http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ent-lives-says-former-SAS-man-Andy-McNab.html
Torturing terror suspects is a 'moral responsibility' of the security services because it saves innocent lives, says former SAS man Andy McNab
- Torture can be used to prevent terrorist attacks says former SAS sergeant
- Andy McNab says 'he wouldn't think twice' in inflicting pain on a suspect
- He only condones torture methods on suspects immediately after capture
- Comments follow widely-condemned report detailing CIA torture methods
- 'We could moan about tactical interrogation or we could moan about 24-28 people getting blown up on a Tube,' says special forces veteran
Interesting alternative take on the morality and effectiveness on torture,. Mcnab of the special air service (not his real name) was himself brutally tortured by the iraqis after being captured during Gulf War 1. despite this ,he supports it's use in limited circumstances. This goes against Republican John Mcains opinion which is often cited by liberals,due to the fact he was a decorated war vet (as was mcnab).
Myself, I don't believe government/the security services , can win on this one, they either get in the gutter with them and perhaps prevent a terrorist atrocity and then have certain parties screaming at them, for going down to their level, or they don't do it, and then get everyone else screaming if an atrocity occurs.
I notice Obama, who is an extremely clever politician, if I don't agree with almost anything he stands for, even he while he condemned what occured under bush for moral reasons, didn't specifically state that torture is useless and had no role in preventing further atrocities after 9/11,you know why? because if it came to certain scenarios, obama would sanction it ,he would probably do what bill clinton did and render individuals to certain african states or arab ones so it is off US soil.
And it is a falsehood to suggest the allies didn't torture during ww2, or in post war germany. U boat crews got very rough treatment, as did the commanders of the concentration camps. now people might not lose much sleep over it, but our hands have never been clean, the British did very similar to what the CIA did in Northern Ireland in the 60's,and 70's in particular , in fact their techniques were more brutal than what the CIA did , they called it 'conditioning' rather than enhanced interrogation.
Some extremely intelligent people run the intelligence services, all went to top universities,or had high level military careers, why then since ww2, have france, britain, the US namely used since primative 'unreliable' morally bereft techniques to gain intel, as I mentioned with Bill Clinton, 'enhanced interrogation' didn't start with W Bush, and cheney even if the left would like it to be true. I believe because when it comes to it, sometimes the 'unthinkable' has to be done.The US government, both parties knew about the CIA's activities long before this report was done, huge waste of money and time, in my opinion,None of what came out in the report is new to me. I am extremely sad that such things were done, but I find it hard to completely condemn the bush admin and certainly do not the CIA staff who had to do it.
This report is really a story of one womans, (feinstein) conflict with the CIA, because the CIA have been hacking into her computers and she got pissed.
There is a movie called 'unthinkable' starring samuel L Jackson that covers this dilemma very well I think.