Red Cross Torture Report

[Incongruous]

Government will ALWAYS have to do nasty things, and given the nature of Gov't they will do nasty things to the general populace unless the general populace consistently reacts with horror and revulsion when such activity occurs.

Therefore:
I agree with the UK's interventionist foreign policy and therefore recognise that the UK will accumulate many state & non-state enemies.
I support the secret use of effective interrogation techniques against enemies of the state, even if they are distasteful to me.
I recognise that many of the brutal torture techniques provide zero certainty for interrogation purposes, and are thus ineffective.
I realise that the general public will find it very difficult to distinguish between effective/distasteful & ineffective/brutal interrogation methods.
I accept that the general public do not always make rational choices about the public good which is why we elect governments to make those tough choices.
I encourage public uproar about distasteful & brutal interrogation techniques as the most effective ward against the incipient totalitarian state.

Is that clearer?

No, we do not elect government in order that they may evict fellow subjects from their homelands, we do not elect governments to declare war without concensus, we do not elect governments to abuse the use of Royal perogative to stifle High Court rulings. We do not believe in the government taking blatant liberties with its powers under the pretext of "we know better". You're not a commie are you?

"interventionist policy"...
Oh you mean that stuff about invading countries for the sake of securing oil pipelines which our current group of Chums, the Taliban, can no longer do? Right.
Because our current adventure in the desert has gone sooo well!

The money that has been spent on Iraq could have been spent on the people who actually pay taxes, you know, some of those poor people who don't have much, who live off the crap which is frozen food and multiple jobs.
The only people who support the war in Asia are those whom don't struggle with the black holes which are Public schools and council estates.

[Furunculus]

No, we do not elect government in order that they may evict fellow subjects from their homelands, we do not elect governments to declare war without concensus, we do not elect governments to abuse the use of Royal perogative to stifle High Court rulings. We do not believe in the government taking blatant liberties with its powers under the pretext of "we know better". You're not a commie are you?

"interventionist policy"...
Oh you mean that stuff about invading countries for the sake of securing oil pipelines which our current group of Chums, the Taliban, can no longer do? Right.
Because our current adventure in the desert has gone sooo well!

The money that has been spent on Iraq could have been spent on the people who actually pay taxes, you know, some of those poor people who don't have much, who live off the crap which is frozen food and multiple jobs.
The only people who support the war in Asia are those whom don't struggle with the black holes which are Public schools and council estates.

that's lovely, and i disagree btw, but it has nothing to do with this discussion.

[Incongruous]

sounds like an effing stupid thing to sign, for if taken literally then you cannot forcefully interrogate anyone via forced means

No it says that any form of interrogatiopn which causes "severe" pain is illegal, now if your idea of a confession is a scrawled signature on a pre-written admission of guilt after a few doses of simulated drowning, then I despair for the ability of the West to deal with real terrorists.

that's lovely, and i disagree btw, but it has nothing to do with this discussion.

Notice it was rather relavent to what you posted earlier? A post which gave your reasons for your agreeing with governments doing nasty things.

[Furunculus]

No it says that any form of interrogatiopn which causes "severe" pain is illegal, now if your idea of a confession is a scrawled signature on a pre-written admission of guilt after a few doses of simulated drowning, then I despair for the ability of the West to deal with real terrorists.

Notice it was rather relavent to what you posted earlier? A post which gave your reasons for your agreeing with governments doing nasty things.

as i said earlier:
1. I am in favour of effective interrogation techniques
2. I am willing to accept distasteful techniques for use against enemies of the state
3. I recognise that brutal techniques are both ineffective and uncertain, and therefore useless.

[Lemur]

A rather astute post:

The outstanding precedent here is Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus along the New York-Washington train route in the spring of 1861. State volunteers had to get to Washington to defend the capital come hell or high water, and Lincoln wasn't about to let legal questions get in the way. It's still not clear whether the President can unilaterally suspend the writ in the absence of Congressional action, although my reading of Hamdan and Boumedienne suggests that he cannot.

But it was the way in which Lincoln acted that can really serve as a precedent here.

1) Take Reponsibility. Josh Marshall has been writing about this recently as well. Lincoln didn't pretend that some flunkies had taken these steps; he didn't say that he wasn't really suspending habeas corpus, only authorizing "expedited detention processes." He did it, and took responsibility for it. Does Dick Cheney really think these things are necessary? Then he should have the basic courage to admit that he did them and advocate for a change in the law. I'm not holding my breath.

2) Go Public. This is obviously related to #1. The Bush Administration's policies were particularly insidious because no one knew they were happening; there could be no public debate about the issue. Lincoln, by contrast, issued a proclamation. And no, it's no excuse to say that there couldn't be a public debate about this. As with #1, make an argument that we should withdraw from the international conventions against torture that Ronald Reagan advocated.

3) Get Backing From Congress. After issuing his order, Lincoln called Congress back into a special session to validate his move. But Congress didn't have to do so. Unlike Bush, Lincoln wasn't a royalist: he didn't think that the President could do anything he wants if he thinks it's important. Bush and Cheney, on the other hand, did their best to hide from Congress everything that they were doing.

4) Limit the Scope in Both Time and Space. What is so amazing about Lincoln's action is how limited it was: in the middle of the Civil War, it only applied to one particular rail line. Two years later, he violated this principle by attempting to suspend the writ all over the country, which historians have looked on quite rightfully as illegal and wrong. In the Bush Administration by contrast, Cheney and Rumsfeld authorized these techniques seemingly for anyone and everyone; they told interrogators to do what they needed to do whenever. Moreover, because Lincoln called Congress back into session, it was clear that his action was temporary; by contrast, Bush and Cheney used the excuse of a war that would never have a clear end to make it indefinite.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Nice find, Lemur. There's a good lesson in there -- and one that I think the Bush administration clearly botched regardless of whether you think the SERE efforts were justified or not.

[Spino]

A rather astute post:

The outstanding precedent here is Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus along the New York-Washington train route in the spring of 1861. State volunteers had to get to Washington to defend the capital come hell or high water, and Lincoln wasn't about to let legal questions get in the way. It's still not clear whether the President can unilaterally suspend the writ in the absence of Congressional action, although my reading of Hamdan and Boumedienne suggests that he cannot.

But it was the way in which Lincoln acted that can really serve as a precedent here.

1) Take Reponsibility. Josh Marshall has been writing about this recently as well. Lincoln didn't pretend that some flunkies had taken these steps; he didn't say that he wasn't really suspending habeas corpus, only authorizing "expedited detention processes." He did it, and took responsibility for it. Does Dick Cheney really think these things are necessary? Then he should have the basic courage to admit that he did them and advocate for a change in the law. I'm not holding my breath.

2) Go Public. This is obviously related to #1. The Bush Administration's policies were particularly insidious because no one knew they were happening; there could be no public debate about the issue. Lincoln, by contrast, issued a proclamation. And no, it's no excuse to say that there couldn't be a public debate about this. As with #1, make an argument that we should withdraw from the international conventions against torture that Ronald Reagan advocated.

3) Get Backing From Congress. After issuing his order, Lincoln called Congress back into a special session to validate his move. But Congress didn't have to do so. Unlike Bush, Lincoln wasn't a royalist: he didn't think that the President could do anything he wants if he thinks it's important. Bush and Cheney, on the other hand, did their best to hide from Congress everything that they were doing.

4) Limit the Scope in Both Time and Space. What is so amazing about Lincoln's action is how limited it was: in the middle of the Civil War, it only applied to one particular rail line. Two years later, he violated this principle by attempting to suspend the writ all over the country, which historians have looked on quite rightfully as illegal and wrong. In the Bush Administration by contrast, Cheney and Rumsfeld authorized these techniques seemingly for anyone and everyone; they told interrogators to do what they needed to do whenever. Moreover, because Lincoln called Congress back into session, it was clear that his action was temporary; by contrast, Bush and Cheney used the excuse of a war that would never have a clear end to make it indefinite.

So... the moral of the story is it's cool to break the law so long as you appear honorable while doing it?!?

So waterboarding guerillas overwhelmingly of foreign extraction (Padilla being a citizen, his atty charged he was tortured) in order to deal with a foreign threat is unacceptable (SCOTUS only reached a decision on the matter of habeus corpus for Guantanamo Detainees last July) but suspending habeus corpus for all citizens without a proper Congressional vote or a ruling by the SCOTUS for the entirety of a conflict is cool? Clearly the recent SCOTUS ruling changes the rules of the game but at the time these interrogations took place we were in a weird gray area which we had ventured into many a time throughout our history.

So... the author of this article would have been more comfortable with the Bush administration if they legally sought to suspend habeus corpus in Congress, thus risking a SCOTUS decision, as opposed to simply ignoring the Geneva Convention with regards to the treatment of non-combatants captured while engaging in activity that blatantly violated the tenets of said convention?!?

And these detainees were tortured not simply to provide a spurious link between AQ and Iraq (i'll grant that was part of it), there was genuine intent to discern the names and locations of all Al Qaeda's operatives, training bases and plans.

Speaking as to 1), Lincoln took responsibility for his actions. Great. How this makes him any less guilty of breaking the country's laws is beyond my limited grasp of post-war generation logic (or lack thereof). Lincoln also exerted far greater control over the government than Bush at the time and would have easily been spared legal recrimination... unless of course he lost the war (there's something to consider, eh?). Lincoln also authorized the arrest of judges, shut down anti-war newspapers and approved the violation of most agreed upon terms of war at the time by allowing Grant and Sherman to wage total war on the South in order to secure victory. Clearly illegal actions born out of desperation trumps legality or legal precedence if you're a sucessful and long dead president like Lincoln... but not if you're two incredibly unpopular men called GW Bush and Dick Cheney.

Speaking as to 2); this is a wild, unsubstantiated assertion because it's becoming painfully apparent that while the public was not in the know many members of Congress (from both parties) were in fact briefed on our torture techniques and findings but did nothing to stop it or bring it to the public's attention when it was happening. In fact I find it rather interesting that the whole torture angle came to the public's attention only after it became obvious that the occupation of Iraq was turning into a long, painful affair. Sounds to me like the sources of the torture leaks were hedging their political bets, much in the same way those Democrats who voted to invade Iraq (i.e. Biden) changed their tune a few years later. Make no mistake, Lincoln's suspension of habeus corpus and the means he used to fight the war were also very unpopular at the time. Chief Justice Taney and other high ranking judges resisted the suspension of habeus corpus and, depending on whether you believe the sources, Lincoln nearly had Taney arrested. However Lincoln did have other judges arrested for resisting.

http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/top...Arrest_Warrant

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taney_Arrest_Warrant

Speaking as to 3), again he's only discussing the first time Lincoln suspended habeus corpus. And calling Congress into session after the fact (and a Congress solidly controlled by Lincoln's party) in order to have them vote on a bill only to have it rubber stamped by the president just smacks of shameful political showmanship does it not? One might even go so far as to calling it 'legally covering one's buttocks in the event something goes terribly wrong'...

Speaking as to 4) the author is pretty insistent that we only examine the first instance where Lincoln suspended habeus corpus and ignore the subsequent suspension so we can readily compare the former to the actions of the Bush administration thus making the latter look even worse (if that's possible). For fear of stating the obvious, very few Presidents, alive or dead, get compared favorably to Lincoln. Anyway the Civil war lasted the better part of 5 years and those subsequent Constitutional violations were in place for the majority of the time.

I don't mean to get this thread off track but here's the thing, I completely agree with Lincoln's 'end justify the means' approach to winning the war. Suspend habeus corpus, fine. Arrest judges, fine. Shut down anti-war newspapers, fine. My disgust with the Civil War is it hastened the destruction of the governmental framework the founding fathers created to prevent the federal government from turning into an overarching, abusive, centralized power. However, unlike the author of this article at least I possess a backbone that allows me to examine Lincoln's tyrannical excesses for what they were, necessary evils that were instrumental in winning the war. And no, I don't consider Lincoln to be a very honorable man, but such things are easily overlooked and redefined in the aftermath of victory. Time eventually forgives winners of all their sins.

The author's blatant attempt to disassociate his beloved sacred cow from the unsavory practices of the Bush administration has clouded his ability to think clearly.

What a dumb move by this author to drag Lincoln into his argument. What's next, some ninny referencing FDR, another sacred cow, so we can establish the 'honorable illegality' of the internment of Japanese-Americans (an action both authorized by Congress and well known by Americans at the time)? LOL!

Last but not least, please don't take my rant as a defense of GW Bush, simply an attack on this author's ridiculously shaky argument.

[Spino]

No responses to my froth laden response?!?

It's safe to reply. No really, I've had all my shots...

Seriously now...

Grumbling from Deutschland over Obama's position on those naughty Guantanamo detainees. What shall we do with the little fundie buggers?

http://www.spiegel.de/international/...622682,00.html

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

05/04/2009 01:30 PMTHE WORLD FROM BERLIN
'Obama Discrediting Himself and the US'
Many had hoped that US President Barack Obama would undo all the damage done by his predecessor. Now, it looks like he might continue the Bush-era practice of trying terror suspects in military tribunals. German commentators are disappointed.

When US President Barack Obama entered office in January and promptly pledged to shut down the US prison at Guantanamo and suspended all further military tribunals of the kind used by his predecessor George W. Bush, human rights groups across the country and the world were relieved. Finally, they thought, America would cease locking away terror suspects without recourse to the justice system.

Not surprisingly, though, closing down Guantanamo has proven much easier said than done. Even those prisoners deemed not to be dangerous are creating headaches for Washington as the search continues for countries willing to take them. Domestically, opposition is large to an Obama administration plan to release a group of Chinese Uighur prisoners into the US.

Many of the 241 prisoners, however, cannot simply be released -- and recent reports in the US media indicate that Obama may be grabbing for a Bush-era tool that he appeared to have jettisoned: military commissions. According to the New York Times this weekend, the Obama administration has begun leaning towards trying some of the remaining inmates in such controversial tribunals.

Obama has never categorically rejected the military commissions as a means of dealing with Guantanamo prisoners, some of whom are accused of having been involved in the planning of the Sept. 11, 2001 terror attacks in the US. During the campaign, though, he did say that "by any measure, our system of trying detainees has been an enormous failure."

Any return to using such military commissions would be a major disappointment to human rights groups who were hoping that Obama's election signalled a new era in America's handling of terror suspects. As German editorials show on Monday, frustration across the Atlantic is equally high.

In an editorial entitled "Obama's Great Mistake," the center-left daily Süddeutsche Zeitung writes:

"Obama's people certainly imagined things differently. But reality has caught up with them. What should they do with people who … are in fact horrifying criminals but whose confessions came as a result of brutal interrogations? No regular court would accept the testimony. Should suspected masterminds of the 9/11 attacks and other terrible attacks be set free? That can't be the solution either. Obama is thus considering holding on to the military commissions with a couple of extra rights for the suspects. Bush light, so to speak."

"Obama is thus discrediting both himself and the US. It would be better were he to gather the necessary political courage to initiate criminal proceedings before regular courts. Legally, it will be incredibly complicated and possibly untenable in some cases. But the country cannot get around the purification process. Otherwise, the poison from the Bush era could continue to infect America's image for years to come."

The left-leaning daily Die Tageszeitung writes:

"The US government has asked Germany to accept former Guantanamo prisoners. Exactly the same government is apparently planning to continue the military commissions to try those prisoners. One could hardly be more contradictory."

"It is the same tactic that President Barack Obama has already used when it came to the torturers from the CIA -- punish with one hand, stroke with the other. Whenever he takes a step forward, he stumbles backwards as well. That will likely be enough to disappoint all those Europeans who had expectations that Obama would be an almost messiah-like healer. It was expected that he would demolish all of the ugly monuments from the Bush era and then, together with Al Gore, plant a Garden of Eden over the top, through which he would drive fuel-efficient compacts from Chrysler."

"And now: the US president is pursuing a policy of trying to make everyone happy. He is trying to accommodate the left side of the political spectrum as well as those on the right. All of a sudden, Barack Obama is beginning to look eerily similar to Chancellor Angela Merkel. He is no longer floating above the political lowlands, the swamps of compromise. He is walking directly through them and getting dirty in the process."

The Financial Times Deutschland comes to Obama's defense on Monday:

"Barack Obama promised Americans and the rest of the world he would follow a governmental strategy akin to pushing the reset button. The small red button US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton recently presented in Moscow works as a symbol for Obama's domestic reform agenda just as well as it does for his vision of US foreign and security policy: Bush is gone, in the future everything will be completely different."

"But even the Obama government thinks it is too dangerous to bring all (Guantanamo) cases before civilian courts and to get rid of the military commissions set up by the Bush administration. Bush called them into existence after Sept. 11, 2001 in order to imprison so-called 'enemy combatants' outside of the US legal system in Guantanamo, interrogate them and sentence them before special courts."

"Such a policy cannot be made to disappear with a reset button. Were those cases currently being looked into by military commissions to be transferred to civilian courts, a number of procedural riddles would have to be solved -- because some of the most important suspects in Guantanamo were tortured, their testimony and confessions would likely be thrown out. Any civilian trials would also be overshadowed by secrecy concerns."

"The risk that such a civilian trial would be used by mass murderers as a soap box, or even that they would be released for purely formal or procedural reasons, would be large. It is for these reasons that Obama wants to hold on to -- reformed -- military commissions. That will likely disappoint all those who expected him to embark on a radical change of course. But it speaks for his understanding of reality."

-- Charles Hawley, 12:45 p.m. CET

[Lemur]

No responses to my froth laden response?!?

It's very, very frothy. So that you won't feel neglected, I'll address some of what you said.

So... the moral of the story is it's cool to break the law so long as you appear honorable while doing it?!?

No. The moral of the story is that if you are going to break the law, it's better to publicly acknowledge what you're doing. If you have spent even a single day in a courtroom you will understand this principle. Coming clean is better than attempting to hide a crime.

So... the author of this article would have been more comfortable with the Bush administration if they legally sought to suspend habeus corpus in Congress, thus risking a SCOTUS decision, as opposed to simply ignoring the Geneva Convention with regards to the treatment of non-combatants captured while engaging in activity that blatantly violated the tenets of said convention?!?

I dare you to say that sentence three times fast. Bonus points if you can diagram it.

Once again, I don't see why you are confused. Taking ownership of an act is universally regarded as more honorable than hiding and/or lying about it. For someone who makes a lot of grumpy old man proclamations about how the current generation is honorless and corrupt and we're all going to hell any minute, I really don't see why you're having a cognitive disconnect about this concept.

Speaking as to 1), Lincoln took responsibility for his actions. Great. How this makes him any less guilty of breaking the country's laws is beyond my limited grasp of post-war generation logic (or lack thereof).

Re-phrasing the same idea three times doesn't make it any more true. Let's attack this from another angle:

I have kids. You're of age, you may as well. Let's say your kid is going to kill a dog. That's a given; you can't prevent it from happening. Would you rather your kid confessed to the deed and apologized, saying that it was necessary, or would you rather he hid the corpse and lied when you asked him about it? Does one course of action seem less repugnant than the other?

Taking responsibility for your actions is simple and fundamental to personal honor. Why are you arguing that it's irrelevant?

Speaking as to 2); this is a wild, unsubstantiated assertion because it's becoming painfully apparent that while the public was not in the know many members of Congress (from both parties) were in fact briefed on our torture techniques and findings but did nothing to stop it or bring it to the public's attention when it was happening.

What exactly congresscritters were told has not been made public, yet you proceed on the assumption that they knew enough to be implicated in the torture-fest. You may be right, you may be wrong; I'd like to see more evidence before jumping to conclusions. On the one hand, I don't doubt that congresscritters would lie like a rug if they thought they could get away with it; on the other hand, the Bush administration was justly famous for freezing out the other branches of government whenever possible, even when they held a Republican majority in congress. This could break either way. At the end of the day, I'd like to know more.

In fact I find it rather interesting that the whole torture angle came to the public's attention only after it became obvious that the occupation of Iraq was turning into a long, painful affair.

Operation Iraqi Freedom II was clearly going to be a long, painful affair within two months of the invasion in 2003. The waterboardings that we know about also happened in 2003. So you're saying that because the info about our SERE imitation program wasn't made available in the few weeks after we invaded Iraq, this stinks of political bet-hedging? That doesn't make much sense, Spino.

Speaking as to 3), again he's only discussing the first time Lincoln suspended habeus corpus. And calling Congress into session after the fact (and a Congress solidly controlled by Lincoln's party) in order to have them vote on a bill only to have it rubber stamped by the president just smacks of shameful political showmanship does it not? One might even go so far as to calling it 'legally covering one's buttocks in the event something goes terribly wrong'...

One might also call it "airing one's dirty business in a time of crisis and asking that the co-equal branches of government sign on or vote it down." Once again, you seem to be irritated at the notion of taking responsibility for an illegal and unpopular move. I look forward to hearing your clarification of this position.

Interestingly, I did some reading on the whole Abe v. habeas corpus thing, and couldn't find any consensus on how many times he did it. Different numbers and different dates from every source I looked at.

You are irritated that the author took the example of the first agreed-upon time Abe shredded the constitution, and again, I don't see why. It's perfectly legitimate to take an example of something done right and hold it up as an exemplar. The fact that it was later done wrongly does nothing to invalidate the argument. You seem to be arguing that unless Lincoln's entire career matches the example given, the argument is specious.

The author's blatant attempt to disassociate his beloved sacred cow from the unsavory practices of the Bush administration has clouded his ability to think clearly.

Spino, this is the sort of over-heated rhetoric that makes me want to walk away whistling. You don't know the author, and I seriously doubt that you've followed his writing. I know I haven't. You don't know what's a "sacred cow" to him any better than I do. He chose a specific example of an illegal decision made in time of crisis that he thought was well-handled. But you're off and running, accusing him of worshiping Lincoln and being blinded by his naive adulation. But the article doesn't show any such messianic leanings; you're bringing that to the party, not the article I quoted. And you seem to be projecting this worshipful blindness on the author in order to discredit the points he's making, and therein lies the irony.

You're the one making frothy, unsubstantiated accusations. And you're the one pretending that responsibility and honor are meaningless concepts. All to make a rhetorical point.

Well, I can't jump on you too hard for it; I've committed many such sins in my time. I try not to, but sometimes rhetoric gets hold of me, rather than me having hold of it.

Anyway, response made. I look forward to seeing the ball come back over the net.

[Incongruous]

as i said earlier:
1. I am in favour of effective interrogation techniques
2. I am willing to accept distasteful techniques for use against enemies of the state
3. I recognise that brutal techniques are both ineffective and uncertain, and therefore useless.

Then why are you agaisnt this?

Article 1.
1. For the purposes of this Convention, torture means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.
2. This article is without prejudice to any international instrument or national legislation which does or may contain provisions of wider application.

Article 2.
1. Each State Party shall take effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction.
2. No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat or war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.
3. An order from a superior officer or a public authority may not be invoked as a justification of torture.

Now I am in agreement about your statements onw and three, but I disagree entirely with number two, enemies of the state is firstly ambiguous and obscure terminology and distasteful sounds like a fancy word for innefective technoques of interrogation, aka, torture.

[Furunculus]

Then why are you agaisnt this?

Now I am in agreement about your statements onw and three, but I disagree entirely with number two, enemies of the state is firstly ambiguous and obscure terminology and distasteful sounds like a fancy word for innefective technoques of interrogation, aka, torture.

would telling a suspect that without co-operation his leukemia suffering daughter would be deported back to peshwar constitute severe mental harm?

that is but one example of a great many that could be effective in a given situation AND could also cause severe mental harm.

enemy of the state is a very clear legal term, the fact that our government has applied it badly in the past is our fault for tolerating it, not a problem with lack of clarity itself.

in all of this I am referring to what measures i am happy for britain to engage in, because we are basically a civilised country that i trust to act responsibly.

[Incongruous]

would telling a suspect that without co-operation his leukemia suffering daughter would be deported back to peshwar constitute severe mental harm?

that is but one example of a great many that could be effective in a given situation AND could also cause severe mental harm.

enemy of the state is a very clear legal term, the fact that our government has applied it badly in the past is our fault for tolerating it, not a problem with lack of clarity itself.

in all of this I am referring to what measures i am happy for britain to engage in, because we are basically a civilised country that i trust to act responsibly.

Enemy of the state may be clear about a government can then do to said person, but as to whom that might be, I do not trust my government on that, niether should you.

You trust the U.K to act responsibly? Oh dear, I feel that we are devided by cynicism...

Telling a man that you will deport his daughter is wrong ona few levels, firstly it will cause him serious ental harm, secondly he may not know anything and even if he does causing a possible case of mental collapse is wrong and could ruin any chance of getting avlid information out of him. Thirdly, if he is innocent, you would have just destroyed his trust in the government and the state, you may have just created an enemy of the state.

[Tribesman]

sounds like an effing stupid thing to sign, for if taken literally then you cannot forcefully interrogate anyone via forced means.

bloody hell , I really thought even the stupidest human could grasp the basics .
So Furunculus what is it about the word torture that don't you understand ?