Gordon Grim at the Chilcott Inquiry - I cannae remember, I wasnae their, it isnae Mah fault
Robert Henderson
Inquiry had agreed with Brown in advance what questions they could and
could not ask (and interestingly he frequently said to the Inquiry "You
may want to ask me about this" and lo and behold they invariably did)
they could not have produced a more supine performance. Not only did
they fail to press Brown on the many public claims by soldiers, civil
servants and Labour politicians who have already appeared before the
Inquiry, but time and again they failed to follow through with
questions, for example, Brown played the old "I can't remember" to avoid
an award question and the panel never pressed him on the improbability
of forgetting such a thing. They also allowed Brown to drone on at
great length without interruption as he pumps out vast amounts of
irrelevant detail.
The other glaring lacks were the timid and deferential manner of all
members of the panel - not one had a shred of authority in their
delivery - and the technical ineptitude of the questioning. Every panel
member was incapable of building a line of questioning, frequently they
were searching for the next question, often they suddenly jumped from
one topic to something completely different and time and again they
clearly had not mastered the material on which they were supposed to
base their questioning.
When I was doing investigation work for the Revenue and was, for
example, going to interview someone under caution, I would prepare what
we called a Q and A. This was not merely a list of questions to ask but
a schematic which is essentially a flow chart rather like a computer
programme. This anticipates different answers to a question and then
built upon the branching different possible questions further questions
relating to each branch. The police, customs and many barristers use
the same technique. It is hard work preparing Q and As, but it is by
far the most efficient way of conducting an interview where there is a
great deal of detail surrounding whatever is being investigated. It is a
practice ideally suited to this type of Inquiry. Clearly it has not been
employed here.
Brown's position on his behaviour until he became PM was that he had
played little part in the decision to go to war and had met every demand
for money to fund the war (a claim directly at odds with the account of
Kevin Tebbit, Permanent Secretary at the MoD). RH
Iraq war was 'right', says Brown
Prime Minister Gordon Brown has said the 2003 war was "right", as he
gives evidence to the UK's Iraq inquiry.
"I believe we made the right decisions for the right reasons," Mr Brown
told the inquiry hearing in London.
But he said there were "lessons to learn" about decision making,
international cooperation and how to build a "just peace" after wars....
THE STORY SO FAR
# He may have been writing the cheques as chancellor, but Gordon Brown
remained largely silent in the run-up to the 2003 Iraq war
# He was thought by some to be sceptical about it. Others thought he was
hedging his bets ahead of a leadership bid
# After becoming PM, he set up the Iraq inquiry to "learn lessons" from
the war, although he originally wanted it held in secret and the timing
ensured it would not report until after the election
# Ex-military leaders have given evidence at the inquiry suggesting Mr
Brown kept defence spending tight during his 10 years at the Treasury
with some suggesting this had a knock-on effect on forces' kit
# Mr Brown has denied this and will want to counter any impression, as
put by David Cameron, that he did not see the military as a priority
until he was PM and it became politically convenient
Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/uk_politics/8550779.stm
Published: 2010/03/05 10:39:55 GMT
--
Robert Henderson
--
Robert Henderson
Personal website: http://www.anywhere.demon.co.uk
Turk182
An excellent and balanced account.
Was Chilcott drugged?
I was wondering if by the softly, softly approach adopted by the
panel, ironically they did not do us a big favour. Brown was not
bullied into answering. Under lack of pressure, he calmly and
adequately demonstrated that he uses words as a defence against
revealing the truth – it is his tactic.
Brown showed us how, like the sermons of his father, he can stupefy
people using his profuse wordiness; we become disorientated and
confused about what we are thinking as his droning continues. This
was Brown doing what he does best, brushing questions aside as if they
were people who made the mistake of standing in his way.
His calm and smiling contempt for the aims of the inquiry reveals
Brown as unfit for office - this man will almost certainly repeat
earlier mistakes, time and time again, throughout his life.
He was unable to put sadness and regret where it belonged, instead he
used it like 'product placement'; it was transposed into his thoughts
just at the right 'sound bite' moment.
Had Brown wanted closure and truth, he would have helped Chilcott -
instead, he wasted time with words to 'sell' himself as some kind of
deity - leaving little time for the heart wrenching story which
reverberates from the ghosts if 500,000 people.
Turk182
sutartsorric
All these inquiries are a stitch up. I dont know why the media think
that they are so important.
abelard
<phi...@anywhere.demon.co.uk> wrote:
># Mr Brown has denied this and will want to counter any impression, as
>put by David Cameron, that he did not see the military as a priority
>until he was PM and it became politically convenient
he has only 'taken an interest' since the tories under cameron have
finally had leadership prepared to hold socialist 'new' labour to
account...
his only concern has been to head off and lie about criticism and
failures...there is only one thing that interests the clown...his
own ambitions...
god knows how anyone can sit through hours of his whining
droning voice...
i get every impression the 'interrogation' was *deliberately designed*
to let him off the hook
once again, it's not my fault...it's all because of the americans!
incredible, the same lie he used over his destruction of the uk
economy...
has he a standard socialist chip on his shoulder over the usa?
but his puppet masters are still having problems programming his
grins/grimaces and his stilted regrets act
regards
--
web site at www.abelard.org - news comment service, logic, economics
energy, education, politics, etc over 1 million document calls in year past
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
all that is necessary for [] walk quietly and carry
the triumph of evil is that [] a big stick.
good people do nothing [] trust actions not words
only when it's funny -- roger rabbit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maria
<big snip>
Couldn't be bothered to watch it - it's pointless.
mick
A complete waste of time and money.
Robert Peffers
"sutartsorric" <sutart...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:b4630b59-3853-4f9a...@b7g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
Get real! Brown was not the PM. It was the PM's job to decide on war or not.
Brown's job was to write the cheques and he did, as is his job, what he was
told.
Now I have ne reason to back Brown - he is my MP but I have always voted
against him since he first stood as candidate here.
--
Auld Bob..
Robert Henderson
<falli...@holeinshoe.co.uk> writes
>Robert Henderson wrote:
>
><big snip>
>
>Couldn't be bothered to watch it - it's pointless.
That's playing into their hands, Maria. If no one points out the
contrived nature of the farce then by default they succeed. RH
The Todal
> On 5 Mar, 16:16, Robert Henderson <phi...@anywhere.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> --
>> Robert Henderson
>> Personal website:http://www.anywhere.demon.co.uk
>
> An excellent and balanced account.
An ignorant and ill-informed tirade, by someone who either hasn't listened
to the testimony or who has listened without having done his research
properly.
>
> Was Chilcott drugged?
Unfortunately, if you don't research all the testimony that has already been
given to the inquiry you won't see the value of the evidence that has been
extracted from Gordon Brown. You will probably rely on the assessments
given by the journalists, who also regularly miss the point and judge each
witness on whether or not he seems calm or panicky and decide, on that
basis, whether he has passed the test.
Brown has revealed that he wasn't in the loop but his vanity is such that he
wants it to be thought that he was fully involved in all the cabinet
decision-making. In relation to the flawed decision to embark on an illegal
invasion, he hasn't shown that we made the right decision for the right
reasons, and he would have us believe that any fault lies with the
intelligence community and the other members of the UN. He would have us
believe that right up until the last moment it was hoped that we would not
go to war - there is plenty of evidence to show that the decision had been
made long before we went to war, and was irrevocable.
So he has shown that he is either a liar or was out of the loop. Among
other things.
His dogged reluctance to say anything critical of Blair does make him
unsuitable for office.
Robin T Cox
> Brown's job was to write the cheques and he did, as is his job, what he
> was told.
'I was only following orders' is not a valid defence to a war crimes charge.
--
Facts are sacred ... but comment is free
True Blue
"Robert Henderson" <phi...@anywhere.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:4WZfrGqL...@anywhere.demon.co.uk...
> Note: The questioning of Brown was so inept that if the members of the
> Inquiry had agreed with Brown in advance what questions they could and
> could not ask (and interestingly he frequently said to the Inquiry "You
> may want to ask me about this" and lo and behold they invariably did) they
> could not have produced a more supine performance.
LOL...Blair didn't even wait for the members to ask him questions, he asked
himself on their behalf! Classic Campbell PR and our utterly useless media
failed as they always do. It was only the bloggers who performed any
meaningful analysis on this, Blair's latest trickery.
One of the reasons we've ended up with such a rotten cross-party political
establishment, is the abject failure of our media. What is required is root
and branch deregulation, allowing overtly political channels and stations.
charlie6
> On Fri, 5 Mar 2010 16:16:11 +0000, Robert Henderson
>
> <phi...@anywhere.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> ># Mr Brown has denied this and will want to counter any impression, as
> >put by David Cameron, that he did not see the military as a priority
> >until he was PM and it became politically convenient
>
> he has only 'taken an interest' since the tories under cameron have
> finally had leadership prepared to hold socialist 'new' labour to
> account...
>
> his only concern has been to head off and lie about criticism and
> failures...there is only one thing that interests the clown...his
> own ambitions...
>
> god knows how anyone can sit through hours of his whining
> droning voice...
>
> i get every impression the 'interrogation' was *deliberately designed*
> to let him off the hook
>
> once again, it's not my fault...it's all because of the americans!
> incredible, the same lie he used over his destruction of the uk
> economy...
> has he a standard socialist chip on his shoulder over the usa?
>
> but his puppet masters are still having problems programming his
> grins/grimaces and his stilted regrets act
>
> regards
>
> --
> energy, education, politics, etc over 1 million document calls in year past
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----
> all that is necessary for [] walk quietly and carry
> the triumph of evil is that [] a big stick.
> good people do nothing [] trust actions not words
> only when it's funny -- roger rabbit
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----
The inquiry and it's terms of reference were set up by politicians to
justify their actions not for the purpose of prosecuting themselves.
Every of aspect of it was planned from the terms of reference right
down to the people on the panel.
The participants are within those terms of reference answering the
questions truthfully but at the same time deviously. Nothing in the
terms of reference below suggests other than a whitewash. Based on the
terms of reference below you could almost write your own finding
before the inquiry started. Of course there are other truths out there
and the difficulty is in recognising them but you should believe that
other people do know different stories.
''
''Our terms of reference are very broad, but the essential points, as
set out by the Prime Minister and agreed by the House of Commons, are
that this is an Inquiry by a committee of Privy Counsellors. It will
consider the period from the summer of 2001 to the end of July 2009,
embracing the run-up to the conflict in Iraq, the military action and
its aftermath. We will therefore be considering the UK's involvement
in Iraq, including the way decisions were made and actions taken, to
establish, as accurately as possible, what happened and to identify
the lessons that can be learned. Those lessons will help ensure that,
if we face similar situations in future, the government of the day is
best equipped to respond to those situations in the most effective
manner in the best interests of the country."
Robert Peffers
"True Blue" <t...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:bpednRKB1Op_uQ_W...@giganews.com...
Yeah!
Yeah!
Yeah!
This is the usual rubbish from those who are not in government - blame their
failure on the Media.
It is also the cry from a government having a hard time -0 blame the media.
The trouble is that the media is politically biased.
Once upon a time media reporters did just that - reported the news. No
slant, no missing inconvenient news, no picking upon a particular party,
just a factual news report. In newspapers they also had columnists, and the
punlic expected these to be somewhat biased. The proper place, though, for
political bias was in the editorial and the public knew which paper favoured
what party.
Now we do not have any decent reporters who only report.
--
Auld Bob.
True Blue
"Robert Peffers" <peff...@btinbternet.com> wrote in message
news:A_2dnQQaZJesEg7W...@bt.com...
So, in precis, what I said was rubbish....and....you agree with me?
Maria
> In message <TtednbawZvUJ1wzW...@bt.com>, Maria
> <falli...@holeinshoe.co.uk> writes
>> Robert Henderson wrote:
>>
>> <big snip>
>>
>> Couldn't be bothered to watch it - it's pointless.
>
>
> That's playing into their hands, Maria. If no one points out the
> contrived nature of the farce then by default they succeed. RH
Is there anyone left who doesn't believe that it's a contrived farce,
apart from those who still support the action in Iraq?
The Todal
"Maria" <falli...@holeinshoe.co.uk> wrote in message
news:Hr2dncyDOtLcegnW...@bt.com...
I am absolutely certain that it is not a contrived farce, and I am (and
always have been) opposed to our unlawful invasion of Iraq.
I can't claim to speak for anyone else but I believe the government is now
apprehensive that the outcome of the Inquiry will be numerous criticisms of
the government, particularly Blair. However this will of course be long
after the election at a time when most people will shrug and say, so what?
So our government made more mistakes? What's new? Blair won't stand trial
for war crimes. His place in history will be slightly marred by the
Inquiry's criticisms of his style of decision-making, but only historians
will particularly notice.
If the effect of the Inquiry will be to prevent us being led again into any
unlawful and unnecessary wars, it will most certainly be worthwhile. That
doesn't mean much to those who think only in terms of winning or losing
elections, being tried for war crimes, being punished for bad decisions.
Maria
> "Maria" <falli...@holeinshoe.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:Hr2dncyDOtLcegnW...@bt.com...
>> Robert Henderson wrote:
>>> In message <TtednbawZvUJ1wzW...@bt.com>, Maria
>>> <falli...@holeinshoe.co.uk> writes
>>>> Robert Henderson wrote:
>>>>
>>>> <big snip>
>>>>
>>>> Couldn't be bothered to watch it - it's pointless.
>>>
>>> That's playing into their hands, Maria. If no one points out the
>>> contrived nature of the farce then by default they succeed. RH
>> Is there anyone left who doesn't believe that it's a contrived farce,
>> apart from those who still support the action in Iraq?
>
> I am absolutely certain that it is not a contrived farce, and I am (and
> always have been) opposed to our unlawful invasion of Iraq.
I did watch the first few hearings - the Bliar one was sickening.
>
> I can't claim to speak for anyone else but I believe the government is now
> apprehensive that the outcome of the Inquiry will be numerous criticisms of
> the government, particularly Blair.
But he has gone - and they are lessening the chances of criticism of
Bliar all the time by all supporting what he did at the hearings. This
is nothing that any other government set up does - close ranks in the
face of criticism.
> However this will of course be long
> after the election at a time when most people will shrug and say, so what?
> So our government made more mistakes? What's new? Blair won't stand trial
> for war crimes. His place in history will be slightly marred by the
> Inquiry's criticisms of his style of decision-making, but only historians
> will particularly notice.
>
> If the effect of the Inquiry will be to prevent us being led again into any
> unlawful and unnecessary wars, it will most certainly be worthwhile.
I don't believe that will happen. I don't believe that the war in
Afghanistan is legal, or that the war in Kosovo was legal either. Those
have just wafted by as if they are non-events. Clinton's air strikes on
Sudan and Afghanistan weren't legal. *If* we had lost a lot of men in
Kosovo, I don't doubt that we would have been discussing Kosovo first,
and maybe me wouldn't even have gone into Iraq.
I don't know.
> That
> doesn't mean much to those who think only in terms of winning or losing
> elections, being tried for war crimes, being punished for bad decisions.
I think it would be an important move, but I just don't think it will
ever happen.
The Todal
> The Todal wrote:
>> "Maria" <falli...@holeinshoe.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:Hr2dncyDOtLcegnW...@bt.com...
>>> Robert Henderson wrote:
>>>> In message <TtednbawZvUJ1wzW...@bt.com>, Maria
>>>> <falli...@holeinshoe.co.uk> writes
>>>>> Robert Henderson wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> <big snip>
>>>>>
>>>>> Couldn't be bothered to watch it - it's pointless.
>>>>
>>>> That's playing into their hands, Maria. If no one points out the
>>>> contrived nature of the farce then by default they succeed. RH
>>> Is there anyone left who doesn't believe that it's a contrived farce,
>>> apart from those who still support the action in Iraq?
>>
>> I am absolutely certain that it is not a contrived farce, and I am (and
>> always have been) opposed to our unlawful invasion of Iraq.
>
> I did watch the first few hearings - the Bliar one was sickening.
Blair had, clearly, rehearsed in his mind many times what he would say and
what his attitude would be towards the Inquiry. The focal point from a
lawyers' point of view is what advice he got from the AG and to what extent
he conveyed the advice to his Cabinet and to the Commons.
It may be that he was convinced in his mind that (in the well-rehearsed
words of Gordon Brown) we made the right decision for the right reasons. But
he chose not to tell the Cabinet that the Attorney General was uncertain
about the legality. And that the final position adopted by the AG was that
a good case could be made for our invasion *only if* there was clear and
unequivocal evidence of Iraq's non-compliance with the requirement to
disarm.
The evidence was plainly not clear and unequivocal. Unless of course you
argue that because there was a period of time in the past when Saddam was
being obstructive and un co-operative, that was sufficient reason to invade
even if he had since disarmed and dismantled all his weapons.
Most of the witnesses were clearly ignorant of the law. They thought the
AG's approval was no more than a rubber-stamping exercise, unworthy of
debate. They thought the *real* decision was all about whether or not we
would win a war, curry favour with the Americans, tilt the balance of power
in our favour in the Middle East and the world.
I think the civil servants and the government's legal advisors understood it
all very well, but we were let down by our pig-ignorant politicians. Gordon
Brown evidently thinks that if any nation disobeys a UN resolution we are
entitled to invade that nation. And the only thing that stops us is whether
it is politically convenient to ignore a breach committed by a friend, such
as Israel. Brown's vision is opportunistic, selfish and amoral. I hope the
Chilcot report will explain this in full. If it doesn't then it will be for
others to explain it because all the evidence is there, in video and PDF
form, for the world to see. It's really disgusting for our country to invade
another country, acting as policeman-vigilante, and then whinge because all
the other countries are refusing to provide troops and money to help rebuild
the country that we have damaged.
I agree that Clinton set the world a very poor example. He began the process
of rendition of terrorist suspects, a blatantly immoral and unlawful
procedure whereby if you can't extradite a suspect by means of a court
order, you send in your special agents to kidnap the suspect and bring him
to the USA or to a torture chamber in Syria. Our problem in the UK is that
instead of standing up for what is lawful and right, we have chosen to side
with America because of our economic and military ties with America. It was
a short-sighted approach. After all, eventually a president would be elected
who repudiated the past mis-deeds of the American government.
http://www.iraqinquiry.org.uk/media/45411/100503-brown.pdf
"I think that this is the gravest decision of all, to make a decision to go
to war. I believe we made the right decision for the right reasons, because
the international community had for years asked Saddam Hussein to abide by
international law and the international obligations that he had accepted.
14 resolutions were passed by the United Nations, and, at the end of the
day, it was impossible to persuade him that he should abide by international
law. My feeling is, and still is, that we cannot have an international
community that works if we have either terrorists who are breaking these
rules, or, in this case, aggressor states that refuse to obey the laws of
the international community".
snip
"My thesis is this: that persistently Iraq had been asked by the
international community to disclose and then dismantle weapons that every
country who signed that United Nations Resolution believed that they had,
that we had a responsibility to ensure that international law in this case
was upheld and the international community would mean very little if we
could not, in the case of a country that had systematically -- was, in fact,
a serial violator of international law -- we would have no sense that the
political will would be there for future interventions which may be
necessary, if we could not show that we could come together to deal with the
problem of Iraq. But, of course, what we wanted was a diplomatic route to
succeed, and right up to the last minute and right up to the last weekend, I
think many of us were hopeful that that diplomatic route could succeed."
snip
"I am afraid this became a test of whether the international community was
prepared to deal with problems in a post-Cold War world where instabilities
were becoming more and more apparent.
SIR RODERIC LYNE: So it was that reason rather than the threat of aggression
that convinced you?
BROWN (transcript wrongly says Straw!) : I have always taken the view that,
if we can't build a strong international community where people abide by the
rules that are set, and if we cannot cohere to do so, then we are sending a
message to other states and other countries that they are free to do as they
will.
SIR RODERIC LYNE: This is a message that other states will have heeded as a
result of the action in Iraq?
RT HON GORDON BROWN MP: I think this is the issue."
Robert Henderson
<falli...@holeinshoe.co.uk> writes
>>>
>>> Couldn't be bothered to watch it - it's pointless.
>> That's playing into their hands, Maria. If no one points out the
>>contrived nature of the farce then by default they succeed. RH
>
>Is there anyone left who doesn't believe that it's a contrived farce,
>apart from those who still support the action in Iraq?
That is not the point. If no one makes a fuss about their misbehaviour
they can claim no one thought it was misbehaviour. The argument goes by
default. RH
allantracy
> I don't believe that will happen. I don't believe that the war in
> Afghanistan is legal,
I think you will find the war in Afghanistan is as legal as it gets,
don’t forget it’s a UN war.
It has something to do with them having started it.
Maria
>> I don't believe that will happen. I don't believe that the war in
>> Afghanistan is legal,
>
> I think you will find the war in Afghanistan is as legal as it gets,
>
> It has something to do with them having started it.
When did they start it?
Maria
> In message <Hr2dncyDOtLcegnW...@bt.com>, Maria
> <falli...@holeinshoe.co.uk> writes
>>>>
>>>> Couldn't be bothered to watch it - it's pointless.
>>> That's playing into their hands, Maria. If no one points out the
>>> contrived nature of the farce then by default they succeed. RH
>>
>> Is there anyone left who doesn't believe that it's a contrived farce,
>> apart from those who still support the action in Iraq?
>
> That is not the point. If no one makes a fuss about their misbehaviour
> they can claim no one thought it was misbehaviour. The argument goes by
> default. RH
We've been making a fuss for years - we have even had Bliar
cross-examined by a housewife on tv. I cannot see any scrutiny that
would tell us what we do not already know almost for certain. Maybe a
Spanish-style inquisition...
The Todal
Them? You mean Afghanistan declared war against the USA? That, of course
is untrue.
The history of the conflict in Afghanistan would appear to be....
1. Pre 9/11, various UN Security Council resolutions imposing sanctions on
the Taliban regime. But during the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan,
America had supported and armed the Taliban.
2. After 9/11 (an attack on America devised by Osama bin Laden), America
demanded that the government of Afghanistan locate and hand over Osama bin
Laden to America. The Afghan clerics were in favour, the Taliban were
against because it would be an insult to their country. After all, the
normal procedure in any civilised country is a formal extradition request
and court hearings. There is no reason to believe that the Taliban helped to
plan or implement the 9/11 attacks. The Taliban did say that if the USA
could produce evidence of bin Laden's guilt they would hand him over. This
request was ignored by America.
3. In October 2001, America launched Operation Enduring Freedom, in
conjunction with British forces. They overthrew the Taliban regime and
managed to install a puppet regime friendly to the USA, with a precarious
hold on power.
I'm not convinced that the UN specifically authorised the invasion of
Afghanistan. I think this was the most relevant resolution. Maybe others can
point to further or other resolutions?
http://www.mythsandfacts.org/Conflict/18a/1368.htm
The US and NATO took the view that the attack on 9/11 had been directed by
the Taliban and by Afghanistan, thereby justifying the use of military force
in self-defence.
http://www.nato.int/docu/pr/2001/p01-124e.htm
So I'm not convinced that the war was legal in international law. I suppose
it is just about arguable that it was legal. As an analogy, if terrorists in
the Republic of Ireland had launched bomb attacks in London we would no
doubt have demanded that everything possible be done to catch the terrorists
and hand them over, and we might have suspected Ireland of colluding in
terrorism if it did not show itself ready to track down and catch the
culprits. But we didn't actually give Afghanistan much of a chance to do
that sort of thing.
Whether or not it was lawful in international law, the invasion of
Afghanistan was a blunder. It is assumed of course that the Taliban was
aligning itself with bin Laden even if it didn't have any part in planning
the 9/11 terrorist attacks. If 9/11 hadn't happened, we would probably have
found a pretext for invading and supporting the overthrow of the Taliban.
But do we have a more stable Afghanistan now? Are our troops ever likely to
leave? Wouldn't diplomacy, sanctions and political pressure have achieved
as good a result or better?
Francis Burton
Maria <falli...@holeinshoe.co.uk> wrote:
>We've been making a fuss for years - we have even had Bliar
>cross-examined by a housewife on tv. I cannot see any scrutiny that
>would tell us what we do not already know almost for certain. Maybe a
>Spanish-style inquisition...
Employing non-torture techniques such as waterboarding. That
should get at the truth pretty quickly.
Francis
Ophelia
"Francis Burton" <fbu...@nyx.net> wrote in message
news:12681298...@irys.nyx.net...
You think waterboarding is not torture???
--
--
https://www.shop.helpforheroes.org.uk/
The Todal
"Ophelia" <Oph...@Elsinore.me.uk> wrote in message
news:7vmrmm...@mid.individual.net...
The American neo-cons such as Rumsfeld think that waterboarding is not
torture. I doubt if Blair or Brown would go along with that - unless of
course they have managed to persuade the Attorney General to sign off on a
memo saying that it is not torture.
Interesting piece here:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/apr/23/condoleezza-rice-cia-waterboarding
Ophelia
"The Todal" <deadm...@beeb.net> wrote in message
news:7vmuoe...@mid.individual.net...
Evil cow. She ought to try it out sometimes. Waterboarding is not
'simulated' drowning.. it IS drowning!
Francis Burton
Ophelia <Oph...@Elsinore.me.uk> wrote:
>> Employing non-torture techniques such as waterboarding. That
>> should get at the truth pretty quickly.
>
>You think waterboarding is not torture???
Respected political commentatory Sean Hannity said waterboarding
isn't torture. He even agreed to be waterboarded himself to prove
it! That's good enough for me.
Francis
Ophelia
"Francis Burton" <fbu...@nyx.net> wrote in message
news:12681478...@irys.nyx.net...
I don't believe him. Just think about it. If it were a pretendy
drowning, why would the vicitm break?
The Todal
Read, watch and enjoy....
http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/08/hitchens200808
Francis Burton
The Todal <deadm...@beeb.net> wrote:
>> I don't believe him. Just think about it. If it were a pretendy
>> drowning, why would the vicitm break?
>
>Read, watch and enjoy....
>http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/08/hitchens200808
And...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qUkj9pjx3H0
Francis
Ophelia
"The Todal" <deadm...@beeb.net> wrote in message
news:7vn8rb...@mid.individual.net...
Obviously someone needs to read it. My husband was in the Military and
because of the work that he did, he had to undergo Escape and Evasion and
Counter Interrogation training (as it was called them) He says it WAS
drowning, and I believe him.
Perhaps those here, who don't believe that, would like to test it for
themselves.