• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Secret Prisons

fishbob

Seasonally Disaffected
fishbob
Joined
Jan 17, 2003
Messages
7,316
Location
Chilly Undieville
CIA Holds Terror Suspects in Secret Prisons
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/01/AR2005110101644.html

There is That (Some of the points from the article):

The hidden global internment network is a central element in the CIA's unconventional war on terrorism. . . . . .

The existence and locations of the facilities -- referred to as "black sites" in classified White House, CIA, Justice Department and congressional documents -- are known to only a handful of officials in the United States and, usually, only to the president and a few top intelligence officers in each host country. . . .

Virtually nothing is known about who is kept in the facilities, what interrogation methods are employed with them, or how decisions are made about whether they should be detained or for how long. . . .

While the Defense Department has produced volumes of public reports and testimony about its detention practices and rules after the abuse scandals at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison and at Guantanamo Bay, the CIA has not even acknowledged the existence of its black sites. To do so, say officials familiar with the program, could open the U.S. government to legal challenges, particularly in foreign courts, and increase the risk of political condemnation at home and abroad.
Click to expand...

My bold.
Could open the government to legal challenges and political condemnation?? No $hit Dick Tracy.

And then there was This.

Cheney Plan Exempts CIA From Bill Barring Abuse of Detainees
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/24/AR2005102402051.html

The Bush administration has proposed exempting employees of the Central Intelligence Agency from a legislative measure endorsed earlier this month by 90 members of the Senate that would bar cruel and degrading treatment of any prisoners in U.S. custody.

The proposal, which two sources said Vice President Cheney handed last Thursday to Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) in the company of CIA Director Porter J. Goss, states that the measure barring inhumane treatment shall not apply to counterterrorism operations conducted abroad or to operations conducted by "an element of the United States government" other than the Defense Department. . . .

Cheney's proposal is drafted in such a way that the exemption from the rule barring ill treatment could require a presidential finding that "such operations are vital to the protection of the United States or its citizens from terrorist attack." But the precise applicability of this section is not clear, and none of those involved in last week's discussions would discuss it openly yesterday.
Click to expand...

Well That explains This.
 
Last edited:
I thought America was supposed to be better than the Soviet Union.

And considering what went (and goes?) on in the non-secret prisons, I shudder to think what happens in the secret ones.
 
It sounds like the White House is involved in "high crimes and misdemenours" to me.

CBL
 
It's time Bush was impeached. It seems crazy to me that getting a blow job in the oval office can land a president in court, yet Bush can take his nation to war on false pretenses and ignore international law with impunity.
 
More tears for terrorists.

There are better causes, or at the very least - don't talk so much.
 
American said:
More tears for terrorists.
Click to expand...
Uh, no; try "concern for suspected terrorists who may subsequently prove to be innocent." It's a popular fallacy that those concerned with civil liberties and human rights (and as a card-carrying member of both the ACLU and Human Rigths Watch, I guess that includes me) are interested in protecting wrongdoers. In actual fact, we're concerned about protecting those who are erroneously suspected of wrongdoing. Which is why such things as the Fourth Amendment exist.

And yeah, there's also an element of "we're supposed to be good guys; that means we don't do nasty sh!t just because the other guys do." You don't get to call other people "evil-doers" in any meaningful way when you do evil yourself.
 
Euromutt said:
Uh, no; try "concern for suspected terrorists who may subsequently prove to be innocent." It's a popular fallacy that those concerned with civil liberties and human rights (and as a card-carrying member of both the ACLU and Human Rigths Watch, I guess that includes me) are interested in protecting wrongdoers. In actual fact, we're concerned about protecting those who are erroneously suspected of wrongdoing. Which is why such things as the Fourth Amendment exist.

And yeah, there's also an element of "we're supposed to be good guys; that means we don't do nasty sh!t just because the other guys do." You don't get to call other people "evil-doers" in any meaningful way when you do evil yourself.
Click to expand...

Why not then also apply this admirable standard to pulling the trigger or dropping a bomb on terrorist (criminals, I understand the "good" Iraqis call them) safe house? After all, they hadn't been tried and convicted in a court of law before being eliminated.

Your point is not irrelevant, but at the same time it is hard to see how one can win a war without unpleasantries. Personally I tend to think that, while a few joyriders who like to play with leashes on prisoners from time to time may misbehave, and those in charge of them could be asleep at the wheel, the large majority of our armed forces who risk their lives every day have better things to do than waste our resources and their time torturing those who are obviously innocent, or even those who are guilty, when nothing can be gained.

Unfortunately, perhaps for some, it comes down to picking sides and deciding who should win. Some can't seem to tell the difference.
 
Elind said:
Why not then also apply this admirable standard to pulling the trigger or dropping a bomb on terrorist (criminals, I understand the "good" Iraqis call them) safe house? After all, they hadn't been tried and convicted in a court of law before being eliminated.
Click to expand...
Because in that situation--unlike in the case of a detainee--you do not already have the suspects captured and in your power. If you're doing your job properly, no detainee should present a physical threat to your personnel. To draw an analogy, because I think it's permissible for a cop to have a weapon drawn while approaching a suspect, or even use force to subdue that suspect, does not mean I think it's okay for the cop to beat the snot out of the suspect after the suspect has been handcuffed and placed in a holding cell.
 
Euromutt said:
Because in that situation--unlike in the case of a detainee--you do not already have the suspects captured and in your power. If you're doing your job properly, no detainee should present a physical threat to your personnel. To draw an analogy, because I think it's permissible for a cop to have a weapon drawn while approaching a suspect, or even use force to subdue that suspect, does not mean I think it's okay for the cop to beat the snot out of the suspect after the suspect has been handcuffed and placed in a holding cell.
Click to expand...

Do you assume that ALL such prisoners are tortured (needless to say we have not, in this thread, defined torture)?

Perhaps the fact that those prisoners were not summarily executed, like they have done to essentially all their victims, indicates some difference between the two camps?
 
Euromutt said:
And yeah, there's also an element of "we're supposed to be good guys; that means we don't do nasty sh!t just because the other guys do." You don't get to call other people "evil-doers" in any meaningful way when you do evil yourself.
Click to expand...
Evil or not has a lot to do with the context, and who the act is being committed on.

For example, it is evil to randomly grab somebody off the street and lock them in prison for life. It is not evil to take a triple-murderer and lock them in prison for life. It is evil to kill an innocent person because you are bored. It is not evil to kill a person in self-defense, because they are trying to kill you because they are bored.

I'm not saying this to defend torture. I'm saying that it is not appropriate to argue that actions should always be evaluated outside of their context. Context can mean a lot.
 
Elind said:
There is a legal process; it's called authorizing our armed forces to detain or destroy the perverts. Please excuse my disrespect for violating my promise to ignore you.
Click to expand...

http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2005/s1495220.htm

I do not attack you personally. I just argue a point. I did not realise that was a crime.

MICHAEL VINCENT: In December 2001, David Hicks was sold to the Americans by his captors, the Northern Alliance, for $1,000. He was then transferred to Camp Rhino and later onto the USS Peleliu.

That ship docked in Australia when returning home in February 2002, after Hicks had been transferred to Guantanamo Bay

But Captain David Romley of the 15th Marine Expeditionary Unit told The World Today back then that their treatment of David Hicks was fair and comfortable and in line with the Geneva Conventions.

DAVID ROMLEY: Quite frankly, I don't think most of the people here onboard knew that it was… he was an Australian. But they did know that there were detainees from Afghanistan that were aboard, and it certainly intrigued everybody.

MICHAEL VINCENT: However, it's not claimed Hicks was abused while on the ship.

Last night Four Corners detailed allegations that the Australian was flown off the ship, either to Afghanistan or Pakistan, where he was blind-folded, spat on, sexually abused and assaulted by people with American accents, in a process known as "rendering".

The Australian Government says it's never heard of these claims and it will investigate.

But Hicks' military lawyer, Major Michael Mori, says that an Australian official was present when this allegation was made in August 2004.

MICHAEL MORI: Well, it was almost, almost over a year ago when the Australian official was present when Mr Hicks outlined the incidents that happened to him.

MICHAEL VINCENT: So you're saying the Australian Government should know about this incident?

MICHAEL MORI: Absolutely. You know, an Australian official was present, and Mr Hicks went through the issues of him being assaulted as part of the US investigation, and there was an Australian official present during the entire interview.

The Australian Government knew there were issues of his treatment back in 2003.

MICHAEL VINCENT: What difference do you think it'll make that Australian authorities investigate these latest claims?

MICHAEL MORI: Well, what you'd actually have is someone outside the system investigating it. Right now, the Australian Government's only relied on internal US military type investigations.

MICHAEL VINCENT: But, I mean, it's going to be… isn't it going to be David Hicks' version of events versus the American officials' version of events?

MICHAEL MORI: No, because if they conducted an investigation they'd be able to speak to witnesses who may have witnessed some of these incidents, or went through the same type of treatment.
Click to expand...
 
Euromutt said:
Uh, no; try "concern for suspected terrorists who may subsequently prove to be innocent." It's a popular fallacy that those concerned with civil liberties and human rights (and as a card-carrying member of both the ACLU and Human Rigths Watch, I guess that includes me) are interested in protecting wrongdoers. In actual fact, we're concerned about protecting those who are erroneously suspected of wrongdoing. Which is why such things as the Fourth Amendment exist.

And yeah, there's also an element of "we're supposed to be good guys; that means we don't do nasty sh!t just because the other guys do." You don't get to call other people "evil-doers" in any meaningful way when you do evil yourself.
Click to expand...

There is one thing that bugs me about these type of reports. I have yet to read about one of these suspects I could truly feel sorry for. Every one I have checked out turns out to be some kind of dirt bag. "...I'm {insert non-Afghanistan nationality}, and I was just minding my own business in an al-Queda training camp in Afghanistan when along comes these brutal marines..."

That being said:
Yes, we, the US, should be upholding ourselves to the standards of the "good guys". We cannot allow ourselves to justify brutal treatment for the "greater good" or whatever other excuse anyone comes up with. It negates our entire purpose. Neither should we spend to much time beating ourselves up over the issue. There was a crisis... this is how we responded.. this was wrong... correct the action and move on.

The Fourth Amendment only protects US citizens. I don't think it applies to most of these cases. There are international standards that we can and should apply in these cases, such as allowing the Red Cross access to these individuals. I'm not sure I agree with the administration's position that we shouldn't even treat these individuals as prisoners of war because it gives a legitimacy to terrorism.
 
Elind said:
Do you assume that ALL such prisoners are tortured (needless to say we have not, in this thread, defined torture)?

Perhaps the fact that those prisoners were not summarily executed, like they have done to essentially all their victims, indicates some difference between the two camps?
Click to expand...

Hold on there. It is a bit early in the discussion to be spinning this hard. You don't know that the secret prison prisoners even had any victims. You don't know who they are or what they are supposed to have done or what has been done to them. So far, what we have learned from published reports is that these prisons are beyond regulation, beyond oversight, beyond accountability, beyond the rule of law, and Cheney wants to keep it that way.


Elind said:
There is a legal process; it's called authorizing our armed forces to detain or destroy the perverts.
Click to expand...

Those pesky facts seem to be getting in your way. We are not talking about our armed forces here. We are talking about the CIA.

Back to the point - now that Aljazeera has published the story, the entire Arab world is busy forming opinions about what the US stands for. I betcha that the opinions will not be favorable, and I fear that the number of bombings in and around Iraq will increase.
 
Last edited:
I had a movie called "Secret Prisons" but my wife made me get rid of it.
 
Mycroft said:
I had a movie called "Secret Prisons" but my wife made me get rid of it.
Click to expand...

I am relieved that at least one person here is completely unconcerned by its country´s gross violations of too many principles to list them all here, and indeed seems to find the whole affair funny.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom