News Bush says operates secret prisons

[Yonoz]

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.

Of course they can. That is why they are provided with legal defense by their bosses.

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

That is irrelevant to the question. I asked why is it bizarre that the government is defending its agents in the courts?

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.

Exactly. They do not have any special protection, no more than other professionals with insurance against negligence suits.

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.

How does that make it bizarre or undesirable?

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.

Can they really offer amnesty? Does Bush have that kind of power over the Judicial Branch? Are you saying it's bizarre because they could have done something else, that's less desirable?

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

What is so secretive about it? It's simple liability coverage, the kind you can get for every other profession.

 

[Burnsys]

Well, the usa government asked our government to give "Total Inmunity" to americans troops stationed in my country. The same happened in paraguay, chile, peru, etc..

So what's the point in asking for total inmunity? it's obvious you are planing to do some bad things...

 

[slugcountry]

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.

It seems to me you have completely misinterpreted my statement since I never even came close to implying what you suggest.

 

[edward]

Of course they can. That is why they are provided with legal defense by their bosses.

This has only been provided recently and is very controversial. These guys aren't exactly tupperware salesmen.

That is irrelevant to the question. I asked why is it bizarre that the government is defending its agents in the courts?

No it is not irrelevant. There is no short answer to your question. The answer to your question was my entire post.

Exactly. They do not have any special protection, no more than other professionals with insurance against negligence suits.

Historically, if they operated within the law, they needed no "special protection".

How does that make it bizarre or undesirable?

That was self explanitory in the USA. Perhaps not in your country.

Can they really offer amnesty? Does Bush have that kind of power over the Judicial Branch?

Yes he does. All he has to do is claim that the amnesty is to protect classified information.

Are you saying it's bizarre because they could have done something else, that's less desirable?

That "something else" would only have been less desirable from a stricly political point of view. Bush is having to cover his arse and the way it is being done is " BIZZARE" "SLICK" "DEVIOUS" "UNETHICAL" should I go on?

What is so secretive about it? It's simple liability coverage, the kind you can get for every other profession.

No, it is a special policy, it is not sold by the good hands guy at Allstate, or the American Association of Retired People. The policies are provided by a special agency and is/was being funded on the sly by the Bush administration when they could not get congress to change the law regarding approved interrogation methods.

CIA counterterrorism officers have signed up in growing numbers for a government-reimbursed, private insurance plan that would pay their civil judgments and legal expenses if they are sued or charged with criminal wrongdoing, according to current and former intelligence officials and others with knowledge of the program.

The new enrollments reflect heightened anxiety at the CIA that officers may be vulnerable to accusations they were involved in abuse, torture, human rights violations and other misconduct, including wrongdoing related to the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. They worry that they will not have Justice Department representation in court or congressional inquiries, the officials said.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/10/AR2006091001286.html?sub=AR

 

[devil-fire]

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

im asking for general information like a country or conflict and a 5 year window. iv been told its common knowledge that the usa has used illegal interrogations for a long time but i havnt heard any examples.

 

[Yonoz]

This has only been provided recently and is very controversial. These guys aren't exactly tupperware salesmen.

That's right, they're not. They could very easily be drawn into lawsuits. And there's a chance they'll do something they shouldn't. It doesn't matter - they're working for the government, and the government has to stand behind them, just as it should whether they're road repair men or CIA agents.

No it is not irrelevant. There is no short answer to your question. The answer to your question was my entire post.

It is irrelevant because it doesn't matter if it's an honest mistake or a conspiratorial cover-up, the government should take responsibility for its agents.

Historically, if they operated within the law, they needed no "special protection".

If people were perfect we wouldn't need lawyers.

That was self explanitory in the USA. Perhaps not in your country.

In my country the government stands behind its actions, for good and bad.

Yes he does. All he has to do is claim that the amnesty is to protect classified information.

Courts have access to classified information, they hold closed sessions in such cases. If a suit is filed, all evidence is subject to subpoena.

That "something else" would only have been less desirable from a stricly political point of view. Bush is having to cover his arse and the way it is being done is " BIZZARE" "SLICK" "DEVIOUS" "UNETHICAL" should I go on?

How is he covering his arse? By providing the agents with legal advice the government is taking responsibility for their allged offenses.

What is so secretive about it? It's simple liability coverage, the kind you can get for every other profession.

No, it is a special policy, it is not sold by the good hands guy at Allstate, or the American Association of Retired People. The policies are provided by a special agency and is/was being funded on the sly by the Bush administration when they could not get congress to change the law regarding approved interrogation methods.

How does that make it secretive?

 

[devil-fire]

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.

the problem with weapons of mass distruction is they are not focused on enemy comantents. chemical weapons for example are highly effective for killing civilians but vary ineffective for killing soldiers (they put on the gas mask and a chem weapons suit they are issued and they are fine). so then the question becomes how effective are these sorts of weapons really? if they are just used to kill civilian populations then that isn't war, that is genocide. if there existed such a weapon that could kill every soldier of the opposing army consistantly, although slowly, this weapon would not be considered illegal. this is because a dead soldier is a dead soldier so long as he/she was a combatent at the time ie. did not surrender before being killed.

as said above, this sort of way to wage war is the whole basis of the current war on terror and why it is deemed important for the terrorists to lose. if al-qaeda executed another mass killing on the continental usa and suddenly bush says "ok, you got us. just don't terrorize us any more and we'll do what you say" it would make terrorisum a tremendously effective way to wage war and everyone who wants have their way with something would suddenly start their own terror plots. killing everyone assosiated with your enemy regardless of the assosiation is Not a legitimite way to wage war because people consider it unacceptable and will fight harder because of it.

as for the idea of "leave any humanity at the door while you go to war. kill everyone who might be an enemy, or might help the enemy, or might be of value to the enemy or might one day help or become the enemy because otherwise you might kill someone you don't have to" just sounds either short sighted or insane to me.

 

[edward]

That's right, they're not. They could very easily be drawn into lawsuits. And there's a chance they'll do something they shouldn't. It doesn't matter - they're working for the government, and the government has to stand behind them, just as it should whether they're road repair men or CIA agents.
It is irrelevant because it doesn't matter if it's an honest mistake or a conspiratorial cover-up, the government should take responsibility for its agents.

I agree with this. The government should stand behind the agents regardless.

If people were perfect we wouldn't need lawyers.

LOL That is so true.

In my country the government stands behind its actions, for good and bad.

This is the crux of the situation. Our CIA agents are having a problem because they know that if The Department of Justice were to stand behind them it would be an admission that the Administration did allow illegal actions to happen. They realize that neither the DOJ nor the Administration is likely to stand behind them. To do so would be a political disaster for the Bush administration. So the agents buy the policies.

Courts have access to classified information, they hold closed sessions in such cases. If a suit is filed, all evidence is subject to subpoena

They are supposed to do that here but the Bush administration has sucessfully avoided any court actions by claiming that the revelation of classified documents would hinder national defense. And they do it no matter how trivial the situation. This tactic has been used to avoid having to share documents with the Senate Intelligence Committee. This has been the most secretive administration this nation has ever experienced.

How is he covering his arse? By providing the agents with legal advice the government is taking responsibility for their allged offenses.
How does that make it secretive?

He is covering his arse politically by keeping out of direct contact with the agents. The administration has denied repeatedly that any illegal events ever occured. The agents are reimbursed for the cost of the policies by the federal government using an as yet undisclosed method. No advise is given to anyone by the govenment. The agents most likely will be assisted by the attorneys provided by the policy provider.

In short, it leaves the administration out of the picture period. Yet the taxpayers are the ones who are actually paying for the liability policies.


This situation only came to light recently when former and current CIA came forward. I would imagine that the comapny who sells the policies helped make the situation known to drum up business.

Like most situations in the USA this is more of a political football than anything. At this point we have dug ourselves into a hole and the best thing to do at this point would be to quit digging.

A NPR take on the situation:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5052915

 

[Yonoz]

This is the crux of the situation. Our CIA agents are having a problem because they know that if The Department of Justice were to stand behind them it would be an admission that the Administration did allow illegal actions to happen. They realize that neither the DOJ nor the Administration is likely to stand behind them. To do so would be a political disaster for the Bush administration. So the agents buy the policies.

So in your opinion the policy doesn't suffice? You expect Bush to strengthen his administration's ties to the CIA?

They are supposed to do that here but the Bush administration has sucessfully avoided any court actions by claiming that the revelation of classified documents would hinder national defense. And they do it no matter how trivial the situation. This tactic has been used to avoid having to share documents with the Senate Intelligence Committee. This has been the most secretive administration this nation has ever experienced.

Can you present a source for this please? I would like to study it, thankyou. You're talking about the Senate, I was looking for example of a court being denied evidence on the grounds of national defense.

He is covering his arse politically by keeping out of direct contact with the agents. The administration has denied repeatedly that any illegal events ever occured. The agents are reimbursed for the cost of the policies by the federal government using an as yet undisclosed method. No advise is given to anyone by the govenment. The agents most likely will be assisted by the attorneys provided by the policy provider.

But I thought this was the first such arrangement between the administration and the CIA. If he wanted to cover his arse, why is did he do this in the first place, why not stick to the status-quo?

In short, it leaves the administration out of the picture period. Yet the taxpayers are the ones who are actually paying for the liability policies.

Can the administration really stay out of the picture when CIA agents are being sued? Do you not trust your justice system? There's more to a verdict than guilty / not guilty.

This situation only came to light recently when former and current CIA came forward. I would imagine that the comapny who sells the policies helped make the situation known to drum up business.

Well thank god for private enterprise and free press then eh?

Like most situations in the USA this is more of a political football than anything.

I don't think it's any different elsewhere.

At this point we have dug ourselves into a hole and the best thing to do at this point would be to quit digging.

Well I guess that's just a matter of opinion - and off topic, at that.
BTW from the NPR interview it seems this has been around since even before Bush Sr.

 

[edward]

So in your opinion the policy doesn't suffice? You expect Bush to strengthen his administration's ties to the CIA?

It would be best if the administration were to operate within the law even if that means having to change the law if Congress will allow it.

Can you present a source for this please? I would like to study it, thankyou.

http://www.justicescholars.org/pegc...217.pdf#search="Maher Arar Lawsuit dismissed"
The above case involves a Canadian citizen. There is a more recent case below that is still in the courts.
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/09/07/judge_wont_dismiss_eavesdropping_suit/?rss_id=Boston.com+%2F+News+%2F+Nation

In the more recent case a federal judge refused to dismiss the case on the basis of the "national security issue". This case is still active.

You're talking about the Senate, I was looking for example of a court being denied evidence on the grounds of national defense.

neither of the above cases involve the senate.

snip
Can the administration really stay out of the picture when CIA agents are being sued? Do you not trust your justice system? There's more to a verdict than guilty / not guilty.

Apparently the CIA agents did not believe that they were innocent and/or they did not trust the justice system or the Administration. They bought the policies.

snip:
BTW from the NPR interview it seems this has been around since even before Bush Sr.

The policies were originally meant to be sold to FBI agents. The thing that is new is that all CIA agents are now being advised to buy them. More recently the govenment has started paying for them for the CIA.

To much of the American public there is an appearance that the CIA and the administration had something to hide. There was something to hide, they were operating outside of the law.

 

[Yonoz]

http://www.justicescholars.org/pegc...217.pdf#search="Maher Arar Lawsuit dismissed"
The above case involves a Canadian citizen. There is a more recent case below that is still in the courts.
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/09/07/judge_wont_dismiss_eavesdropping_suit/?rss_id=Boston.com+%2F+News+%2F+Nation

In the more recent case a federal judge refused to dismiss the case on the basis of the "national security issue". This case is still active.

Those look like good old fair trials. I don't see any example of this:

They are supposed to do that here but the Bush administration has sucessfully avoided any court actions by claiming that the revelation of classified documents would hinder national defense.

Nor this:

The Bush administration could simply grant the agents amnesty against any such liability lawsuits.
...All he has to do is claim that the amnesty is to protect classified information.

Apparently the CIA agents did not believe that they were innocent and/or they did not trust the justice system or the Administration. They bought the policies.

On the contrary, I think it shows they recognize they are not above the law. Anyway, it goes to show the administration cannot stay out of the picture. Rather, by paying the legal costs it takes responsibility for its agents.

The policies were originally meant to be sold to FBI agents. The thing that is new is that all CIA agents are now being advised to buy them. More recently the govenment has started paying for them for the CIA.

The Iran-Contras scandal involved the CIA. The interview mentions the policies are a result of that scandal.

To much of the American public there is an appearance that the CIA and the administration had something to hide. There was something to hide, they were operating outside of the law.

As tragic as that may be, it does not mean that agents that have broken the law should be abandoned by the nation they were serving.

 

[Anttech]

On the contrary, I think it shows they recognize they are not above the law. Anyway, it goes to show the administration cannot stay out of the picture. Rather, by paying the legal costs it takes responsibility for its agents.

Actually its more like it is accepting its actions are irresponsible, and taking measure to ensure the monetary impact is minimised. No matter how you spin it, its not reassuring to the general public that the government believes it is acting within the law.

 

[Yonoz]

Actually its more like it is accepting its actions are irresponsible, and taking measure to ensure the monetary impact is minimised. No matter how you spin it, its not reassuring to the general public that the government believes it is acting within the law.

Does defending oneself in court immediately imply guilt?
Terrorists use your media against you, do you think they won't use your courts?

 

[Anttech]

Does defending oneself in court immediately imply guilt?

Do you really need me to answer that question?

Terrorists use your media against you, do you think they won't use your courts?

I don't follow, are you implying that "terrorists" have inflitrated the media and now the courts?



It just gets better and better!

No thanks Yonzo, I would prefer to know my government was acting within the law, not saving up its money and funds so it can afford to not. As you may or may not have noticed, I don't subscribe to the "terrorists are around every corner ready to blow me up, and we must weed out this evil" type neocon crap.

 

[Yonoz]

Do you really need me to answer that question?

I wouldn't be asking it if I needn't.

I don't follow, are you implying that "terrorists" have inflitrated the media and now the courts?

No, I'm saying terrorist sympathisers in the states will be happy to exercise their legal right to file suit against CIA personnel. It's done regularly to Israeli officials and security forces personnel.

No thanks Yonzo, I would prefer to know my government was acting within the law, not saving up its money and funds so it can afford to not. As you may or may not have noticed, I don't subscribe to the "terrorists are around every corner ready to blow me up, and we must weed out this evil" type neocon crap.

Well allow me to welcome you to the real world, in which there is a real need for CIAs and Mossads, as well as courts. There are real people in the CIA who need make really tough real decisions. Being real people, they can sometimes make real mistakes. There are real people in this real world who do not like what the CIA is doing - but in the real world, this cannot pass as a real world judgement - that is up to what we call the real world Justice System. In this real world Justice System, any real person can file suit, and real world guilt is only established by a real world ruling of guilty / not guilty. In the real world everyone is innocent until proven guilty.

 

[Anttech]

No, I'm saying terrorist sympathisers in the states will be happy to exercise their legal right to file suit against CIA personnel. It's done regularly to Israeli officials and security forces personnel.

And as long as those CIA personnel are acting with the law there won't be any problem.

I wouldn't be asking it if I needn't.

ok then, NO IT DOESNT. I presumed it was an rhetorical question, I am not familiar with the Israeli court system, but here in Europe we are innocent till proven guilty.
Edit: Incidently if you needed me to explain that why are you then going on to explain your real world scenario where you answer your own question? Please don't tell me you were attempting to remind me of that fact

Well allow me to welcome you to the real world, in which there is a real need for CIAs and Mossads, as well as courts. There are real people in the CIA who need make really tough real decisions. Being real people, they can sometimes make real mistakes. There are real people in this real world who do not like what the CIA is doing - but in the real world, this cannot pass as a real world judgement - that is up to what we call the real world Justice System. In this real world Justice System, any real person can file suit, and real world guilt is only established by a real world ruling of guilty / not guilty. In the real world everyone is innocent until proven guilty.

Exactly, so unless you are willingly going to break the law, there is no need for this insurance policy. What type of accidents do you suppose a CIA operative will make?

Whoops I accidentally tourtured that person because he looked like a terrorist

 

[Yonoz]

And as long as those CIA personnel are acting with the law there won't be any problem.

I thought we cleared up this "real world" stuff.

ok then, NO IT DOESNT. I presumed it was an rhetorical question, I am not familiar with the Israeli court system, but here in Europe we are innocent till proven guilty.
Edit: Incidently if you needed me to explain that why are you then going on to explain your real world scenario where you answer your own question? Please don't tell me you were attempting to remind me of that fact

I wanted to know what you think. I need to know whether this is another point I need to clarify before moving on.

Exactly, so unless you are willingly going to break the law, there is no need for this insurance policy. What type of accidents do you suppose a CIA operative will make?

Whoops I accidentally tourtured that person because he looked like a terrorist

Obviously, you're not a golfer. The law is not a clear-cut "torture this person, don't torture this person", and CIA operatives sometimes have very little information to work upon, with grave consequences for their actions or inactions. It all seems so easy to you now, here on PF, but in real life real men and women with dead-real jobs sometimes make real tough decisions - and they make real mistakes. It doesn't mean they're evil, it doesn't mean they're conspirators that should be hung from the tallest tree, and in my opinion it does not mean they should be left out by the government to fend for themselves.

 

[Anttech]

Obviously, you're not a golfer. The law is not a clear-cut "torture this person, don't torture this person", and CIA operatives sometimes have very little information to work upon, with grave consequences for their actions or inactions. It all seems so easy to you now, here on PF, but in real life real men and women with dead-real jobs sometimes make real tough decisions - and they make real mistakes. It doesn't mean they're evil, it doesn't mean they're conspirators that should be hung from the tallest tree, and in my opinion it does not mean they should be left out by the government to fend for themselves.

What has golf got to do with anything? (And I have played golf for many years anyway)

I totally disagree with your analysis, because I morally disagree with your stance. There is a reason why these checks and balances are there, they are to *protect* innocent people from being arrested and submitted to degrading and *ILLEGAL* acts. Sorry but if a Secret service operative has very little information, he has to get more before arresting and harassing someone! LAW-101 You can't give these people a carte-blanch to do as they please, which you with you real-life analysis seem to favour.

 

[Yonoz]

What has golf got to do with anything? (And I have played golf for many years anyway)

It's a quote from a movie.

I totally disagree with your analysis, because I morally disagree with your stance. There is a reason why these checks and balances are there, they are to *protect* innocent people from being arrested and submitted to degrading and *ILLEGAL* acts.

The checks and balances are all there. They still go to court, only they don't have to fund an attorney with a government salary. So it actually gives the little guys the ability to defend themselves better and narrows the gaps between them and their bosses - who can probably afford better counsel. No checks nor balances have been altered.

Sorry but if a Secret service operative has very little information, he has to get more before arresting and harassing someone!

There are circumstances in which you are forced to make a decision upon very little information. Tell me, what is the most responsible task you've been assigned?

LAW-101 You can't give these people a carte-blanch to do as they please, which you with you real-life analysis seem to favour.

Did I or anyone else for that matter say anything about giving anyone a carte-blanch? They go to court just like every other person does.

 

[Anttech]

The checks and balances are all there. They still go to court, only they don't have to fund an attorney with a government salary. So it actually gives the little guys the ability to defend themselves better and narrows the gaps between them and their bosses - who can probably afford better counsel. No checks nor balances have been altered.

OK I am trying to see this from your point of view, but I keep coming back to the fact that if they are doing no wrong they shouldn't need this insurance. However I suppose they can plead that they are just following orders, I have no idea about the legal ramifications of that stance are, however if they are doing no wrong, the people suing will have to pick up the tab regardless when the case is thrown out of court. It seems fishy to me, if they really were doing no wrong they would have nothing to worry about. If they are then this insurance probably is a good idea.

There are circumstances in which you are forced to make a decision upon very little information. Tell me, what is the most responsible task you've been assigned?

This is irrelevant to the argument, information is a must in making decisions in these circumstances. If you don't have any, you don't just grab someone who you might think is perhaps in 5 years going to do something wrong and then throw them in some secret jail.

Did I or anyone else for that matter say anything about giving anyone a carte-blanch? They go to court just like every other person does.

You didnt say it, but it seems to me that is what is being implied here--> your real life rant about real people making tough decisions etc etc, reminds me of A Few Good Men

 

[Yonoz]

OK I am trying to see this from your point of view, but I keep coming back to the fact that if they are doing no wrong they shouldn't need this insurance. However I suppose they can plead that they are just following orders, I have no idea about the legal ramifications of that stance are, however if they are doing no wrong, the people suing will have to pick up the tab regardless when the case is thrown out of court. It seems fishy to me, if they really were doing no wrong they would have nothing to worry about. If they are then this insurance probably is a good idea.

Wow that's the closest you've ever come to conceding! Congratulations.

This is irrelevant to the argument, information is a must in making decisions in these circumstances. If you don't have any, you don't just grab someone who you might think is perhaps in 5 years going to do something wrong and then throw them in some secret jail.

You're oversimplifying. Do you think this information is just waiting to be found? Suppose surveilance identifies someone who fits a terrorist profile passing what could be a bomb to an unidentified person, who for all you know could be a suicide bomber, and the whole thing fits intelligence about a planned bombing in its final stages. That first person gets picked up by the CIA, and won't talk at all. The clock's ticking - there could be a suicide bomber right now in the states and you need to find him. On the other hand this guy has rights, and you haven't linked him to directly to anything yet. This is a very simple scenario - it gets much more complicated. So you see how a perfectly honest, law-abiding CIA agent could make a serious mistake and torture an innocent person? Do you think that CIA agent shouldn't be offered an insurance policy against litigation?

You didnt say it, but it seems to me that is what is being implied here--> your real life rant about real people making tough decisions etc etc, reminds me of A Few Good Men

I did not at all imply anything remotely like that.
It's good to see your appreciation to the people that sacrifice so much so we can feel safe in our own countries.

 

[Anttech]

It's good to see your appreciation to the people that sacrifice so much so we can feel safe in our own countries.

Its good to see your hyping up of a negligible threat

You're oversimplifying. Do you think this information is just waiting to be found? Suppose surveilance identifies someone who fits a terrorist profile passing what could be a bomb to an unidentified person, who for all you know could be a suicide bomber, and the whole thing fits intelligence about a planned bombing in its final stages. That first person gets picked up by the CIA, and won't talk at all. The clock's ticking - there could be a suicide bomber right now in the states and you need to find him. On the other hand this guy has rights, and you haven't linked him to directly to anything yet. This is a very simple scenario - it gets much more complicated. So you see how a perfectly honest, law-abiding CIA agent could make a serious mistake and torture an innocent person? Do you think that CIA agent shouldn't be offered an insurance policy against litigation?

I think the CIA agent shouldn't be throwing people in jail with due process and without getting enough facts to do so. I think you should know by now, that I really subscribe to the neocon exaggerations of the *real and present danger* threat we get rammed down out throats. Of course this doesn't really apply to you, since you live in rather a large Hot Spot. So I will excuse you for your stance

 

[Yonoz]

Its good to see your hyping up of a negligible threat

I think the CIA agent shouldn't be throwing people in jail with due process and without getting enough facts to do so. I think you should know by now, that I really subscribe to the neocon exaggerations of the *real and present danger* threat we get rammed down out throats. Of course this doesn't really apply to you, since you live in rather a large Hot Spot. So I will excuse you for your stance

What do you think of the British foiled plot? Is that a negligible threat?

 

[Anttech]

What do you think of the British foiled plot? Is that a negligible threat?

That wasnt foiled via throwing civilians in secret jails because they looked funny. It was foiled because the Intelligence agency in the UK did their homework. The threat was negated via normal channels. I am not denying there is a threat, just the scale of that threat is a massive exaggeration, and yes in the *scale* of things, it is negligible. You are more likely to be killed in a car accident than to be blown up to smitherens by a Bomb touting Islamic warrior shouting Jhad death to the infidels (poetic license)

 

[Yonoz]

That wasnt foiled via throwing civilians in secret jails because they looked funny.

Irrelevant. You said:

Its good to see your hyping up of a negligible threat
I think you should know by now, that I really subscribe to the neocon exaggerations of the *real and present danger* threat we get rammed down out throats. Of course this doesn't really apply to you, since you live in rather a large Hot Spot. So I will excuse you for your stance

I asked you if this is a negligible threat. Is terrorism, in the face of the UK foiled plot, a negligible threat in your view?

It was foiled because the Intelligence agency in the UK did their homework.

Reminder: most of the work was done by Pakistan. Pakistan is a military dictatorship, there's a pretty good chance someone was tortured as a part of this investigation.

The threat was negated via normal channels.

You're right there. Intelligence agencies work with each other all the time, this ain't the cold war. There are quite a few people sleeping safely in their beds tonight thanks to their combined efforts.

I am not denying there is a threat, just the scale of that threat is a massive exaggeration, and yes in the *scale* of things, it is negligible.

What *scale* is that? What is not a negligible threat in your view? Do you realize there are entities that are attempting to disrupt the normal lives of billions of people?

You are more likely to be killed in a car accident than to be blown up to smitherens by a Bomb touting Islamic warrior shouting Jhad death to the infidels (poetic license)

Car accidents - why haven't we ever thought to do something against that? Let's deal with the biggest cause of death first, and take care of the rest later. Since you're more likely to die in a car accident than in an electrocution, I guess the government can stop worrying about its citizens being electrocuted and stop regulating all things electric. I guess western countries should deploy their militaries on their highways with orders to shoot anyone speeding.

 

[Anttech]

Car accidents - why haven't we ever thought to do something against that? Let's deal with the biggest cause of death first, and take care of the rest later. Since you're more likely to die in a car accident than in an electrocution, I guess the government can stop worrying about its citizens being electrocuted and stop regulating all things electric. I guess western countries should deploy their militaries on their highways with orders to shoot anyone speeding.

Clever stuff, so if they start killing everyone who is speeding who is then going to kill everyone who is/was killing al the speeders, since that will then become the biggest killer?

Anyway I wasnt saying the government should stop regulating all things electric, I agree with the governments policy of fencing of High voltage cabling.

I don't however agree with throwing people in jail without due process, simpley because there is a threat of terrorists. There will always be a terrorist threat of one sort or another. Allbeit Russian's IRA Islamists or the next wave of radicals.

You're right there. Intelligence agencies work with each other all the time, this ain't the cold war. There are quite a few people sleeping safely in their beds tonight thanks to their combined efforts.

I agree

What *scale* is that? What is not a negligible threat in your view? Do you realize there are entities that are attempting to disrupt the normal lives of billions of people?

The scale of big numbers.



P.S. You do realize I actually realize everything you asking whether I realize or not, I just have a different opinion than you.. So next time you are about to ask me whether I realize something just remember that the chances are I do

 

[Yonoz]

I don't however agree with throwing people in jail without due process, simpley because there is a threat of terrorists. There will always be a terrorist threat of one sort or another. Allbeit Russian's IRA Islamists or the next wave of radicals.

Stop stalling. This is about legal aid to CIA agents, not "throwing people in jail without due process".

P.S. You do realize I actually realize everything you asking whether I realize or not, I just have a different opinion than you.. So next time you are about to ask me whether I realize something just remember that the chances are I do

I did not mean to be offensive, that is just my way of conducting a dialogue. There's a joke that goes: 2 Jews are having a conversation:
A: Why do Jews always answer questions with questions?
B: Why do you ask?

 

[Anttech]

Its 2:30 in the morrning in Israel you should be sleeping, (safe in the knoweldge a 'few good men' are looking after us in our real world (couldnt resist ))!

Stop stalling. This is about legal aid to CIA agents, not "throwing people in jail without due process".

Actually Yonzo this thread *is* about Secret CIA jails. The Insurance stuff was a side topic. What do you want me to say, do you have any more questions on that, did I not make my stance clear enough?

I did not mean to be offensive, that is just my way of conducting a dialogue. There's a joke that goes: 2 Jews are having a conversation:
A: Why do Jews always answer questions with questions?
B: Why do you ask?
Report Bad Post Reply With Quote

You didnt offend me, I was just pointing out that I do realize a lot of stuff, albeit I was also being a tad sarcastic...

 

[Yonoz]

Its 2:30 in the morrning in Israel you should be sleeping, (safe in the knoweldge a 'few good men' are looking after us in our real world (couldnt resist ))!

I like late night radio.

Actually Yonzo this thread *is* about Secret CIA jails. The Insurance stuff was a side topic. What do you want me to say, do you have any more questions on that, did I not make my stance clear enough?

Yeah I've had enough discussing this too.

 

[edward]

My last comment is back to the USA, torture, and the secret prisons.

We tell the world that we take the moral high road ,yet we have traveled the moral low road on this issue. The greatest prevarication was that we cliamed both pathways.

(Feel free to substitue the word ethical or whatever best fits your own piont of view.)

 

[turbo]

My last comment is back to the USA, torture, and the secret prisons.

We tell the world that we take the moral high road ,yet we have traveled the moral low road on this issue. The greatest prevarication was that we cliamed both pathways.

(Feel free to substitue the word ethical or whatever best fits your own piont of view.)

We should waterboard Cheney to find out who "outed" Valerie Plame. He says that this is not torture, so why should he complain?

 

[Rach3]

a tiny revolution in the Capitol

It looks like a large army of Republicans have finally realized that not only is the president not representative of their core values, he's actively destroying their core values. Sens. McCain, Graham, and Warner declare their opposition to imaginary justice:

How 3 G.O.P. Veterans Stalled Bush Detainee Bill

...The three senators, all military veterans, marched off to an impromptu news conference to lay out their deep objections to the Bush legislation. Mr. Warner then personally broke the news to Senator Bill Frist of Tennessee, the majority leader, and the next day the Armed Services Committee voted to approve a firm legislative rebuke to the president’s plan to reinterpret the Geneva Conventions.

It was a stinging defeat for the White House, not least because the views of Mr. Warner, a former Navy secretary, carry particular weight. With a long history of ties to the military, Mr. Warner, 79, has a reputation as an accurate gauge to views that senior officers are reluctant to express in public. Notably, in breaking ranks with the White House, Mr. Warner was joined by Colin L. Powell, the former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, in a rare public breach with the administration he served as secretary of state.

Mr. Graham has similarly drawn on his legal and military background in challenging the White House. “The Geneva Convention means more to me than the average person,” he said. He said “some people” considered the conventions “a waste of time, but I know they have been helpful.”

Mr. Graham acknowledged that the political battle was bruising, but said he could not tolerate a change in the American interpretation of the conventions if it meant short-term benefits at long-term costs.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/17/w...259889d39ae&hp&ex=1158552000&partner=homepage

 

[BobG]

It looks like a large army of Republicans have finally realized that not only is the president not representative of their core values, he's actively destroying their core values. Sens. McCain, Graham, and Warner declare their opposition to imaginary justice:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/17/w...259889d39ae&hp&ex=1158552000&partner=homepage

Unfortunately, it will be real close on whether they can get their bill passed by the Senate. Plus, the house bill is much closer to Bush's. You have no Republicans in the House big enough to stand up to the party leadership, so only a real strong public backlash will stop something closer to Bush's plan from being adopted.

 

[ptabor]

We should waterboard Cheney to find out who "outed" Valerie Plame. He says that this is not torture, so why should he complain?

hahaha, that's marvellous.

 

[Skyhunter]

Suppose surveilance identifies someone who fits a terrorist profile passing what could be a bomb to an unidentified person, who for all you know could be a suicide bomber, and the whole thing fits intelligence about a planned bombing in its final stages. That first person gets picked up by the CIA, and won't talk at all. The clock's ticking - there could be a suicide bomber right now in the states and you need to find him. On the other hand this guy has rights, and you haven't linked him to directly to anything yet. This is a very simple scenario - it gets much more complicated. So you see how a perfectly honest, law-abiding CIA agent could make a serious mistake and torture an innocent person? Do you think that CIA agent shouldn't be offered an insurance policy against litigation?

If you ask an agent, they will tell you that if the clock is ticking, they will do what they deem necessary, and face the consequences.

What Bush is proposing is to make operating outside the law retroactively legal. What bushco has done is make the extraordinary, ordinary.

A president has the power to pardon. If all else fails he can protect the agents from criminal prosecution with a pardon. This would still leave them exposed to civil action however.

Here is the reason that this practice should not be sanctioned.

The following statement was read by Maher Arar in Ottawa on November 4, 2003, less than one month after being released from prison in Syria:

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

And as far as any civil actions

On February 16, 2006,in New York,attorneys with the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) voiced disappointment after Federal Court Judge David Trager dismissed the federal lawsuit brought on behalf of Maher Arar, a Canadian citizen who was “rendered” to Syria by U.S. authorities where he was tortured and held in prison for nearly a year. In his ruling, Judge Trager determined that he could not review the decision by U.S. officials to send Mr. Arar to Syria to be tortured, because it was a question of national security and foreign relations.

http://www.ccr-ny.org/v2/reports/report.asp?ObjID=r1AsHgY6Ly&Content=712

Maher Arar
The privilege was invoked against a case where Maher Arar, a wrongfully-accused and tortured victim sought to sue Attorney General John Ashcroft for his role in deporting Arar to Syria to face torture and extract false confessions. It was formally invoked by Deputy Attorney General James B. Comey in legal papers filed in the Eastern District of New York. The invocation read "Litigating [the] plaintiff's complaint would necessitate disclosure of classified information", which it later stated included disclosure of the basis for detaining him in the first place, the basis for refusing to deport him to Canada as he had requested, and the basis for sending him to Syria.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_Secrets_Privilege

This is a descent into barbarism. I fail to see how by destroying our fourth power, the power of our ideals, that the US could ever hope to "spread democracy" to the rest of the world. Democracy is based on the ideal of equality, justice, and respect for the individual. Democracies are champions of personal freedom and guardians of individual rights. What was done to Maher Arar and many others under the guise of "fighting terror" and "spreading democracy" has resulted in more terror, and less respect for the US and it's "democracy."

 

[Yonoz]

What Bush is proposing is to make operating outside the law retroactively legal. What bushco has done is make the extraordinary, ordinary.

The post you quoted dealt with this:

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?

Are you referring specifically to this matter of the insurance offered to CIA agents or is your argument outside this scope?

A president has the power to pardon. If all else fails he can protect the agents from criminal prosecution with a pardon. This would still leave them exposed to civil action however.

Does a pardon protect against criminal prosecution? I thought it could only be given after the verdict. Criminal proceedings tend to uncover quite a bit, and a pardoned man is not an innocent man. These agents, IMHO, deserve legal protection funded by the nation they serve.

Here is the reason that this practice should not be sanctioned.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/arar/arar_statement.html

And as far as any civil actions
http://www.ccr-ny.org/v2/reports/report.asp?ObjID=r1AsHgY6Ly&Content=712

IMO disturbing matters such as this need to be solved in a court. I am not familiar with the US Federal Court and judges, is this an accepted practice? Why was there only one judge sitting on the case - here the Supreme Court regularly sits in panels comprised of an odd number of judges, up to 11 - doesn't the US Federal Court do the same? Can the decision be appealed?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_Secrets_Privilege

This is a descent into barbarism. I fail to see how by destroying our fourth power, the power of our ideals, that the US could ever hope to "spread democracy" to the rest of the world. Democracy is based on the ideal of equality, justice, and respect for the individual. Democracies are champions of personal freedom and guardians of individual rights. What was done to Maher Arar and many others under the guise of "fighting terror" and "spreading democracy" has resulted in more terror, and less respect for the US and it's "democracy."

Aren't you throwing the baby out with the water? It seems (thanks for the sources BTW) that this is a remnant from the early days of the cold war. One flaw does not unbalance the entire system. Perhaps it needs to be rethought.
This is a common problem with legal precedents - they are not an ideal substitute to a law that was carefuly thought out and put down in the legislative branch. Unfortunately, it seems the weak link in the chain are always the voters. They simply do not care about these matters enough to demand their legislators take action.

 

[Skyhunter]

The post you quoted dealt with this:Are you referring specifically to this matter of the insurance offered to CIA agents or is your argument outside this scope?

Outside the scope.

I think that offering insurance is a good idea, although the reasons for it being necessary are disturbing to me.

Does a pardon protect against criminal prosecution? I thought it could only be given after the verdict. Criminal proceedings tend to uncover quite a bit, and a pardoned man is not an innocent man. These agents, IMHO, deserve legal protection funded by the nation they serve.

What I meant was that in extraordinary cases, if an agent was convicted (unlikely since the administration has been successful with getting suits dismissed on the National security premised dismissals) they could always be pardoned.

Making extraordinary cases ordinary is what I object to. I am more concerned with attempts to retroactively change the law to legalize, what is today considered to be illegal torture. Torture that has already been perpetrated on at least one innocent man.

IMO disturbing matters such as this need to be solved in a court. I am not familiar with the US Federal Court and judges, is this an accepted practice? Why was there only one judge sitting on the case - here the Supreme Court regularly sits in panels comprised of an odd number of judges, up to 11 - doesn't the US Federal Court do the same? Can the decision be appealed?

I don't know. I will try and remember to look into it.

Aren't you throwing the baby out with the water? It seems (thanks for the sources BTW) that this is a remnant from the early days of the cold war. One flaw does not unbalance the entire system. Perhaps it needs to be rethought.
This is a common problem with legal precedents - they are not an ideal substitute to a law that was carefuly thought out and put down in the legislative branch. Unfortunately, it seems the weak link in the chain are always the voters. They simply do not care about these matters enough to demand their legislators take action.

My reference to the Fourth power is from an http://www.oup.com/us/catalog/general/subject/Politics/InternationalStudies/InternationalSecurityStrategicSt/~~/dmlldz11c2EmY2k9OTc4MDE5NTE3NjgzNA== by Gary Hart "The Fourth power".

Today, even as America asserts itself globally, it lacks a grand strategy to replace "containment of communism." In this short, sharp book, Gary Hart outlines a new grand strategy, one directing America's powers to the achievement of its large purposes.

Central to this strategy is the power of American ideals, what Hart calls "the fourth power." Constitutional liberties, representative government, press freedom - these and other democratic principles, attractive to peoples worldwide, constitute a resource that may prove as important to national security and the national interest in this dangerous new century as traditional military, economic and political might.

Writes Hart:
"The idea that government exists to protect, not oppress, the individual has an enormous power not fully understood by most Americans who take this principle for granted from birth. Far more nations will follow us because of the power of this ideal than the might of all our weapons."

Against those who view America's noblest values as an inconvenience or even hindrance to the exertion of influence abroad, Hart warns that we ignore principle only at our peril. Such an approach may serve short-term goals, but there are costs; among them is the compromising of a crucial strategic asset, America's fourth power.