http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6492489.stm
A relevant background to other events. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was captured by the US and tortured on the waterboard. No one denies he was tortured. He 'confessed' to many sinister plots a.k.a. 'targets' in America, including of course an American business that wasn't even in existence until 2003, 2 years after the supposed 'attack'. In all, Mohammed claimed responsibility for planning or aiding 31 attacks, including many that were never carried out. Those include supposed plots against Presidents Clinton and Carter, Pope John Paul II, the Sears Tower in Chicago, the Empire State Building and New York Stock Exchange in Manhattan, the Panama Canal, and Big Ben and Heathrow Airport in London. (Italics are quotes taken from CityNews).
What caught my mind was the dismissive way the British treated the British confession in relation to their sailors taken prisoner while entering Iranian waters.

So the question for debate is:
1. Do you think it's fair for the British to dismiss and scoff at the confession made by their own sailors while backing the outlandish confessions made by a waterboard-tortured Arab?
2. Do you think that torture committed by the Western world produces truth and reliable information while torture committed by the Arab world produces only lies and whatever it takes to stop the terrible torture?

Up front admission - I'm biased.

I don't really agree with the premise of your thread. I don't think (at this time) that the Iranian claim that the British captives "admitted" to being in Iranian waters at the time of their capture was arrived at through torture.

I think it more likely to be a PR-led extrapolation of an admission that the British marines & sailors, having left their launch (and their GPS equipment) to search a civilian vessel, were not 100% sure that they were NOT in Iranian waters.

The British Navy, having the equipment and access to GPs and other satellite networks, to be able to say definitively where the British captives were at the point of their capture, are likely to be correct. The Iranians, who won't have had access to the (US-controlled) GPS network, will be less trustworthy; even assuming they have no ulterior motives, they don't have the same technical capability to be sure where anything is with pinpoint accuracy when in open water, especially when the prcise location of the border is still in dispute anyway.

1. Do you think it's fair for the British to dismiss and scoff at the confession made by their own sailors while backing the outlandish confessions made by a waterboard-tortured Arab?

I don't think the tone of British assertions has been to scoff and dismiss the "confession" made by our own sailors, and, as I've indicated, I don't at this time believe that it was a confession, more an admission of ignorance that has been spun into an "confession" for Iranian political purposes. Nor do I believe, at this time, that the admission (or "confession" if you prefer) was arrived at through torture (it came about a bit too quickly, to my mind, to have arisen from torture).

So, I do not think the two situations are remotely comparable (based on what I know at the moment) so there can be no hypocrisy.

Don't get me wrong, I don't trust the Iranians not to use torture, and I do fear for the welfare of the British men and women that were captured (especially the women).

Nor do I think that British hypocrisy is some kind of logical impossibility - far from it, I'm afraid.

And, as more evidence comes to light, I am prepared to change my view. If it transpires that your premises are correct, I will have to agree with you that British credulity of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's "confessions" is just plain daft.

Actually, that's the case now - I don't believe that torture is in and of itself a reliable source of information.

2. Do you think that torture committed by the Western world produces truth and reliable information while torture committed by the Arab world produces only lies and whatever it takes to stop the terrible torture?

No. Torture produces whatever it takes to stop the torture, whether the torturer is wearing a white hat or a black turban. It has no place in legitimate evidence gathering - if it worked half as well as its proponents argue, I find it hard to belive that Western governments would have given it up in ordinary criminal cases quite as easily as they did, even in the face of demands to respect individual (or Constitutional) rights.

1. Do you think it's fair for the British to dismiss and scoff at the confession made by their own sailors while backing the outlandish confessions made by a waterboard-tortured Arab?

What proof is there that British special operators confessed to anything? Do you mean because the Iranians said so? Did they wave a signed confession in the air? Anyway, what do you mean by fair? Where is your source of a tortured Arab?


2. Do you think that torture committed by the Western world produces truth and reliable information while torture committed by the Arab world produces only lies and whatever it takes to stop the terrible torture?
What consitutes not being tortured? When your wife nags you about getting the gutter fixed during the Super Bowl, is that torture?



Why is it that we are forced to play nice in debate, when there is no requirement whatsoever to create a debate topic that isn't slanted on its face? How about a topic such as "Are you still beating your spouse?", with a couple of logical sounding questions?

The point of the thread was to compare and contrast why we accept some forms of information and disregard others. The premise of this thread does not show undue bias towards any particular side but why we should or should not discount similar coercion tactics when used by another side and hopefully shed light on the tactics themselves.

This is an information filter thread.

Perhaps a rephrase is in order:
If the Iranian claims are baseless, what circumstances allow for the acceptance of the authour's of example of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's claims over those of the British soldiers?

Why should we NOT call what we do torture- and what THEY do IS torture- and THIER media source is propaganda- and news from OUR goverment is sound?

So the question for debate is:
1. Do you think it's fair for the British to dismiss and scoff at the confession made by their own sailors while backing the outlandish confessions made by a waterboard-tortured Arab?

I disagree with the “waterboard” tortured statement. And yes I would scoff at the “confession” as coerced. Was this woman the navigator? Could she even have known they were in “Iranian waters” I doubt it.
And by the way the Brits have GPS data to prove they were not where Iran claims they were.

You still have not answered the question- if they doctor evidence as you suggest, or are lying- how do we know it is not the brits that are lying? Where is the credibility? Goverments and lying go hand in hand.

How do you disseminate which is which? The brits have HUGE motives for lying- just as the Iranians do.

So, the Brits can't lie about the co-ordinates, or doctor the evidence as the need arose? What, the Brits are not tech-savvy enough to pull one off?

And Ted, I m sure that the Iranians are sophisticated enough to use the "harsh treatment" style that we use on them, without resorting to pulling toenails or anything- interogation techniques that you won't call "torture" I am sure the Iranians know just as much as we do, I am sure they could figure out how to "waterboard" if we know how to do it

So, if thier treatment is no different than out "harsh treatment"- that means the soldiers were treated just fine, right? No biggie if they do the same thing to our soldiers- right?

Q1.
I am confused by the first question posed. I live in San Francisco, but surely we are not that out of touch? I am also in tune with national and international media. The "confession" of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is ridiculed here as some crazy guy claiming the "glory" for terrorist acts committed by people he doesn't even know. You know, a murder happens and the usual people turn up at the police station and confess. Cops know them, because they always turn up and confess to murders. But it's not just San Francisco. I heard national conservative talk-radio lampooning his confession. Many of them jokingly elaborated on his claims to include; JFK's murder; the bombing of Pearl Harbor; the eradication of dinosaurs, etc.. The serious media reported the fact of the confession, but everybody I know (Republican and Democrat) consider the guy a nut-job. To believe him, would make Bin-Laden's confession false. Most folks, I guess, choose Bin-Laden.
I suspect that, like everybody else on this forum, you feel the same.
Therefore your first question is mute. Nobody believed the confession of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, and nobody believes the confession of the British sailors. Therefore the treatment is identical. You say the Brits "backed" the confession of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. I didn't bother to Google it. However, if you post the evidence, I will retract the above. I was born and raised in Britain, am in contact with people there, and they all regard this confessor as a crackpot.

Q2.
Torture can only produce one of two outcomes.
1. Death.
2. The words. required by the torturer.

We (the US) may be able to verify the Brits claim since our ships keep track of the area. Also the Brits systems are capable of keeping records (of ship positions) and ones that would be very hard or impossible to alter since they are not designed to be altered. I believe the Brits. There is no reason that would have knowingly crossed over.


As far as interrogation I would expect them to be as rough as we are or worse. In fact they already have. The “forced Confessions” are against the Geneva Convention and you can bet to get them they were not nice to the captives. A former captive of Iran indicated that to get same they would beat you for a while (were it would not show) then put an AK-47 to your head and tell you – either do it or die in 10 seconds.

So CR don’t worry – our enemies always have and always will outdo us in the “treatment” area.



I have not seen details buy you can be sure that the “confessions” of the Brits are different. IMO we do not just “accept” a confession as true unless the person has details that he could have gotten no other way but by being part of it. They would also have info from other captives that could corroborate the testimony.

So what makes you think that the Brits or US are giving purposely Doctored info so we don't look bad? Haven't you expressed disdain for our goverment in the past? Do you believe what your goverment tells you?

sO, OUR goverment doesn't lie to us or anything as well?

This will be resolved shortly. Seizing sailors in open, intl waters is an act of war. If the Brits are telling the truth and know it, we may find some smoking nuclear plants and facilites in Iran shortly, or some sunken Iranian patrols boats, or something of a similar nature.

If the Brits hem-haw around for 6 months while debating what to do about their sailors, we can say definitively either the sailors were in Iranian waters or there is at least some doubt.

While it is possible option one would be true and the Brits make no attack, of course, as we in the West seem to be getting more comfortable fighting wars prior to when an act or war is committeed against us, I think if there is military action on the UK's part, they are very comfortable the sailors were in intl waters.

As far as the confessions go, I will say some people have enough courage and pride to take the torture and still not confess to anything compromising. I am reminded of the US pilot in 'Nam who made his confession on camera while sending Morse code with his eyes telling the world his "confession" was *** NOTICE: THIS WORD IS AGAINST THE RULES. FAILURE TO REMOVE IT WILL RESULT IN A STRIKE. ***.

I read some responses again- but I notice the usual sidestep by Ted-

Ted- if the confession of the sailors happened in the same manner that we use on foriegners- "harsh treatmenvt" in other words- is it valid?

Well do you know (somehow) that we threaten our captives with death if they don’t confess? Obviously not or we would have HAD all the confessions we wanted (or dead men) long ago. Clear enough for you or do we need to draw you a picture.

I know you think the enemy is “good” and we “bad” but you could be wrong.

Evidence obtained under abuse or torture is never "valid" as a confession. It is in fact not admissible in court, correct? However, other substantiating evidence (which we have an abundance of with Khalid Sheikh Mohammed) is valid.

That said I have seen nothing on the Iranian side (short of strange letters and televised "confessions") that validates their claims. I'll also state that I doubt that these sailors have been physically abused. Until there is evidence to the contrary I believe that their statements are made under duress, not abuse. It's irrelevant to the underlying point though. This is a hostage situation.

That's not true. It's been accepted as valid on both the left and the right sides of mainstream political opinion. Two days after the Pentagon released the report of his confession, the Boston Globe stated in an editorial about Mohammed:


Now those with even a passing familiarity with the Globe's editorial positions know that it is solidly leftist. It routinely endorses Democrats over Republicans in elections, and has been highly critical of the Bush administration on everything from environmental policy to the War on Terror in all its aspects. This editorial itself, as can be seen by clicking on the link, is a swipe at the whole notion of "unlawful combatants" that forms the legal underpinning of the administration's proceedings against Mohammed and other terrorists.

So when a prominent news organ that's well inside the Democrats' camp considers it an axiom that Mohammed's confession is valid, it's difficult to argue that "nobody" of any significance believes that it is. And as Mrs. Pigpen pointed out, there's apparently other corroboratory evidence. So no, to answer the topic's question, there is not a double standard.