• The post you are reporting:
   
  I got this information from politicalbetting.
  
  George W Bush is to publish his memoirs in which he defends 'coercive interoggation techniques'.
  
  The following verbatim from politicalbetting quoting the forthcoming book:
  "Three people were waterboarded and I believe that decision saved lives." He denied that waterboarding, which simulates drowning, amounted to torture. Asked if he authorised the use of waterboarding to get information from the captured al-Qaeda leader Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, he was unequivocal: "Damn right!"
  
  In the book he writes: "Their interrogations helped break up plots to attack American diplomatic facilities abroad, Heathrow airport and Canary Wharf in London, and multiple targets in the United States."
  
  In another quote from the book he writes: "I knew an interrogation programme this sensitive and controversial would one day become public. When it did, we would open ourselves up to criticism that America had compromised our moral values. I would have preferred that we get the information another way. But the choice between security and values was real.""""
  
  There you have it.
  
  This was discussed on my blog recently when I questioned the definition of torture.
  
  I do not approve of torture - the ripping off of fingernails type of thing. But the definition of torture has been widened to include 'coercive interrogation' such as sensory deprivation and abusive shooting (as would be SAS recruits have to undergo to pass).
  
  Where would you draw the line to save innocent lives?
  
  Would you agree to waterboarding and/or sensory deprivation and verbal abuse/threats to save perhaps thousands of innocent lives?
  
  Was George Bush right now you know what he said?
  
  I fully agree with him and would suppport the use of those methods in the circumstances he describes.

Report Post

Your Name

Reason