"Revealed: victims of UK's cold war torture camp"

[JPaul]

Torture is wrong, whoever it is done by and for whatever reason. Fortunately people learn from their mistakes and grow more civilized. We have now accepted, as a Nation, that torture is wrong and have signed up to the treaty against it. That is a good thing.

If it's any consolation we kept torturing our own citizens, in Ireland, for a few decades after the time that report speaks off. That's cool tho' because it dovetailed nicely with the policy of internment. Feck if you can imprison them without trial what's wrong with a wee bit of torture into the bargain.

What's important is that we accept we made mistakes, learn from them and build a better fairer society.

[Busyman™]

At the moment the only proof is that they were skinny from lack of food. As manker said there is no further evidence of anything else done to them - as and when the evidence comes to light we can start the hand wringing and the denouncing of the 60 year old government.

Notice how just before every mention of torture it says allegedly? That's cos there is no proof.

And as far as I'm aware

starvation, sleep deprivation and extreme cold

are all recognised and approved interrogation tactics.

Yet you were basically saying, "Big deal. It's not like we killed them."

I didn't know the UK recognizes and approves those torture tactics.

I guess this was all ok then, BamB.

[JPaul]

Busyman is right. The UK used to use torture tactics.

See my last.

[DanB]

At the moment the only proof is that they were skinny from lack of food. As manker said there is no further evidence of anything else done to them - as and when the evidence comes to light we can start the hand wringing and the denouncing of the 60 year old government.

Notice how just before every mention of torture it says allegedly? That's cos there is no proof.

And as far as I'm aware

are all recognised and approved interrogation tactics.

Yet you were basically saying, "Big deal. It's not like we killed them."

I didn't know the UK recognizes and approves those torture tactics.

I guess this was all ok then, BamB.

They aren't classed as torture though, they are interrogation tactics as my post says. If you can't be bothered to read it don't bother replying to it, Bustyfuckwad.

[ahctlucabbuS]

Manker, DanB:
It seems to me that documentation on this specific camp exist, which did indeed include pictures of the victims.

Documentation on a separate centre/camp in central London are yet to be released however, apparently under pretences of beeing contaminated with asbestos.....

On your second point (highlighted), don't get me wrong. I'm not generalizing, at all. I responded to DanB's post, which frankly struck me as a prime example of self serving double standards.

Sorry, barky, you're right. I must have gone onto autopilot at the end of the article there and assumed that the unreleased papers related to this detention centre, rather than a different one.

I will say that it doesn't appear to me as if Dan has double standards, altho' I might not agree with him in that sleep deprivation and starvation are legitimate interrogation tactics, he hasn't condemned a different country for doing a similar thing. I might think him wrong - but having double standards is not something I would accuse him of based on what's been written.

It appears that the guilty parties were court martialled at the time for their part in mistreating prisoners, with a doctor sacked and discharged from the army. However, the court martials were done in secrecy - as you'd expect - because they didn't want the Russians knowing that they were holding potential Russian spies.

Sixty years on, it's not as if we can re-try the offenders should any claims of leniency be upheld but, of course, past mistakes shouldn't be buried and people should learn from them.

Which is all anyone can realistically ask as a result of these papers coming to light.

You just can't resist those little stabs in the side, can you? Well, admittedly or not, you're wrong.

http://www.dagbladet.no/nyheter/2006/04/04/462801.html

An article in norwegian on the case of a different man than were shown in the photos. The documents the reporter received contained three pages on his interrogation, and a short description of the his health condition. He goes on to describe how he was chained, beaten, had his nails pulled etc.
Download, and read his full statement HERE
The report, as you can read, are both verified and attested to by an officer and a translator.

Double standards? Am I right to assume that DanB would be the first one to condemn torture directed at
British individuals? Or to condemn American prison behaviour in Iraq? Please answer DanB, admittingly my judgement of you rely on the freedom I granted myself in assuming your characeter based on your response in this thread...

It appears that the guilty parties were court martialled at the time for their part in mistreating prisoners, with a doctor sacked and discharged from the army. However, the court martials were done in secrecy - as you'd expect - because they didn't want the Russians knowing that they were holding potential Russian spies.

Really? Where's the source of that statement?

Sixty years on, it's not as if we can re-try the offenders should any claims of leniency be upheld but, of course, past mistakes shouldn't be buried and people should learn from them.

Take a look at this thread's first response.

[Busyman™]

Yet you were basically saying, "Big deal. It's not like we killed them."

I didn't know the UK recognizes and approves those torture tactics.

I guess this was all ok then, BamB.

They aren't classed as torture though,

Yes they are. Maybe not by Bush. Oh wait, he even calls it torture...but says it's ok.

If you can't be bothered to read it don't bother replying to it, Bustyfuckwad.

I obviously read it. Torture is torture, BamB. I'm not going gussy it up by saying it's not.

So the UK classes the tactics as interrogation but the Geneva Convention classes them as torture. I understand now.

[JPaul]

If the Geneva Convention considered these acts torture, then they were torture. If we did things considered torture and I'm sure we did, then we were guilty of torture. It's bad, we were wrong, we should not have done it.

We are now signatories to the UN Convention on Torture. Which I take to mean we accept that torture is wrong. That is a good thing and a step in the right direction. Anyone who breaches the conditions of that convention, no matter who they are, or on whom they inflict the torture, for whatever reason, should be brought to task over it.

For our current purposes the Convention states

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.

However that was not in force at the relevant times. Perhaps someone who says this was torture can give us the relevant definition. I'm sure you're right tho'

[ahctlucabbuS]

My intentions with this thread was not to go off on members from the UK, nor did I expect any apologies on the matter. I guess it's inevitable to offend some people though, if they're too attached to their nation / tribe - regardless of the subject at hand.

What's interesting is how this case illustrates the rapid shift of allegiances during this era. Victims in this case fought on soviet side against Nazi germany, only to find themselves tortured by the west some 18 months later, which is quite striking.

[Busyman™]

To clarify, my intentions with this thread was not to go off on members from the UK, nor did I expect any apologies on the matter. I guess it's inevitable to offend some people though, if they're too attached to their nation / tribe - regardless of the subject at hand.

What's interesting though, is how this case illustrates the rapid shift of allegiances during this era. Victims in this case fought on soviet side against Nazi germany, only to find themselves tortured by the west some 18 months later, which is quite striking.

I don't think people should be offended...unless it is to make light of it by saying stuff like, "It not like we boiled them, ffs." If your countrymen tortured folk, they tortured folk.

I think it's fucked up that only American grunt soldiers are the ones getting in trouble for Abu Grabass but not the higher ups when it's CaptainObvious that those soldiers were told to torture by those higher-ups.

[JPaul]

My intentions with this thread was not to go off on members from the UK, nor did I expect any apologies on the matter. I guess it's inevitable to offend some people though, if they're too attached to their nation / tribe - regardless of the subject at hand.

What's interesting is how this case illustrates the rapid shift of allegiances during this era. Victims in this case fought on soviet side against Nazi germany, only to find themselves tortured by the west some 18 months later, which is quite striking.

You're absolutely right.

FFS we discussed "nuking" Russia straight after the war, as they were perceived as a potential super power. When you think of meeting to discuss genocide then a bit of torture by the UK is sort of put in perspective.
Thankfully we seem to have gone beyond that and are now making agreements not to torture people. At least the civilized World is.