CIA runs network of secret prisons

[Vladimir]

adios Geneva Convention

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]

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]

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?

[Redleg]

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.

[solypsist]

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?

[Redleg]

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]

A valid point IMO

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.

[Redleg]

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.

[TinCow]

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.

[Redleg]

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.

[TinCow]

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.