Obama's Mistake: Britain Did Torture

[george_maniakes]

Source: Time.com

Last night, Barack Obama said he had recently read an article about Winston Churchill during the London blitz. "Churchill said, 'We don't torture,' when the entire British -- all of the British people were being subjected to unimaginable risk and threat," Obama said. "And then the reason was that Churchill understood, you start taking short-cuts, over time, that corrodes what's -- what's best in a people. It corrodes the character of a country."

Read more: http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2009/04/30/obamas-mistake-britain-did-torture/

---

Interseting, although the British officer in charge of this facility denied he tortured anybody. If you dig deeper to the Guardian story, you will find interesting parallels to the current American situation (methods of torture, fellow british officers stating they do not believe torture works, etc).

[RedCloud]

1. For the wearing of the green...

:cry:

http://1169andcounting.blogspot.com/2007/11/coalisland-story-british-torture-in_16.html

[DavidDvorkin]

3. No, in this case, for the wearing of the Swastika.

[george_maniakes]

5. I think obama was talking more about churchill not being for torturing german captives....

when germany was bombing london to rubble and invasion seemed imminent. As in, if Churchill in WWII could do without torture on the cusp of defeat, why should american presidents allow it now?

I do understand your point though that britain without a doubt has tortured people in its history.

[pnwmom]

2. Britain doesn't torture? Tell that to the IRA. nt

[La Lioness Priyanka]

4. or indians

[marasinghe]

6. or iraqis

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gas_in_Mesopotamia
'... In a War Office minute of 12 May 1919, Winston Churchill argued for the use of tear gas: "I do not understand this squeamishness about the use of gas. We have definitely adopted the position at the Peace Conference of arguing in favour of the retention of gas as a permanent method of warfare. It is sheer affectation to lacerate a man with the poisonous fragment of a bursting shell and to boggle at making his eyes water by means of lachrymatory gas. I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes. The moral effect should be so good that the loss of life should be reduced to a minimum. It is not necessary to use only the most deadly gasses: gasses can be used which cause great inconvenience and would spread a lively terror and yet would leave no serious permanent effects on most of those affected." ...'

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/2719939.stm

http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHU407A.html