How to deal with captured terrorists?

The Bellman

Mr Korski: Your repeated non-use of the terms "alleged" and "suspected" throughout this article says all you ever need to know about stantards of justice in international legal bodies.

Wilhelm

Force them to watch that chiildish garbage Doctor Who.

Rhoda Klapp

International courts, soft power, must be Korski. Daniel, find a problem with a different solution please, or we will assume you are a trans-nationalist dirigiste with a pathetic belief in authority without power.

David

"says all you ever need to know about stantards of justice in international legal bodies."

That they subscribe to the most excellent innocent until proven guilty rule that helps seperates us from the uncivilised barbarity of the terrorists?

Verity

No more "international solutions" where the teeth have been ground down through endless capitulations to terrorist-supporting states.

Given the escalating aggression of these sub-humans, I might go with the Simon de Montfort solution.

And keep the UN the hell out of it.

This will be interesting and we will see what William Ayers, a terrorist himself, advises Obama to do.

The Bellman

David: I agree that this rule is most excellent and does indeed separate us from the forces opposed to civilization. I was attempting, perhaps unsuccessfully, to make the same point.

Mr Korski ("captured terrorists", "yet to find its feet trying war criminals") assumes the guilt before their trial has begun. How often do/did you hear Milosevic, Karadzic, Mladic etc extended the courtesy of being refered to as 'alleged' war criminals?

Now, I'm now great fan of using criminal process to try unlawful combatants, but, if we're going to apply it, the least we can do is apply it rigorously. Otherwise it all sounds rather Queen of Hearts.

Anan

Verity... still not quite with it I see. Back to sleep dear.

Anan The Cat

Over-familiarity is s-o-o-o infra dig. Why don't you class yourself up a bit, or is it nostalgie de la boue?

Rhoda Klapp

Bellman, fell into your own trap by omitting alleged etc.

Unlawful combatants don't even get a trial. They can be shot out of hand. Deciding who is such a person in an area where everyone carries a gun is not so easy. Currently it's a legal grey area, and likely to remain so.

Verity

Rhoda Klapp - I thought they had to be wearing a uniform, have a serial number and have a commanding officer to be classed as a lawful combatant?

Rhoda Klapp

Verity, that's so for the lawful bit, the doubt is whether somebody is a combatant just because he's in a contested area with a gun. In AFG anybody might have an AK. Of course not all of the Gitmo crew fit this pattern, some were picked up a long way from the fighting, and their status is problematical.

George Laird

Dear Daniel

“One of President Elect Obama’s key challenges in 2009 is going to be how to deal with captured terrorists”.

How do we deal with white terrorists? We use a Civilian Court of Law.

“During the campaign, Obama pledged to close Gitmo. But the recent guilty-plea of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the alleged mastermind of the 9/11 attacks means Obama will face a dilemma”.

If I was Obama, I would use whatever mechanism to void any trial result of the Military Courts as not in the spirit of justice.

“By Inauguration Day, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and five other defendants may have been sentenced. Any sentence will have to be signed off by the President. This means that Obama will either have to agree or disagree with the verdicts which could include death sentences”.

He should disagree and have a clean break with the past.

“If Obama seeks to change the system, for example by having them retried in an ordinary U.S court, then what happens to the confessions of the defendants (that have been extracted using interrogation techniques most people consider to be torture)? Are they admissible or not?”

All inadmissible as are all documentation and other material which was obtained by torture acts. Physical evidence, Prima facia would be admissible however recovered during combat operations.

“Importing the standards used in Guantanamo into ordinary courts will blow a big hole in the nature of due process, even on an exceptional basis. But fortunately there may be a way out. Sources say that the FBI sent “clean teams” in to re-interrogate the high-value detainees when they arrived at Guantanamo, so they could secure untainted admissions”.

Inadmissible, the entire thing would have to start from scratch.

“Khalid Sheikh Mohammed’s boast before the Military Commissions that was responsible for 9/11 “from A to Z” and that he was making the statement without coercion may also make matters a little easier”.

Barring a defence of insanity which could be strongly argued by his defence team?

“No doubt using the outcome of any questioning is legally dubious and will require statutory change which the Supreme Court might deem unconstitutional. But it could be a way forward”.

What about the United States Constitution, right to a fair trial, just ignore it?

“Obama also has to put in place a legal system for future detainees. In doing this he should think internationally, not nationally: terrorists operate across borders”.

Since America hasn’t signed up to the International Criminal Court, it would be a bit rich to try that one.

“Following the Mumbai atrocities, Pakistan arrested members of The Lashkar-e-Taiba. But the government is refusing to hand them over to India for trial. This will be a problem, as nobody in Delhi believes that the Pakistan government will try the suspects, particularly as part of the country’s security establishment are accused of being complicit in the attacks (and the subsequent cover-up)”.

In your mind does being arrested equal guilt; Daniel? Also aren’t the Americans and Russians reluctant to send their nationals to other countries for trial? So why criticise Pakistan for the universally accepted practices of other super powers?

“So an international solution has to be found”.

Wrong, this is America’s pigeon.

“One way would be to use the International Criminal Court (ICC). This would require the Rome Statute, which set up the Court, to be amended so as to create a Deputy Prosecutor for Terrorism, a separate Terrorism Chamber, and a separate Panel of Judges to preside over these cases”.

A hand picked Star Chamber? Like we had at the Lockerbie trial? Do you know that there is deep concern about the evidence and expert witnesses used? People are deeply uneasy that this is a miscarriage of justice.

“Crucially, the statute would have to add jurisdiction over the crime of terrorism and define it”.

And what of countries like America and Russian who choose to ignore it when it is their nationals?

“None of this is easy. UN attempts at agreeing a Convention on Terrorism will undoubtedly be bogged down in the usual disputes over what constitutes terrorism. As the adage has it, one man’s terrorist is another’s freedom fighter”.

Quite so!

“Then there will be opposition from the backers of the ICC who do not want the Court to be embroiled in the politics of terrorism”.

Given that they have a failed mechanism, I would be surprised if they would want to add to their troubles.

“It has yet to find its feet trying war-criminals”.

Or Freedom Fighters as you also put it.

“But both of these obstacles have to be overcome if the U.S and its allies are to avoid the Guantanamo curse”.

How can you avoid the Guantanamo Curse which was the torture and denial of human rights, it is already here and a stain on American democracy.

Americans torture innocent people, they transport innocent people to be tortured in third world countries.

Who will forget that?

“Making the ICC the focus of international counter-terrorism prosecutions may also have the added benefit of giving the US an inducement to join the Court”.

That is fairytale nonsense on your part; America will not turn over serving soldiers or politicians who authorised torture. If they did Donald Rumsfeld would be an ideal candidate for a war crimes trial.

Finally, if I was Obama, I would close Guantanamo, void any verdict, transfer all detainees to Civilian Prisons and allow these people full legal rights and representation. Anyone convicted prison, anyone innocent deported by to their home country and compensated.

It isn’t enough that Justice is done, it must be seen to be done!

Yours sincerely

George Laird
The Campaign for Human Rights at Glasgow University

Conservative Cabbie

I think the best solution is the one the S.A.S. used on the I.R.A. in Gibraltar. Initially messy (in more ways than one) but it solves the problem of useful idiots like George Laird sympathising with murderers ahead of the military that protects him.

George Laird

Dear Conservative Cabbie.

Thank you for your input but let us look at facts and not your “Cheeseburger to go” logic.

“I think the best solution is the one the S.A.S. used on the I.R.A. in Gibraltar”.

As I recall the Israelis used the same tactic in Sweden and guess what shot an innocent man to death.

We all remember the case of Jean Charles de Menezes, murdered in London by a Specialist Firearm Officer of Metropolitan Police.

That was called a mistake, later press releases tried to paint him as a terrorist, then of course there was a smear campaign against De Menezes, another mistake.

Mistake, mistake, mistake!

“Initially messy (in more ways than one) but it solves the problem of useful idiots like George Laird sympathising with murderers ahead of the military that protects him”.

The problem with you is that you are simple minded, although simple solutions have a role to play in certain situations in society, people have to look at the wider picture.

The issue for you is that you view “summary state execution” as acceptable.

People who support such actions are generally regarded as Fascists.

An example of a Fascist Country is Zimbabwe under Mugabe; perhaps you would like that model here?

That way “your” betters can have control of the day to day decision whether or not you should live or die.

Finally, since it is Christmas, lets’ finish on a quote for Martin Niemoeller to help you out;

“First they came for the Communists but I was not a Communist so I did not speak out. Then they came for the Socialists and the Trade Unionists but I was not one of them, so I did not speak out. Then they came for the Jews but I was not Jewish so I did not speak out. And when they came for me, there was no one left to speak out for me”.

Yours sincerely

George Laird
The Campaign for Human Rights at Glasgow University

Ps The only cabbie I would take any notice of is former model Donna Ewin!

Herbert Thornton

Surely the best way to deal with terrorists is to serve them all will ASBOs?

It would have worked with the crews of Hitler's Luftwaffe and submarine fleet in World War II .....wouldn't it?

Of course, if it wouldn't work, then Verity's inclination towards the Simon de Montfort method is perhaps the only sensible alternative?

Conservative Cabbie

Dear George Laird

Thankyou for your entertaining response.

"The problem with you is that you are simple minded"

And you've known me for such a short space of time. Boy that Glasgow University education that you keep reminding us of must be brilliant, what an insight you have!

"The issue for you is that you view “summary state execution” as acceptable"

Not what I said. I oppose the death penalty, however in war, I favour trying to kill the enemy before they kill you. That seems to me the most logical way to win the war.

"People who support such actions are generally regarded as Fascists"

One can always rely on a liberal to play the fascist card. Almost as original as your Niemoeller quote. It's not fascistic to want to kill terrorists, it would be fascistic to want to kill people like you for having an opposite viewpoint. You'll be pleased to know, I don't want you killed.

"people have to look at the wider picture."

Why? Is this one of those no black and white things. Codswollop! It's a simple equation. If you try to kill me or mine, then I should be entitled to defend myself with force.

"An example of a Fascist Country is Zimbabwe under Mugabe; perhaps you would like that model here?"

Are you as dumb (or simple minded if you like) as that question suggests? I suspect not, I'll let you off with a mulligan on that one.

To be honest, I am very uncomfortable with torture, I am very uncomfortable with Guantanamo. However, as Al Qaeda and the Taliban (who aren't freedom fighters by the way) resort to despicable acts of terror, we need to take the battle to them, sometimes at their level. The 'interrogations' of KSM has led to America being protected for 7 1/2 years. Do you think that would have happened with a lawyer at his side?

I get that you are a human rights advocate. In some ways that's admirable. However, it is advocates like you, I believe, who enable and embolden the Islamist terrorists, hence my 'useful idiot' tag.

I have no Christmas quote for you, so in return I will just say Happy Christmas.

George Laird

Dear Conservative Cabbie

“Thankyou for your entertaining response”.

Yes, the truth can be rather entertaining.

“Boy that Glasgow University education that you keep reminding us of must be brilliant, what an insight you have!”.

Are you saying that I have rushed to judgement? I have looked at your comments carefully.

“The issue for you is that you view “summary state execution” as acceptable".

You stated;

“I think the best solution is the one the S.A.S. used on the I.R.A. in Gibraltar”

That was summary state execution.

“Not what I said”.

Not in exact words but is there another version of the “best solution” by you.

“I oppose the death penalty, however in war, I favour trying to kill the enemy before they kill you. That seems to me the most logical way to win the war”.

You oppose the death penalty but don’t mind killing people without a trial?

Square that one for me please.

"People who support such actions are generally regarded as Fascists"

“One can always rely on a liberal to play the fascist card”.

If you read carefully you will see I stated;

“Anyone convicted prison, anyone innocent deported by to their home country and compensated.”

That isn’t woolly liberalism, rather it is a stance in favour of the rule of law.

“Almost as original as your Niemoeller quote”.

If the cap fits wear it.

“It's not fascistic to want to kill terrorists, it would be fascistic to want to kill people like you for having an opposite viewpoint. You'll be pleased to know, I don't want you killed”.

It is fascist to kill without due process of a Court of Law.

Would you accept Gordon Brown issuing a death penalty against a member of your family based on his say so?

"people have to look at the wider picture."

“Why?”

I find it unbelievable that you have to ask such a question.

“Is this one of those no black and white things. Codswollop! It's a simple equation. If you try to kill me or mine, then I should be entitled to defend myself with force”.

You appear to have wandered off the point, the issue was what to do with people in Guantanamo Bay. The Geneva Convention and various treaties state that captured prisoners have the right to be treated humanely. The British Army even produces a video to that effect!

"An example of a Fascist Country is Zimbabwe under Mugabe;

"perhaps you would like that model here?"

“Are you as dumb (or simple minded if you like) as that question suggests?”

I must be, I am asking you to clarify why it is okay to sanction summary state execution!

“I suspect not, I'll let you off with a mulligan on that one”.

Cheers on that one.

“To be honest, I am very uncomfortable with torture”.

Doing it yourself or the state doing it for you?

“I am very uncomfortable with Guantanamo”.

You would rather go with my suggestion that the rule of law is paramount? I understand that Barack Obama has issued orders for the closure of Guantanamo Bay as soon as possible. You best send him a mulligan by post asap to ensure he gets it before Christmas.

“However, as Al Qaeda and the Taliban (who aren't freedom fighters by the way) resort to despicable acts of terror, we need to take the battle to them, sometimes at their level”.

Who made you, Judge that they are not freedom fighters?

“The 'interrogations' of KSM has led to America being protected for 7 1/2 years. Do you think that would have happened with a lawyer at his side?”

Your first point regarding protection of America is nonsense; Al Qaeda is not just a one man band. If you trying to justify torture then you are completely wrong in your second point.

“I get that you are a human rights advocate. In some ways that's admirable”.

The majority of the British people have my stance, torture is wrong and there is no excuse for saying evil for evil is okay. We don’t uphold the law by breaking the law.

“However, it is advocates like you, I believe, who enable and embolden the Islamist terrorists, hence my 'useful idiot' tag”.

I hardly think so, try it is the complete incompetence of the British and American Governments that enable and embolden terrorists.

“I have no Christmas quote for you, so in return I will just say Happy Christmas”.

Merry Christmas to you and your family and a Happy New Year when it comes!

Yours sincerely

George Laird
The Campaign for Human Rights at Glasgow University

Conservative Cabbie

George Laird

"Are you saying that I have rushed to judgement?"

Yes, when you call me simple-minded.

"You oppose the death penalty but don’t mind killing people without a trial?"

In war, no.

“Almost as original as your Niemoeller quote”.

That was the third time I've seen that quote used on his site in the last month, hence my point.

"Would you accept Gordon Brown issuing a death penalty against a member of your family based on his say so?"

If they were shooting at British soldiers, if they were strapping explosives to women, the mentally disabled and thirteen year olds with wheelbarrows, then yes.

"Who made you, Judge that they are not freedom fighters?"

Whose freedom are they fighting for?

"Your first point regarding protection of America is nonsense"

Why? According to reports, 50% of the information about Al Qaeda that America has received following 9/11 came from the interrogation of KSM.

"It is fascist to kill without due process of a Court of Law"

Please show me a definition of facism which states that point specifically.

“I think the best solution is the one the S.A.S. used on the I.R.A. in Gibraltar”

"That was summary state execution."

It was self-defence. The jury at the inquest returned a verdict of lawful killing by a 9-2 majority. I would say the law supports my position on that one.

Herbert Thornton

Terrorism is the carrying out of war by entirely illegitimate means - with an exceptional disregard for both the strictures of International Law, and for the norms of civilised behaviour. The notion that those who engage in it should be entitled to the protection of our law as though they were ordinary criminals like burglars is absurd - and is moreover despised and ridiculed by our enemies as contemptible weakness (which it is). If captured, they should be compelled - by whatever means will work - to disclose everything they know, and then disposed of just as we would dispose of a rabid animal.

George Laird

Dear Herbert Thornton

"Terrorism is the carrying out of war by entirely illegitimate means - with an exceptional disregard for both the strictures of International Law, and for the norms of civilised behaviour".

So what is right about torturing and murdering captured prisoners by the USA and UK Governments?

Can I sum what I think your attitude maybe!

I think it has something to do with the colour of their skin.

I take it that you agreed with the Nazis that it was okay to torture members of the resistance groups in the various european countries during WW2, then dispose of them like a "rabid animal".

I think we need an answer on that one!

Finally, talk sense.

Yours sincerely

George Laird
The Campaign for Human Rights at Glasgow University

Herbert Thornton

George Laird,

In order to extract information from these terrorist fanatics, the U.S. has certainly used a very effective technique known as "waterboarding" but if you have persuaded yourself to believe that waterboarding amounts to real torture, then you must know very little about torture. "Waterboarding" causes no physical harm and is fully justified because it produces results. Even Alan Dershowitz, of whom you have no doubt heard, has come round to acknowledge that the "ticking time bomb" argument is valid and justifies the use of torture because it can save countless innocent lives.

Wild accusations about the U.K. and USA governments "torturing and murdering" captured prisoners and concocting false accusations about my "caring about skin colour" and false allegations that I "agree with the Nazis" (about atrocities such as Lidice?) are no more persuasive than shouting any other abuse.

If you will think about it for a moment, it would be just as rational for me to concoct an allegation that you opened several bottles of Champagne to celebrate the recent Islamic atrocities in Bombay, or that you advocate the trial of World War 2 Battle of Britain Pilots for "murdering" the crews of Nazi planes shot down over Britain. So I do not accuse you of it: and I recommend that you show similar common sense.

But the most breath-taking part of your posting is your implying that the Islamic terrorists captured by the U.S. are the moral equals of people who resisted the Nazis. That turns logic on its head and is deeply offensive too.

The concept of Human Rights is fine, but it has to take reality into account just as much as it has to take into account the laws of gravity. And the reality is that Islamic terrorists are as fanatically dedicated as Hitler ever was - and indeed moreso - to the violent destruction of both our civilisation and the Human Rights that we derive from it. To insist that these terrorists are equally entitled to Human Rights does not make sense - and can even be suicidal. It is so profoundly and dangerously foolish that it betrays our civilisation.

George Laird

Dear Herbet Thornton

Have you ever thought about addressing the questions I raised with you?

“In order to extract information from these terrorist fanatics, the U.S. has certainly used a very effective technique known as "waterboarding" but if you have persuaded yourself to believe that waterboarding amounts to real torture, then you must know very little about torture”.

I learned all about that at school……..Royal Military Police Training School Chichester.

“"Waterboarding" causes no physical harm and is fully justified because it produces results”.

Mental tortures combined with physical torture are criminal offences.

We know this because of what happen in Iraqi Prisons by American service personnel.

“Even Alan Dershowitz, of whom you have no doubt heard, has come round to acknowledge that the "ticking time bomb" argument is valid and justifies the use of torture because it can save countless innocent lives”.

So, the end justifies the means?

What about the rule of law?

If the terrorists are no better than rabid animals then what are we?

Funny for the West to condemn people for chopping heads off, when we know of people being systematically tortured and killed while in "allied" hands.

“Wild accusations about the U.K. and USA governments "torturing and murdering" captured prisoners”.

Read this;

The following are excerpts from an investigation by Maj. Gen. Antonio M. Taguba (which was ordered by Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, commander of Joint Task Force-7. (Complete text of the Taguba report is posted at the MSNBC site.)

In addition, several detainees also described the following acts of abuse, which under the circumstances, I find credible based on the clarity of their statements and supporting evidence provided by other witnesses

a. Breaking chemical lights and pouring the phosphoric liquid on detainees;

b. Threatening detainees with a charged 9mm pistol;

c. Pouring cold water on naked detainees;

d. Beating detainees with a broom handle and a chair;

e. Threatening male detainees with rape;

f. Allowing a military police guard to stitch the wound of a detainee who was injured after being slammed against the wall in his cell;

g. Sodomizing a detainee with a chemical light and perhaps a broom stick.

h. Using military working dogs to frighten and intimidate detainees with threats of attack, and in one instance actually biting a detainee.

(T)he intentional abuse of detainees by military police personnel included the following acts:

a. Punching, slapping, and kicking detainees; jumping on their naked feet;

b. Videotaping and photographing naked male and female detainees;

c. Forcibly arranging detainees in various sexually explicit positions for photographing;

d. Forcing detainees to remove their clothing and keeping them naked for several days at a time;

e. Forcing naked male detainees to wear women’s underwear;

f. Forcing groups of male detainees to masturbate themselves while being photographed and videotaped;

g. Arranging naked male detainees in a pile and then jumping on them;

h. Positioning a naked detainee on a MRE Box, with a sandbag on his head, and attaching wires to his fingers, toes, and penis to simulate electric torture;

i. Writing “I am a Rapest” (sic) on the leg of a detainee alleged to have forcibly raped a 15-year old fellow detainee, and then photographing him naked;

j. Placing a dog chain or strap around a naked detainee’s neck and having a female Soldier pose for a picture;

k. A male MP guard having sex with a female detainee;

l. Using military working dogs (without muzzles) to intimidate and frighten detainees, and in at least one case biting and severely injuring a detainee;

m. Taking photographs of dead Iraqi detainees.

These findings are amply supported by written confessions provided by several of the suspects, written statements provided by detainees, and witness statements.

The various detention facilities operated by the 800th MP Brigade have routinely held persons brought to them by Other Government Agencies (OGAs) without accounting for them, knowing their identities, or even the reason for their detention. The Joint Interrogation and Debriefing Center (JIDC) at Abu Ghraib called these detainees “ghost detainees.”

On at least one occasion, the 320th MP Battalion at Abu Ghraib held a handful of “ghost detainees” (6-8) for OGAs that they moved around within the facility to hide them from a visiting International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) survey team. This maneuver was deceptive, contrary to Army Doctrine, and in violation of international law.

You were saying no evidence!

“and concocting false accusations about my "caring about skin colour" and false allegations that I "agree with the Nazis" (about atrocities such as Lidice?) are no more persuasive than shouting any other abuse”.

Am I not entitled to ask questions or have subjective opinions to why you write in the way you do?

How is that abuse?

“If you will think about it for a moment, it would be just as rational for me to concoct an allegation that you opened several bottles of Champagne to celebrate the recent Islamic atrocities in Bombay, or that you advocate the trial of World War 2 Battle of Britain Pilots for "murdering" the crews of Nazi planes shot down over Britain”.

In order to do so, you would have to provide evidence which you base your “rational” opinion on. Otherwise it would be irrational; you have written you agree with torture, you have also stated in effect that summary state execution is not wrong.

“So I do not accuse you of it: and I recommend that you show similar common sense”.

If you take the time to research me; you will see that I have a strong stance on law and order as well as a strong stance on social justice issues, both of which are compatible.

You believe that people should have rights if it suits your purpose, human rights of an individual cannot by their very nature be given up or taken away in a law abiding society, you fail to understand that.

Those rights protect society.

Yours sincerely

George Laird
The Campaign for Human Rights at Glasgow University

Conservative Cabbie

George Laird

"human rights of an individual cannot by their very nature be given up or taken away in a law abiding society"

"by their very nature" suggests that human rights are more than a construct. That just isn't the case. Human rights are given and thus can be taken away.

If they can't be taken away, how do you explain imprisonment? Isn't that the temporary suspension of a person's right to freedom.

"Those rights protect society"

Thankfully as we have found out a number of times in the past, so does the American military and government. They are doing so again and for that I am grateful.

You have called both Herbert and I fascists/Nazi's. Is that just a standard insult you employ when someone doesn't agree with you? Is that the standard of political discourse at Universities today? No wonder people worry about this country dumbing down.

As you suggested, I've done some research on you. Here's some quotes I've found.

"I am sure Jack Straw is fighting day and night for a fascist state"

"Is Jack Straw a fascist?"

It seems you have previous.

Herbert Thornton

Dear George,

1. The questions you raised with me? What questions? I'm not a Nazi if that's what you were getting at.

2. You claim to know all about torture because you "learned all about it at Chichester?". That is very interesting, because later in your posting, you list all sorts of things in your post that, it would seem, you regard as "torture" -

a. "threatening male detainees with rape";
b. "Allowing a military police guard to stitch the wound of a detainee who was injured after being slammed against the wall of his cell." (Sounds more like the provision of urgently needed medical assistance.)
c. "Using dogs to frighten & intimidate" (And why not? So In one case it resulted in a detainee being bitten. It probably served him right. Have you never been bitten after provoking a dog?)
d. "Videotaping & photographing naked detainees" (Wow. I bet that hurt.)
e. "Forcing male detainees to wear womens' underwear". (I guess we can all imagine the screams of agony.)
f. etc. etc.

If those were the sorts of thing they concentrated on at Chichester, instead of forced doses of Castor Oil and suchlike, then they must have a very strange syllabus. However, you have certainly graduated with flying colours, because reading your posts is a form of torture quite as unpleasant as any of those I've just referred to.

3. Apropos Alan Dershowitz, your only counter argument is rhetoric - "So the end justifies the means. What about the rule of law? If the terrorists are no better than rabid animals then what are we?" That particular end, George most certainly does justify the means. The rule of law is fine for the interaction of civilised people among themselves. Indeed it is a hallmark of a highly refined sort of civilisation. But if a man applies this refined "rule of law" so rigidly that rather than torture a terrorist, he prefers to see a great many of his fellow countrymen maimed and injured, then I say that it is he who shows the greater similarity to a rabid animal. Like a rabid animal, he has lost the rationality on which his civilisation is based, and replaced it with unthinking hysteria. Given that my torturing a terrorist may well save the lives of several thousand of my fellow countrymen, I elect to torture the terrorist and then - because his form of Rabies is incurable - make darned sure that he can't infect others.

4. You end up with the extraordinary assertions that "human rights of an individual cannot by their very nature be given up or taken away in a law abiding society" and that those rights "protect society". Not so, George. There is nothing about Human Rights that makes them utterly inalienable. Our society has a duty - which you evidently fail to recognise or understand - to protect it's own members from terrorism. And I claim the considerably more valuable and inalienable Human Rights to both be protected from terrorism and to resist it by all possible means.

5. Your view of Human Rights seems to me to amount, in reality, to insisting that terrorists have the Human Right not to be obstructed when they set out to commit mass murder. That is a position that I just can't accept. To me it seems so deeply immoral as to be utterly incompatible with being civilised.

Yours equally sincerely,

Herbert