News Bush says operates secret prisons

[Rach3]

I'm sure there's nothing questionable here.

President Moves 14 Held in Secret to Guantánamo

WASHINGTON, Sept. 6 — President Bush said on Wednesday that 14 high-profile terror suspects held secretly until now by the Central Intelligence Agency had been transferred to the detention center at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, to face military tribunals if Congress approves.

The group includes Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, thought to be the mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks. Mr. Bush said he had decided to “bring them into the open’’ after years in which they have been held by the C.I.A. without charges in undisclosed locations abroad, in a program the White House had not previously acknowledged.

The announcement, in the East Room of the White House, was the first time the president had discussed the secret C.I.A. program, and he made clear he had fully authorized it...

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/07/u...&en=42853988c547fbfe&ei=5094&partner=homepage

And in a happily related article:

Lawyers Weighing Suits for Terrorism Detainees
...
The lawyers say they believe that what was once was a remote possibility — challenging the detentions in the secret C.I.A. prison system in federal court — has been greatly enhanced by last week’s Supreme Court ruling and the administration’s response. The court appeared to say that the minimum rights of due process of the Geneva Conventions apply to all detainees, and on Tuesday the administration, shifting course, announced that was now official policy.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/13/washington/13policy.html?ex=1157688000&en=82ff72948bace032&ei=5070

 

[Cyrus]

This is old news, you never knew this? They have prisons in Syria, among other places. I think Egypt too?

 

[Gokul43201]

But Congress is going to write a bill that immunizes members of the CIA and the military from being sued by terror suspects, no?

 

[Rach3]

And more of the usual:

"I cannot describe the specific methods used — I think you understand why," Bush said in the East Room, where families of some of those who died in the Sept. 11 attacks heartily applauded him when he promised to finally bring the perpetrators to justice.

"If I did, it would help the terrorists learn how to resist questioning and to keep information from us that we need to prevent new attacks on our country. But I can say the procedures were tough, and they were safe and lawful and necessary."

Bush insisted that the detainees were not tortured.

"I want to be absolutely clear with our people, and the world: The United States does not torture," Bush said. "It's against our laws, and it's against our values. I have not authorized it, and I will not authorize it."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060907/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush

"Lawful" indeed.

 

[Astronuc]

I think the Bush administration redefined the word "torture" so that detainees could be tortured, but the government could claim they don't.

 

[ptabor]

I am rather curious as to what "alternative" means. I think it unlikely they mean cutting off their hands... or any other part of their body. I believe the discussion has been had before that torture of this sort is ineffective, as the suspects will confess to being the sniper on the grassy knoll to avoid more mutilation. Most likely, these methods are semi-psych in nature. IE starvation, sensory depravation or something along those lines. Of course, this is only speculation... as our glorious and exalted emperor will not share information with the mere peons.

in principle I have little problem with the torture, to obtain information in a time of war, of enemy combatants. Let's face it, war is by its very nature a violation of all human rights; there is no moral high ground. Besides that, what's the difference if someone is shot in the stomach and bleeds to death in the battlefield or bleeds out in a torture chamber? They're just as dead either way, and neither is very pleasant. The difference is, that by shooting them on the battlefield we're only stopping them from killing our civilians. By extracting useful information from them, we can prevent others from killing. Personally, I give the life of an average joe more value than someone who has sworn themself to murder.

Ultimately, these people choose this life... they know the risks and they know what's at stake. Nobody has forced them into that path, they walk it freely.

Unfortunately, the world is not perfect and our leaders are far from competent. The iraq war has proven the weakness of our intelligence, and I find it difficult to believe that everyone held by our government is a threat. It is for this reason, and this reason alone, that this program should be shut down.

 

[J77]

From hearing Bush on the radio. Apparently, these prisons helped save tens of thousands of US and UK lives.

Well, thanks but no thanks, Mr Bush.

 

[Rach3]

From hearing Bush on the radio. Apparently,[/color] these prisons helped save tens of thousands of US and UK lives.

Of course the unsubstantiated word of a politician who is acting in self-interest, should be taken as absolute truth.

 

[Rach3]

Outrage in the EU:

EU lawmakers demand to know location of CIA jails

STRASBOURG, France (Reuters) - European lawmakers demanded on Thursday that their governments reveal the location of secret CIA prisons after U.S. President George Bush admitted Washington held terror suspects in jails abroad.
...
"Our work has helped to flush out the dirty nature of this secret war, which -- we learn at last -- has been carried out completely beyond any legal framework," said Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly president Rene van der Linden.
...
"The location of these prison camps must be made public," said German lawmaker Wolfgang Kreissl-Doerfler, a member of the European Parliament committee investigating the allegations.
...
"Bush exposes not only his own previous lies. He also exposes to ridicule those arrogant government leaders in Europe who dismissed as unfounded our fears about extraordinary rendition," Ludford said in a statement.

http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=newsOne&storyID=2006-09-07T112831Z_01_L06706440_RTRUKOC_0_US-EU-USA-CIA.xml&WTmodLoc=Home-C2-TopNews-newsOne-5

 

[edward]

This is old news, you never knew this? They have prisons in Syria, among other places. I think Egypt too?

The existence of the prisons is not news, but this is the first time that Bush has admitted that they exist.

On another note Army intel has rewritten their interrogation manual. Waterboarding, electrical shock, and mock executions are no longer allowed.
http://www.azstarnet.com/allheadlines/145529

 

[Evo]

I'm hoping that no one on here thinks that these places didn't exist before Bush. What, you're outraged because he's the first president to admit it?

 

[edward]

I'm hoping that no one on here thinks that these places didn't exist before Bush. What, you're outraged because he's the first president to admit it?

There is a motive behind the Admission that the bases exist. It is the only way that the administration can get the congress to vote on a bill that would legitimize the administrations previous illegal actions.

Admitting that the prisons exist also seems to contradict Bush's repeated statements that he does not believe in torture.

We have gone full circle, we are back at square one. Does torture work?

According to CIA sources, Ibn al Shaykh al Libbi, after two weeks of enhanced interrogation, made statements that were designed to tell the interrogators what they wanted to hear. Sources say Al Libbi had been subjected to each of the progressively harsher techniques in turn and finally broke after being water boarded and then left to stand naked in his cold cell overnight where he was doused with cold water at regular intervals.

His statements became part of the basis for the Bush administration claims that Iraq trained al Qaeda members to use biochemical weapons. Sources tell ABC that it was later established that al Libbi had no knowledge of such training or weapons and fabricated the statements because he was terrified of further harsh treatment.

http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/Investigation/story?id=1322866

 

[selfAdjoint]

I'm hoping that no one on here thinks that these places didn't exist before Bush. What, you're outraged because he's the first president to admit it?

Please give your sources for the statement (tacit in your post though you very carefully avoided making it) that CIA-sponsored torture and secret foreign prisons existed before 9/11.

AFAIK even Chomsky never said that.

 

[Evo]

Please give your sources for the statement (tacit in your post though you very carefully avoided making it) that CIA-sponsored torture and secret foreign prisons existed before 9/11.

AFAIK even Chomsky never said that.

We don't require "sources" for personal opinion SA. Why, do you believe that in the history of the US it has never detained or interogated anyone on foreign soil?

 

[BobG]

I'm hoping that no one on here thinks that these places didn't exist before Bush. What, you're outraged because he's the first president to admit it?

I would have never considered that the US would run secret camps like these before Bush.

Guantanamo existed as a detainment center in the early to mid 90's, but it was used to hold refugees from Cuba or Haiti (after the overthrow of Aristide). That's not the same as operating it as an interrogation center.

Even as a just a place to hold refugees until a decision could be made about them, Guantanamo ran into trouble. The US didn't want to admit just anyone who made it across the water and sending them back to Cuba or Haiti would have bad consequences for the refugees. They tended to hold them in perpetual indecision until a US district judge declared the detainment unconstitutional.

 

[devil-fire]

I'm hoping that no one on here thinks that these places didn't exist before Bush. What, you're outraged because he's the first president to admit it?

before 911 there hasn't been a need for these sorts of facilities outside of localized war zones like Korea or Vietnam (I'm only saying that the facilities could have been used there, not that i know they were). the only people that a facility like this would be used for would be communists but KGB agents were not prone to mass unmeasured killings of foreigners outside of a war zone.

this idea about having a prison on foreign soil to interrogate foreigners who are not POWs because such interrogations would be illegal on domestic land is a new thing.

 

[slugcountry]

Please give your sources for the statement (tacit in your post though you very carefully avoided making it) that CIA-sponsored torture and secret foreign prisons existed before 9/11.

AFAIK even Chomsky never said that.

LOL wow, look up the School of the Americas - or for that matter do any sort of real research into the CIA ... this information has long been in the public eye.

 

[slugcountry]

before 911 there hasn't been a need for these sorts of facilities outside of localized war zones like Korea or Vietnam (I'm only saying that the facilities could have been used there, not that i know they were). the only people that a facility like this would be used for would be communists but KGB agents were not prone to mass unmeasured killings of foreigners outside of a war zone.

this idea about having a prison on foreign soil to interrogate foreigners who are not POWs because such interrogations would be illegal on domestic land is a new thing.

no its not

 

[Evo]

I would have never considered that the US would run secret camps like these before Bush.

Certainly never on this scale, but that's why it has drawn so much attention. I'm just aggravated by people that act like the US did nothing wrong before Bush. Clearly Bush went over the top though.

 

[Astronuc]

Didn't Bush initially deny the program existed?

I'm hoping that no one on here thinks that these places didn't exist before Bush. What, you're outraged because he's the first president to admit it?

It's just that the US has more places to go now following the disintegration of the Soviet Union.

Certainly the CIA was very active in Central and S. America.

And there is the controversial School of the Americas.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_of_the_Americas

The Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation (WHISC or WHINSEC; formerly School of the Americas, SOA - Spanish: Escuela de las Américas) is a United States Army facility at Fort Benning in Columbus, Georgia. Its motto is Libertad, Paz y Fraternidad (Liberty, Peace and Fraternity).

Among the many things taught there are interrogation techniques.

 

[Evo]

Didn't Bush initially deny the program existed?

Probably. I'm certainly not saying he's done anything right, just that I'm amazed when people seem so shocked. A bit of history really makes you less liekly to be surprised at anything anyone is capable of.

I just get the feeling people here are equating "prisons" to Alcatraz when it may be a few rooms inside a military base (which we have all over the world), or a house, or a place of business, this is the CIA, it's not goihg to be something obvious.

Things like "we demand to be told of all such locations" riiiight, like that's going to happen. We live in a bad world with bad people and I'm not talking terrorists, it's anyone that abuses power or hurts others in the pursuit of their personal beliefs, for any reason.

Espionage is never going to end and it's actually a necessary evil to an extent.

 

[Cyrus]

Well, I heard on the radio, or was it news, a while ago that they were sending prisoners to other countries like Syria to have the Syrians do the interrogation...as you can image, it was not so nice. Actually, now that I am typing this post. I think it was a Canadian! He took a flight to the Middle East and the US government detained him. Then he was sent to Syria and held in a prison and beaten by Syrian intelligence. Canada got upset and demanded his return...I'll try and dig that story up unless someone does it for me...

 

[Astronuc]

Probably. I'm certainly not saying he's done anything right, just that I'm amazed when people seem so shocked. A bit of history really makes you less liekly to be surprised at anything anyone is capable of.

I just get the feeling people here are equating "prisons" to Alcatraz when it may be a few rooms inside a military base (which we have all over the world), or a house, or a place of business, this is the CIA, it's not goihg to be something obvious.

Things like "we demand to be told of all such locations" riiiight, like that's going to happen. We live in a bad world with bad people and I'm not talking terrorists, it's anyone that abuses power or hurts others in the pursuit of their personal beliefs, for any reason.

Espionage is never going to end and it's actually a necessary evil to an extent.

Sadly, I have to agree with you. It is unfortunate, but we live in a world where some people want to hurt other people, and its every society. I think though that many people are incensed, rather than shocked. On the other hand, there are some who are in denial that the US could do such a thing as kidnap and torture people. And there are those, who support such treatment of 'suspected' terrorists.

But when it is made public that the US government kidnaps and tortures people, which Bush is still denying, it undermines the credibility of the US (the US government is seen as committing inhumane acts for which it condemns other countries), and it puts US citizens at risk of retaliation anywhere in the world.

 

[devil-fire]

no its not

iv herd of usa's support of groups that tourture and training in tourture methods but iv never heard of cia or military or even private agents doing the actual tourturing outside of warzones

Certainly the CIA was very active in Central and S. America.

again, iv herd of support for anti-communist groups in these areas but not of the cia agents doing the dirty work. its one thing to supply money, tools and advise but its different to have americans do the tourturing themselves.

 

[edward]

Well, I heard on the radio, or was it news, a while ago that they were sending prisoners to other countries like Syria to have the Syrians do the interrogation...as you can image, it was not so nice. Actually, now that I am typing this post. I think it was a Canadian! He took a flight to the Middle East and the US government detained him. Then he was sent to Syria and held in a prison and beaten by Syrian intelligence. Canada got upset and demanded his return...I'll try and dig that story up unless someone does it for me...

There are two related stories about Canadian citizens.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/arar/arar_statement.html

http://www.canada.com/ottawa/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=09fc9e93-5de7-4e3f-8a3e-1c12ef67f3fb

The administration was outsourcing the torture and looking in the other direction. And to Syria of all places!

More recently it has been a Bush approved DIY CIA project specializing in waterboarding.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Past crimes are not justification for current crimes. Don't let fear exclude morality, ethics, and decency.

Sometimes I think the terrorists have already won.

 

[Cyrus]

There are two related stories about Canadian citizens.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/arar/arar_statement.html

http://www.canada.com/ottawa/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=09fc9e93-5de7-4e3f-8a3e-1c12ef67f3fb

The administration was outsourcing the torture and looking in the other direction. And to Syria of all places!

More recently it has been a Bush approved DIY CIA project specializing in waterboarding.

Yep you got it on the first link. He's the guy.

 

[devil-fire]

Probably. I'm certainly not saying he's done anything right, just that I'm amazed when people seem so shocked. A bit of history really makes you less liekly to be surprised at anything anyone is capable of.

I just get the feeling people here are equating "prisons" to Alcatraz when it may be a few rooms inside a military base (which we have all over the world), or a house, or a place of business, this is the CIA, it's not goihg to be something obvious.

Things like "we demand to be told of all such locations" riiiight, like that's going to happen. We live in a bad world with bad people and I'm not talking terrorists, it's anyone that abuses power or hurts others in the pursuit of their personal beliefs, for any reason.

Espionage is never going to end and it's actually a necessary evil to an extent.

a house or a business isn't a good place to detain someone because something could go wrong, someone going into the store to buy something to eat and finding a bound man in in a room they thought was the washroom. it is much more likly these facilitys are designed to hold people in the first place and are otherwise administrated by the federal government of the area.

demanding to know where the facilitys are? i don't think anyone here is doing that, although there shouldn't be anything to hide unless the government is concern about A) the conditions of the facility becoming public B) a prison break C) the local population doesn't know their government is helping the americans with interrogation.

to say "such is life in this world" is imo. a totaly wrong way to look at this issue. how many countrys have places where people get "disapeared" in? Not The Sweedish! I am thinking USSR, China, Cuba, south africa's Apartheid era. all these places have taken heavy critisisum from the west for not being part of the modern civilized world because of their stance on human rights. the USA claims to be justifyed in being an aggressive world supper power because of it's efforts to bring democracy and freedom to the areas of conflict they participate in, when on the other hand they don't say anything about the elephant in the room beside them that is their own human rights abuses.

this maybe be the status quo in the world but does that mean people should not speak up against these action when they see them? absolutly not. the american people should at least be aware their government has a bad history of not informing their people on the way america interacts with the rest of the world

 

[Anttech]

I am rather curious as to what "alternative" means. I think it unlikely they mean cutting off their hands... or any other part of their body. I believe the discussion has been had before that torture of this sort is ineffective, as the suspects will confess to being the sniper on the grassy knoll to avoid more mutilation. Most likely, these methods are semi-psych in nature. IE starvation, sensory depravation or something along those lines. Of course, this is only speculation... as our glorious and exalted emperor will not share information with the mere peons.

Or they feed them rubbish because it is what they (CIA) want to hear, and what the terrorists want to tell you. IE the captured Al Qaede operative *inflating* the size and influence of the "terror network" to a point that the FBI start arresting Arab looking people because they have a home video of a trip to Disney

 

[ptabor]

Past crimes are not justification for current crimes. Don't let fear exclude morality, ethics, and decency.

Sometimes I think the terrorists have already won.

How would you suggest we fight the war on terror?

I hear a lot of criticism on this board, regarding our administration's handling of the war on terror. Yet, I have heard virtually nobody state how they would handle it differently.

Please, enlighten us, how one can defeat an enemy who is, for lack of a better phrase, pure evil, without having to resort to less "moral" methods of waging war.

 

[EL]

I hear a lot of criticism on this board, regarding our administration's handling of the war on terror. Yet, I have heard virtually nobody state how they would handle it differently.

Please, enlighten us, how one can defeat an enemy who is, for lack of a better phrase, pure evil, without having to resort to less "moral" methods of waging war.

1. Don't invade countries for the wrong reasons.

 

[Anttech]

I hear a lot of criticism on this board, regarding our administration's handling of the war on terror. Yet, I have heard virtually nobody state how they would handle it differently.

Please, enlighten us, how one can defeat an enemy who is, for lack of a better phrase, pure evil, without having to resort to less "moral" methods of waging war.

Lets define the war on terror first: Its a coalition of countries fighting against a few bearded men who live in caves with big mouths and extreme views. They have an ideology that is being enforced into many more moderate Islamists by the heavy handed approach and fear mongering that has been the policy of the coalition countries. Mostly the US with the UK towing its line (Which will stop May next year!).
We have to accept that some people don't hold the same values as we do. Their life perception is completely different from our own. Some even want to kill us because we don't think the same way. The reverse also holds true, I hear too many people say idiotic things like "nuke" them all (referring to the M.E.). However we just have to accept that not everyone will like our way of living.

The US, in particular, has to reverse its current foreign policy of "fighting this evil" everywhere, and fighting wars in the name of democracy. Creating an illusion that "we" are the good and "they" are the evil is just a load of nonsense, and is used as a nationalistic tactic, don't you remember the *evil USSR*?. Everywhere there is good and everywhere is evil.

The most simple and best way to fight this current war is to back off, get our of Iraq, slowly slowly (dont allow to happen what happened in Afghanistan the last time). Disengagement is what needs to happen! The radical Islamists won't go away, neither will the religious right, BUT the masses will stop supporting them if we don't give them a reason too!

 

[ptabor]

Lets define the war on terror first: Its a coalition of countries fighting against a few bearded men who live in caves with big mouths and extreme views. They have an ideology that is being enforced into many more moderate Islamists by the heavy handed approach and fear mongering that has been the policy of the coalition countries. Mostly the US with the UK towing its line (Which will stop May next year!).
We have to accept that some people don't hold the same values as we do. Their life perception is completely different from our own. Some even want to kill us because we don't think the same way. The reverse also holds true, I hear too many people say idiotic things like "nuke" them all (referring to the M.E.). However we just have to accept that not everyone will like our way of living.

The US, in particular, has to reverse its current foreign policy of "fighting this evil" everywhere, and fighting wars in the name of democracy. Creating an illusion that "we" are the good and "they" are the evil is just a load of nonsense, and is used as a nationalistic tactic, don't you remember the *evil USSR*?. Everywhere there is good and everywhere is evil.

The most simple and best way to fight this current war is to back off, get our of Iraq, slowly slowly (dont allow to happen what happened in Afghanistan the last time). Disengagement is what needs to happen! The radical Islamists won't go away, neither will the religious right, BUT the masses will stop supporting them if we don't give them a reason too!

No, it is not a few men living in caves. It is thousands of men operating world wide, with the financial support of multiple governments (case in point, the sauds supporting the 9/11 hijackers, Iran and Syria supporting hezbollah).

You are correct, however, in that we are not "good". I'll be the first to admit, the hatred these people feel for us is, in part, our own fault. This is nothing more than the culmination of half a century of failed foreign policy.

Nevertheless, there is a vast difference between the islamic extremists and us. Yes, when we wage war there are civilian casualties. Our bombs are only so smart, and it is an unfortunate fact that civiilans are going to die. We do NOT, however, go out of our way to deliberately target civilians. Nor do we behead captives on tape and air it to the world. Nor do we recruit young men to be suicide bombers for our cause.

As to your argument about our heavy handed approach turning more moderate muslims against us... that's nothing but propaganda meant to instill an appeasement mentality. It may be the case it will foster resentment against us, but there is a world of difference between resentment and whatever it is that motivates people to commit terrorist acts. Your suggestion is as ridiculous as the following scenario: You get arrested for a murder you did not commit. The media has plastered your face everywhere, and everyone "knows" you committed this crime. It will be impossible for you to get a fair trial, and your conviction and encarceration is assured. What do you say to yourself? Do you say: "Hmmm... everyone thinks I'm a murderer, and I'm going to have to pay the price for it anyway... I may as well murder people!" Nope, sorry, any rational individual would not come to this conclusion.

Appeasement will not work. We are at war, and we will stay that way until one side is dead or caves in. I suspect it will be us that caves first. Once we start experiencing car bombings and suicide bombers on US soil, the war will be over. The american people lack the will to fight this war. We lack the stomach and the resolve. We, as a people, are not willing to do what is necessary.

 

[kyleb]

It may be the case it will foster resentment against us, but there is a world of difference between resentment and whatever it is that motivates people to commit terrorist acts.

Surely you aren't contesting the fact that resentment of the political economic policies imposed on our forefathers drove them to commit terrorist acts against the British Empire. So, what are you suggesting here?

 

[Anttech]

No, it is not a few men living in caves. It is thousands of men operating world wide, with the financial support of multiple governments (case in point, the sauds supporting the 9/11 hijackers, Iran and Syria supporting hezbollah).

Where is the proof? Who is the head of this 1000 strong army of terrorists? With long reaching tenticals? How do they communicate? Give me 1 example of a someone who has been tried and been found guilty of being part of an al-Qaeda sleeper cell? show me the evidence? Where does Al-Qaeda run its organisation from? Where are the caves in Afgainstain fulled with bearded Jhad warriors?

By the way, the Islamist want to topple the Saudi regim, it was part of there initial manifesto to remove all dictorial states in the ME with Islamic states. They also wanted to remove liberal states like that of Egypt (Muslim Brotherhood, anyone?) and replace them again with *non-corupt* pure Islamic states, where one follows the Koran.

There isn't any army, this 1000 strong army is a total illusion. An Illusion that the neocons need for them to realize Leo Strauss’ philophy. “Rumy” has been speewing this type of propogander for years, starting with the USSR. The decaying USSR empire was made out as if it had its finger on the button for years, which in retrospec was utter rubbish. They couldn’t even hold the state together let allone go to war, they signed treaties with the US to stop building arms which they were doing. The USSR was in a mess, but without that boogie man, America and Americans wouldn’t have a common goal.

Yes we are in danger from Terrorists, but don’t kid yourself that it’s a massive army of suicide bombers waiting to kill everyone, al-qaeda doesn’t have the resources to do this. Al-qaeda was, and probably still is a disparged differing group of Islamist who initally wanted to create a islamic state in Afgainistain. Now they have there eye on Iraq, another Vacum left by another mistake by the US.

 

[Evo]

are you implying that the swedes:

"Imprisonment/tourturing/killing (jews) on behalf of the nazis"

No, I read the part

for the nazis, i would like to highlight the lack of actual imprisonment/tourturing/killing on behalf of the nazis since this would be a good deal more shocking.

but misrerad it was in reference to Sweden.

 

[Evo]

Just to point out: This has nothing to do with Sweden...(As I'm sure Evo's already aware of. Just found it confusing to cite something about Switzerland in a post about Sweden.)

You're correct that should have said "Switzerland, I will correct"

Oooops, apologies to all, I started with a post on Sweden and end up accidently mixing a bunch of Swiss stuff into it, hey they all look alike.

 

[slugcountry]

iv herd of usa's support of groups that tourture and training in tourture methods but iv never heard of cia or military or even private agents doing the actual tourturing outside of warzones
again, iv herd of support for anti-communist groups in these areas but not of the cia agents doing the dirty work. its one thing to supply money, tools and advise but its different to have americans do the tourturing themselves.

Once again I would ask you to do some real RESEARCH into the subject rather than relying on what you hear in a forum.

The practice of exporting prisoners so that representatives of other countries can conduct interrogations (in the presence of US agents no less) that would otherwise be illegal is not only commonplace but LONG standing.

 

[slugcountry]

You are correct, however, in that we are not "good". I'll be the first to admit, the hatred these people feel for us is, in part, our own fault. This is nothing more than the culmination of half a century of failed foreign policy.

Not in part, but in entirety, for the imperialistic foreign policy of the last two HUNDRED years.

The US is hated around the world because it has systematically put down popular revolts and installed dictators all throughout S. America as well as the M. East.

The US CIA waged a then secret war in Cambodia concurrent with the Vietnam war (and let's not forget that it was the US that instigated the war with Vietnam on false terms in the first place - and is now embroiled in a guerilla war with Iraq, on false terms).

The US armed and empowered Saddam in the first place. The US created the Iran-Contra scandal, and went on to put those weapons in the hands of death squads, who were ordered to kill civilians in an attempt to create FEAR among the populace to overthrow the government of a sovereign and democratic country - a tactic that was handed down from the School of the Americas.

Just a few, of the vast number reasons, that the US is hated.

 

[EL]

I started with a post on Sweden and end up accidently mixing a bunch of Swiss stuff into it, hey they all look alike.

You're in "good"( ) company with Bush (and I'll guess also the majority of all americans), who also mixes us up all the time. I desperately try to defeat this Swede-Swiss confusion whenever I see it, although sometimes it could be useful: When we were knocked out pretty early of the world cup in football this summer some people insisted it didn't really matter since Switzerland was still going strong, and nobody really knows the difference anyway...

 

[devil-fire]

Once again I would ask you to do some real RESEARCH into the subject rather than relying on what you hear in a forum.

The practice of exporting prisoners so that representatives of other countries can conduct interrogations (in the presence of US agents no less) that would otherwise be illegal is not only commonplace but LONG standing.

are there any hints you could give me as to when/where these have been happening?

 

[edward]

are there any hints you could give me as to when/where these have been happening?

You must be kidding. You are asking for the locations of secret prisons.

On an even more bizarre note:

WASHINGTON (AFP) - Many CIA officers involved in questioning war-on-terror detainees have signed up for a government-reimbursed insurance plan that would pay their legal expenses if they are sued or charged with criminal wrongdoing, a newspaper has reported.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060911/pl_afp/usattacksjustice

 

[Yonoz]

On an even more bizarre note:

WASHINGTON (AFP) - Many CIA officers involved in questioning war-on-terror detainees have signed up for a government-reimbursed insurance plan that would pay their legal expenses if they are sued or charged with criminal wrongdoing, a newspaper has reported.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060911/pl_afp/usattacksjustice

Why is this bizarre?

 

[Anttech]

Because it is *almost* like saying:

We know we are 'miss'using our powers to interrogate 'suspects' without enough evidence. In the US, you *used* to not be allowed to picked up by a cop/agent for looking funny and then get interrogated over illegal plots. You used to have accumulated enough evidence first to warrant the interrogation. But now with then Neocons in power, it seems that is just by the by now.

 

[ptabor]

in response to slug country:
Yes, of course the US has interfered in foreign policy over the years. Yes, of course, most times this has not been for the better. By the way, our involvement in Vietnam started shortly after WW2, at the behest of the French, who were having difficulty maintaining their imperial control on the nation.

These actions, however, are the responsibility of our government. These actions were not committed by those who have been killed in terrorist attacks. If those that have issue with our government were to come here and murder our congressmen and our administration, this could be construed as a legitimate response to our interference.

It seems to me you are attempting to justify the actions of these people by the actions of our government. Ok, fine. By your logic, all jews please go out and murder the nearest german family. All native americans, please find your nearest white man and remove his scalp. Yeah, makes PERFECT sense.

In response to anttech,

It's probably the case that Al Qaeda does not have thousands of members. That's not a problem for my argument, as there are multiple terrorist groups in multiple nations. Of course, none of these organizations are brave enough to post a roster on the internet, so an exact count of their numbers is not possible.

By the volume of violence in iraq, the numbers of those dedicated to jihad must be high. Some may argue that these terrorists were bred by our invasion of iraq, but I'm calling bunk on that. I think it's more likely the case that iraq provided an excuse for people otherwise inclined to religious violence. Sort of like 9/11 being Bush's excuse for invading iraq.

Some may also argue that many of those that are waging war against our soldiers there are members of saddam's old regime. This may be the case, but this doesn't disqualify them as terrorists. Regardless of what you think of the US lead invasion, Saddam Hussein WAS a brutal dictator who murdered and tortured his own people. I see no reason to split hairs: terrorizing your own citizens is just as awful as terrorizing citizens of foreign nations.

 

[Yonoz]

Because it is *almost* like saying:

We know we are 'miss'using our powers to interrogate 'suspects' without enough evidence.

But it is not saying that. What it is saying is that those people did their job for the government and the government is taking responsibility for their actions and does not leave them out in the cold.

In the US, you *used* to not be allowed to picked up by a cop/agent for looking funny and then get interrogated over illegal plots. You used to have accumulated enough evidence first to warrant the interrogation. But now with then Neocons in power, it seems that is just by the by now.

I'm less familiar with US laws but I believe it has always been legal to arrest someone without evidence with special authorization by an elected official. Many states have such laws.

 

[Anttech]

By the volume of violence in iraq, the numbers of those dedicated to jihad must be high. Some may argue that these terrorists were bred by our invasion of iraq, but I'm calling bunk on that. I think it's more likely the case that iraq provided an excuse for people otherwise inclined to religious violence. Sort of like 9/11 being Bush's excuse for invading iraq.

Some may also argue that many of those that are waging war against our soldiers there are members of saddam's old regime. This may be the case, but this doesn't disqualify them as terrorists. Regardless of what you think of the US lead invasion, Saddam Hussein WAS a brutal dictator who murdered and tortured his own people. I see no reason to split hairs: terrorizing your own citizens is just as awful as terrorizing citizens of foreign nations.

Its very *funny* that you are attempting to take the moral high ground. Our Army is doing a sterling job killing all those Iraqis. But those terrorist are evil to the core

 

[ptabor]

Since you're so big on courts and trials, you have no right to say anything about our soldiers killing iraqi citizens. None of our soldiers have been tried in a court of law and been found to be guilty. Of course, they've been tried in the court of the media and public opinion, where there is usually only one verdict: guilty.

Sorry, you don't get to have it both ways. If you're going to insist on a trial for those at guantanamo bay, then you must accord the same luxury to our soldiers abroad.

As to the moral high ground in war... It is my personal belief there is no such thing. To me it seems utterly and completely ridiculous to outlaw the use of certain weapons and tactics. Dying is dying, and it's going to suck no matter how it happens. I see no difference if it's with a flamethrower, a round from an M16 in the gut, or by poisonous gas.

If you're going to wage war, you should do it to win. This means killing your enemy at every opportunity (not pausing because they're in a cemetary) with all weapons at your disposal. This means torturing prisoners to obtain information. We didn't win WW2 by adhering to the moral high ground, we won it by bombing the daylights out of cities, such as Dresden, Nagasaki, and Hiroshima. If you're going to wage war by being humane, you're just going to prolong the conflict and cost more lives.

 

[Anttech]

As to the moral high ground in war... It is my personal belief there is no such thing. To me it seems utterly and completely ridiculous to outlaw the use of certain weapons and tactics. Dying is dying, and it's going to suck no matter how it happens. I see no difference if it's with a flamethrower, a round from an M16 in the gut, or by poisonous gas.

If you're going to wage war, you should do it to win. This means killing your enemy at every opportunity (not pausing because they're in a cemetary) with all weapons at your disposal. This means torturing prisoners to obtain information. We didn't win WW2 by adhering to the moral high ground, we won it by bombing the daylights out of cities, such as Dresden, Nagasaki, and Hiroshima. If you're going to wage war by being humane, you're just going to prolong the conflict and cost more lives.

Spoken like a true extremest. So you don't condemn the Twin tower attack, it was just an extension of the 'War' It was extremely efficient too, killing 10,000 at once, I suppose you appreciate that efficiency do you?

Off course you dont! Without morals and rules we are nothing but the evil the neocons like to project onto the current *great enemy*

Anyway its ignorant of you to assert that *you* won the 2nd world war by "bombing the daylights out of cities, such as Dresden, Nagasaki, and Hiroshima." The whole nuclear bomb episode and carpet bombing of German towns was only 1 factor in the whole ww2 matrix. The Russians *actually* were far more influential in the European theatre than the Americans. Yes you helped as did many other nations. Anyway this is off topic

 

[edward]

Why is this bizarre?

You do realize I would imagine that under the American legal system , even a CIA agent can be sued in a court of law for commiting acts which are in violation of predetermined standards. Water boarding is a good example of this.

The Bush administration is hiding their involvement in this situation by claiming; "This information is classified and must remain classified."

Individual CIA agents who could be sued by someone who feels that they have been mistreated do not have any protection from liability damages which may be awarded in this situation.

This is the first time ever that the Ameican govenment has supplied funding to allow CIA agents to purchase insurance policies that will cover any liability those agents may have incurred while following possibly illegal government orders.

The Bush administration could simply grant the agents amnesty against any such liability lawsuits. But that could pose a risk of political backlash because it would be an admission by the administration that prisoners were subjected to either illegal procedures or interrogation.

In essence the administration has given the CIA agents liability coverage for their actions by using a more bizarre secretive method.