CIA runs network of secret prisons

[Slyspy]

Im not the one so presumptuous as to become offended and speak for the american people. It makes you not only a drama queen, but extremely arrogant.

And if we are playing the name game, putting the safety of the enemy above your own countrymen makes you the worst kind of american, a traitor. This isnt The Bold and The Beautiful, there are american lives at stake.

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

[Divinus Arma]

I understand PanzerJager's point on this. He is simply stating that it is better to kill the enemy en masse rather than lose a single American. I tend to agree with this statement.

I also undertsand Gelatinous Cube and Co.'s arguments. He is basing his percpertion on Ben Frankilin's famous quote (reitereated by Papewaio), "He who trades freedom for security deserves neither".

These two arguments are not mutually exclusive and I don't understand how either of you can compare the two. Panzer's statement is a support for "aggresive defense" policy. Cube's statement is support for individual freedom at the cost of public safety.

I agree with both. And I can do so because we are not talking about American Citizens here. These are foreign combatants operating in the next evolution of warfare. We do need to take drastic offensive measures to secure American interests against the deception aggression tactics of the modern era. That debate is one our inherent morality.

I am inclined to allow greater liberties in interogation to be taken with the enemy than we would allow for citizens. That really is the bottom line. Do we have a moral obligation to treat the enemy as if they were American citizens?

[Hurin_Rules]

These are foreign combatants operating in the next evolution of warfare.

Ah, but there's the rub, oh Divine One. No one has ever proven that they were actually 'operating' or fighting at all. Some are undoubtedly Taleban--who were not fighting in the next generation of war but were simply poorly led militia troops fighting in an ancient fashion. These are protected by the Geneva Conventions. Many of the detainees at Guantanamo were released--although after two or three years--when the Americans finally realized they were not Al-Qaeda. But to detain a Taleban militia soldier in a secret prison, without a fair tribunal and possibly with torture, is a violation of the conventions, international law, treaties the USA has signed and basic human morality.

You may have a point about Al-Qaeda troops. But how do we know innocents aren't being locked up and tortured as well? Are we just to accept the word of a government that has been rocked by scandals from Abu Ghraib to Bagram air base to Guantanamo bay? Are we to believe on faith a government whose senior officials are currently under federal indictments, and whose graindiose claims about WMDs, links to Al-Qaeda and yellow cake from Niger have all been proven false?

[Papewaio]

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?

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.

[Tribesman]

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 .

[TinCow]

They are entitled to POW status if they are a soldier , civilian , combatant or non combatant , until there is a tribunal to determine their status .

How do you know that there has not been a tribunal and that they have not been deemed "illegal combatants"? These things are not required to be done in public. This references back to my question about how those of us in the dark are supposed to make judgment calls on things we cannot know.

They are in detention so they have the rights of detainees , sentencing is irrelevant to those rights .
Its the law

Yes, but if they have been found to be illegal combatants, then holding them in isolation and interrogating them is not a violation of any law that I am aware of. You keep speaking as if they were POWs. I know this argument has been done many times on this forum but Al Qaeda members, especially senior level members, simply are not POWs and they do not receive the same rights. You may disagree with this and you may think that they should be considered POWs, but that will not change the fact that US and international law do not consider them to be so.

[Goofball]

How do you know that there has not been a tribunal and that they have not been deemed "illegal combatants"? These things are not required to be done in public.

It's a scary state of affairs when we simply have to take the word of the government about something like that.

"Trials? Suuuuurrre.. We gave them trials. Fair ones too! They were all guilty. Every last one of them. Transcripts of the trials? Erm... We lost them. But don't worry. We're the good guys!"

Think about what you are suggesting, TC. Due process cannot be private and still be credible.

[Tribesman]

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 ?

Yes, but if they have been found to be illegal combatants, then holding them in isolation and interrogating them is not a violation of any law that I am aware of.
There are also lots of stipulations on interrogation , holding in isolation is also not allowed unless under specific circumstances .

[Divinus Arma]

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.

[TinCow]

It's a scary state of affairs when we simply have to take the word of the government about something like that.

Think about what you are suggesting, TC. Due process cannot be private and still be credible.

I agree with you on both counts. Unfortunately wartime is different from peacetime. Whether we like it or not, ALL governments assume greater powers in times of conflict. I'm not saying I actively support this, I'm not saying this is definitely the right thing to do. What I'm saying is that it is not de facto illegal. People keep stating falsely that the US is breaking the law here and I'm trying to rebut that sentiment. It may well be, but there's no way to tell from that article.

Not in public , but there are certain nominated parties that must be informed of any developments , in this case the Red Cross and the detainees country of origin , the country they were originally detained in whether it is a country involved in the conflict or a neutral third country , and the country in which they are detained and any country they have been transfered through while in detention .
Complicated things laws arn't they , is that why you have a problem with them ?

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.

[Divinus Arma]

Then you are a fool

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

I have no problem with minor attacks like this since it adds color to the backroom, but I would expect a supporting argument from you as to why someone is a fool, or whatever.

Not a big deal, but let's hear logic and reason to support the statement. Pointless flaming like this brings down the quality of the debate.

It is more fun for everyone when you explain WHY somebody is a dunce, moron, idiot, fool, retard, monkey-lover, tree-hugger, liberal, neo-con, butt-lover, jerk, whiner, geek, dork, punk, jack-ball, et cetera.

[Taffy_is_a_Taff]

hippy

[Divinus Arma]

you wrote a post that was... ahhh screw it...


spammer

[Divinus Arma]

I feel at though I am standing on the edge of a cliff... looking hwere this thread is going.

echo


echo


echo


echo

[Tribesman]

How can these people be described as illegal combatants ?
They are fighting at the request of a democraticaly elected leader .

[yesdachi]

I feel at though I am standing on the edge of a cliff... looking hwere this thread is going.

… perhaps to a cold war era black ops prison in an undisclosed European country where apple pie American values are ignored?

[Adrian II]

It is more fun for everyone when you explain WHY somebody is a dunce, moron, idiot, fool, retard, monkey-lover, tree-hugger, liberal, neo-con, butt-lover, jerk, whiner, geek, dork, punk, jack-ball, et cetera.

Craven canker-blossom. Gorbellied moldwarp. Odiferous, swag-bellied skainsmate.

[Goofball]

It is more fun for everyone when you explain WHY somebody is a dunce, moron, idiot, fool, retard, monkey-lover, tree-hugger, liberal, neo-con, butt-lover, jerk, whiner, geek, dork, punk, jack-ball, et cetera.

Craven canker-blossom. Gorbellied moldwarp. Odiferous, swag-bellied skainsmate.

Blouse-wearing poodle-walker.

[Slyspy]

I have no problem with minor attacks like this since it adds color to the backroom, but I would expect a supporting argument from you as to why someone is a fool, or whatever.

Not a big deal, but let's hear logic and reason to support the statement. Pointless flaming like this brings down the quality of the debate.

It is more fun for everyone when you explain WHY somebody is a dunce, moron, idiot, fool, retard, monkey-lover, tree-hugger, liberal, neo-con, butt-lover, jerk, whiner, geek, dork, punk, jack-ball, et cetera.

Alright. Tin Cow can see no problem with setting up prisons in foreign lands where secrecy rules and in which the CIA can get up to whatever it wants. The inmates at these locations are not known nor, I suspect, do they have any legal or humanitarian contacts. Tin Cow assumes these people to be guilty of something (what exactly is a secret) merely because the CIA has them in custody. In fact, by the laws of his own country they are guilty of nothing until proven so in court. Up until then they should have the rights of the accused. The whole concept violates (rapes might be the term to use) the principles upon which American justice is based. These principles are the very same ones which the West asks the world to aspire to. Therefore I call him a fool because he declares his support for facilities which piss all over the very principles which his country purports to uphold.

As for Panzer. Well if his ideals reflect then American way then I have been sadly misled. I always thought justice and fairness to be admirable features of America as a whole. When someone who has just a little too much admiration for Nazi (sorry, Prussian) Germany starts talking about traitors and dealing with enemies of the state I hope you will forgive me for believe his opinions to be non-representative.

Maybe I am wrong. It has been known.

PS If we were talking about my country I would be just as disgusted. In fact I would be a fool to suspect that such places to not exist. If they did not we would probably borrow yours. That does not make it right and decent. Nor is it worth fighting for.

[TinCow]

Tin Cow assumes these people to be guilty of something (what exactly is a secret) merely because the CIA has them in custody. In fact, by the laws of his own country they are guilty of nothing until proven so in court. Up until then they should have the rights of the accused.

Are you saying that we need to provide a public defender for every single person captured in a military conflict?

[Tribesman]

Are you saying that we need to provide a public defender for every single person captured in a military conflict?

Its the law , do you have a problem with the law ?

[TinCow]

Are you saying that we need to provide a public defender for every single person captured in a military conflict?

Its the law , do you have a problem with the law ?

Actually, that's not the law. POWs and irregular foreign hostiles (I originally referred to them as terrorists, but that's not entirely accurate and I don't know exactly what to call them) are not covered by the US Criminal Code.

[Tribesman]

Actually, that's not the law. POWs and terrorists are not covered by the US Criminal Code.
Irrelevant if it is in the US criminal code or not ( terrorism is covered anyhow , though of course there will be problems over jurisdiction in these cases). The US is obliged to follow laws that it has agreed to .
You cannot determine if they are terrorists or POWs without a hearing , at a hearing they are entitled to a defense . As they are your prisoners you have to supply their defense . Its the law , do you have a problem with it ?

To one of your earlier posts....
The locations where top Nazis were being held after capture were not freely disclosed to anyone that asked.
But their locations where disclosed and access granted to those that had a legal right to it , like the Red Cross .
Is that true in this case .....No .

[Kanamori]

Actually, that's not the law. POWs and terrorists are not covered by the US Criminal Code.

does this apply to someone who is simply detained in a war zone, or do they have be a combatent? it seems that being detained in a war zone is seperable from being a terrorist.