Printable View
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?Quote:
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.
What about putting them free?Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
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.Quote:
What about putting them free?
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...Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hurin_Rules
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.
Must be hard for CIA to get attention these days, hence all these new angels on scandals..... ~;)
I enjoy finding out that there are still all sorts of stuff that your average Joe has no idea about.
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.
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?
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...Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
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.Quote:
Awsome!? Dave, that's going too far. This is sick. This is abuse of power. This is trampling on our national values.
Sigh, dense your head is.Quote:
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?
Dont be so arrogant as to assume you can speak for what values americans hold most dearly.
Well the Founding Fathers Declaration of Independence seems to be against these actions:
Quote:
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,
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.Quote:
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.
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:
"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."
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?
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
A valid point IMOQuote:
Originally Posted by solypsist
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by AdrianII
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.
Okay time for devils advocate a bit.Quote:
Originally Posted by TinCow
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?
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.Quote:
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?
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.Quote:
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.
To question the activity of the CIA is perfectably acceptable in my opinion because its within the concept of free speech.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
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?
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
I could not agree more.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by TinCow
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.Quote:
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 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.Quote:
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.
Correct which is exactly the point I was making by the way.Quote:
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.
Hence the discussion on the activities of the CIA is acceptable since people have the right to openly discuss the activities of the government.Quote:
I could not agree more.
:bow:
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
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 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.
I think the question is approiate in this thread - since the thread is about the CIA running a possible secret network of prisons.Quote:
Originally Posted by TinCow
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:
Something of a vicious circle, isn't it?Quote:
Originally Posted by TinCow
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.