View Full Version : CIA runs network of secret prisons
Hurin_Rules
11-02-2005, 19:17
I won't distract you all by calling them 'Gulags' (though, interestingly, in fact some of the prisons are actually soviet-era facilities in eastern Europe), but more details are emerging that show the CIA is not upholding the geneva conventions nor refraining from cruel, unusual and degrading punishment:
CIA holds terror suspects in secret prisons
Debate grows within agency about legality, morality of approach
FREE VIDEO
• U.S. holds suspects in secret prisons
Nov. 2: According to a report in The Washington Post, confirmed by NBC News, the CIA has been holding terror suspects in secret prisons abroad. NBC's Andrea Mitchell reports.
Updated: 7:57 a.m. ET Nov. 2, 2005
The CIA has been hiding and interrogating some of its most important al Qaeda captives at a Soviet-era compound in Eastern Europe, according to U.S. and foreign officials familiar with the arrangement.
The secret facility is part of a covert prison system set up by the CIA nearly four years ago that at various times has included sites in eight countries, including Thailand, Afghanistan and several democracies in Eastern Europe, as well as a small center at the Guantanamo Bay prison in Cuba, according to current and former intelligence officials and diplomats from three continents.
The hidden global internment network is a central element in the CIA's unconventional war on terrorism. It depends on the cooperation of foreign intelligence services, and on keeping even basic information about the system secret from the public, foreign officials and nearly all members of Congress charged with overseeing the CIA's covert actions.
The existence and locations of the facilities -- referred to as "black sites" in classified White House, CIA, Justice Department and congressional documents -- are known to only a handful of officials in the United States and, usually, only to the president and a few top intelligence officers in each host country.
The CIA and the White House, citing national security concerns and the value of the program, have dissuaded Congress from demanding that the agency answer questions in open testimony about the conditions under which captives are held. Virtually nothing is known about who is kept in the facilities, what interrogation methods are employed with them, or how decisions are made about whether they should be detained or for how long.
While the Defense Department has produced volumes of public reports and testimony about its detention practices and rules after the abuse scandals at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison and at Guantanamo Bay, the CIA has not even acknowledged the existence of its black sites. To do so, say officials familiar with the program, could open the U.S. government to legal challenges, particularly in foreign courts, and increase the risk of political condemnation at home and abroad.
Growing concerns
But the revelations of widespread prisoner abuse in Afghanistan and Iraq by the U.S. military -- which operates under published rules and transparent oversight of Congress -- have increased concern among lawmakers, foreign governments and human rights groups about the opaque CIA system. Those concerns escalated last month, when Vice President Cheney and CIA Director Porter J. Goss asked Congress to exempt CIA employees from legislation already endorsed by 90 senators that would bar cruel and degrading treatment of any prisoner in U.S. custody.
Although the CIA will not acknowledge details of its system, intelligence officials defend the agency's approach, arguing that the successful defense of the country requires that the agency be empowered to hold and interrogate suspected terrorists for as long as necessary and without restrictions imposed by the U.S. legal system or even by the military tribunals established for prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay.
The Washington Post is not publishing the names of the Eastern European countries involved in the covert program, at the request of senior U.S. officials. They argued that the disclosure might disrupt counterterrorism efforts in those countries and elsewhere and could make them targets of possible terrorist retaliation.
The secret detention system was conceived in the chaotic and anxious first months after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, when the working assumption was that a second strike was imminent.
Since then, the arrangement has been increasingly debated within the CIA, where considerable concern lingers about the legality, morality and practicality of holding even unrepentant terrorists in such isolation and secrecy, perhaps for the duration of their lives. Mid-level and senior CIA officers began arguing two years ago that the system was unsustainable and diverted the agency from its unique espionage mission.
The article contines for several more pages at:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9890829/
Devastatin Dave
11-02-2005, 19:21
Awesome!!!~:cheers:
"Virtually nothing is known about who is kept in the facilities, what interrogation methods are employed with them, or how decisions are made about whether they should be detained or for how long."
Seems to me that facilities such as these are necessary in warfare and spycraft, both of which we are heavily involved in at the current time. While I certainly have problems with the way we have acted lately, I do not doubt that our intelligence agencies need to interrogate people in secure facilities to maintain the safety of the nation and our troops. Given that the above quote states that nothing is known about who is kept there and what is being done, I will not raise my voice in protest. Until someone shows me evidence of abuse that is not necessary for our security, I do not have a problem with this.
Vladimir
11-02-2005, 19:27
The Geneva Conventions don't apply to unconventional fighters. There is a certain amendment which the US has not agreed to but that many European countries have that grants "terrorists" (unconventional fighters) rights under the conventions. I personally think it's great. You can make all the moral and philosophical arguments you want but they mean nothing. Research what happened to pacify the Philippines and tell me if those arguments hold any weight. What is required is a paradigm shift in the Arab/Islamic world to make these people realize that their own oppressive governments are the reason for their misery, not US. If the US was responsible for all they say we are then Canada, Germany, Japan, etc would be in a world of hurt.
And:
Seems to me that facilities such as these are necessary in warfare and spycraft, both of which we are heavily involved in at the current time. While I certainly have problems with the way we have acted lately, I do not doubt that our intelligence agencies need to interrogate people in secure facilities to maintain the safety of the nation and our troops. Given that the above quote states that nothing is known about who is kept there and what is being done, I will not raise my voice in protest. Until someone shows me evidence of abuse that is not necessary for our security, I do not have a problem with this.
Devastatin Dave
11-02-2005, 19:28
Great!!!~:cheers:
Whether there is abuse or not is unimportant. The CIA has always gotten away with trying to act above the rules, and that is just not the way things should work. All things done by us should be done by our system--one should not be allowed simply to call up the Gestapo and have them set up shop in another country.
I agree, however there is no evidence of wrong-doing here. There is simply a statement that secure interrogation facilities exist. Since I believe that there are perfectly legitimate uses for such facilities under our system, I will not be outraged by their existence unless they are being abused.
Vladimir
11-02-2005, 19:32
I agree, however there is no evidence of wrong-doing here. There is simply a statement that secure interrogation facilities exist. Since I believe that there are perfectly legitimate uses for such facilities under our system, I will not be outraged by their existence unless they are being abused.
Didn't you learn anything from Iran Contra? The seriousness of the charge is what's important not the facts of the case.
Reverend Joe
11-02-2005, 19:33
I found a batter use for this picture. Removed.
I'm outraged simply by their existence. That this administration has the gall to go ahead and set up camp in another country for it's dirty-work, and hope nobody notices.
There are plenty of reasons to have secure facilities close to where action is taking place. No one was outraged that the CIA had (and still has) safe houses all over the world to take captured spies or to protect defectors during the Cold War. Often it would take so long to get the people back to the US that information could become unusable. I understand what you're upset by, but it's not in my nature to start pointing fingers with nothing more than rumor to go on.
In order to maintain national security in the modern world, there must be secrets. If every Joe Blow on the street knew everything about our military and intelligence operations, we'd be in serious trouble. I accept that some things must be kept covert, especially when it comes to intelligence gathering. Yes, I am disturbed by the Iraqi prison scandal; yes, I am concerned about Guantanamo, but I do not see anything like that here.
Hurin_Rules
11-02-2005, 20:44
So, let me get this straight:
We now know:
1. The US government has set up a system of secret prisons.
2. We have no idea who is being held in them, for how long, on what charges, where they have been taken from and whether or not their captors are being allowed to torture them.
3. The Bush administration has asked the Senate to strike out language that would prevent the CIA from conducting torture against detainees.
4. There are repeated reports of torture and abuse throughout facilities associated with the US 'war on terror'; the US governments has been rocked by scandals from Abu Ghraib, Bagram Air Base, etc., where detainees were forced to sit in their own feces, smeared with menstrual fluid, collared like dogs, had their arms broken and, in several cases, were beaten and suffocated to death by their captors.
5. You're not at all worried by what might be happening in these secret prisons, and you feel the onus is on others to somehow find evidence of abuse at these secret facilities before you would be worried?
I'm just not really sure I understand such a perspective. I'm sure the Romans didn't much care what happened to the Visigoths until they came charging over the seventh hill. I just can't help but think of this as hubris.
I guess all men are created equal, unless they're not Americans.
Adrian II
11-02-2005, 20:52
The Washington Post is not publishing the names of the Eastern European countries involved in the covert program, at the request of senior U.S. officials. They argued that the disclosure might disrupt counterterrorism efforts in those countries and elsewhere and could make them targets of possible terrorist retaliation.That must be the funniest passage in the American press for some time. 'Counterterrorism' indeed! ~:rolleyes:
5. You're not at all worried by what might be happening in these secret prisons, and you feel the onus is on others to somehow find evidence of abuse at these secret facilities before you would be worried?
I'm just not really sure I understand such a perspective. I'm sure the Romans didn't much care what happened to the Visigoths until they came charging over the seventh hill. I just can't help but think of this as hubris.
I guess all men are created equal, unless they're not Americans.
I never said I was not worried. It's clear that we're reading this new article differently though. Here's what we know from my perspective:
1) The CIA continues to operate secure safe houses around the world just as it and many other nations have done for decades.
2) High level Al Queda operatives may or may not be held at one or more of these facilities.
3) Assuming said operatives are in fact held at these facilities, their senior nature gives a high probability that they will have information that relates to planned attacks on various targets around the world.
4) Not all methods of interrogation are illegal or repulsive to morality.
I will rant and rave about Bush's policies and mistakes until I am blue in the face. However I simply refuse to start badmouthing the people who are protecting me when there is a) no evidence of wrongdoing and b) a perfectly legitimate explanation for their behaviour. It is this kind of thinking that sends innocent men to jail.
Hurin_Rules
11-02-2005, 21:10
No evidence of wrongdoing? The Italian goverment has released arrest warrants for CIA operatives. Clearly, they had enough for an indictment.
Devastatin Dave
11-02-2005, 21:12
I guess all men are created equal, unless they're not Americans.
Yes...~:cheers:
Kanamori
11-02-2005, 21:13
~:joker:
No evidence of wrongdoing? The Italian goverment has released arrest warrants for CIA operatives. Clearly, they had enough for an indictment.
How is that related to these prisons?
How is that related to these prisons?
as I remember those indictements were for kidnapping....it´s reasonable to assume that the people that were "kidnapped" would be taken to these facilities.
as I remember those indictements were for kidnapping....it´s reasonable to assume that the people that were "kidnapped" would be taken to these facilities.
The only people that article indicates that could be in these prisons are "most important al Qaeda captives." As far as I am aware, it is impossible to illegally kidnap a terrorist who is actively involved in armed attacks on civilians. We normally call this "capturing" them.
I wonder if their will be an independant counsel to investigate who leaked this information?
Devastatin Dave
11-02-2005, 21:34
I wonder if their will be an independant counsel to investigate who leaked this information?
Hopefully when they find out (I'm sure it was some Demorat senator or congressman) they'll get sent to one of these locations as well...
The only people that article indicates that could be in these prisons are "most important al Qaeda captives." As far as I am aware, it is impossible to illegally kidnap a terrorist who is actively involved in armed attacks on civilians. We normally call this "capturing" them.
unless US secret agents have some sort of judisdiction on italian soil (and the court seems to consider that they don´t) just grabbing some guy by force out of the street is considered kidnapping by any definition I am familiar with....
if you want to capture a criminal in a foreign country there are treaties in place for such situations...use them.
yesdachi
11-02-2005, 21:41
I'm outraged simply by their existence. That this administration has the gall to go ahead and set up camp in another country for it's dirty-work, and hope nobody notices.
You can’t really think that this the first time we have had black ops setups in other countries :laugh4: and that it is this administration is the first that has made it happen. IMO this stuff has been going on since before the CIA was even formed, we just don’t get to see it on the cover of the Post because sometimes “Top Secret” is really a secret. I think it is crap that the media can discover this “Top Secret” stuff and expose it all over the place and not be held criminally responsible. IMO this is another attempt to attack the right, the GOP and Bush about the total failure the Iraq war has become. Good lord, everyone already knows it! Bushes approval rating is the worst ever, they don’t need to out our secret hideouts too. Each of which probably costs a billion dollars and now we’ll need a bunch of new ones because these are all found out.
Dang, can’t anyone in our government keep a freaking secret anymore?
Top Secret = Keep your mouth shut!:furious3:
IMO this stuff has been going on since before the CIA was even formed, we just don’t get to see it on the cover of the Post because sometimes “Top Secret” is really a secret. I think it is crap that the media can discover this “Top Secret” stuff and expose it all over the place and not be held criminally responsible. IMO this is another attempt to attack the right, the GOP and Bush about the total failure the Iraq war has become. Good lord, everyone already knows it! Bushes approval rating is the worst ever, they don’t need to out our secret hideouts too. Each of which probably costs a billion dollars and now we’ll need a bunch of new ones because these are all found out.
Dang, can’t anyone in our government keep a freaking secret anymore?
Top Secret = Keep your mouth shut!:furious3:
It's not the fault of the press. Unless you hold a security clearance, you can pretty much say what you want. Many times the press will not report sensitive information (these responsible members of the press are becoming a rare breed though).
Also remember, just because the press reports it, does not make it true. Not having a clearance means you don't have access and could just be reporting hearsay, or you are being lied to, or set up for political purposes.
Anyone with a clearance leaking this information (if it's classified) to the press should lose their clearances and be prosecuted. Plain and simple.
Alright, just to clarify... I'm trying not to rush to judgment without specific evidence. There is certainly cause for concern based on past experiences, but I try to give people the benefit of the doubt first. I make great efforts to differentiate between the administration and the rest of the government and the military. I believe that the majority are good people and thus I feel that I would be doing them a disservice to attack them without any facts. As soon as evidence comes out of abuse in these facilities, I will be amongst the first to express my disapproval.
solypsist
11-02-2005, 22:29
adios Geneva Convention :tomato:
yesdachi
11-02-2005, 22:41
It's not the fault of the press. Unless you hold a security clearance, you can pretty much say what you want. Many times the press will not report sensitive information (these responsible members of the press are becoming a rare breed though).
True but not quite. If I somehow know something classified or secret and blab about it I could be arrested but if a reporter writes about it they are safe from prosecution. I don’t know the specifics but I am sure there is a difference.:bow:
Vladimir
11-02-2005, 22:52
adios Geneva Convention :tomato:
You may have missed this the first time.
The Geneva Conventions don't apply to unconventional fighters.
That's fact. It's also a fact that people went to jail for Abu Greb. No scandal or cover up. The military was openly conducting an investigation long before photos were published. A few Soldies broke the rules and went to jail.
Tribesman
11-02-2005, 23:57
You may have missed this the first time.
The Geneva Conventions don't apply to unconventional fighters.
Yes it does as stipulated in article 3 of the conventions , and if you want to carry on there are numerous other articles , clauses and sub clauses that apply .
Hurin_Rules
11-03-2005, 00:44
You may have missed this the first time.
The Geneva Conventions don't apply to unconventional fighters.
That's fact. It's also a fact that people went to jail for Abu Greb. No scandal or cover up. The military was openly conducting an investigation long before photos were published. A few Soldies broke the rules and went to jail.
To what extent were the Taleban 'unconventional' fighters?
They were the militia of the government of Afghanistan. The Geneva Conventions recognize militias as falling under the jurisdiction of the conventions. Even Redleg has acknowledged this, and that the laws DO apply to them.
Moreover, the Geneva Conventions stipulate that IF THERE IS ANY DOUBT about their status, fair and impartial tribunals are to be held to determine their status. Even the inmates at Guantanamo were given something resembling these (although even the US Bar association and the US military's own lawyers complained that they were not at all fair). Are you alleging that the secret prisons we've just been learning about have been holding fair and impartial hearings on their prisoners status?
Soulforged
11-03-2005, 01:39
I wonder where does those CIA branches stop...
Later people ask why is that those conspiracy theorist even exist? I think the answer is out there...(well many are just wackos but...)
Gawain of Orkeny
11-03-2005, 01:45
Just because it's been done before, doesn't make it right. Show me secret outsourced interrogation compounds now, a year ago, or ten years from now and it'll still be wrong.
You mean just because it has always been done that way do you not? What do you suggest? We bring them all to the US and treat them like citizens?
Soulforged
11-03-2005, 01:51
You mean just because it has always been done that way do you not? What do you suggest? We bring them all to the US and treat them like citizens?
What about putting them free?
Gawain of Orkeny
11-03-2005, 01:55
What about putting them free?
Yes set the terrorists free LOL. You do realize that many who were released from Gitmo have since been arressted again attacking US troops. Thoughts such as yours are dangerous.
Soulforged
11-03-2005, 02:03
Yes set the terrorists free LOL. You do realize that many who were released from Gitmo have since been arressted again attacking US troops. Thoughts such as yours are dangerous.
I think yours are more dangerous. But let's see this is just point of view against point of view again isn't it? So why should I bother trying to convince you that they're humans and that they shouldn't be caged. I never achieved to convince anybody of that, you're less probable, somewhat...
To what extent were the Taleban 'unconventional' fighters?
They were the militia of the government of Afghanistan. The Geneva Conventions recognize militias as falling under the jurisdiction of the conventions. Even Redleg has acknowledged this, and that the laws DO apply to them.
Moreover, the Geneva Conventions stipulate that IF THERE IS ANY DOUBT about their status, fair and impartial tribunals are to be held to determine their status. Even the inmates at Guantanamo were given something resembling these (although even the US Bar association and the US military's own lawyers complained that they were not at all fair). Are you alleging that the secret prisons we've just been learning about have been holding fair and impartial hearings on their prisoners status?
What the CIA is doing is not the same thing that was done by the Military in regards to the Taliban, the Militia's and the illegal combatants in Afganstan. Hurin is correct by the Hague Conventions of 1907 and Geneva Conventions the Taliban Militia and any Afganstan citizen who particapated in battle should be given treatment in accordance with the conventions - until such a time as a tribunal is held.
Those from outside Afganstan - and also Iraq - who decide to go and fight - can be held as unlawful combatants - as long as a tribunal has been held. Everything I have read shows that for the most part those that are being held in Gitmo have been given at least one Tribunal that determined they fell within the unlawful combatant status.
Now what the CIA is doing is something different. is it unlawful - it all depends on exactly what they are doing. Safe houses are standard practice. More information is really needed determine if the Geneva Convention regarding Prisoner's of War is being violated by the CIA, and more information is needed to determine if laws are being broken in a systemic way.
bmolsson
11-03-2005, 02:25
Must be hard for CIA to get attention these days, hence all these new angels on scandals..... ~;)
Taffy_is_a_Taff
11-03-2005, 02:58
I enjoy finding out that there are still all sorts of stuff that your average Joe has no idea about.
Divinus Arma
11-03-2005, 03:30
A new generation of war and a new generation of tactics.
Remember the "nice wars" we all loved to recreate with TW?
All that nicety has taken the final dump. We are reaching the final evolution of war, where kindness is nearly erradicated.
They "cheat", so we too must "cheat". It happens with every new generation of warfare. Gunpowder used to be cheating, too. Those who do not adapt are destroyed.
Papewaio
11-03-2005, 03:41
If cheating is torturing people and ignoring your own system of law then isn't the CIA breaking the USAs Consitution?
Isn't the military supposed to protect the Consitution from all enemies foreign and domestic? Hypothetically are the military too scared of the CIA to make a move against them if the CIA was undermining the Consitution?
When the going gets tough we see the true moral values people hold. When you decide that torture is ok, that is what your true day to day morals are. Everything else is just a sugar coating.
Wouldn't torture be against the idea of American Justice?
Is American Justice something real or is it just a propaganda tool and for comic strips?
Are all men created equal?
Soulforged
11-03-2005, 04:31
If cheating is torturing people and ignoring your own system of law then isn't the CIA breaking the USAs Consitution?
I don't think that any special organization abides to the Constitution. It goes beneath it's purposes, wich puts national security, almost to the level of paranoia and external eternal distrust, above all other ideals, wich in fact are more important, freedom for example. A short sentence will be like this "You must give up some of your freedom so you can be safe". Not my kind of banner if you ask me. Another, this time famous, frase will be this "If one's not safe, one cannot be free", the problem is taking this to the extreme...
PanzerJaeger
11-03-2005, 05:14
Awsome!? Dave, that's going too far. This is sick. This is abuse of power. This is trampling on our national values.
Dont be so arrogant as to assume you can speak for what values americans hold most dearly. The safety of my family and myself is of the utmost importance to this american.
PanzerJaeger
11-03-2005, 05:24
Funny. That goes against the founding values of America. I recall something to the extent of "He who gives up freedom for safety deserves neither.", no?
Sigh, dense your head is.
Dont be so arrogant as to assume you can speak for what values americans hold most dearly.
Papewaio
11-03-2005, 05:39
Well the Founding Fathers Declaration of Independence seems to be against these actions:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province,
PanzerJaeger
11-03-2005, 06:19
Just because you happen to prefer someone is tortured so you can sleep that much better at night does not make you any more qualified to speak for the American people. It just makes you a coward.
Im not the one so presumptuous as to become offended and speak for the american people. It makes you not only a drama queen, but extremely arrogant.
And if we are playing the name game, putting the safety of the enemy above your own countrymen makes you the worst kind of american, a traitor. This isnt The Bold and The Beautiful, there are american lives at stake. :no:
Papewaio
11-03-2005, 06:30
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both."
"The degree of civilization in a society can be judged by entering its prisons"
"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance."
"Millions of innocent men, women, and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burned, tortured, fined, and imprisoned, yet we have not advanced one inch toward uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one half of the world fools and the other half hypocrites."
solypsist
11-03-2005, 07:37
The whole issue here isn't that this sort of thing has always gone on; what's so disturbing is that it's becoming so widespread the the military and intelligence communities are begining to no longer looking at it as a "last resort" nor are they fearful of hooking Hadji up to a spring bed and a car battery like they once were. The fact that citizens are just shrugging this off is troubling, what's the next accepted former taboo?
Adrian II
11-03-2005, 09:42
I'm not saying that as a cheap talking point. If you think that the only and best way to protect Americans is to abase ourselves by torturing people, I genuinely find you either a coward or totally naive.
This thread disgusts me. The revolution didn't happen so we could do crap like this.Respect, man. I know several more Americans like you in real life (and I know there are many more out there) who agree and who find this whole thing deeply un-American in the sense you just described. That is why I trust that these practices will sooner or later be stopped or corrected by democratic means, as they always have in American history. But they will not stop spontaneously. Middle America will have to put its weight behind the effort.
The whole issue here isn't that this sort of thing has always gone on; what's so disturbing is that it's becoming so widespread the the military and intelligence communities are begining to no longer looking at it as a "last resort" nor are they fearful of hooking Hadji up to a spring bed and a car battery like they once were. The fact that citizens are just shrugging this off is troubling, what's the next accepted former taboo?
A valid point IMO
Adrian II
11-03-2005, 14:46
A valid point IMOWell, strange as it may seem in the light of our frequent differences, Redleg, it is moderate/centrist people like you whom we are counting on to throw their weight behind efforts to stem the tide.
Well, strange as it may seem in the light of our frequent differences, Redleg, it is moderate/centrist people like you whom we are counting on to throw their weight behind efforts to stem the tide.
Well I have always had a problem with spooks - they often attempt to place themselves above the law. Periodically the CIA needs to be taken down a notch or two.
President Clinton did them no favors in dismantling the personal intelligence appartus at the end of the cold war - it seems to have reduced the number of experts in human intelligence gathering services that we did have during the Cold War. However given the timing of the dismantling he did think he was headed in the right direction - like they say the path to hell is paved with good intentions.
However the concentration of intelligence gathering to electronic and newsprint has left the United States in a very awkward postion. And hence we have some seeming (or is it seemlying not sure of the spelling) violations of law - and possible abuses by the CIA in relearning the techniques that are required for such operations and ones that do not make a complete mockery of the law. (I figure you will understand the statement even though it is kind of convoluted.)
Have Congress investigate the actions with the Senators of the Intelligence Committee - all who by the way have been cleared for several different levels of security access anyway, let them determine if the CIA is acting in our best interests or running around like a lose cannon. I am all for Congress Oversite on the CIA - but then I dislike spooks - even though they are necessary for the security of the nation - because of the way they operate someone must provide oversight and wave the big stick at them when they go to far.
You people did read that article, right? You do realize that we're talking about 30 individuals that are described as the most senior Al Qaeda members that have been captured. Given the status of some of those that are publicly known to have been taken, it's pretty clear that those 30 people aren't likely to be random innocents caught by bad luck or low level lackeys.
How is this any different than interrogating Goering, Ribbentrop and the rest before their trial at Nuremburg? Should we just try them and sentence them without extracting information that could save lives?
Please also keep in mind that it is highly unlikely that physical torture is being used here if only for the fact that it doesn't work well. The most senior captives will obviously be assigned the most senior and most proficient interrogators. These will surely be people who are masters at their art and as such will be well aware of how physical violence does not produce good results.
You people did read that article, right? You do realize that we're talking about 30 individuals that are described as the most senior Al Qaeda members that have been captured. Given the status of some of those that are publicly known to have been taken, it's pretty clear that those 30 people aren't likely to be random innocents caught by bad luck or low level lackeys.
Okay time for devils advocate a bit.
Because they are senior Al Qaeda members means that the public in the United States should allow the CIA to run rampanent over our laws in order to serve our interests and protect the nation? We should take the word of the CIA at face value without raising our eyebrows wondering if they are actually doing the right thing?
How is this any different than interrogating Goering, Ribbentrop and the rest before their trial at Nuremburg? Should we just try them and sentence them without extracting information that could save lives?
Interrogating them like the prisoners in GITMO in an somewhat open way is acceptable. Its a known place where the captives are known to be held by the public for stated reasons. (Even if you disagree with the activity - you know it exists and what in part is going on) Holding them in a safe house to question them because they came forward on their own is acceptable. Holding them just to interrogating them in secert, away from the ability for public oversight via the United States Congress is something else IMO.
Please also keep in mind that it is highly unlikely that physical torture is being used here if only for the fact that it doesn't work well. The most senior captives will obviously be assigned the most senior and most proficient interrogators. These will surely be people who are masters at their art and as such will be well aware of how physical violence does not produce good results.
And hence why the secercy and the attempts at suberfuge. Again I don't need to know who they are, or what exactly the CIA is doing - however the CIA must operate within the boundaries of the applicaple laws of the nation - if they do not then they must be held accountable to the American people by way of Congress. To allow a governmental agency to function without any oversight and you get a runaway government that decides it doesn't answer to the people any longer. The CIA by its activities and its mission must be monitored and oversight by Congress in a bi-partisan way because of its very nature.
To question the activity of the CIA is perfectably acceptable in my opinion because its within the concept of free speech.
Okay time for devils advocate a bit.
Because they are senior Al Qaeda members means that the public in the United States should allow the CIA to run rampanent over our laws in order to serve our interests and protect the nation? We should take the word of the CIA at face value without raising our eyebrows wondering if they are actually doing the right thing?
For the first part, I would question whether any laws are being broken. Terrorists do not qualify as POWs under the Geneva Convention (that's another discussion if you disagree) and as such they are different from the Afghan fighters who were held and interrogated illegally.
For the second part, I'm not asking anyone to accept their word as gospel, I am merely giving them the benefit of the doubt. This means that in the absense of proof of wrong-doing, I presume them innocent rather than guilty. That's the way our justice system works, why can we not apply it to our own people?
Interrogating them like the prisoners in GITMO in an somewhat open way is acceptable. Its a known place where the captives are known to be held by the public for stated reasons. (Even if you disagree with the activity - you know it exists and what in part is going on) Holding them in a safe house to question them because they came forward on their own is acceptable. Holding them just to interrogating them in secert, away from the ability for public oversight via the United States Congress is something else IMO.
There are many reasons why things can be legitimately kept secret and out of the public eye. The locations where top Nazis were being held after capture were not freely disclosed to anyone that asked. Did you ever consider that perhaps there are people there that the enemy does not know we have our hands on? Perhaps we have under-cover agents working at the facilities as guards or prisoners whose cover would be blown if the system was transparent. Again, I must repeat that given the existence of totally plausible reasons for secrecy I must give them the benefit of the doubt until shown otherwise.
And hence why the secercy and the attempts at suberfuge. Again I don't need to know who they are, or what exactly the CIA is doing - however the CIA must operate within the boundaries of the applicaple laws of the nation - if they do not then they must be held accountable to the American people by way of Congress. To allow a governmental agency to function without any oversight and you get a runaway government that decides it doesn't answer to the people any longer. The CIA by its activities and its mission must be monitored and oversight by Congress in a bi-partisan way because of its very nature.
Who says there is no oversight? That article stated that information was not available to all Senate oversight committee members, but it WAS available to some. Clearly this indicates that there are people watching what is going on, but that they believe that secrecy is also very important. I see no rogue agency action going on here. I see senior level oversight by high ranking members of the government. If it turns out that there is abuse going on, then these are amongst the people who should be held responsible for failing in their duties.
To question the activity of the CIA is perfectably acceptable in my opinion because its within the concept of free speech.
I could not agree more.
For the first part, I would question whether any laws are being broken. Terrorists do not qualify as POWs under the Geneva Convention (that's another discussion if you disagree) and as such they are different from the Afghan fighters who were held and interrogated illegally.
Yes Indeed - and that is the point of the question I asked. Now one must look to where these individuals were captured. If they were captured in Afganstan in operations against the United States - they are indeed not entitled to the Geneva Conventions - however what if they were taken by force? Like from say Italy.
For the second part, I'm not asking anyone to accept their word as gospel, I am merely giving them the benefit of the doubt. This means that in the absense of proof of wrong-doing, I presume them innocent rather than guilty. That's the way our justice system works, why can we not apply it to our own people?
Oh I am not assuming they are guilty or innocent - as a system the CIA is part of the government - government should always be questioned about their activities.
There are many reasons why things can be legitimately kept secret and out of the public eye. The locations where top Nazis were being held after capture were not freely disclosed to anyone that asked. Did you ever consider that perhaps there are people there that the enemy does not know we have our hands on? Perhaps we have under-cover agents working at the facilities as guards or prisoners whose cover would be blown if the system was transparent. Again, I must repeat that given the existence of totally plausible reasons for secrecy I must give them the benefit of the doubt until shown otherwise.
Oh I know very well all about secery - spent 12 years in the military with a clearance because of my Job. And that is why I stated oversight by Congress not complete transparecy to the public.
Who says there is no oversight? That article stated that information was not available to all Senate oversight committee members, but it WAS available to some. Clearly this indicates that there are people watching what is going on, but that they believe that secrecy is also very important. I see no rogue agency action going on here. I see senior level oversight by high ranking members of the government. If it turns out that there is abuse going on, then these are amongst the people who should be held responsible for failing in their duties.
Correct which is exactly the point I was making by the way.
I could not agree more.
Hence the discussion on the activities of the CIA is acceptable since people have the right to openly discuss the activities of the government.
:bow:
master of the puppets
11-03-2005, 15:56
Are all men created equal?
no, well yes some were created equal but have long since demeaned themselves beyond the status of an honorable human being, those in the cia who commit such horrors are almost as terrible asa those terrorists, yet while we need a lower class to do labor we will need a lower person to do ignoble deeds for sometimes those deeds were the sheild that defended an equally dastardly deed. you may catch a terrorist byu reviewing papers, observation, and raids but it is much quicker/easier/better to have one tattle on his own, involuntary if the threat is so great.
Yes Indeed - and that is the point of the question I asked. Now one must look to where these individuals were captured. If they were captured in Afganstan in operations against the United States - they are indeed not entitled to the Geneva Conventions - however what if they were taken by force? Like from say Italy.
You are entirely correct. My point all along has been that we simply do not know enough information yet to presume wrongdoing. If and when that information becomes available I will have to re-evaluate the situation.
There's an interesting side-question that comes off of this whole topic, though it might be better suited for another thread. Where do we draw the line between the legitimate need for secrecy and the legitimate need for transparency? Is it even possible for those who are in the dark to properly determine this?
yesdachi
11-03-2005, 16:04
I heard an excellent discussion about torture on the radio the other day with a guy who was an interrogator in Nam. He basically said aggressive interrogation and even light torture (less physical, more mental) are way more successful than any real torture or physical violence especially with people from the Middle East. He kind of implied that in order to be really good at torture you need to be a sick sob and not many Americans could ever do the kinds of torture that other countries do. He ended saying that although he had some regrets he thought he and the country did the right thing and that the policies regarding torture were right and acceptable but an ugly part of the system he wished didn’t exist.
You are entirely correct. My point all along has been that we simply do not know enough information yet to presume wrongdoing. If and when that information becomes available I will have to re-evaluate the situation.
There's an interesting side-question that comes off of this whole topic, though it might be better suited for another thread. Where do we draw the line between the legitimate need for secrecy and the legitimate need for transparency? Is it even possible for those who are in the dark to properly determine this?
I think the question is approiate in this thread - since the thread is about the CIA running a possible secret network of prisons.
Your last question is the most approiate for this forum - since it would be a safe assumption that we are all in the dark. :bow:
Geoffrey S
11-03-2005, 17:27
There's an interesting side-question that comes off of this whole topic, though it might be better suited for another thread. Where do we draw the line between the legitimate need for secrecy and the legitimate need for transparency? Is it even possible for those who are in the dark to properly determine this?
Something of a vicious circle, isn't it?
Taffy_is_a_Taff
11-03-2005, 19:39
I'm fairly unamused that some group has started to publicly name the places they believe the prisons (or whatever you want to call them) are located.
It's an American group by the way.
Hurin_Rules
11-03-2005, 21:03
Another issue is that if true, these actions of CIA operatives would be against US law and against international treaties the US has signed and is morally and legally obligated to uphold.
Former Republican senator and prosecutor Bob Barr is the one who points this out in this article:
EU looks into 'secret CIA jails'
Thursday, November 3, 2005 Posted: 1336 GMT (2136 HKT)
BRUSSELS, Belgium -- The European Commission has said it will look into reports that the CIA set up secret jails for al Qaeda captives in eastern Europe.
The governments of the European Union's 25 members nations will be informally questioned about the allegations, a spokesman said on Thursday.
Friso Roscam Abbing, the EU's spokesman on Justice, Freedom and Security, told CNN he had "seen reports on allegations made by Human Rights Watch" but said the EU needed to get clarification from its member states before deciding its next move.
"As far as the treatment of prisoners is concerned ... it is clear that all 25 member states having signed up to European Convention on Human Rights, and to the International Convention Against Torture, are due to respect and fully implement the obligations deriving from those treaties," The Associated Press quoted Roscam Abbing as saying.
U.S. officials have refused to comment on the accuracy of a Washington Post report that top al Qaeda suspects were being held for questioning "at a Soviet-era compound in Eastern Europe."
But U.S. national security adviser Stephen Hadley said President George W. Bush had demanded that U.S. agents treat prisoners "in a way that is consistent with our values and principles."
"Some people say that the test of your principles is what you do when no one's looking," Hadley said.
"The president has insisted that whether it is in the public or it is in private, the same principles will apply and the same principles will be respected," he said.
"To the extent people do not meet up, measure up to those principles, there will be accountability." The Post cited U.S. officials and those from other governments familiar with the arrangement for its report.
The network, the Washington Post said, was "a central element" in the CIA's battle against terrorism, but its existence was known to only a handful of officials at home and abroad.
If true, the arrangement suggests U.S. agents are engaged in activities "that under U.S. law and in U.S. territory and by U.S. personnel would be clearly illegal," said former U.S. Rep. Bob Barr, who was once a federal prosecutor.
"There are very serious questions also that what's going on here is also contrary to documents and treaties that the U.S. is a party to," the former congressman from Georgia told CNN.
The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) has also joined the chorus of calls for access to all foreign terrorism suspects held by the U.S. (Full story)
"We are concerned at the fate of an unknown number of people captured as part of the so-called global war on terror and held at undisclosed places of detention," Antonella Notari, chief ICRC spokeswoman, told Reuters in response to a question.
"Access to detainees is an important humanitarian priority for the ICRC and a logical continuation of our current work in Afghanistan, Iraq and Guantanamo Bay," she added.
Poland and Romania, close U.S. allies in ex-communist central Europe, on Thursday denied suggestions by the New York-based Human Rights Watch that they were among countries hosting secret Central Intelligence Agency detention centers.
"There are no CIA bases in Romania," Romanian Prime Minister Calin Tariceanu told reporters, Reuters said
Former Polish defense minister Jerzy Szmajdzinski also denied the report as did a senior security official from the new government which took over on Monday.
"Holding foreign nationals on Polish territory would be illegal," the official told Reuters.
"I don't think any Polish government would want to do that," he said, adding that a government statement would follow later on Thursday.
Szmajdzinski ruled out any detention of such suspects in Poland. "We aren't detaining terrorists, or interrogating them, or doing anything else with them," he told private Radio Zet.
Copyright 2005 CNN. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. Associated Press contributed to this report.
http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/11/03/eu.cia/index.html
"Virtually nothing is known about who is kept in the facilities, what interrogation methods are employed with them, or how decisions are made about whether they should be detained or for how long."
Seems to me that facilities such as these are necessary in warfare and spycraft, both of which we are heavily involved in at the current time. While I certainly have problems with the way we have acted lately, I do not doubt that our intelligence agencies need to interrogate people in secure facilities to maintain the safety of the nation and our troops. Given that the above quote states that nothing is known about who is kept there and what is being done, I will not raise my voice in protest. Until someone shows me evidence of abuse that is not necessary for our security, I do not have a problem with this.
Then you are a fool.
Im not the one so presumptuous as to become offended and speak for the american people. It makes you not only a drama queen, but extremely arrogant.
And if we are playing the name game, putting the safety of the enemy above your own countrymen makes you the worst kind of american, a traitor. This isnt The Bold and The Beautiful, there are american lives at stake. :no:
And you do not embody the American who gains admiration and respect, who embodies the "American Way".
Divinus Arma
11-03-2005, 22:24
I understand PanzerJager's point on this. He is simply stating that it is better to kill the enemy en masse rather than lose a single American. I tend to agree with this statement.
I also undertsand Gelatinous Cube and Co.'s arguments. He is basing his percpertion on Ben Frankilin's famous quote (reitereated by Papewaio), "He who trades freedom for security deserves neither".
These two arguments are not mutually exclusive and I don't understand how either of you can compare the two. Panzer's statement is a support for "aggresive defense" policy. Cube's statement is support for individual freedom at the cost of public safety.
I agree with both. And I can do so because we are not talking about American Citizens here. These are foreign combatants operating in the next evolution of warfare. We do need to take drastic offensive measures to secure American interests against the deception aggression tactics of the modern era. That debate is one our inherent morality.
I am inclined to allow greater liberties in interogation to be taken with the enemy than we would allow for citizens. That really is the bottom line. Do we have a moral obligation to treat the enemy as if they were American citizens?
:bow:
Divinus Arma
11-03-2005, 22:31
Then you are a fool
And you do not embody the American who gains admiration and respect, who embodies the "American Way".
I have no problem with minor attacks like this since it adds color to the backroom, but I would expect a supporting argument from you as to why someone is a fool, or whatever.
Not a big deal, but let's hear logic and reason to support the statement. Pointless flaming like this brings down the quality of the debate.
It is more fun for everyone when you explain WHY somebody is a dunce, moron, idiot, fool, retard, monkey-lover, tree-hugger, liberal, neo-con, butt-lover, jerk, whiner, geek, dork, punk, jack-ball, et cetera.
:knight:
Hurin_Rules
11-03-2005, 22:50
These are foreign combatants operating in the next evolution of warfare.
Ah, but there's the rub, oh Divine One. No one has ever proven that they were actually 'operating' or fighting at all. Some are undoubtedly Taleban--who were not fighting in the next generation of war but were simply poorly led militia troops fighting in an ancient fashion. These are protected by the Geneva Conventions. Many of the detainees at Guantanamo were released--although after two or three years--when the Americans finally realized they were not Al-Qaeda. But to detain a Taleban militia soldier in a secret prison, without a fair tribunal and possibly with torture, is a violation of the conventions, international law, treaties the USA has signed and basic human morality.
You may have a point about Al-Qaeda troops. But how do we know innocents aren't being locked up and tortured as well? Are we just to accept the word of a government that has been rocked by scandals from Abu Ghraib to Bagram air base to Guantanamo bay? Are we to believe on faith a government whose senior officials are currently under federal indictments, and whose graindiose claims about WMDs, links to Al-Qaeda and yellow cake from Niger have all been proven false?
Taffy_is_a_Taff
11-03-2005, 22:51
hippy
Adrian II
11-03-2005, 22:58
It is more fun for everyone when you explain WHY somebody is a dunce, moron, idiot, fool, retard, monkey-lover, tree-hugger, liberal, neo-con, butt-lover, jerk, whiner, geek, dork, punk, jack-ball, et cetera.Craven canker-blossom. Gorbellied moldwarp. Odiferous, swag-bellied skainsmate.
https://img199.imageshack.us/img199/8130/shakespeare8bf.gif
Divinus Arma
11-03-2005, 22:59
you wrote a post that was... ahhh screw it...
spammer
Divinus Arma
11-03-2005, 23:02
I feel at though I am standing on the edge of a cliff... looking hwere this thread is going.
echo
echo
echo
echo
Tribesman
11-03-2005, 23:24
How can these people be described as illegal combatants ?
They are fighting at the request of a democraticaly elected leader .
yesdachi
11-03-2005, 23:25
I feel at though I am standing on the edge of a cliff... looking hwere this thread is going.
… perhaps to a cold war era black ops prison in an undisclosed European country where apple pie American values are ignored?~;)
I have no problem with minor attacks like this since it adds color to the backroom, but I would expect a supporting argument from you as to why someone is a fool, or whatever.
Not a big deal, but let's hear logic and reason to support the statement. Pointless flaming like this brings down the quality of the debate.
It is more fun for everyone when you explain WHY somebody is a dunce, moron, idiot, fool, retard, monkey-lover, tree-hugger, liberal, neo-con, butt-lover, jerk, whiner, geek, dork, punk, jack-ball, et cetera.
:knight:
Alright. Tin Cow can see no problem with setting up prisons in foreign lands where secrecy rules and in which the CIA can get up to whatever it wants. The inmates at these locations are not known nor, I suspect, do they have any legal or humanitarian contacts. Tin Cow assumes these people to be guilty of something (what exactly is a secret) merely because the CIA has them in custody. In fact, by the laws of his own country they are guilty of nothing until proven so in court. Up until then they should have the rights of the accused. The whole concept violates (rapes might be the term to use) the principles upon which American justice is based. These principles are the very same ones which the West asks the world to aspire to. Therefore I call him a fool because he declares his support for facilities which piss all over the very principles which his country purports to uphold.
As for Panzer. Well if his ideals reflect then American way then I have been sadly misled. I always thought justice and fairness to be admirable features of America as a whole. When someone who has just a little too much admiration for Nazi (sorry, Prussian) Germany starts talking about traitors and dealing with enemies of the state I hope you will forgive me for believe his opinions to be non-representative.
Maybe I am wrong. It has been known. ~;)
PS If we were talking about my country I would be just as disgusted. In fact I would be a fool to suspect that such places to not exist. If they did not we would probably borrow yours. That does not make it right and decent. Nor is it worth fighting for.
Tin Cow assumes these people to be guilty of something (what exactly is a secret) merely because the CIA has them in custody. In fact, by the laws of his own country they are guilty of nothing until proven so in court. Up until then they should have the rights of the accused.
Are you saying that we need to provide a public defender for every single person captured in a military conflict?
Tribesman
11-03-2005, 23:43
Are you saying that we need to provide a public defender for every single person captured in a military conflict?
Its the law , do you have a problem with the law ?
Are you saying that we need to provide a public defender for every single person captured in a military conflict?
Its the law , do you have a problem with the law ?
Actually, that's not the law. POWs and irregular foreign hostiles (I originally referred to them as terrorists, but that's not entirely accurate and I don't know exactly what to call them) are not covered by the US Criminal Code.
Tribesman
11-04-2005, 00:02
Actually, that's not the law. POWs and terrorists are not covered by the US Criminal Code.
Irrelevant if it is in the US criminal code or not ( terrorism is covered anyhow , though of course there will be problems over jurisdiction in these cases). The US is obliged to follow laws that it has agreed to .
You cannot determine if they are terrorists or POWs without a hearing , at a hearing they are entitled to a defense . As they are your prisoners you have to supply their defense . Its the law , do you have a problem with it ?
To one of your earlier posts....
The locations where top Nazis were being held after capture were not freely disclosed to anyone that asked.
But their locations where disclosed and access granted to those that had a legal right to it , like the Red Cross .
Is that true in this case .....No .
Kanamori
11-04-2005, 00:08
Actually, that's not the law. POWs and terrorists are not covered by the US Criminal Code.
does this apply to someone who is simply detained in a war zone, or do they have be a combatent? it seems that being detained in a war zone is seperable from being a terrorist.
Goofball
11-04-2005, 00:10
It is more fun for everyone when you explain WHY somebody is a dunce, moron, idiot, fool, retard, monkey-lover, tree-hugger, liberal, neo-con, butt-lover, jerk, whiner, geek, dork, punk, jack-ball, et cetera.
:knight:Craven canker-blossom. Gorbellied moldwarp. Odiferous, swag-bellied skainsmate.
https://img199.imageshack.us/img199/8130/shakespeare8bf.gif
Blouse-wearing poodle-walker.
http://www.synergizedsolutions.com/simpsons/pictures/others/willy.gif
Irrelevant if it is in the US criminal code or not ( terrorism is covered anyhow , though of course there will be problems over jurisdiction in these cases). The US is obliged to follow laws that it has agreed to .
You cannot determine if they are terrorists or POWs without a hearing , at a hearing they are entitled to a defense . As they are your prisoners you have to supply their defense . Its the law , do you have a problem with it ?
We are not talking about jailing or executing these people without a trial. We are talking about holding them for questioning and interrogation. POWs may be held for the duration of the conflict without access to legal counsel. They most certainly may not be abused and must be afforded the rights of the Geneva Convention, but by no means do they have any rights to access to the justice system. 'Irregular Hostiles' (again, for lack of the proper term) have even fewer rights and may or may not be covered by the Geneva Convetion.
Either way, they may be held without trial and without legal representation for the duration of the conflict. After this point they must be released or tried in open court for their crimes. The conflict is clearly still going on and as such we have not reached a point at which they are given access to the court system.
does this apply to someone who is simply detained in a war zone, or do they have be a combatent? it seems that being detained in a war zone is seperable from being a terrorist.
I do not know the answer to this.
Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe
11-04-2005, 00:35
We are not talking about jailing or executing these people without a trial. We are talking about holding them for questioning and interrogation. POWs may be held for the duration of the conflict without access to legal counsel. They most certainly may not be abused and must be afforded the rights of the Geneva Convention, but by no means do they have any rights to access to the justice system. 'Irregular Hostiles' (again, for lack of the proper term) have even fewer rights and may or may not be covered by the Geneva Convetion.
Either way, they may be held without trial and without legal representation for the duration of the conflict. After this point they must be released or tried in open court for their crimes. The conflict is clearly still going on and as such we have not reached a point at which they are given access to the court system.
How long can you hold people for questionning and interogation without it being jailing them de facto? I guess that some are hold since end of 2001...
On the status question; there are one issue: who decides if they are POW, illegal combattants, or just plain criminal?
If they were POW in the war with Afghanistan, well, that war is over, so either they are fred, or there is a specific charge to be made; then set up a tribunal to judge them.
Since you mention "duration of the conflict": I don't remember the USA being at war with anyone currently: war in Afghanistan is over, war in Iraq is over. On a judicial ground, occupation is not conflict, and ought not to stop you from releasing POW. So which conflict are you referring to?
Louis,
We are not talking about jailing or executing these people without a trial. We are talking about holding them for questioning and interrogation. POWs may be held for the duration of the conflict without access to legal counsel. They most certainly may not be abused and must be afforded the rights of the Geneva Convention, but by no means do they have any rights to access to the justice system. 'Irregular Hostiles' (again, for lack of the proper term) have even fewer rights and may or may not be covered by the Geneva Convetion.
The term you are looking for is illegal combatants sometimes the term unlawful combatants is also used - it dates back to World War 2 when two spies were executed by the United States for activities conducted on United States soil.
The matter in which the individual is determined if he or she is an illegal combatant is through a military tribunal - or if you want to look at the Hague Conventions - a summary court martial also works. I won't mentioned what a summary court martial on the battlefield entails if your found guilty.
Either way, they may be held without trial and without legal representation for the duration of the conflict. After this point they must be released or tried in open court for their crimes. The conflict is clearly still going on and as such we have not reached a point at which they are given access to the court system.
Actually they can be tried during the conflict - but its up to the holding power to decide which is it going to do.
Originally Posted by Kanamori
does this apply to someone who is simply detained in a war zone, or do they have be a combatent? it seems that being detained in a war zone is seperable from being a terrorist
I refer to the two German Spies executed in the United States during WW2 for acts of sabatage (SP) on US soil. THey were tried as illegal combatants and I believe hung when they were convicted.
Papewaio
11-04-2005, 00:49
I am inclined to allow greater liberties in interogation to be taken with the enemy than we would allow for citizens. That really is the bottom line. Do we have a moral obligation to treat the enemy as if they were American citizens?
:bow:
As Nazi Germany became powerful people fled from them. Particularly scientists. Where did the majority of these scientists flee to? Why did they choose their location?
The Manhatten Project was possible because the scientists saw USA as having the moral high ground. USA has had a lot of power, it became a superpower. Why did the West Support USA above USSR? USA was seen as holding up the flag for moral virtues.
The Declaration of Independance is a beautiful document to read. Living up to its standards has won USA many many friends.
On the other hand Nazi Germany is still remembered for its atrocities, its torturing of prisoners, its biased courts. USSR is still remembered for its Gulags.
“In Germany, the Nazis came for the Communists, and I did not speak up because I was not a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, but I did not speak up because I was not a Jew. And then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak up because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics, but I was a Protestant, so I did not speak up. And then they came for me, and by that time there was no one left to speak up for anyone.”
USA has been seen as the champion of underdogs. Give us your poor, your huddled masses...
=][=
I say have Senate Oversight.
Do the equivalent of a Nuremburg trial. Go the full distance. I don't mind if you sentence them to pig herders, or execute them, or do something that is particularly bad according to their twisted faith. As long as they have all the access to the normal assets of justice, a trial by jury, right of appeal. BTW is a confession by torture admissible in a court?
By becoming them, they win. By becoming barbarians, they win. By twisting our own philosophy to match thier twisted one, they win. Nor can you outsource torture to someone else, the atrocities are on the hands of all.
We win by doing what we do best. It might be slower, but it gathers momentum and has a far longer lasting positive outcome.
The moral high ground is what you need to gain, and like any strategic point it might be costly to do so. Do not become the depraved enemy if you wish to win the hearts and minds of everyone else.
How long can you hold people for questionning and interogation without it being jailing them de facto? I guess that some are hold since end of 2001...
Those captured in the war zone fighting against the opposing army can be held indefinitely until such a time that the conflict is resolved, a prisoner exchange is done, or they are paroled - normally with the promise never to take arms up again under penality of death if captured. (an old tradition not really done any longer0
On the status question; there are one issue: who decides if they are POW, illegal combattants, or just plain criminal?
Easy one - the force that captured them of course. Also the status is defined in both the Hague Conventions and the Geneva Conventions.
If they were POW in the war with Afghanistan, well, that war is over, so either they are fred, or there is a specific charge to be made; then set up a tribunal to judge them.
Tribunals have been done - the standard in which they have been conducted might be subject to questioning - but they prisoners in GITMO have had at least one Tribunal. Now since they were captured as part of the war against terror - specially AQ - the war is not done - therefor they can remain as prisoners. The only prisoners that would be a violation of the conventions would be Militia from Afganstan who are Afganstan citizens that are still being held.
Since you mention "duration of the conflict": I don't remember the USA being at war with anyone currently: war in Afghanistan is over, war in Iraq is over. On a judicial ground, occupation is not conflict, and ought not to stop you from releasing POW. So which conflict are you referring to?
Louis,
On a judicial ground occupation is part of the conflict - the rules of war still apply. To show that occupations means that the rules don't apply will take some convincing besides just a statement - what documents what treaties, what international law are you refering to?
When you annex the terrority into your country - the occupation is over and normal civil code applies. When the occupiers leave and return the country to the civilian authority is when any militia or legal combatant must be released - until then they can be held.
I refer to the Hague Convention of 1907
Art. 20.
After the conclusion of peace, the repatriation of prisoners of war shall be carried out as quickly as possible.
.........
SECTION III
MILITARY AUTHORITY OVER THE TERRITORY
OF THE HOSTILE STATE
Art. 42.
Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army.
The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised.
Art. 43.
The authority of the legitimate power having in fact passed into the hands of the occupant, the latter shall take all the measures in his power to restore, and ensure, as far as possible, public order and safety, while respecting, unless absolutely prevented, the laws in force in the country.
Art. 44.
A belligerent is forbidden to force the inhabitants of territory occupied by it to furnish information about the army of the other belligerent, or about its means of defense.
Art. 45.
It is forbidden to compel the inhabitants of occupied territory to swear allegiance to the hostile Power.
Art. 46.
Family honour and rights, the lives of persons, and private property, as well as religious convictions and practice, must be respected.
Private property cannot be confiscated.
Art. 47.
Pillage is formally forbidden.
Art. 48.
If, in the territory occupied, the occupant collects the taxes, dues, and tolls imposed for the benefit of the State, he shall do so, as far as is possible, in accordance with the rules of assessment and incidence in force, and shall in consequence be bound to defray the expenses of the administration of the occupied territory to the same extent as the legitimate Government was so bound.
Art. 49.
If, in addition to the taxes mentioned in the above article, the occupant levies other money contributions in the occupied territory, this shall only be for the needs of the army or of the administration of the territory in question.
Art. 50.
No general penalty, pecuniary or otherwise, shall be inflicted upon the population on account of the acts of individuals for which they cannot be regarded as jointly and severally responsible.
Art. 51.
No contribution shall be collected except under a written order, and on the responsibility of a commander-in-chief.
The collection of the said contribution shall only be effected as far as possible in accordance with the rules of assessment and incidence of the taxes in force.
For every contribution a receipt shall be given to the contributors.
Art. 52.
Requisitions in kind and services shall not be demanded from municipalities or inhabitants except for the needs of the army of occupation. They shall be in proportion to the resources of the country, and of such a nature as not to involve the inhabitants in the obligation of taking part in military operations against their own country.
Such requisitions and services shall only be demanded on the authority of the commander in the locality occupied.
Contributions in kind shall as far as possible be paid for in cash; if not, a receipt shall be given and the payment of the amount due shall be made as soon as possible.
Art. 53.
An army of occupation can only take possession of cash, funds, and realizable securities which are strictly the property of the State, depots of arms, means of transport, stores and supplies, and, generally, all movable property belonging to the State which may be used for military operations.
All appliances, whether on land, at sea, or in the air, adapted for the transmission of news, or for the transport of persons or things, exclusive of cases governed by naval law, depots of arms, and, generally, all kinds of munitions of war, may be seized, even if they belong to private individuals, but must be restored and compensation fixed when peace is made.
Art. 54.
Submarine cables connecting an occupied territory with a neutral territory shall not be seized or destroyed except in the case of absolute necessity. They must likewise be restored and compensation fixed when peace is made.
Art. 55. The occupying State shall be regarded only as administrator and usufructuary of public buildings, real estate, forests, and agricultural estates belonging to the hostile State, and situated in the occupied country. It must safeguard the capital of these properties, and administer them in accordance with the rules of usufruct.
Art. 56.
The property of municipalities, that of institutions dedicated to religion, charity and education, the arts and sciences, even when State property, shall be treated as private property.
All seizure of, destruction or wilful damage done to institutions of this character, historic monuments, works of art and science, is forbidden, and should be made the subject of legal proceedings.
Now where in the duties of the occupier does it state you must release any prisoners captured during the fighting? If the occupying power is still involved in conflict - there is not a requirement to immediately release prisoners.
Papewaio
11-04-2005, 01:07
Now since they were captured as part of the war against terror - specially AQ - the war is not done - therefor they can remain as prisoners. The only prisoners that would be a violation of the conventions would be Militia from Afganstan who are Afganstan citizens that are still being held.
a) Wouldn't this require that AQ be identified as a state or government?
b) So that the government could declare war against it?
c) Is there a formal declaration of war against AQ?
Sure it makes good print to say War on Terrorism. But has Congress actually declared War on AQ?
Tribesman
11-04-2005, 01:11
Kanamori
does this apply to someone who is simply detained in a war zone, or do they have be a combatent?
They are entitled to POW status if they are a soldier , civilian , combatant or non combatant , until there is a tribunal to determine their status .
Tincow
We are not talking about jailing or executing these people without a trial.
They are in detention so they have the rights of detainees , sentencing is irrelevant to those rights .
Its the law~;)
Louis
Since you mention "duration of the conflict": I don't remember the USA being at war with anyone currently: war in Afghanistan is over, war in Iraq is over.
What about Korea , that is still a war , but strictly speaking that is the UN not the US .
a) Wouldn't this require that AQ be identified as a state or government?
The way I understand it was that during the invasion of Afganstan - any militia of afganstan citizens are entitled to the protections of the Geneva Conventions - those captured in Afganstan that were not legal combatants in accordance with the Hague Conventions can be ruled as illegal combatants. This must be done through a tribunal - which was done. After that the government must provide them a criminal trail with at minimum another military tribunal - but no time limit has been established.
This is the valid point concerning GITMO in my opinion - the military tribunal has been conducted and they have been determined to be illegal combatants - a criminal trail must now be held either using military due process or civilian due process in accordance with the established code of the holding power. In this case those who state that holding prisoners in GITMO without trail is wrong is a valid point. One that if I remember correctly I even agreed with in a similiar discussion with Hurin.
When one states that due process is being denied to the individuals captured in Afganstan by the United States - then I agree with them. Individuals captured in Iraq can still be held since the occupation is still ongoing as long as military tribunals are determined at regular intervals to determine if their is enough evidence to warrant holding them as illegal combatants or as POW's.
b) So that the government could declare war against it?
c) Is there a formal declaration of war against AQ?
THe United States Congress has neglected its duty - and passed the War Powers Act of 1973. A judge with some balls needs to rule the Act unconsitutional.
The United States has a history of going to armed conflict without a formal declaration of War by Congress - remember Vietnam, Grenada, Desert Storm, Somilia, Kosovo, Bosina, and if I remember correctly Korea.
Sure it makes good print to say War on Terrorism. But has Congress actually declared War on AQ?
See the above point - without a formal declartion of war does not negate the international law to abide by the Hague Conventions. However since you bring up an interesting point - a non-declared war does not require the military to follow any rules if it so choses. How is that for a unpleasant twist.
PS - now if your just wanting to talk about what the CIA is doing, I think they are completely in the wrong holding individuals without following the Laws of War and being open about the holding of these individuals.
But that is just me.
They are entitled to POW status if they are a soldier , civilian , combatant or non combatant , until there is a tribunal to determine their status .
How do you know that there has not been a tribunal and that they have not been deemed "illegal combatants"? These things are not required to be done in public. This references back to my question about how those of us in the dark are supposed to make judgment calls on things we cannot know.
They are in detention so they have the rights of detainees , sentencing is irrelevant to those rights .
Its the law~;)
Yes, but if they have been found to be illegal combatants, then holding them in isolation and interrogating them is not a violation of any law that I am aware of. You keep speaking as if they were POWs. I know this argument has been done many times on this forum but Al Qaeda members, especially senior level members, simply are not POWs and they do not receive the same rights. You may disagree with this and you may think that they should be considered POWs, but that will not change the fact that US and international law do not consider them to be so.
Goofball
11-04-2005, 01:58
How do you know that there has not been a tribunal and that they have not been deemed "illegal combatants"? These things are not required to be done in public.
It's a scary state of affairs when we simply have to take the word of the government about something like that.
"Trials? Suuuuurrre.. We gave them trials. Fair ones too! They were all guilty. Every last one of them. Transcripts of the trials? Erm... We lost them. But don't worry. We're the good guys!"
Think about what you are suggesting, TC. Due process cannot be private and still be credible.
Tribesman
11-04-2005, 02:02
How do you know that there has not been a tribunal and that they have not been deemed "illegal combatants"? These things are not required to be done in public.
Not in public , but there are certain nominated parties that must be informed of any developments , in this case the Red Cross and the detainees country of origin , the country they were originally detained in whether it is a country involved in the conflict or a neutral third country , and the country in which they are detained and any country they have been transfered through while in detention .
Complicated things laws arn't they , is that why you have a problem with them ?~D ~D ~D
Yes, but if they have been found to be illegal combatants, then holding them in isolation and interrogating them is not a violation of any law that I am aware of.
There are also lots of stipulations on interrogation , holding in isolation is also not allowed unless under specific circumstances .
Divinus Arma
11-04-2005, 02:14
Afghanistan was not a war. It was a campaing within a war.
When invading france in WW2 did we declare war on france? We declared war on germany. France was part of the equation.
I feel like I am on a see-saw.
Soly is right.
http://www.blamonet.com/gallery/albums/userpics/10001/normal_Retard_Win.jpg
Papewaio
11-04-2005, 02:22
Afghanistan was not a war. It was a campaing within a war.
When invading france in WW2 did we declare war on france? We declared war on germany. France was part of the equation.
The reason I ask where the declaration of war is... is because many a poster is saying we can keep the prisoners in prison until the war is finished. Well if you are going to finish something, you first have to start it.
Show me the declaration of war and its intent...
It's a scary state of affairs when we simply have to take the word of the government about something like that.
Think about what you are suggesting, TC. Due process cannot be private and still be credible.
I agree with you on both counts. Unfortunately wartime is different from peacetime. Whether we like it or not, ALL governments assume greater powers in times of conflict. I'm not saying I actively support this, I'm not saying this is definitely the right thing to do. What I'm saying is that it is not de facto illegal. People keep stating falsely that the US is breaking the law here and I'm trying to rebut that sentiment. It may well be, but there's no way to tell from that article.
Not in public , but there are certain nominated parties that must be informed of any developments , in this case the Red Cross and the detainees country of origin , the country they were originally detained in whether it is a country involved in the conflict or a neutral third country , and the country in which they are detained and any country they have been transfered through while in detention .
Complicated things laws arn't they , is that why you have a problem with them ?~D ~D ~D
First of all, I do not have a problem with laws; in fact I work in the legal system. Second... I agree with the rest of that statement. Regardless of security, the home nations of these individuals should definitely know that they are being held. The Red Cross should also have access to these people provided that it does not endanger lives or national security. I don't see how that conflicts with what I've been saying though.
The reason I ask where the declaration of war is... is because many a poster is saying we can keep the prisoners in prison until the war is finished. Well if you are going to finish something, you first have to start it.
Show me the declaration of war and its intent...
Again the United States has established a precedence of fighting wars without a formal declartion of war. It does however issue authorizations for the use of force.
Now which one would you like
107th CONGRESS
1st Session
S. J. RES. 23
To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States.
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
September 14, 2001
Mr. DASCHLE (for himself and Mr. LOTT) introduced the following joint resolution; which was read twice, considered, read the third time, and passed
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JOINT RESOLUTION
To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States.
Whereas on September 11, 2001, acts of treacherous violence were committed against the United States and its citizens;
Whereas such acts render it both necessary and appropriate that the United States exercise its rights to self-defense and to protect United States citizens both at home and abroad;
Whereas in light of the threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by these grave acts of violence;
Whereas such acts continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States; and
Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States; Now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This joint resolution may be cited as the `Authorization for Use of Military Force' .
SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.
(b) War Powers Resolution Requirements-
(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.
(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this resolution supercedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.
Papewaio
11-04-2005, 02:44
Is the CIA covered by this? Are they part of the United States Armed Forces?
Or do they have a different set of authority?
As it stands it seems the prisoners don't have a whole lot of rights. Nor does it seem that the innocent until proven guilty idea is being used. Also the idea that Justice should be swift and seen to be done has also been abandoned.
Throwing the baby out with the bathwater...
solypsist
11-04-2005, 02:51
personal attacks will be responded to (by me). it's only the internet, please step away if you feel in danger of overreaching.
if this continues in this direction the Sir Clegane or I will lock this thread. it only takes a few bad apples to spoil the barrel for everyone.
/metaphor mode off
Is the CIA covered by this? Are they part of the United States Armed Forces?
I know what I think about the CIA - but that doesn't answer your question. But in short they probably fall within the scope of the authorization of the use of force resolution that passed through Congress.
Or do they have a different set of authority?
They fall under a different chain of command - but still answerable to the same government.
First I'd like to say that if someone believes that their government is right to set up prisons abroad with the deliberate intent of circumventing its own laws then it is their call, though it seems strange to me.
A further point may be made on the nature of individuals in these prisons. They need not necessarily be POW (illegal fighters or not). People assume that they are, but what if they are not?
Hurin_Rules
11-04-2005, 05:19
The reason I ask where the declaration of war is... is because many a poster is saying we can keep the prisoners in prison until the war is finished. Well if you are going to finish something, you first have to start it.
Exactly.
Is the 'War on Terrorism' and Al Qaeda a war or not?
If it is, then there are rules that apply, such as the Hague and Geneva Conventions. As Redleg has pointed out, some of these are being violated at Guantanamo if this is the case.
If it isn't, then on what legal basis are citizens of other countries being held in secret prisons against their will?
PanzerJaeger
11-04-2005, 07:09
And you do not embody the American who gains admiration and respect, who embodies the "American Way".
As for Panzer. Well if his ideals reflect then American way then I have been sadly misled. I always thought justice and fairness to be admirable features of America as a whole. When someone who has just a little too much admiration for Nazi (sorry, Prussian) Germany starts talking about traitors and dealing with enemies of the state I hope you will forgive me for believe his opinions to be non-representative.
Crawl back under your bridge little troll. ~:wacko:
Crawl back under your bridge little troll. ~:wacko:
I love your contributions to debates Panzer. If I ever want to know the lowest common denominator, the base level of ignorance that the world is up against, I can come on here and read your opinions.
The idea that you are in favour of a bunch of illegal practices, the details of which are not known - simply because you believe (and belief is all you have) they might possibly be working for your security is blinkered, lazy ignorance.
It is this kind of intellectually-untroubled non-think that governments rely on. Hey Panzer - look bad man hurt you! We hurt people who might be bad men! Good Panzer - have a candy!
Tribesman
11-04-2005, 11:39
if this continues in this direction the Sir Clegane or I will lock this thread.
It would appear that some people would like this topic locked , perhaps the numerous posts that show thier stance to be baseless and contrary to what they claim is too much to handle ~;)
PS - now if your just wanting to talk about what the CIA is doing, I think they are completely in the wrong holding individuals without following the Laws of War and being open about the holding of these individuals.
That seems like a complete summation of the subject , based on facts at hand , legal precedent , moral obligation and the general public benefit and security issues .
Does anyone have anything at all that can contradict Redlegs post ?
Not from me, I quite agree. Although as noted if the prisoners are not POWs (ie captured in a war zone) then civil justice should apply rather than military.
Not from me, I quite agree. Although as noted if the prisoners are not POWs (ie captured in a war zone) then civil justice should apply rather than military.
You're just wimps. Obviously the only way forward is to tolerate and encourage national security services to start acting as international extra-judicial secret police. Everyone knows the CIA are famous for their history of mistake-free integrity - why would we want to hamper this organisation by scrutinising their activities?
[/sarcasm]
PanzerJaeger
11-04-2005, 20:54
I love your contributions to debates Panzer. If I ever want to know the lowest common denominator, the base level of ignorance that the world is up against, I can come on here and read your opinions.
The idea that you are in favour of a bunch of illegal practices, the details of which are not known - simply because you believe (and belief is all you have) they might possibly be working for your security is blinkered, lazy ignorance.
It is this kind of intellectually-untroubled non-think that governments rely on. Hey Panzer - look bad man hurt you! We hurt people who might be bad men! Good Panzer - have a candy!
Youre so cute, all sheltered and idealistic! I just want to wrap you in bubble-wrap and keep safe from reality! ~:pat:
Unfortunately, one day you will have to stark conclusion that the only thing that runs the world is power. Neither your law nor your principles will stop Muhammad from detonating bomb in your city, only an aggressive use of power. You can take as much pride as you like in the fact that every international law and stipulation was followed to the fullest extent, but that does nothing to bring back those killed by terrorists or anybody at war with your nation.
Its easy to sit in your comfortable computer chair and scoff at the evil CIA, bla bla bla (~:rolleyes: ), but its a lot harder to have the responsibility of protecting 300 million people from mass murderers. I give the government just a little more leeway than the terrorists.. sorry.
You need to take another sip of coffee, relax a little, and remember you have no basis for your little hissy fit. There is no need to be so self righteous about an issue that you admittedly dont have any real information about besides your deeming it "a bunch of illegal practices".
Your idealism is fun in the intellectual sandbox, but that high horse you are riding wont make it very far in the real world little fella. :charge:
Goofball
11-04-2005, 21:09
Neither your law nor your principles will stop Muhammad from detonating bomb in your city, only an aggressive use of power.
Actually, agressive uses of power do nothing to stop "Muhammed" from detonating bombs in your cities.
Just ask the Israelis.
Or the Brits.
Or the Russians.
Little fella...
~;p
Crazed Rabbit
11-04-2005, 21:35
Mayhaps they haven't been using enough power?
~;)
Crazed Rabbit
PanzerJaeger
11-05-2005, 00:19
Actually, agressive uses of power do nothing to stop "Muhammed" from detonating bombs in your cities.
Really? How many have gone off in the US since we started taking aggressive action against AQ?
bmolsson
11-05-2005, 00:26
Really? How many have gone off in the US since we started taking aggressive action against AQ?
Well, the track record from Iraq seems rather overwhelming to me......
Soulforged
11-05-2005, 00:27
Unfortunately, one day you will have to stark conclusion that the only thing that runs the world is power. Neither your law nor your principles will stop Muhammad from detonating bomb in your city, only an aggressive use of power. You can take as much pride as you like in the fact that every international law and stipulation was followed to the fullest extent, but that does nothing to bring back those killed by terrorists or anybody at war with your nation. Nothing will make them go back, that's not the point of anything, just irrational rant. Force doesn't achieve anything, and power, is, like any other social measure, reproduced over and over for people like you. You're so Christian PJ, I wonder when you'll start to demonstrate that bliss of chrisitianity?~:rolleyes:
The power only is a problem because some people still beleive in this way in wich power is managed, and they beleive in alienation, they believe in the cheat before the law, or action before anything. But don't make the same mistake, in some point this has to change, better if it's in you, start to think before you act, perhaps some idea of what the things should be, and not what they're, could come up into your mind. Practice it, some day you'll achieve it...
Its easy to sit in your comfortable computer chair and scoff at the evil CIA, bla bla bla (~:rolleyes: ), but its a lot harder to have the responsibility of protecting 300 million people from mass murderers. I give the government just a little more leeway than the terrorists.. sorry.Again Panzer, it seems that the idealist are you. Formally the CIA and every inteligence institutions, has had the simple and single purpose of secrecy. Thus you cannot know what they do, or with what purpose. Even if they do this that you love with all your heart, it doesn't mean a thing, you're constructing an hipotetical course of action for people that not even did anything in the future, or perhaps the CIA can see the future? They're humans PJ, if you let your love for intitutionalized power overtake your senses then you'll fall, or perhaps you already fell, in paranoia and hate-mongering. Organizations like the CIA, should not exist, period.
It seems to me that you're the idealist. Previous comments also confirm that, remember something like: "The USA was the only beacon of light in bla, bla, bla..."
You need to take another sip of coffee, relax a little, and remember you have no basis for your little hissy fit. There is no need to be so self righteous about an issue that you admittedly dont have any real information about besides your deeming it "a bunch of illegal practices". I'll put it simple for you PJ: Your form of government is either democratic or republican, either way, CIA activities go against that form of government, wich exist to provide the people and not the other way around. I just hope that you shall not suffer the inconveniences of tyrany.
Your idealism is fun in the intellectual sandbox, but that high horse you are riding wont make it very far in the real world little fella.Well already answered. But perhaps I should retell it. You should argue about the "Should be", not the "Is".
Tribesman
11-05-2005, 00:36
Really? How many have gone off in the US since we started taking aggressive action against AQ?
~D ~D ~D The simpletons guide to military success and the projection of power . It hasn't rained this week so there will be no more rain .
How many Al-qaida bombs have ever gone off in the US ?....1 ~:rolleyes:
Goofball
11-05-2005, 00:42
Actually, agressive uses of power do nothing to stop "Muhammed" from detonating bombs in your cities.
Just ask the Israelis.
Or the Brits.
Or the Russians.
Little fella...Really? How many have gone off in the US since we started taking aggressive action against AQ?
1) They don't have to travel all the way to the U.S. to kill Americans anymore, they can do it from the comfort of their own homes now.
2) How many civilians had their heads cut off on TV before you invaded Iraq?
1) They don't have to travel all the way to the U.S. to kill Americans anymore, they can do it from the comfort of their own homes now.
Hyperbole - there are reports of arabs attempting to get into the United States illegally.
2) How many civilians had their heads cut off on TV before you invaded Iraq?
There was one covered extensively in the media. But it wasn't on Television - other then the report. Pictures were circulated across the web concerning the beheading however.
Soulforged
11-05-2005, 00:55
Hyperbole - there are reports of arabs attempting to get into the United States illegally.Perhaps were those that are profiled just for being Iraqui? (really just curious)
Tribesman
11-05-2005, 00:57
How many civilians had their heads cut off on TV before you invaded Iraq?
Several unfortunately , but none in Iraq .
The invasion/occupation has just given the bastards a new playground and a media spotlight .
Perhaps were those that are profiled just for being Iraqui? (really just curious)
A different thread for that discussion - I have derailed enough threads this week
Papewaio
11-05-2005, 06:51
Originally Posted by Goofball
1) They don't have to travel all the way to the U.S. to kill Americans anymore, they can do it from the comfort of their own homes now.
Hyperbole - there are reports of arabs attempting to get into the United States illegally.
Even greater hyperbole equating all Arabs with terrorists. USA as well as the rest of the first world have many illegal immigrants of all backgrounds trying to get into the country.
Papewaio
11-05-2005, 06:56
Youre so cute, all sheltered and idealistic! I just want to wrap you in bubble-wrap and keep safe from reality! ~:pat:
How many Muslim majority countries have you worked/lived in? Pop.
Unfortunately, one day you will have to stark conclusion that the only thing that runs the world is power. Neither your law nor your principles will stop Muhammad from detonating bomb in your city, only an aggressive use of power. You can take as much pride as you like in the fact that every international law and stipulation was followed to the fullest extent, but that does nothing to bring back those killed by terrorists or anybody at war with your nation.
The Japanese were using an aggresive amount of power and guess what was the reaction to that... Land of the Rising Sun got not one, but two of its own little Rising Suns to brighten up the day.
Its easy to sit in your comfortable computer chair and scoff at the evil CIA, bla bla bla (~:rolleyes: ), but its a lot harder to have the responsibility of protecting 300 million people from mass murderers. I give the government just a little more leeway than the terrorists.. sorry.
That leeway may be the very catalyst causing the issues not resolving them. Bitch slap someone and they tend to bite back, it escalates...
You need to take another sip of coffee, relax a little, and remember you have no basis for your little hissy fit. There is no need to be so self righteous about an issue that you admittedly dont have any real information about besides your deeming it "a bunch of illegal practices".
Your idealism is fun in the intellectual sandbox, but that high horse you are riding wont make it very far in the real world little fella. :charge:
Coffee is not a relaxant
Originally Posted by Goofball
1) They don't have to travel all the way to the U.S. to kill Americans anymore, they can do it from the comfort of their own homes now.
Even greater hyperbole equating all Arabs with terrorists. USA as well as the rest of the first world have many illegal immigrants of all backgrounds trying to get into the country.
Did I say terrorist or did I say arabs - now think very carefully now. Its not a hard thing to figure out. If I wanted to equate all arabs to terrorists I would of stated it.
It was implied and you knew how people would read it. After all swop Mexicans for Arabs in that line and it would no longer have any relevance to this thread at all.
PanzerJaeger
11-05-2005, 14:04
Goofball,
1) They don't have to travel all the way to the U.S. to kill Americans anymore, they can do it from the comfort of their own homes now.
Im happy with the kill ratio.
2) How many civilians had their heads cut off on TV before you invaded Iraq?
A lot.
It was implied and you knew how people would read it. After all swop Mexicans for Arabs in that line and it would no longer have any relevance to this thread at all.
Sure I knew how some of you would read it - but again what was stated, you played into your own insecurities and made an assumption about what you thought I meant.
The majority of the terrorists that flew the planes into the buildings crossed into the United States by illegal means.
Tribesman
11-05-2005, 16:51
Im happy with the kill ratio.
General Westmoreland speaks again~:rolleyes:
Oh well another 3 released from Gitmo , once again 3 people who were not captured in Afghanistan , were not illegal combatants and were not charged with anything at all after years of illegal detention .
Im happy with the kill ratio.
General Westmoreland speaks again~:rolleyes:
well it seems that not everyone understands that the United States Military does not track kill ratios any longer
Oh well another 3 released from Gitmo , once again 3 people who were not captured in Afghanistan , were not illegal combatants and were not charged with anything at all after years of illegal detention .
Got a link.
Tribesman
11-05-2005, 19:14
well it seems that not everyone understands that the United States Military does not track kill ratios any longer
Is that because kill ratios are pretty meaningless ? Tell General panzer .
Got a link.
Nope it was one of the news pop ups .
I thought it might be in the Bahrain media as it quoted two ministers from there and it meant that half of their citizens detained at Gitmo are now released , but no luck so far .
Soulforged
11-05-2005, 23:11
well it seems that not everyone understands that the United States Military does not track kill ratios any longer
Come on Red, the statement of PanzerJager speaks by itself. I hope you're not trying to defend it...
Come on Red, the statement of PanzerJager speaks by itself. I hope you're not trying to defend it...
Notice how Tribesman responded to my comment. Does that sound like a response to someone who was agreeing with Panzwer's statement.
But in simple terms - no I wasn't defending his statement - just stating that the military no longer tracks kill ratios because they are not an effective means of judging how the force is doing in the overall scheme of things - its only good for seeing how a particlur operation went. Futhermore Kill ratios are not important for an unconventional war.
KafirChobee
11-06-2005, 01:40
Notice how Tribesman responded to my comment. Does that sound like a response to someone who was agreeing with Panzwer's statement.
But in simple terms - no I wasn't defending his statement - just stating that the military no longer tracks kill ratios because they are not an effective means of judging how the force is doing in the overall scheme of things - its only good for seeing how a particlur operation went. Futhermore Kill ratios are not important for an unconventional war.
The last part; "Further, kill ratios are not important for an unconventional war."
Sound at all familiar? It is the exact same statement used by Westmoreland to justify his policy in 'nam in 1966, before the S__t hit the fan.
Well, it has hit the fan again. Due to the causes of our (USA) previous FUBAR - arrogance, ignorance and ego's run amock in a situation they did not have the inteligence (well, they had the real CIA info, but chose to ignore it. And, the military intelligence; which they opted to retire the offending officers for showing them - but, they weren't bright enough to realize the quagmire they were drawing us into. Or, they didn't care).
As to the original premise of the CIA running an illegal (by U.S. law - prior ro Cheney, Wolfowitz and gang) network of prisons, it is fact. It is noted, it is.
Pity of it all is that there are those still attempting to justify an illegal war. One created by an administration so caught up in the past, they can't see the present - let alone the future.
My nephew just got back from "there". My son is just got "there" (as a hired gun), and my niece's husband is in a hospital because of "there" (lucked out, only lost his foot).
Justifying an unjust and ill needed war, is like proclaiming ones self a warmonger. Which is fine; given the proper circumstance one could accuse me of such. But, to preclude the evidence of the issue by saying that we are doing things within International Law? Well, what planet are we talking about? Surely, you don't mean Earth. Or, do you?~;p
Sure I knew how some of you would read it - but again what was stated, you played into your own insecurities and made an assumption about what you thought I meant.
The majority of the terrorists that flew the planes into the buildings crossed into the United States by illegal means.
No, the implication was clear and any other possibility renders the statement meaningless. You are generally a sensible man, but you back-pedal too much which hurts your argument as a whole.
No, the implication was clear and any other possibility renders the statement meaningless. You are generally a sensible man, but you back-pedal too much which hurts your argument as a whole.
LOL - not at all - but you will only see what you want to see in the words used.
Not my problem at all.
The last part; "Further, kill ratios are not important for an unconventional war."
Oh boy here we go again with the rethoric of the far far left that is Kafir.
Sound at all familiar? It is the exact same statement used by Westmoreland to justify his policy in 'nam in 1966, before the S__t hit the fan.
Not at all - Westmoreland wanted to know the kill ration because of the politics involved. Who actually ordered the information to be gathered can be debated - my bet is on a certain democratic president.
Now multiple histories will back this up - but here is some that are the web - take them with a grain of salt though because we all know how truthful information is on the web - kind of like your statement here is "truthful"
Westmoreland, in the face of continuous vetoed plans, opted for importing larger and larger numbers of U.S. soldiers. Once simply advisors to the South Vietnamese government, the U.S. now entered the tropical battlefield. Westmoreland devised what was called the "search and destroy" strategy. This strategy ordered helicopter-borne troops to find and erase all evidence of the largest enemy units. The goals of the war soon became blurred. MACV, the Military Assistance Command of Vietnam were suddenly blinded by body counts, kill ratios, and all sorts of statistical information. With no definition of what constituted winning the war, the men in uniform were left with no direction. Without direction, the increased amount of soldiers only meant an increased amount of death.
http://www.trincoll.edu/classes/hist300/westmore.htm
Thus, the administration escalated in response to North Vietnamese actions. Its objective was to inflict a level of pain on the North Vietnamese that was sufficient to make them bargain in earnest. Thus Vietnam became a war of attrition. Johnson would regularly characterize his decisions as taking the middle ground. He would not "pull out" as the "doves" and "nervous Nellies" suggested nor would he go "all out" as the "hawkish" military advisors recommended.
Fighting a war with limited and political objectives had an added liability. It was difficult to define and convey the idea of "progress" to the public. There were few set piece or conventional battles and American objectives were not defined in geographical terms (e.g., Berlin and Tokyo). Instead, the administration was forced to create and essentially sell indicators of progress to the public. Herein lies the origin of such commonly used terms as "pacification zones" and "kill ratios."
http://faculty.smu.edu/dsimon/Change-Viet2.html
If you want more - feel free to ask - but point your finger at the democratic party which was in control of Washington D.C. at the time.
Well, it has hit the fan again. Due to the causes of our (USA) previous FUBAR - arrogance, ignorance and ego's run amock in a situation they did not have the inteligence (well, they had the real CIA info, but chose to ignore it. And, the military intelligence; which they opted to retire the offending officers for showing them - but, they weren't bright enough to realize the quagmire they were drawing us into. Or, they didn't care).
You just can't help yourself can you?
As to the original premise of the CIA running an illegal (by U.S. law - prior ro Cheney, Wolfowitz and gang) network of prisons, it is fact. It is noted, it is.
Pity of it all is that there are those still attempting to justify an illegal war. One created by an administration so caught up in the past, they can't see the present - let alone the future.
You might want to check on the definition of illegal - it seem the United States Congress authorized the use of force. Oh wait their all corrupt politians except for the democratic party - to bad they also voted for the most part in favor of using force against Iraq.
My nephew just got back from "there". My son is just got "there" (as a hired gun), and my niece's husband is in a hospital because of "there" (lucked out, only lost his foot).
:bow:
Justifying an unjust and ill needed war, is like proclaiming ones self a warmonger. Which is fine; given the proper circumstance one could accuse me of such. But, to preclude the evidence of the issue by saying that we are doing things within International Law? Well, what planet are we talking about? Surely, you don't mean Earth. Or, do you?~;p
Maybe we live on the same full of hyprocrisy planet.
PanzerJaeger
11-06-2005, 05:19
well it seems that not everyone understands that the United States Military does not track kill ratios any longer
I was refering to the numbers of enemy casualties versus the number of allied casualties the military gives after combat engagements. Sorry for the confusion.
bmolsson
11-06-2005, 05:54
I was refering to the numbers of enemy casualties versus the number of allied casualties the military gives after combat engagements. Sorry for the confusion.
How are civilian casualites counted ? Points for both sides ? :hide:
QwertyMIDX
11-06-2005, 18:54
A bit more proof that people should be wary of a government that isn't transparent; or the State entirely, but there’s no need to get started on that topic, not the time or the place.
Powell's ex-aide speaks of torture 'cabal'
Last Updated Fri, 04 Nov 2005 17:37:53 EST
CBC News
A former top official in the Bush administration is making new allegations that Vice-President Dick Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld approved the use of torture against al-Qaeda suspects and other foreign-held prisoners.
"They began to authorize procedures in the armed forces that led to, in my view, what we've seen," said Col. Larry Wilkerson, who was chief of staff to former secretary of state Colin Powell.
Wilkerson claims that Cheney and Rumsfeld formed what he called a "cabal" – a small secret group within the administration that tacitly approved torture.
According to a report published in the Washington Post this week, much of the alleged torture may be taking place in a number of covert Central Intelligence Agency prisons called "black sites."
Several of them are allegedly located in Eastern Europe, where they are used to house and interrogate al-Qaeda suspects.
Former U.S. president Jimmy Carter said that if the Washington Post story is true, the existence of the prisons is a disgrace.
"It's an abomination," he said. "It's a discredit to our country; it's an embarrassment to our country, and it's a direct violation of the fact that America in the past has been looked upon as a champion of human rights."
The Bush administration declined to either confirm or deny the existence of secret CIA prisons around the world. It has also repeated its claim that it does not condone torture.
Soulforged
11-06-2005, 19:15
A former top official in the Bush administration is making new allegations that Vice-President Dick Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld approved the use of torture against al-Qaeda suspects and other foreign-held prisoners.Excuse me but torture was always legal, for what I know, as long as you didn't hold the suspect for too long, didn't cause him much pain (physical or psicological) or didn't cause him permanent damage. But in any case, yes a terrible thing indeed.
"It's an abomination," he said. "It's a discredit to our country; it's an embarrassment to our country, and it's a direct violation of the fact that America in the past has been looked upon as a champion of human rights."Like I've said before.
The Bush administration declined to either confirm or deny the existence of secret CIA prisons around the world. It has also repeated its claim that it does not condone torture.Of course they declined. How would they reveal "state's secret's"? This is just so hilarious. It was supposed on the begining of the formation of USA country and every other now liberal, that it accepted the republican or democratic form of government. It's supposed that the state is an instrument, not an allmighty lord that dicides what the citizens should know and what no, they must say everything, secrets only lead to loose of control and tryrany.
Papewaio
11-06-2005, 21:08
Did I say terrorist or did I say arabs - now think very carefully now. Its not a hard thing to figure out. If I wanted to equate all arabs to terrorists I would of stated it.
I know what you meant, but this is a case where you have to be careful with English.
Originally Posted by Goofball
1) They don't have to travel all the way to the U.S. to kill Americans anymore, they can do it from the comfort of their own homes now.
[B]Originally Posted by Redleg
Hyperbole - there are reports of arabs attempting to get into the United States illegally.
Goofball is talking about terrorists, your response is arabs have been attempting to get into the United States illegally. Unfortunately what you have accidentally done is made an implicit statement that Arabs are terrorists.
"Hyperbole - there are reports of arab terrorists attempting to get into the United States illegally." - This would be a more accurate statement of your intent I believe.
LOL - not at all - but you will only see what you want to see in the words used.
Not my problem at all.
Then select your words more carefully so that they may show what you actually mean.
Papewaio
11-06-2005, 23:25
I think we should approach all arguements with charity... I should have pointed out that I understood the intent and was making a grammar correction not believing that Redleg thought that all Arabs are terrorists.
As it stands my intent and my statement confused the issue by not being more inline with each other.
IMDHO Red would make a great backroom moderator. :bow:
~:grouphug: ~:cheers:
bmolsson
11-07-2005, 03:23
IMDHO Red would make a great backroom moderator. :bow:
You mean because he dislike Arabs ??? ~:joker: ~D ~D
You mean because he dislike Arabs ??? ~:joker: ~D ~D
Just to make it clear for all - I have absolutely nothing against any group. Each individual is judged by their own behavior and merits as far as I am concerned.
Now continue with the debate about how wrong the CIA is to be holding people against international law.
Don't let the little side bar distract from the main issue.
:knight:
.
IMDHO Red would make a great backroom moderator. :bow:
~:grouphug: ~:cheers:
Not at all, I love to argue politics and religion just to argue them. :bow:
Papewaio
11-07-2005, 04:16
Not at all, I love to argue politics and religion just to argue them. :bow:
Why do you think I avoid being a backroom mod. ~D ~:cheers:
Why do you think I avoid being a backroom mod. ~D ~:cheers:
For that exact same reason maybe (in my sarcastic voice) ~;p
bmolsson
11-07-2005, 10:33
Just to make it clear for all - I have absolutely nothing against any group. Each individual is judged by their own behavior and merits as far as I am concerned.
Not true Redleg. I can give at least one group...... ~;)
Now continue with the debate about how wrong the CIA is to be holding people against international law.
Isn't it here we will hear your: What international law??:hide:
Youre so cute, all sheltered and idealistic! I just want to wrap you in bubble-wrap and keep safe from reality! ~:pat:
Unfortunately, one day you will have to stark conclusion that the only thing that runs the world is power. Neither your law nor your principles will stop Muhammad from detonating bomb in your city, only an aggressive use of power. .....
....
....Your idealism is fun in the intellectual sandbox, but that high horse you are riding wont make it very far in the real world little fella. :charge:
Ah! Lectures on the nature and response to terrorism from a yank to a brit... heheheh.. It's like listening to a young child endearingly give instructions on how daddy should fix the car. We humour, we nod, we chuckle with pride at how far junior is progressing.
Come back in 20 years when you actually know something son ~;)
Not true Redleg. I can give at least one group...... ~;)
And they are not a group of people now are they? So in the essence of this discussion the statement is true. Now if the communists and athiest aggitators want to begin let them. But normally I respond with rudeness when the individual first used rudness - So again in essence of what I stated the statement is true. But believe what you wish. It makes no difference in the scheme of things of this world.
Isn't it here we will hear your: What international law??:hide:
[/quote]
True what international law - (sarcasm on)the only law that matters that they might be breaking is some United States Laws.(Sarcasm off) Which happen to also coincide with a few International Laws.
bmolsson
11-08-2005, 06:13
And they are not a group of people now are they? So in the essence of this discussion the statement is true. Now if the communists and athiest aggitators want to begin let them. But normally I respond with rudeness when the individual first used rudness - So again in essence of what I stated the statement is true. But believe what you wish. It makes no difference in the scheme of things of this world.
I just wanted to point out that you actually have some biased opinions on some groups, I even share them in some cases...... ~:grouphug:
True what international law - (sarcasm on)the only law that matters that they might be breaking is some United States Laws.(Sarcasm off) Which happen to also coincide with a few International Laws.
So is God also under US law ?? ~;)
I just wanted to point out that you actually have some biased opinions on some groups, I even share them in some cases...... ~:grouphug:
~:cheers:
So is God also under US law ?? ~;)
Nope - try reading what the Constitution and the laws actually state sometime.
~:joker:
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.