The former Shadow Home Secretary, reports BBC News:
cited the case of Rangzieb Ahmed, from Rochdale, who was jailed for life for being an al-Qaeda planner.
Mr Davies (sic) told the House of Commons that intelligence services had allowed Ahmed to go to Pakistan.
Once there, they alerted Pakistani authorities who arrested him and tortured him, parliament was told.
Mr Davies (sic) is calling for a judicial inquiry into at least 15 cases where torture of terrorist suspects has been alleged.
14 comments:
It is quite obvious Davis is right. On the other hand it is very minor offence against a deserving person when compared to the genocide, child sexual enslavement & dissection of innocent people while alive that most British politicians (& all "LibDems" so enthuisiasticaly support).
It is not at all obvious that Davis is right. He has cherry picked facts to fill his narrative.
Also the logical arguement he is making is incredibly damaging. He is effectively saying that the UK can never tell a country that may use torture that there is a terrorist in their country. All international cooperation on counter terrorism ends overnight. Nice one Dave.
He is saying no such thing. What he said is that the British government should not assist in torturing people, which by providing the questions, they certainly did & letting him go to Pakistan & tipping off the locals as he landed, that they should torture him, they arguably did.
Of course since, as a party, the LibDems, including every single member, actively support atrocities 10s of thousands of times worse against wholly innocent people I can understand your confusion about whether anything wrong has been done.
Providing the questions.
Tipping off a country that an AQ terrorist is in there midst.
These things do not condone or assist torture.
Davis thinks they do. Read his full statement. It's not just about the timing of events. It is the international cooperation he objects to.
Banning them effectively bans international cooperation on CT with countries that sometime use torture - i.e. every single muslim country.
Ask yourself another question. Describe how MI5 and ISI should cooperate or not when an active terrorist cell exists in both countries if MI5 can not tell ISI anything about any terrorist in Pakistan.
Or consider this scenario (it has already happened and will happen again).
Country A is known to use torture. Country A provides the UK with intelligence (obtained from a detainee) about an active plot in the UK. The UK investigates and sees enough that the plot is genuine but have more questions than answers. Do they (a) send questions to country A (b) travel to country A and ask to interview the detainee themselves or (c) just say 'oh well' and proceed with what they have ignoring the intel the detainee could provide?
I'd prefer (b) from an ethical and moral point of view. Davis wants (c). What do you want?
Except that (b) is not as you have stated it but "(b) travel to country A and ask to interview the detainee UNDER TORTURE themselves" which is the point.
No Craig. Not even David Davis is alleging that.
Anyway answer the question.
Yes that is exactly what he has said happened & produced substantial evidence.
Which is why I have already answered the question.
No you answer mine - why can you not name a single member of the "LibDem" party (obviously including yourself) who has expressed the remotest objection to your party's complicity in war crimes, genocide, child sex slavery 7 cutting up thousnads of inocent living people to steal their body otgans?
Are you alleging that MI5 are interviewing the detainee whilst they are being tortured? i.e. are they using torture techniques themselves or have someone in the room pulling fingernails while they ask their questions? No, Davis is not claiming this. Read his statement again. If you think he is then put up a link to this 'substantial' evidence so I can see it.
No you haven't answered the question at all, not even made a start or given a hint. Which option would YOU choose a,b or c? Invent (d) if you want but define it.
Davis in his typically pious way is arguing for a system (c) which would seriously undermine national security. We are a single mid ranking country in the world. Nothing we do will stop other countries using torture. When it comes to international cooperation on CT we need to find a way to work with these countries. That is not to say that we accept it and use it but it also means we cannot just ignore people who use it through fear of condoning or complicitiy. Getting on your high horse just because MI5 speak to a group like the ISI is a self defeating strategy but at least have the courage to recongise that. Choose option (c) and keep the moral high ground over torture but accept that the UK ability to protect the country from terrorism is seriously and instantly diminished.
I'm not a member of the LibDem party or even a supporter and I have no idea what policy you are talking about when you're going on about child sex slavery and genocide. It all looks a bit hysterical.
It appears they were in the next room while it was happening. If you are going to claim that doesn't count I will ask you to confirm that you have publicly claimed Himmler was innocent because he wasn't even in the same building when the gas chambers were working.
If you claim not to know "child sex slavery and genocide" I suggest you check up before declaring yourself fit to discuss human rights questions. Whatv party did you vote for last time because the ods are they could give you full details.
Put up a link that substantiates your 'next room' claim.
The Himmler analogy is fatuous nonsense. Are you now claiming that MI5 were directing the torture from the next room?
Also answer my question. Pick an option (a), (b) or (c).
Your final paragraph still fails to make any sense at all. I know what genocide and slavery are. I have no idea what policy you are taking about though or why you think UK political parties are complicit. Banging on about these high crimes without making any sense makes you look like a hysterical conspiracy theorist and undermine every sensible point you could ever care to make.
You prove they weren't. Prove exactly what they were doing there.
As you would acknowledge were you in some way honest Mous, I have already answered.
Obviously you have refused to answer my question about what party you support & I am forced to assume it is the LibDems & that you are therefore a racist Nazi who actively supports these crimes. If not answer the questions & provide evidence.
If you want to engage me further answer my question and pick an option or define an alternative. That you cannot speaks volumes.
All this stuff about genocide and Nazis is impenetrable nonsense. I voted UKIP last time I had the chance to vote. Please point me to the policy where this means I condone child sex slavery?
I've now had a look at your blog and can see that surprise surprise you are a hysterical conspiracy theorist. Further discussion is therefore pointless. Good day and keep taking the tablets.
If you truly voted UKIP then you voted for a party which opposes illegal wars & genocide, unlike the LibDems.
Having visited my site you can no longer claim ignorance of Britain's role in genocide, child sex slavery & the dissection of living people.
I have, as repeatedly pointed out, answered your question Mous. It is a dishonestly phrased question. In the same way you would, almost certainly refuse to answer a Yes/No question on whether you have stopped raping, dissecting & murdering children but I would not ask it unless I knew something specific about you.
Post a Comment