Oh, dear, whatever next? It seems that Robertson and Jacobson's contention that we don't do torture in the UK is on shaky ground. Allegedly, of course. Well, to be accurate, we don't do torture. The UK "intelligence" services do. Or rather, the US "intelligence" services do, and the British just stand and watch it happen. And it doesn't take place in the UK, because we make sure of that.
Police to investigate MI6 over alleged complicity in torture
Hilarious, in a truly black, sickening way. Still, torture is unlawful: let's trust in the Masons to follow the trail of causation. If the UK intelligence services have been colluding in torture, then there'll be a memo hiding in an archive file, somewhere. And it'll be to or from somebody senior, too, I suspect.
And if anybody tries to suggest that torture is necessary to save lives, then I'll fucking crucify them - one cannot call oneself civilized (as I understand that word), whilst one is engaged in this type of activity, and arguing that it doesn't happen, when one is looking with averted eyes, just looks weak.
Oh, and one last thing: let's not get into a game of semantics, as to whether waterboarding constitutes torture, or not, as the fucking imbecile Bush did. I suspect that waterboarding is the least of it, but in any case "torture" is clearly defined in Law, and any activity that is carried out for the purpose and effect described is torture. End of argument. Why have you appointed such utter cretins to the highest offices? I'm beyond words.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
.jpg)
2 comments:
.."if anybody tries to suggest that torture is necessary to save lives, then I'll fucking crucify them.."
psychiatrists
Ah, but they wouldn't define their behaviour as torture, despite the fact that they are in the business of wilfully imposing their reality on their patients.
Still, Art. 3 of the European Convention of Human Rights states "No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment," which begs the question as to what act(s) constitute torture, inhuman or degrading treatment, etc. Art. 1 of the 1984 UNHCR Convention is regarded as customary:
"For the purposes of this Convention, the term "torture" means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions."
All a shrink has to do is to deny that what (s)he does is done intentionally for the purpose of extracting information, or for punishment, etc, and they don't meet the criteria. In truth, most of them probably don't intend to cause (psychological) pain, but I think the issue with a person in that type of position of authority is that they're wont to dismiss their patient's view of reality, when they regard it as aberrant, and try to overwrite it with their own. That doesn't work - I've tried it.
Anyway, the longer that shrinks go on, without understanding the fundamental nature of the way that the human mind works, the more redundant they will become. LOL: they're crucifying themselves - saves me a job, anyway! A word to the wise, guys: you can never bang the last nail in!
Matt
Post a Comment