CIA runs network of secret prisons

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TinCow

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,

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TinCow

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Divinus Arma

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe

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

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

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?

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 .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TinCow

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.

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 .

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/albu...Retard_Win.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Divinus Arma

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...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Goofball

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

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

Quote:

---

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.

---

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...

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

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.

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

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?

Quote:

---

And you do not embody the American who gains admiration and respect, who embodies the "American Way".

---

Quote:

---

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJager

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!

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Slyspy

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]

Quote:

---

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJager

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

Mayhaps they haven't been using enough power?
~;)

Crazed Rabbit

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJager

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......

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJager

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...

Quote:

---

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..."

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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".

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJager

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Goofball

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?

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

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)

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 .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Soulforged

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

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJager

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJager

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJager

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...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJager

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

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.

Goofball,

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

2) How many civilians had their heads cut off on TV before you invaded Iraq?

---

A lot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Slyspy

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.

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 .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

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

Quote:

---

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.

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 .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

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...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Soulforged

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Slyspy

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KafirChobee

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.

Quote:

---

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"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by link

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

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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:

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJager

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:

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.

Quote:

---

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.

---

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

"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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

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.

[B]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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

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.

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

IMDHO Red would make a great backroom moderator. :bow:

---

You mean because he dislike Arabs ??? ~:joker: ~D ~D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bmolsson

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

.

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

Why do you think I avoid being a backroom mod. ~D ~:cheers:

---

For that exact same reason maybe (in my sarcastic voice) ~;p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

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...... ~;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJager

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 ~;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bmolsson

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

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 ?? ~;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bmolsson

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:

Quote:

---

So is God also under US law ?? ~;)

---

Nope - try reading what the Constitution and the laws actually state sometime.

~:joker: