Newsnight: Guantanamos military lawer speaks

[frogstamper]

Should be a very interesting and enlightening Newsnight this evening, as Lieutenant Colonel Diane Beaver gives her first ever interview. Lt Col Beaver was the military lawyer who approved controversial interrogation technique's to be used on the prisoners at Guantanamo.

This certainly looks worth a watch tonight, BBC2 22.30pm, seems to me the birds are coming home to roost, as the end of the Bush administration draws ever nearer, lets see what she has to say.

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by frogstamper

Should be a very interesting and enlightening Newsnight this evening, as Lieutenant Colonel Diane Beaver gives her first ever interview. Lt Col Beaver was the military lawyer who approved controversial interrogation technique's to be used on the prisoners at Guantanamo.

This certainly looks worth a watch tonight, BBC2 22.30pm, seems to me the birds are coming home to roost, as the end of the Bush administration draws ever nearer, lets see what she has to say.

she has a very unfortunate name but ill watch ive allways had an interest in beaver

[frogstamper]

Originally Posted by papa smurf

she has a very unfortunate name but ill watch ive allways had an interest in beaver

Oh papa, that remarks a little "below the belt", oooer!!

[foreverwar]

At least she has been promoted.

Before this, she was Major Beaver.

[frogstamper]

Originally Posted by foreverwar

At least she has been promoted.

Before this, she was Major Beaver.

Apparently, earlier in her career she spent some time on secondment with the Australian bush rangers.

[tweetypie/8]

Originally Posted by frogstamper

Should be a very interesting and enlightening Newsnight this evening, as Lieutenant Colonel Diane Beaver gives her first ever interview. Lt Col Beaver was the military lawyer who approved controversial interrogation technique's to be used on the prisoners at Guantanamo.

This certainly looks worth a watch tonight, BBC2 22.30pm, seems to me the birds are coming home to roost, as the end of the Bush administration draws ever nearer, lets see what she has to say.

you are going to listen to another well rehearsed prat !!.

[RizzyKing]

If your a reguler on CF you listen to prats of all shapes and sizes myself included all the time .

[G UK]

Lt Col Beaver

/Snigger

Sorry couldn't help it

[Rob]

hmm, let's get back to the intended topic here.

I certainly hope that I'm no hand wringer, but it does seem incorrect to me, in our so called enlightened society, that people can be detained indefinitely without a formal trial. If it was happening on UK soil there would be an incredible outburst. So even though I want us to live without terrorism, and fear for our safety, I do wonder whether Guatemala and the public lack of accountability lowers us to or perhaps below the standards of those so called fanatics.

[RizzyKing]

Well being honest Rob we are not going to win against terrorists unless we get as nasty and unpleasant as they are. Usually though it is done away from public view that way the public don't have to think too hard about how things are sometimes done and the people that are doing the job don't need to worry about having civvy's wringing hands and worrying about this person and that person's rights. I am sure far worse has been done and will be done then what gauntanomo represents but you just don't know about it .

[Matt D]

Originally Posted by Rob

If it was happening on UK soil there would be an incredible outburst.

It has happened on UK soil... indefinite detention without trial under Part 4 of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-te...ct_2001#Part_4

Replaced with "Control Orders" after the Law Lords ruled against it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Control_order

[Rob]

Yep I agree that we have to decide whose rules we should be playing with, our civilised society, or the terrorists who clearly don't respect anything else. I'm the first to admit I don't have the answers. Bottom line, I have no sympathy with those who would partake in such acts. I do have concerns that we ensure that those who are being detained actually have a level of guilt. In view of the lack of information that is released, I cannot be convinced that the detainees are being reasonably held.

[RizzyKing]

Gauntanamo is a very public icon of a dirty and murky little world where evidence that in normal legal terms would be inadmissable but is what is classed as chatter and in intelligence circles is hard evidence. Proving to the public that those in there are guilty to whatever degree could seriously endanger intelligence sources helping to catch the nutter's. Thats an old reason given and it has been used as an excuse in the past but it is also a legitimate reason. Right or wrong i don't know and being honest i don't care there is little point in being the most civilised or moral if your dead.

[Maggy J]

How can anyone talk of morality and not totally and utterly condemn torture?We are a democracy and far better than that.We cannot become as our enemy otherwise what they allege about us will become the truth.

The best way to counteract terrorism is NOT to lose that which makes us a democratic society but to make sure we keep the faith of believing in fair and humane treatment for all.

After the world witnessed what can happen when a country loses it's respect by stooping to torture and genocide under the Nazis how anyone can defend such behaviour appalls me.

[Rob]

We aim to be a civilised society. We expect others to play by the rules, and thus we have to play by our rules. If we stoop to the level of others we are lost. Harsh and horrible that might sound but it is how, as a society, we have aspired to be.

Over decades our society has invested significant effort in our judicial system. We hold that out as being paramount to our way of life. OK so our system looks for absolute proof of guilt. So be it. Without going into the merits of punishment, the ultimate death penalty for some crimes has so often been invoked, when subsequently convictions have been found unsafe.

There is no easy answer but if we really expect the other side to play by the rules then we have to play by them. Collection of evidence is difficult, and yes we don't want to give away our own side. But equally, we are supposed to be playing fair. That means trials to confirm if there is tangible evidence or not.