Was torture used to foil the latest terror plot?

Parent Cafe
41

<p>I do support the troops., it is a few bad leaders and a few bad soilders who are not accountable…</p>

<p>So, you have a country where they hear stories, know known to be true, of American soliders murdering innocent women and children, and getting away with it for some time, of mass killings by Americans and nothing happening for some time, friends who did nothing being tortured and finally let go, people disappearing, taken by Americans…guess FF wouldn’t get a bit irked,…nope to some only American’s count…</p>

<p>I recently read a book with interviews from soilders who were there, very very sad</p>

<p>but let me guess once again FF, you can handle torture</p>

<p>Since you started this thread, tell me, if your son was tortured in a war, guess that would be fine with you?</p>

<p>k</p>

42

<p>“So, you have a country where they hear stories, know known to be true, of American soliders murdering innocent women and children, and getting away with it for some time, of mass killings by Americans and nothing happening for some time, friends who did nothing being tortured and finally let go, people disappearing, taken by Americans…”</p>

<p>Will you please link me to articles pertaining to those stories you know to be true?</p>

43

<p>gosh, you didn’t hear about the rape, the mass killings you need to get out more</p>

44

<p><a href=“http://www.metrowestdailynews.com/columnists/view.bg?articleid=138034[/url]”>http://www.metrowestdailynews.com/columnists/view.bg?articleid=138034&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

45

<p>“gosh, you didn’t hear about the rape, the mass killings you need to get out more”</p>

<p>I heard about them, but I don’t know them to be true. May I ask, again, for you to provide some documentation for your knowledge?</p>

46

<p>That was an opinion piece. Not proof of anything except the author’s opinion.</p>

47

<p>

I agree in part but not entirely. Clearly there will be willing jihadists who will not be deterred by the threat of torture. There are many more support personnel who provide housing, supplies, transportation, communications, courier and banking services, etc., who may well be deterred by the risk of torture.</p>

<p>I agree with FundingFather’s comments in #22. Also, “torture” might include the use of techniques like sodium pentothol and its modern-day medical equivalents, techniques that generally do not involve pain or harm and that I think we should be able to use.</p>

48

<p>

Like Zoosermom, I would like to see a credible link - especially one that says our soldiers “played soccer with the heads of beheaded victims”. I doubt you can provide one but, even if you can, we are not the same as our enemies. We punish those who commit heinous acts. Our enemies applaud them.</p>

49

<p>I have no objection to someone asking if torture is a suitable means of obtaining information that leads to foiling a terrorist plot. “What would Jack Bauer do?” Well, I think we know the answer to that question.</p>

<p>I do object when a real world example is used that suggests torture was instrumental in uncovering plotters.</p>

<p>Both Foxnews and The Scotsman believe otherwise. According to Foxnews (<a href=“http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,207898,00.html[/url]”>http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,207898,00.html&lt;/a&gt;) and the Scotsman (
<a href=“http://news.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=1174132006)%5B/url%5D”>http://news.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=1174132006)</a>, it was British authorities that asked Pakistani officials to arrest Rashid Rauf. Foxnews reported: </p>

<p>“The British say their inquiry began months ago — prompted by a tip from within the British Muslim community after the bloody July 7, 2005, terror bombings of the London transit system, The Washington Post reported.”</p>

<p>Further: “After the first arrests in Pakistan some days ago, word went from Pakistan to the London plotters to move ahead quickly, a message intercepted by an intelligence agency, a U.S. official disclosed on condition of anonymity. That prompted British police to move in on the conspirators, long under watch.”</p>

<p>As for today’s NYT article, the key information comes after the OP’s quote. The following sentences read as follows:</p>

<p>‘Mr. Rauf came to the notice of British investigators who traced telephone calls between him and people in Britain who were under surveillance, the official said.
“There were frequent calls from there and to him,” the official said, adding that the British had asked Pakistan to watch Mr. Rauf, who had been under surveillance for a few weeks.
Reuters, quoting unnamed intelligence officials, reported that Mr. Rauf was arrested on Aug. 9, hours before the arrests in Britain.’</p>

<p>What does this tell us? British authorities already had the names of the conspirators. They were monitoring their phone calls with Rashid Rauf who was in Pakistan. Mr. Rauf was arrested “…hours before the arrests in Britain.” If Rashid Rauf was tortured after his arrest, it had no material impact on the arrest of the London conspirators and their plot to bring down planes. To be fair, there still remains the link between Mr. Rauf and some unknown “…senior Qaeda agent.” </p>

<p>It was good old fashion police work (following up on a tip and around the clock surveillance of the conspirators) that saved the day, not torture.</p>

50

<p>There is no question that the investigation had been ongoing for quite some time, but if the reports of the Guardian and the NYT are correct, information obtained from Rauf was instrumental in the ultimate take down of the cell. What that information was and how it was obtained is open for speculation. It could have been obtained over tea and crumpets or via torture as the Pakistan human rights group is convinced.</p>

51

<p>With all due respect, I went back to re-read both the NYT and Guardian articles. Both articles state that Rashid Rauf was one of the ringleaders of the London plot to bring down jet liners and was known to have links to al- Qaeda in Afghanistan. The NYT article does state the following: </p>

<p>“His arrest led to the arrests of 24 people in Britain last Thursday.”</p>

<p>Within the context of the Time’s article, I quoted the following:</p>

<p>“Mr. Rauf came to the notice of British investigators who traced telephone calls between him and people in Britain who were under surveillance, the official said.
“There were frequent calls from there and to him,” the official said, adding that the British had asked Pakistan to watch Mr. Rauf, who had been under surveillance for a few weeks.”</p>

<p>The British authorities already knew of Mr. Rauf’s involvement in the terrorist plot and the identity of his co-conspirators. The sentence you point to is, unfortunately, a poor one. By itself, the sentence would seem to indicate that “his arrest” somehow, in those few hours with Pakistani authorities, resulted in revealing “information” that lead to the arrest of the London plotters. The problem is that British authorities already knew the identity of the plotters and of Mr. Rauf’s involvement. A better sentence might have been this: “Mr. Rauf’s arrest preceded the arrest of 24 people in Britain last Thursday.” </p>

<p>As my references state, Pakistani authorities acted on a request by Britain to have Mr. Rauf arrested prior to their arresting of the London plotters. I surmise that British authorities wanted to make sure that Mr. Rauf did not escape should their efforts to arrest the plotters prove less than 100% successful and that a plotter would have been able to get word to him about the plans unraveling.</p>

<p>Nothing in either article suggests that information that Mr. Rauf may have provided lead to the “take down” of a terrorist cell in London.</p>

52

<p>michuncle, ff can’t interpret reading that well. Perhaps he takes everything literally, without context. It is amazing how some folks will latch onto one sentence in a long article, much like a pit bull latching onto prey.</p>

<p>At any rate, thanks for explaining the record in a bit more detail.</p>

53

<p>In FF’s defense, the quality of the writing in the NYT has deteriorated over the last couple of years. Having read the Times for more years than I care to admit, their current stable of writers could use a heavier editorial hand. The offending sentence in the Times article seemingly suggests that Mr. Rauf’s arrest triggered the subsequent arrest of the London plotters. The following paragraphs clear up the sequence of events, but leaves Mr. Rauf’s role dangling…and subject to interpretation.</p>

<p>Of much greater concern is this: What about that “Jack Bauer” moment? With lives at stake, what means at their disposal can a governmental agency use to coerce information from a suspect? Whatever our choices, situation ethics will come back to haunt us… What about the innocent passengers aboard those planes? If the plot was not foiled, they and the bombers would have died in a fiery crash. Then again, once the US realized what was happening, our fighters would be scrambled and those planes shot down. Again, a loss of innocent lives… There are no good answers here.</p>

54

<p>Michuncle,</p>

<p>I agree we can’t rely on the New York Times given it’s editorial and reporting problems. I also agree it’s difficult to know exactly what happened in this case, and I doubt the full story was released while police operations are ongoing. Nevertheless, this report from China Daily suggests that Pakistan’s coercive interrogation of Rauf enabled British authorities to make additional arrests:</p>

<p>

It sounds to me like there was additional information gleaned from Mr. Rauf’s interrogation and FF was correct. In addition, FF used this incident as a starting point to discuss how democratic societies should handle coercive interrogations, the same point you address in your comment #53. Perhaps we can resume that discussion.</p>

55

<p>Well, it’s pretty clear that the answer to the OP’s question “Was torture used to foil the latest terror plot?” is: No.</p>

<p>Also, the further elaboration that “here we have a real situation where allegedly the key player was apprehended, “broken”, and the result was a take down of the terror cell” is simply another “tough-guy” fantasy of the type beloved by adolescent males the world over. Jack Bauer, Chuck Norris, and all the other macho posers the testosterone-fueled daydreamers believe represent real world manliness use the punch in the face, “we’re the good guys so we always win” approach to crime fighting - isn’t that the way the real world works? Again: No.</p>

<p>It’s worth contemplating what actually did lead to the investigation which foiled the plot. </p>

<p>A tip.</p>

<p>From a Muslim citizen or resident of Great Britain, months ago.</p>

<p>It doesn’t make nearly as dramatic a story, but in fact that’s how most crimes are solved or prevented. Someone knows someone who talks about something bad. They get concerned, they are responsible members of the community, they contact the authorities. Boring, actually. But it is an effective crime-fighting tool. In fact, it’s about the most effective crime fighting tool ever known. </p>

<p>So while some of you are trying on your Jack Bauer costumes and posing as “tough-minded realists” you might want to give some thought to what effect your theories of crime-fighting will have on the very effective tool which actually did foil this plot. </p>

<p>P.S.: Zoosermom - You should be that last person to insist that people produce “proof” to support their opinions.</p>

56

<p>I’m gratified that a British Muslim shared his/her concerns with British authorities. Sadly, according to a recent Pew Research Center poll, it’s questionable how many British Muslims would do the same: </p>

<p>

</a>
If we want to win this war, I think we need all the resources we can muster and that it’s appropriate to discuss whether coercive interrogation should be one of those resources.</p>

57

<p>If we are the point where we think torture might be OK, should we rely on the authorities in our countries to do this work for us. Shouldn’t we be doing this ourselves to make sure of the methods and results if it’s our safety on the line?</p>

58

<p>“Win this war”.</p>

<p>There’s an oxymoron if one ever existed.</p>

<p>“Whack a Mole” it is, and with a populace that produces very large families, with males. </p>

<p>There is no “winning” of any “War of Terror” with any method that has been utilized by Western countries in the past five years. Want proof on that one? Read the daily sectarian death toll in Iraq, where 100 dead a day is now routine.</p>

59

<p>“P.S.: Zoosermom - You should be that last person to insist that people produce “proof” to support their opinions.”</p>

<p>I provided plently of proof. Just not to you. Please don’t engage me again. I’m not interested in dealing with a bully.</p>

<p>P.S. If anyone is interested in what Kluge is talking about, I would be happy to respond privately. But not to Kluge.</p>

60

<p>DRJ4, thanks for providing the addional quote from the China daily. I find it interesting that those who accuse others of cherry picking quotes do the same thing by ignoring information that doesn’t fit into their agenda. They prefer to create a “what must have happened” scenario based upon weak information at the expense of what was reported that really happened. </p>

<p>Michuncle, I think you are trying to be fair in this discussion (but I do wonder why you left out the quote from the Interior Minister from the Guardian article), but here is where I find your hypothesis a bit troubling: If the British authorities did not need any additional information from Rauf, why did they wait “hours” (who knows how many, Newsweek claims that Rauf was arrested days before the others) before they made their arrests in England? If this was an example of great police work, wouldn’t great police work involve simultaneous raids? Wouldn’t they be concerned that word of the arrest might get back to England to send all of the plotters into hiding? Isn’t it more plausible that the reports in the newspapers were actually correct - that they did need additional information from Rauf before they could seal the deal on the others?</p>

<p>kluge, it’s good to know that your view from your desk in California is 20/20 versus the human rights group in Pakistan that is 100% sure that torture was used. It must be a burden to be so omniscient all of the time.</p>