Lol. So basically you condone immorality. That's just smashing...
 

Blackace

if you see me in a fight with a bear, don't help me fool, help the bear!
akira28 said:
oh blackace, you're talking about me? Come at me bro. You know Obama has been sitting on his goddamned hands in relation to WoT offenses. I know why he is, political and maybe literal suicide and all, but that doesn't hide the fact that he's doing it. His Atty Gen has been a major disappointment.

ok.. come at you? Do you really want me to do that? That's like low level violence.. coming at people where I am from means let's knuckle up or shoot..

The WoT wasn't something he started, but I don't think it is something that he can just pull the plug on easily...
 

Huff

Banned
nib95 said:
Lol. So basically you condone immorality. That's just smashing...

If a kid has a gun and he's shooting at you, I say shoot him.

If we need information about a terrorist, I say take it.

If we need to destroy a city to save thousands of lives, drop the bomb.

I also expect the same amount of courtesy in event of a take over or during my long holidays in the middle east.
 
Everyone who is throwing a party about the fact that Gaddafi is out of power now is going to be worth watching six months from now. When the Islamists take over and implement Sharia law & start discriminating against black people, I bet there won't be so much rah-rahing the Libyan revolution.

I fear it's going to be Iraq 2.0 soon, except this time, Obama dodged a bullet by not deploying ground troops and sticking with just SF/CIA on the ground. (note: I am not saying Gaddafi was good for Libya or anything, I just think that the region needs different leadership than either Gaddafi or the current Rebels)

I'm not Libyan though, and my opinions on this matter have been formed after recently reading all the articles about how the "rebels" aren't exactly matching the image of the freedom loving good guys I thought they were a month ago.
 
BroHuffman said:
If a kid has a gun and he's shooting at you, I say shoot him.

If we need information about a terrorist, I say take it.

If we need to destroy a city to save thousands of lives, drop the bomb.

I also expect the same amount of courtesy in event of a take over or during my long holidays in the middle east.
If you can get information about terrorism, torture people to extract it.


?
 

Huff

Banned
elrechazao said:
If you can get information about terrorism, torture people to extract it.


?

New York city blows up. We've had a terrorist suspect from the middle east in custody in America for weeks, but he won't talk.

Should we have gotten information from him in ways besides asking him nicely or be glad we were moral?

Edit: A lot of hypothetical stuff. I'm on one side. I see you seem to be on the other. Should we continue or just agree to disagree?
 

Blackace

if you see me in a fight with a bear, don't help me fool, help the bear!
BroHuffman said:
New York city blows up. We've had a terrorist suspect from the middle east in custody in America for weeks, but he won't talk.

Should we have gotten information from him in ways besides asking him nicely or be glad we were moral?

the entire city of New York?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom