armb: Dog jumping in water (Default)
[personal profile] armb
We in the UK might detain people indefinitely without charge, but at least we aren't considering outsourcing torture. What sort of moral code comes up with the idea that it's ok to torture suspects so long as it's done somewhere else?

But, indirectly...

Date: 2004-10-05 06:56 am (UTC)
muninnhuginn: (Default)
From: [personal profile] muninnhuginn
As explained here it could happen to a British Citizen all the same.

Question is, I suppose, would this necessitate two plane trips, one to the States and then one to the torture contractor's country?

Re: But, indirectly...

Date: 2004-10-06 04:22 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] rdmaughan.livejournal.com
Yes, it would. The UK would need to extradite to the USA. The USA would then extradite to the, shall we call them the "interrogation facilitator"?

I doubt this would happen in practice. The US government is unlikely to risk the fallout from being caught torturing subjects of one of their few allies.

I am also sure it would only happen once. Nowhere in the EC will extradite to the US on a capital crime without a guarantee to not seek the death penalty. If the US shipped a citizen of ours to Eygpt or Syria for torture the EU would probably stop extraditing anyone facing terrorism charges to the US.

Re: But, indirectly...

Date: 2004-10-06 04:41 am (UTC)
muninnhuginn: (Default)
From: [personal profile] muninnhuginn
I doubt this would happen in practice. The US government is unlikely to risk the fallout from being caught torturing subjects of one of their few allies.

I'd be tempted to say "tell that to the British, and other non-US, citizens at Guantanamo Bay", but it'd be a cheap shot.

Re: But, indirectly...

Date: 2004-10-06 05:22 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] rdmaughan.livejournal.com
And as far as I can see a pointless and irrelevent one too.

Re: But, indirectly...

Date: 2004-10-06 07:59 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] armb.livejournal.com
The US government has been accused of torturing British citizens. The fallout risk appears small.

Re: But, indirectly...

Date: 2004-10-13 05:32 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] rdmaughan.livejournal.com
I gave you a snotty reply to this previously because you used a debating trick that has always irritated me.

The "I could say this but I won't because..." trick. This, in my opinion, is just a way of making a cheap shot without getting a reputation as someone who makes cheap shots.

Of course that may not have been deliberate on your part so sorry for the less than polite reply i sent previously.

The rest is a more constructive reply, hopefully.

Guantanamo is obviously not a pleasent place to be sent to. I personally think it is immoral, counterproductive and should be closed down. However I suspect standards of treatment there are orders of magnitudes better than the standards at some of the places the US is considering deporting people to.

As far as I am aware nobody at Guantanamo has been electrocuted or drowned in shit. So we are talking about different levels of abuse.

Any abuse is bad and should be opposed but the levels potentially involved here are different and likely to cause different levels of public outrage.

Guilty as charged, m'lud

Date: 2004-10-13 06:04 am (UTC)
muninnhuginn: (Default)
From: [personal profile] muninnhuginn
Yup, very irritating (I tries, I does: one day I'll rise to immensely irritating!). Which is why I didn't post a cross reply.

Re: But, indirectly...

Date: 2004-10-06 08:00 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] armb.livejournal.com
And the agreement that UK citizens will be extradited more or less on request to the US isn't bilateral, since that would be Unconstitutional.

December 2022

S M T W T F S
    123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
25262728293031

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags