what an OZ City Councillor said about terrorists

[Chris Goddard]

One thing about blokes from Oz is that their hearts and humour are always in

the right place!

 

T. B. Bechtel, a City Councillor from Newcastle, was asked on a local live

radio talk show, just what he thought about the allegations of torture of

suspected terrorists.

 

 

His reply prompted his ejection from the studio, but to thunderous applause

from the audience.

 

 

 

 

 

 

HIS STATEMENT:

 

'If hooking up one raghead terrorist prisoner's testicles to a car battery

to get the truth out of the lying little camelshagger will save just one

Australian life, then I have only three things to say,'

 

 

 

'Red is positive,

 

Black is negative, and

 

Make sure his nuts are wet.'

 

 

 

I AGREE with this man!

[corydoras]

I don't think it is a true story though Chris. I've come across exactly the same quote, allegedly made by T. B. Bechtel, a part-time City Councilman from Midland,TX.

 

But like yourself I agree with the sentiment, and we are not alone. An old Lucas Magneto/Dynamo would be better than a car battery though

 

From The Telegraph

Edited March 17, 2009 by corydoras

[Guest Rabbit]

Yeah torture a confession out of 'em

Never mind if it's the truth or not....funny how these 'supposed stories capture the imaginations of some people, guess they are not interested in the truth as well.

[Sportsman]

By applauding the use of torture you justify what the terrorists are about.

Saying that torture is acceptable means that you admit that any use of terror is acceptable to further ones ends, whatever they may be.

The Spanish Inquisition showed that you could get anybody to confess to anything if you are brutal enough.

We should learn the lessons of history.

I doubt that this particular story is true, just the fantasy of some knuckle dragger who no- doubt wishes it were true, and that the rest of the world agreed with him, but what if we take his fantasy at face value? The subject of the torture lets drop a well rehearsed nugget of information, with the result that troops are led into a trap or ambush and many are killed. Not impossible or even difficult. How would he feel then about "saving one life"?

And before the usual suspects crawl out from under their rocks, yes I am against the war in Iraq and if the USA were serious about the War on Terror they should have started on some of their close allies who have trained and harboured more terrorists than Afghanistan ever did.

Bit like the time they bombed Libya, pick what appears to be the "easy" target.

"Poodle" Blair just staggered along blindly in the wake of George W.

Edited March 17, 2009 by Sportsman

[corydoras]

Yeah torture a confession out of 'em

Never mind if it's the truth or not....funny how these 'supposed stories capture the imaginations of some people, guess they are not interested in the truth as well.

 

 

By applauding the use of torture you justify what the terrorists are about.

Saying that torture is acceptable means that you admit that any use of terror is acceptable to further ones ends, whatever they may be.

The Spanish Inquisition showed that you could get anybody to confess to anything if you are brutal enough.

We should learn the lessons of history.

I doubt that this particular story is true, just the fantasy of some knuckle dragger who no- doubt wishes it were true, and that the rest of the world agreed with him, but what if we take his fantasy at face value? The subject of the torture lets drop a well rehearsed nugget of information, with the result that troops are led into a trap or ambush and many are killed. Not impossible or even difficult. How would he feel then about "saving one life"?

And before the usual suspects crawl out from under their rocks, yes I am against the war in Iraq and if the USA were serious about the War on Terror they should have started on some of their close allies who have trained and harboured more terrorists than Afghanistan ever did.

Bit like the time they bombed Libya, pick what appears to be the "easy" target.

"Poodle" Blair just staggered along blindly in the wake of George W.

In my 'heart of hearts' I know that you are both right. Sometimes ones emotions get ahead of oneself.

[Guest Rabbit]

In my 'heart of hearts' I know that you are both right. Sometimes ones emotions get ahead of oneself.

 

As they do with all of us, but rarely do we admit it.

[Ken L]

If you have a credible information about a threat (lets say a nuclear bomb somewhere in the UK that’s been smuggled out of Pakistan or one of the former Soviet republics) and you have intercepted telephone calls and or e-mails discussing it, is it reasonable to pull in the owners of those telephones and computers and torture information out of them that might lead to saving the lives of millions of people ?

 

I would say that it absolutely is.

 

I don’t think that torture should be used routinely but in times of crisis it is an entirely legitimate interrogation tool – especially if time is pressing.

[Sportsman]

In my 'heart of hearts' I know that you are both right. Sometimes ones emotions get ahead of oneself.

 

Hi Cory

I thought your response was a bit out of character

[Cranfield]

I am not sure if you can justify torture for some instances, but not for others.

Surely its one of those "Yes or No" principles.

 

I think like the death penalty it appears justified sometimes, but the "Authorities" are so useless at getting things right, most people don't feel comfortable with giving them the responsibility to make the right decsion.

 

Difficult scenarios do emerge however.

Would it have been better to have tortured a few Iraqis to find out whether Saddam really had WMD, or do what we did and invade and kill loads of innocent civilians just to prove he didn't ?

[Sportsman]

If you have a credible information about a threat (lets say a nuclear bomb somewhere in the UK that’s been smuggled out of Pakistan or one of the former Soviet republics) and you have intercepted telephone calls and or e-mails discussing it, is it reasonable to pull in the owners of those telephones and computers and torture information out of them that might lead to saving the lives of millions of people ?

 

I would say that it absolutely is.

 

I don’t think that torture should be used routinely but in times of crisis it is an entirely legitimate interrogation tool – especially if time is pressing.

 

Ken, in the circumstances you describe I would be forced to agree with you. If, for example, someone had kidnapped and hidden my daughter and I had to use force to get him to reveal her whereabouts, I would kick him into a bloody mess if that's what it took so I suppose I could be rightly accused of being hypocritical. However, although there may be a case for trying to obtain specific known information most of the torture referred to just seems to be trying to find out if the suspect knows anything. The other problem is that given the nature of the beast any information obtained by torture is at best unreliable and at worst misleading. There is also the problem that allowing the use of torture for one specific case, where it may be justified then means it is easier to use a bit of torture where the justification may not be as great, and so on until torture becomes the norm. When that becomes the case the US invades you to effect "regime change"

If this response seems muddled it is because my feelings are not completely clear cut. I know and believe torture to be wrong but I can see cases where even I would use it.