Trump's torture support could mean the end of GCHQ-NSA relationship If comments made on the campaign trail by Donald Trump were sincere, then today's British government will need to do some serious soul-searching very soon. Trump, who was today announced as the president-elect of the United States of America, has been controversially outspoken while seeking to be nominated as the Republican …
Am I the only one who thinks this might be a good thing?
One of the problems with having massive military superiority is that you never have to ask yourself if a particular course of action which involves killing someone, is something you would be willing to die for.
You mean the US still has any secrets to share after they've passed thru Hillary's server?
Are you referring to that thing that has now been investigated no less than TEN TIMES without finding anything that is legally actionable? Do you know Einstein's definition of insanity?
If you want unsafe, look at what happened at OPM - now THAT is putting people's lives at risk properly, because it handed whoever hacked that a nice, juicy target list of 2 million Americans who can be targeted because they have a clearance. If you are really looking for something to fix, that's worth it.
When the Attorney General is a rabid and unapologetic Clintonista, when James Comey of the FBI decides to rewrite the law so that intent becomes the deciding factor, as opposed to the actual law which makes what she did an absolute offence (nothing to do with the fact that he worked with Loretta Lynch in New York ho ho) the outcome under such corrupt people is a foregone conclusion - of COURSE she did nothing wrong.
If Hillary and her mobsters are so fragrantly innocent as you suppose, why did they rush to seek immunity agreements (which shamefully were granted) and why did some hide behind the 5th Amendment?
Incidentally, Comey took $6,000,000 in one year from Lockheed Martin, which - much to everyone's surprise (hollow laughter) became major donors to the Clinton 'Foundation' and then received very nice contracts approved by the State Department (prop. HRC)
Grow up!
If Hillary and her mobsters are so fragrantly innocent as you suppose, why did they rush to seek immunity agreements (which shamefully were granted) and why did some hide behind the 5th Amendment?
Because it's the law. If you live in a democracy (or rather, pretend it's one, but that's another discussion) you have to respect that law, and that cuts both ways. The law should protect you as well as require you to comply with it. If there is no legally actionable discovery after the same process has been repeated 10 times (which, by the way, amounts to hardcore harassment by any standard and was only possible because it's at congressional level), it is time to accept the verdict of that same court that should declare YOU innocent if there isn't enough evidence when YOU get investigated. You can't have the one without the other.
You have the same rights, rights that allowed the US citizens to pull a Brexit stunt on their own country (voting for a candidate they didn't think would get in anyway because the polls told them - which meant he DID get in, and now we get protests mainly from people with a guilty conscience - exactly like Brexit).
Indeed grow up. You made your bed, now you can lie in it. The UK cannot declare you idiots because they've basically committed the same self harm, but the rest of the world now knows that 47.5% of US citizens cannot be trusted with anything important. Not that we didn't know that already, but it's always sad to see it confirmed.
Now go and burn some crosses or whatever other pointless thing Trump voters do to pretend they matter.
Are you referring to that thing that has now been investigated no less than TEN TIMES without finding anything that is legally actionable?
Some of us believe that action was taken by the American people on November 8. Kind of like the British people taking their own action with the Brexit vote.
"...without finding anything that is legally actionable?2
Um, I used to work for a UK defence subcontractor and because we had some minor part to play in a system that had American components in, we were forced to abide by all their laws like the ITAR controls and a little something dreamt up by Senators Sarbanes and Oxley in the wake of the Exxon Valdez "Oops I seem to have accidentally deleted a few hundred emails" mishap.
If Exxon were in trouble for a coupe of thousand, what about Hillary's fifteen^H^H^ thirty^H^H^H FORTYFIVE thousand emails? And that's just the ones she has admitted to deleting, and doesn't take any account of the fact that she had classified email on a non-Controlled system, had access to AND KEPT emails she had no business being anywhere near and that she then tried to defend herself by declaring the emails weren't classified just because she said so.
But no, nothing legally actionable, nosirree...
I guess John will "get over it" once there is more balanced discussion on here, the voting and opinions are so partisan it deters genuine discussion of important world issues.
BTW it's not John, it is the will of the American people through democracy, get over it.
BTW it's not John, it is the will of the American people through democracy, get over it.
If you really want to nit-pick, it's the will of the small minority of the American people, and also the will of the minority of the voters who cast their ballot. After all, Clinton did win the popular vote while losing the electoral college vote. I know that this outcome reflects the unfathomable wisdom of the founding fathers and all that - but presumably in more than two centuries which passed since that time enough has changed to possibly justify another look at the electoral system.
However, none of this matters. Trump won, and I fully agree with you that America has got a president-elect it deserves.
>I know that this outcome reflects the unfathomable wisdom of the founding fathers and all that - but presumably in more than two centuries which passed since that time enough has changed to possibly justify another look at the electoral system.
These things take time - it took 125 years before Senators were elected by the American people - prior to that it was basically an all Tory House of Lords.
Indeed, have a look at the electoral system. Let's start with a look at a map by voting district, showing districts that voted Republican in red an Democratic in blue, not the one by state, but by individual voting district. The first thing that stands out is that it is very red in general, with blue areas clearly concentrated in large metropolitan areas, New York, LA, Chicago, and other large cities. If you threw a dart at the map, you wouldn't actually be likely to hit a blue area. In most places, the people apparently lean toward the conservative, rather than liberal. At the same time, the popular vote was very nearly a 50-50 split. It seems to me that the electoral college did exactly what it was designed to do by preventing a few areas of concentrated population from always deciding things for the entire rest of the nation.
Personally, I think Americans are so over the corrupt political elitists that they voted for Trump simply because he is not a professional politician and has never before held a public office. Notice that in spite of the Republican Party's best efforts to prevent Trump from becoming their candidate, Trump handily won the primaries. It was a slap in the face to all of the political elite, not just the Democrats.
Powernumpty,
Obviously, if it were a democracy, then the majority of the popular vote had elected Hillary. As we in the U.S. have a democratic Republic with an Electoral College, we are stuck with another candidate that came in second place. Second place with most people voting for third party candidates as a protest vote against Hillary.
Second place is hardly the will of anyone.
Ironically, those idiots that wanted to burn the whole place down to get rid of the old government, forgot to vote out that same Congress that has been intentionally obstructing the Obama administration for 8 years. So... they didn't fix squat and if tax cuts and regulation eliminations happen as expected, they'll be in a worse position than they were before.
Well that is the system you have accepted, if you don't believe in the system then you probably also believe many previous presidents were elected wrongly or is it just this one because of his party?
If it is wrong forget the political in fighting and get enough people of all persuasions behind a change in the electoral system.
What I find difficult to reconcile is the vehement opprobrium metered on this guy who has clearly used the system provided and even turned a profit (allegedly) from the campaign, now if that is not being a true enterprising American I'm not sure what is.
Actually, most sane people lost.Actually, you are missing the point.
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.H L Mencken
It matters not one tittle whether Tweedle Dumb, or Tweedle Dumber won unless you happen to be Tweedle Dumb, or Tweedle Dumber.
Massive stroke is a definite possibility. Drumpf is well known for not taking anybody's advice about anything if he doesn't agree, and any doctor who tried to tell him to lose some weight, eat less, and get more exercise (golf doesn't count) would be wasting his time. Drumpf is a very self-indulgent man. Very fat, too. With skin that to me screams "not in the best of health".
I wonder how drumpf will like being a patient at Walter Reed?
get more exercise (golf doesn't count)WTF? I used to play golf at a 9 hole golf course ~20 years ago when I was much fitter. One time I played round twice and I was completely fucking shagged out! So was the retired US marine I played golf with and he played almost every day.
Actually, I've been wondering about "intelligence" since the Primaries started. Both were not, shall we say, the best of choices, and this campaign hasn't quite been down to the Tricky Dicky level.... but, I digress.
Enjoy the fallout shelter, I'm headed to my bunker for some peace and quiet. Last night the local neighborhood erupted with fireworks and what sounded very much like automatic weapons fire* when Trump hit the magic number of EC votes.
*I do know the difference betwixt fireworks and automatic weapons fire... I'm thinking it was a modified M-14. Definitely not a AK or an M16.
likely to receive push-back from the UK due to the nation's legal obligations, which are much more unlikely to be derogated from.
You are assuming that Teresa May would like to keep UK in the same conventions. What in particular did she do for this assumption to be warranted? In fact, UK may be out of said conventions even before the USA.
The aim of an intelligence sharing agreement is, obviously, to share intelligence. Diplomats and intelligence officers are the experts at averting their eyes and holding their noses. Their default position is "Ask no questions and you'll get told nothing embarrassing."
Until there is irrefutable proof of torture things will carry on much as usual. Social media and Wikileaks are not proof. Even if a serious investigation, say the Insight Team, alleges torture nothing will really affect the status quo. The only possible affect is that some legal cases are affected by "fruit of the poisoned tree."
Unless of course an inexperienced politician makes it plain, in public, on the record, that the USA now engages in torture. What chance of that?
Until there is irrefutable proof of torture
1963 is a long time ago. Where is the provenance...1963 is only a long time ago if you are a child. Avert your eyes and hold your nose all you want; you can even lie on the floor and kick and scream. There's plenty of provenance.
"1963 is only a long time ago if you are a child."
The year the Aston Martin DB5 was introduced. Many, many things have changed for better or worse. A document from 1963 can only be "proof" as to what was happening before the DB5. I hold no brief for the intelligence services. If that is the best you have I really don't need to avert my eyes or hold my nose.
Let me be clear, torture is abhorrent. We should be better than that. However there is an argument as to just what constitutes torture. I offer no threshold, I am not equipped with the legal, medical or moral intellectual tools to really make an informed decision on what is a fine and shifting line. It is a bit like "obscenity", I can't tell you what it is but I'll know it when I see it. Don't forget that Lady Chatterly's Lover was considered obscene until 1960.
A document from 1963 can only be "proof" as to what was happening before the DB5.Clearly, you didn't read the document(s) at the national Security Archive:
In March 1992 Cheney received an investigative report on "Improper Material in Spanish-Language Intelligence Training Manuals." Classified SECRET, the report noted that five of the seven manuals "contained language and statements in violation of legal, regulatory or policy prohibitions" and recommended they be recalled. The memo is stamped: "SECDEF HAS SEEN."I have heard an interview with Glen Carle, an ex-CIA operative who struggled with his conscience when ordered to torture a banker who his years of field experience told him the banker was the wrong target.The Archive also posted a declassified memorandum of conversation with a Southern Command officer, Major Victor Tise, who was responsible for assembling the Latin American manuals at School of the Americas for counterintelligence training in 1982. Tise stated that the manuals had been forwarded to DOD headquarters for clearance "and came back approved but UNCHANGED." (Emphasis in original)
You write "there is an argument as to just what constitutes torture" and I'm happy to argue with you while applying strong electric currents to your anus and genitalia. Guess who will win the argument ;-)
The article we are commenting seems to hint that the current administration put an effective stop to waterboarding. I believe it is fairly well known that waterboarding was common practice when Bush was in office. So 1963? I fail to see the relevance.
However, the embarrassing continued operation of the base at Guantanamo indicates that the last 8 years have been pretty much 'business as usual'.
So, vote for a candidate who is open about these things, or vote for the other saying the nice things we want to hear (only to ignore it once in office)?
"Torture and State Violence in the United States: A Short Documentary History"
Paperback – 3 Oct 2011
by Robert M. Pallitto (Editor)
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Torture-State-Violence-United-States/dp/1421402491/ref=sr_1_19?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1478774187&sr=1-19&keywords=torture+america
That was my immediate reaction to the headline. Obama, and before him Dubya and before him Bill Clinton tortured people routinely. The difference is that they publicly protested that they didn't approve of torture, while their employees were engaging in it behind the scenes. Trump has actually spoken about what previously was being done clandestinely. There is a pattern here: throughout the election campaign Trump has been lambasted for saying offensive things, which was apparently considered far worse than the truly appalling things Hillary Clinton and Obama have DONE.
Abu Ghraib; Guantanamo; "extraordinary rendition"; you could, if you had the stomach for it, probably trace the tradition of American government torture right back to the waterboarding of Filipinos in the war of conquest 120 years ago, and some of the sickening things that they did to slaves and Native Americans.
As for the UK, please don't forget that it's only 12 years since Craig Murray was fired as ambassador to Uzbekistan because he insisted on telling the Foreign Office and Jack Straw that the government of Uzbekistan was regularly torturing people, and that much of the "intelligence" they gave to the British government was obtained that way. Straw and his senior underlings knew perfectly well, but they hated having an honest man come along and force them to admit it.
Of course, Trump is wrong in two respects. First and foremost, torture is NEVER justified. Second and also quite important, it usually yields very poor results, as real intelligence professionals know.
You are assuming that Teresa May would like to keep UK in the same conventions.
I'm pretty sure that derogating from international obligations that have been enshrined in UK law through an act of parliament requires assent from parliament, rather than unilateral action from the 'prime minister' (a figurehead with no real legal standing beyond being the leader of a single political party within the commons, if you read your history books), even through 'royal prerogative'.
If only we had some sort of legal test case to press home this point...
In Australia, calling someone a bastard or cunt is usually demonstrating friendliness. My best friend, sadly deceased, was a Septic. You can keep your cultural superiority to yourself.
I've always found Australians to be terribly polite whenever they've talked to me.... oh, I see.
"Name calling just shows the lack of intelligence of the one doing it and the fact they don't have a coherent argument."
I tire of this line of argument. I tire of it particularly because there is a long history of individuals involved in torture and oppression insisting that their victims must be "polite". There's a common thread that runs through from the SS to Spain, Chile, Argentina, Turkey, Egypt and beyond of torturers demanding that their victims remain "polite" at all times, or they will get more of the same, which they will get anyway.
It's not true now and it never was. One may have a coherent and compelling argument but those who want to oppress others don't want a discussion, they just want their own way. Therefore it's best to cut to the chase and tell the idiots what they are. It saves so much time.
I've never found anyone who claims that "name calling" or "profanity" shows a lack of intelligence to be particularly intelligent themselves. I would say that if someone wished to show me that name calling was associated with stupidity that the individual expressing that view should be able to dazzle me with their intellect, don't you?
Name calling is indeed shocking bad manners, but it doesn't intrinsically interfere with arguments. Luckily most name callers haven't any real substance behind the name calling. When they do, it's bad form to use that as an easy-out in an argument. Personally I just avoid NC's, because I'm easily scandalized.
As a US citizen, I would be very happy if we never tortured anyone. It's a shame to every living being if we step to that level. Now punishment is different that torture. I do believe in punishment.
If it takes the UK saying they will stop all cooperation with the US to prevent it, then do it. Let turnip get the message; the world expects a moral leader, (we're doomed)
Yah. But I believe your Constitution explicitly forbids "cruel and unusual punishment". (Although that seems to be interpreted rather loosely, in that it allows the electric chair, execution by lethal injection and gas - all of which, when incomeptently done as they so often are, turn out to be horribly cruel).
Er, wasn't there something about "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal..."? And doesn't that imply that all men (in the sense of "human beings") should be given the same human rights?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_men_are_created_equal
As regards capital punishment, I find myself wondering at the mental state of the executioner involved. What happens to someone who considers it their duty, to begin with, then has to live with the psychological consequences of their actions? What is the mental profile of those happy to continue doing it for years on end?
I freely admit to not knowing the way such things are managed in the system.
As regards capital punishment, I find myself wondering at the mental state of the executioner involved. What happens to someone who considers it their duty, to begin with, then has to live with the psychological consequences of their actions?
They become President of the United States. See Grover Cleveland
"Yah. But I believe your Constitution explicitly forbids "cruel and unusual punishment"."
But what if the punishment is cruel BUT USUAL? If prescribed in the law as it is now, there can be an argument for capital punishment being usual, especially in regards to treason, which is explicitly in the Constitution.
I do believe that ship has sailed a long time ago. Abu Ghraib ring a bell ?
You've stepped to that level. Then you built a condominium complex and a parking zone on it. Apparently there are now plans to extend the zone with a golf course. No use doing government-approved torture in dismal conditions for the interrogators, right ?
Torture obviously sucks. But I don't think some of the Donald's more heated campaign statements will ever take the force of international law. I am also sure that previous US administrations (along with their allies) have tortured a lot more people than Donald ever will, unless you count looking at his hair for any extended length of time. Nor is he going to build any walls, etc. The jury is out on the rest of it.
"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines. With consistency a great soul has simply nothing to do. He may as well concern himself with his shadow on the wall."
Which would have been a good close for this article.
Not only is torture a crime, it doesn't even work.As the CIA Torture Manual points out, you don't torture the person you want information from. You torture their wife or children within earshot. The manual also claims to provide scientific evidence of the effectiveness of torture, evidence that could only be obtained by engaging in torture.
"As the CIA Torture Manual points out, you don't torture the person you want information from. You torture their wife or children within earshot."
Trouble is, what if the man involved has no family (they're all dead) or they've had a falling out and thus hate their family, meaning the torture appeases them? Plus you could end up with a masochist who gets off on torture.
what I'm saying there are some people who CAN'T be intimidated.I don't imagine that anyone believes that everyone can be intimidated. So what? Even if only a small percentage of people were intimidated by torture, torturers would still have loads of fun torturing them. Chances are that torturers even enjoy torturing people who aren't intimidated by torture. I wouldn't know because it's not part of my nature to torture people.
Thanks - catchy, with a definite swing to it. Time was (long ago) when a novel like Colin Forbes' "A United State" was intriguing and almost plausible (despite arguably being poorly written). It describes a scenario in which the USA actually invades and tries to conquer Britain.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/This-United-State-Colin-Forbes/dp/0330374893/ref=sr_1_29?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1478775280&sr=1-29
Today, however, the UK stands at one end of the spectrum of "soft power" victims, along with France and Germany. Without the slightest hint of brute force, air strikes or jackboots, we have been entirely taken over and controlled by the USA. Gradually, almost imperceptibly, even our language is being changed. Go into any cafe nowadays, and you'll hear everyone saying, "Can I get a latte...", etc. The correct British form used to be, "Please may I have... [probably a cup of tea]". Trivial, certainly, but it's one of thousands of tiny leaves in the wind. Among the more substantial changes, we now have a Supreme Court and a "Ministry of Justice". Shades of Orwell, it has accurately been said that any nation that has a ministry of justice has no justice. Just like a corporation that has a department of ethics.
"At least he tried".
I'm not sure if I heard that right. Don't you mean, "at least he lied"? It seems quite obvious that he made all his campaign promises with his fingers firmly crossed behind his back. Otherwise you would have to believe that the president of the USA is virtually powerless, which I refuse to believe - despite all the bleating about "separation of powers". Whatever the tissue-thin coating of theory left covering the ugly reality, the fact is that today the president has more power than ever before. Congress obstructs him only when he wants it to; if he disagrees with Congress there are ample "executive powers", and the technique of the "signing statement" effectively means that he can treat a law forbidding X as one permitting X.
Richard Nixon notoriously said that, "If the President does it, it isn't illegal". Today that has become constitutional reality. Truly an "Imperial Presidency", fit to rule the Empire of Chaos.
Richard Nixon notoriously said that, "If the President does it, it isn't illegal".The Divine Right of Kings. Paradoxically Cardinal Robert Bellarmine (head of the Inquisition that tried Galileo for heresy) "did not believe that the institute of monarchy had any divine sanction". And as all right-thinking people know the Catholic Church was wrong about everything... [/sarc]Similarly so too did Charles I.
He's not president, so till then, it's perfectly reasonable to judge him on his own claims about what he'd do when he takes over.
I'm sure in time we will be blessed by the chance to discuss the consequences of his actions. Perhaps them you can come again and try to shut down that discussion too.
This post has been deleted by its author
That the statement "I got nothing to hide" is bollocks. You might have felt comfortable with Obama being able to access your private data, how do you feel about Trump going over your personal history?
As to Trumps statements regarding torture... Yes, there's a huge issue with IS in the Middle East. But let's not forget which country triggered the whole thing in the first place: that was none other than the US of A who deemed Saddam Houssein had to go. He might have been a tyrant but he also kept the region in check and under control.
According to the US they liberated Iraq and the people are now free. Well, I'm not getting the impression that they're enjoying it very much.
Do you REALLY believe that's all they're doing ? Splashing a cloth with water ?
Get real .. Behind the walls unseen .. in CIA's offshore prisons , for people they hand over to third parties this is not even the beginning of how they torture people. Intelligence is the dirtiest of all games , all countries have to play it. It's kept away from our eyes cause we would not be able to stand looking at how the game is really played . At how the people that are hired to do the job for us and our countries have to play the game . This is no fantasy , this is war .. no sides can afford to play any differently.
Lincoln's remark about slavery applies equally to torture:
"Whenever I hear any one arguing for slavery I feel a strong impulse to see it tried on him personally".
- Abraham Lincoln; The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume VIII, "Speech to One Hundred Fortieth Indiana Regiment" (March 17, 1865), p. 361.
Wait ... can Canada join the EU ? :)
And yes .. patriotic Canadian beavers are already hard at work erecting a wall all along the US/Canada border and preparing to send the bill to Donald ..
And i thought electing Justin was bad :| Dang im proud of being THIS side of the border.
This is actually an interesting point at which we'll see if Prez Trump acts like candidate Trump. Because it is so black and white.
Different audiences, different realities. If the other Western agencies, and indeed US servicemen, call his bluff and refuse he might reconsider in light of the intelligence withdrawal. Of course that is assuming it wasn't just posturing. A charitable soul might think it was just pandering to the bigots.
On the other hand, the worst outcome is a don't ask, don't tell, like Bush's policies of deporting to torture-friendly allies.
But better the school of hard knocks on this subject to teach him the limits of going it alone than a full on trade war which no one can usually back off from without losing face.
He's elected. So sad, too bad. Let's wait and see if the real guy aint a tiny bit less toxic than we've all (and that includes me) been expecting him to be. Many politicians end up having to learn to compromise when in power. In fact, as we say in French "mettre de l'eau dans son vin".
Fingers crossed.
just pretend you didn't know. After all, it's all about pretences, false smiles, and "oh gosh, that's terrible, do you know anything about it, James?" "No madam, I certainly do not. And as you're well aware, the British Government strongly objects to any forms of torture".
We have people that want to do really bad things!
Yes, and Trump is one of them. Doesn't matter if it works or not as long as it makes him macho seems to be his policy.
"Britain and the United States have an enduring and special relationship based on the values of freedom, democracy and enterprise."
Shouldn't respect for the law and human rights been included in that list?
Yet again, someone is complaining that Trump publicly says he would do something that has actually been done, consistently and on the very largest scale, for many years. The US sanctions on and invasion of Iraq alone have resulted in close to 3 million deaths. Including those 500,000 children to whose deaths Madeleine Albright copped on TV. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=omnskeu-puE
Do you really claim that killing the families of terrorists is worse than killing 500,000 children of wholly innocent families?
Please note that I am strongly against the killing of anyone, especially children. I am just pointing out a certain inconsistency in some people's beliefs.
Trump is talking about the targeted assassination of non-combatants even if there is no pretense of a milatary target nearby. Morally you'll have a hard time seperating that from 9/11, 7/7 and Paris attacks; not to mention it just a matter of scale before you're looking at genocide.
I think it's a difference of, well I'm not sure what to call it, but previously presidential candidates were careful not to come out in public stating things such as supporting waterboarding etc. and still sanctioned it; I'm worried how much further Trump allow US agencies to go considering his public support for it?
Archtech... not sure people are complaining that Trump condones torture, per se, or that it has been done for years. I think (hope?) what worries people is, outside of some of the more bonkers dictators, no World Leader openly approves of torture as it is "something no civilised country would do"! (yes yes we all know that is BS). Now, move the scale a bit, if Trump believes Torture is good and fine, what the hell kind of darkness does HE think "no civilised country would do"?
I have no concerns nor issues if a person is taken out of the game because they have been proved to be a terrorist, but if that proof is derived from a process that forces a person to condemn themselves to either spare them theirs or someone else's agony it is utterly worthless. What would any of us say to spare mind bending agony? To spare our families the same? Torture only yields evidence that the torturer wants to hear. Occasionally that might be the truth, but by and large very unlikely.
I see what you are driving at. But, leaving emotional reactions aside for a moment, can't you see that logically, a leader who openly says he favours doing something bad may be no worse - if not rather better - than someone who loudly says he disapproves of the same thing, but encourages his subordinates to do it secretly?
Torture only yields evidence that the torturer wants to hear. Occasionally that might be the truth, but by and large very unlikely.More correctly, what the torturer's employers want to hear. And what the employers want they get. And that is by definition the "truth".
Moreover, the heretofore referenced CIA Torture Manual recommends torturing a suspect's family within earshot, to put pressure on him (or her).
But it's wrong for Trump to suggest that a terrorist's family might be shot or blown up? Yet again, it's more a question of people not liking to hear about what is done in their name. As long as it's done in secret, no problem.
Maybe the relationship with Trump will be far better than Clinton. Unbelievable things happening now regarding the Clintons heavy involvement with Epstein! The world has had a lucky escape! Can't believe the UK media is holding this back this morning.
When police use 'pain compliance' it can vary over a wide spectrum. One end of the spectrum clearly isn't Torture. But just as clearly, the other end is.
There are plenty of examples where tasers are used as a tool of Torture. Going beyond their supposed purpose, and deep into clear-cut Torture.
Because of semantics, it's never addressed.
Ah tazers. Introduced as non-lethal firearm alternatives. We were promised they, and pepper spray, would only ever be used in situations where the only alternative would be a potentially deadly firearm. Like when teenagers get mouthy or students need some reeducation about who's in charge or when black males ... ah no, they still go straight to deadly force in that situation.
Another president whose election caused almighty uproar - and eventually brought about the secession of the Southern states and the Civil War - was Abraham Lincoln. People called him "tyrant" too, and speculated as to where on the volutionary scale he rightly belonged. Washington smart asses wondered why scientists had bothered going all the way to the Congo in search of the "missing link" when (they said) there was such a perfect specimen in the White House.
To even pretend the the orange buffoon is anywhere near the intelligence level and human understanding of Lincoln is to insult missing links.He is however intelligent enough to have achieved what Lincoln did and the Hildebeast didn't. Thinking back to Ronnie Rayguns (remember Star Wars?) I'm not at all sure that intelligence is a qualification for POTUS.
The author doesn't say that relying on torture is illegal in the UK - in the absence of any laws prohibiting complicity in torture, presumably things will just continue as before, i.e. UK security services can kidnap people at will and send them to foreign torture farms, without any hint of illegality.
Thiel got it right: the media (including this normally non-hysterical rag) take Trump literally, but not seriously. Trump's supporters take him seriously, but not literally. Trump says "I'll build a wall and get Mexico to pay". Trump supporters hear "we'll have a saner and more practical immigration system" (like every other country on the planet). The media takes him 100% literally and goes into a shrieking tizzy.
There was a lot of campaign BS, but at the end of the day he's a pragmatist. The world isn't ending, so chill out.
Imagine you are the one of those 6 year old kids in Podesta's emails, locked in a dark room on Epstein Island's Babylonian Temple mockup when the door opens and there is Hillary with a knife grinning like a joker and getting ready for a spirit cokking party with Huma, the Podestas, Abramovic et al.. Imagine the terror you would feel.
These satanic elites deserve to be tortured.
So what's new?
That bunch of thugs from MI have already participated in American torture sessions, they even had squaddies participating in Guantanamo.
Then the hypocrisy of Western combatants turning around and squealing about their men being tortured and abused by the Freedom Fighters.
Just because Americans wallow in their idea of 'fun' at ABU GHRAIB doesn't mean to say we Europeans have to join them, In earlier times that would have been enough to stop supporting them.
Given Trump's close economic ties to Russian banks & work Putin & company did to groom him not sharing intel with the US will at least reduce the chances the Russians will get it. Nice work USA! Elect a total incompetent moron as your leader because you don't like his opponent. Please don't pretend to be surprised he is exactly who he told you he was
If the upcoming Trump administration were, hypothetically, to torture someone based in information WHICH GCHQ HAS ALREADY SHARED with the NSA, where would that leave HMG and the UK?
Oh -- don't forget that Theresa May (as Home Secretary) wanted to abandon the European Convention on Human Rights in order to get away from the European Court of Human Rights. One wonders why?
So -- hypothetically -- in 2017 we could have the Cheltenham-based STASI (sorry, GCHQ) cooperating with a neo-Nazi administration in Washington. What would this arrangement do for civil rights in the UK or the USA?
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
