News Geneva Convention: Rumsfeld Ignored for Afghanistan, Complains for Iraq

[Nicool003]

That is pitiful. How about the sick ungrateful acts of people like you! Why don't you go live with saddam! He has a nice 2 by 4 you can sleep on in his damned bunker!

That was meant for you Kyleb and you know it.

gah damgo, you sick, ungrateful, person! Why don't you go live with saddam!

How pitiful are you going to get? Damgo I hope you don't listen to the likes of him.

 

[kyleb]

russ_watters, i didnt have an arument with damgo; i was supporting his opinion with a little sarcasim. Nicool003, it would be nice if you would realize that as well.

 

[Laser Eyes]

Originally posted by Njorl
I checked, and you are right about the custody. He was held by Pakistan for three days and handed over. I did not see the hand-over on the news. However, what makes you say he is being tortured? As far as I can tell, there is absolutely no information about him available, only a lot of supposition.
Njorl

When he was captured there were some statements by US intelligence officials that there was a pre-9/11 policy and a post-9/11 policy on interrogating prisoners. They said the same rules no longer applied. I remember one official said that after 9/11 the gloves came off.

 

[russ_watters]

russ_watters, i didnt have an arument with damgo; i was supporting his opinion with a little sarcasim. Nicool003, it would be nice if you would realize that as well.

Ok, this is kinda a personal attack (hypocritical, I know), but I'm a little frustrated. Kyle, you missed the point AGAIN. You're kinda dense. My point was that you should structure your arguements the way damgo does IN GENERAL. Your OVERALL tactics are poor.

 

[damgo]

russ--
There is quite a difference between extradition and the recent rendering over of suspects. An extradition is a formal legal proceeding: eg, first, say, Pakistan announces that person X is accused of committing crime Y. The USA would then take person Y into custody and ship them off to Pakistan, where they would face legal proceedings.

What's actually happening is the CIA/US military/etc takes some prisoners, decides they need more "persuasion" obtaining information from some of them, and hands them over to Pakistani (or other) intelligence. These people are not identified, and no accusations are made.

That is the main thing I (and human rights organizations) object to. I don't have any problem with locking up terrorists; I object to letting the CIA or Dubya secretly detain or "render" people they might suspect of terrorism. Of course there is no way for anyone else to verify that suspected terrorist activities are even the reason for these people's detainment: we are left with the Administration's word on the matter.

This kind of secretive, permanent "disappearance" of suspects is a hallmark of repressive dictatorships. I expect to see it in El Salvador, Iraq, Zimbabwe; not the USA.

 

[russ_watters]

I object to letting the CIA or Dubya secretly detain or "render" people they might suspect of terrorism.

Catch-22. Until tried, they are all just suspects. The trial necessarily has to come last.

But I'll grant you it is unseemly.