Revealed: torture was used to foil al-Qaeda 2010 plot to bomb two airliners

Revealed: How torture was used to foil al-Qaeda 2010 plot to bomb two airliners 17 minutes before explosion

The former head of MI6 has said torturing suspected terrorists produces “useful information”, as The Independent on Sunday reveals that “real-time” intelligence understood to have been obtained by torture in Saudi Arabia helped to thwart a terrorist bombing on British soil.

One intelligence source said: “The people in London went back on the phone two or three times to where the interrogation was taking place in Riyadh to find out specifically where the bomb was hidden. There were two Britons there, in immediate communication with where the interrogation was taking place, and as soon as anything happened, they were in touch with the UK. It was all done in real time.”

There is growing frustration on the part of some UK security officials at Britain’s lack of candour about aspects of intelligence work. “There is a lack of understanding in that most people, if they knew about a ticking bomb scenario, would say torture was defensible, yet we insist on saying ‘we never do it’. Yet we are very happy beneficiaries of it,” one official said.

If true, it’s irrelevant. Torture is illegal by UK agents as well as US agents. No ifs, ands, or buts.

It’s also morally wrong, always and everywhere.

Plus, studies show it doesn’t produce useful information relative to other techniques, so the fact that some sadistic fuck might think it does is as relevant as the climate change deniers. This is a closed issue.

If true, this is one of the reasons for presidential pardons (in the US, at least – I don’t know if they have anything comparable in the UK). Maybe there’s some tiny chance of Jack Bauer situations in the future – and if so, the heroic Jack Bauers of the world will do what they have to do, and we can sort it out later. It should still remain illegal, since in the vast majority of cases it will be both immoral and ineffective.

“One intelligence source”.

Well, screw all those previous reports and studies that show it doesn’t work-I’m convinced!

“The former head of MI6”. What does he know, anyway.

He knows enough to throw this out there as a pre-emptive defense should he be prosecuted for torture.

I think I saw this episode. It’s the one where Jack has some actors pretend to kill the terrorist’s wife, right?

That’s precisely why it shouldn’t be done period. You have no reason to suspect it will be effective. The idea that you try something that is more likely to give you false information instead of real information because you’re short on time makes no sense.

Your whole argument is post hoc ergo propter hoc. You got useful information, therefore using torture was a valid method to get that information. The fact that you happened on the rare times when something works doesn’t make it the right method to use.

We should not ever use the results to determine if someone deserves a pardon. It’s like saying the attempted murderer should get off because the victim miraculously lived.

Even IF it’s true that torture had a positive result, that changes nothing.

Torturing people is evil in and of itself. NOT because the people we torture might be innocent, but because there’s no justifying torture, ever.

So Terr, what about the torture of people who are innocent? You do agree that happens from time to time, right? Please give us your thoughts on how one might make that right.

Why would a guy who ordered torture defend torture? Hmmm.

“Head of KKK argues lynching worked”

“Nazi argues genocide saved lives”

“Slavemaster reveals that slavery is beneficial”

“International jewel thief argues that stealing gemstones from rich heiresses creates jobs”

“Racist says that black people are the worst”

“Torturer says torture works”

Here’s what I’d like to see from these so-called moral crusaders who happened to want to use torture for saving lives: if they’re so sure of the good they are doing, then turn yourselves in and stand trial. In most countries, we don’t let someone break one law in order to uphold another. Self-defense isn’t breaking a law, its an exception you get when lives are at stake. But if you see someone stealing, you don’t get to shoot them to stop them. If they want to argue self-defense, then stand trial, present their side and see if a jury agrees with them.

Clearly none of you have ever made an omelet for fear of breaking some legs… er, I mean eggs.

I know that I for one, when looking for someone guaranteed to tell me the unvarnished truth with no regard for how it would affect the image of his nation, will always turn first to a spy.

Seriously, a little less Jack Bauer and a little more John Le Carre will do wonders for your intellectual diet.

I wish our enemies believed that.

I agree with all of this. It doesn’t dispute my post, which is about specific one-in-a-million situations that probably never happened (unless this story is 100% accurate) and probably never will happen. Torture is and should be illegal.

Yes, our enemies believe in torture. And our enemies also believe in smashing antiquities, burning enemy combatants alive after capturing them, sexual slavery of women, and so on. If ISIS jumped off a slippery slope, would you jump off too?

Seems to me that anyone who believes in torture is my enemy, regardless of whether that person is wearing a keffiyeh, an SS uniform, or a suit and tie.

Are ere any other evil but supposedly effective acts you would like to apply that philosophy to?