News Bush says operates secret prisons

[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.