CIA holds terror suspects in secret prisons

[Marshall]

Secret interrogation areas..........

I loose no sleep over this.

 

[White Horseradish]

Some here contend that if we do not give up some liberties the terrorists will win. If the terrorists do win, we will lose our liberties for sure.

Now, either way the end result is loss of liberty. Does it matter to us whether we won or lost if that is the case?

This seems to me like the separation of deaths into "gun deaths" and other deaths. Either way is death, does it matter if you were shot or had your skull caved in with a brick?

 

[Iain]

I did mean to answer, and I understood the point of asking the question. What you did though was ask a question like 'Out of all the colours which is your favourite, red or green?' I didn't read it as a trap exactly, it's just framing a question in order to get one of two answers - the one you like, and the one you want to shoot down.

I answered as though you asked whether or not there are certain principles of justice that I hold to be inviolable, regardless of outcome.

 

[shootinstudent]

TRH,

The only way we could lose is if we continue to allow Muslims to enter our country. We can choose to commit suicide by continuing this insane policy, or we could come to the realization that Islam is way too dangerous to encourage within our own boarders, and change our imigration policies to match this reality. There is no law that says we have to ignore what religion someone is when deciding on issuing visas and citizenship documents. If we adopted a sane immigration policy, there is no way we could ultimately lose, since only a tiny minority of Americans would be happy surrendering to Islamic totalitarianism.

Yes, not only are secret prisons one form of erosion in our civil rights, but the right to religious freedom is another thing that's threatened by all the hype that comes with the war on terror. I do believe passing a law that says "No Muslims may enter the US" would be a law respecting the establishment of religion, what do you think?

I think the best way to lose the war is to start pushing all of our Muslim allies (like the Muslims who fight in the US Army and who are fighting on our side in Iraq as we speak) away from us by saying "All Muslims are evil", and sending the message that we want nothing to do with them. That's a good way to lose vital sources of support and intelligence with respect to fundamentalist terrorism.

You speak as if we have only two options, fight our enemies by abandoning liberty or retain our liberty and succomb to our enemies. I believe, on the contrary, that we can fight our enemies without adopting the values of our enemies.

I think so too. But blaming all Muslims for the acts of a few is something that our enemies do in order to propagandize against us. You are to be commended for recognizing the dangers that secret trials and prisons present, but you shouldn't ignore the equally real danger of the rise of religious hatred and the consequent loss of freedom.

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

TRH,

I don't think we're getting anywhere. I'll try to clear up a couple of points of confusion, then I'll just let you have the last word if you like.



You combined George Washington's foreign policy with a strict anti-immigration policy.

You grossly mischaracterized Washington's foreign policy, and I never advocated an anti immigration policy.

Washington's foreign policy was predicated on the fact the we were too small and weak to become involved in foreign entanglements in his time. That's clearly not the case today.

On this point we disagree. We had just defeated the world's only super power. That's nothing to sneeze at.

You and I agree that Muslim fundamentalists are a threat to our country. I was discussing rules of engagement for fighting our enemy overseas. You responded by saying all we had to do is keep our enemy out of this country. To me that sounds isolationist.

Then I contend that your definition of isolationism is faulty.

I would never call myself a "one-worlder", but I suppose opinions vary. I reserve terms like that for people who think the US should subjugate itself to the UN, or only operate with international permission. I think the US needs to take whatever action it deems best to protect its national interests.

I was only asking. There are many kinds of internationists, and I don't like your variety (Those who see us as a budding empire) any better than the one worlders.

Having served 5 years in the military (yes, the US military), and 10 years in the intelligence community, I have more faith in the people our government is comprised of than you seem to.

You must have. Once released from the chains of the Constitution, as you would have it, it is my opinion no organization composed of human beings, no matter how noble their purpose, can be trusted as far as you can throw them. On this I agree with Lord Acton, "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely."

You can call it that if you like. I called it a moral value question. Perhaps I should have been clearer that I wasn't asking you about real world current events at that time. I was asking what your values were.

I think I've made perfectly clear what my values are. Your question served another end, I am convinced.

I was genuinely surprised that several people reacted as if I were trying to trap you in some way.

Your purpose was quite obvious. You were attempting to force a choice for which you had an answer in mind.

I don't see what the big deal is. Iain answered, although I'm not sure he meant to, when he said:

Iain has clarified what he meant. I agree with him.

I was actually just trying to understand where you were coming from.

I think you know where I come from. Otherwise, I've been wasting my time here at the keyboard these last few days.

PS I am far from comforted by the knowledge that you worked in US Intelligence, but I am not at all surprised.

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

TRH,



Yes, not only are secret prisons one form of erosion in our civil rights, but the right to religious freedom is another thing that's threatened by all the hype that comes with the war on terror. I do believe passing a law that says "No Muslims may enter the US" would be a law respecting the establishment of religion, what do you think?

No law would need to be legislated. This could be done as a matter of immigration policy rather than a law passed by Congress. It was, in fact, our policy until the early 1960s.

I think the best way to lose the war is to start pushing all of our Muslim allies (like the Muslims who fight in the US Army and who are fighting on our side in Iraq as we speak) away from us by saying "All Muslims are evil", and sending the message that we want nothing to do with them. That's a good way to lose vital sources of support and intelligence with respect to fundamentalist terrorism.

No, just quietly change the immigration policy. We don't need to insult anyone by stating that Islam is evil. Nor am I saying it. It is just not particularly compatible with our culture. We can absorb those who are already citizens, and given enough time they will likely become Americanized, but for that to work we need to close the floodgates.

I think so too. But blaming all Muslims for the acts of a few is something that our enemies do in order to propagandize against us.

I have not blamed all Muslims.

You are to be commended for recognizing the dangers that secret trials and prisons present, but you shouldn't ignore the equally real danger of the rise of religious hatred and the consequent loss of freedom.

To recognize that Islam has historically been a danger to Western society is not to promote religious hatred. It is merely to recognize a fact of history confirmed repeatedly over many centuries, and revealing itself to be undeniably true as we speak. If history proves anything, it is that Islam is destructive of Western society. Their history has been one of constant violent conquest and conversion by the sword. Our culture has been nearly wiped out on numerous occasions by the proponants of this "religion of peace," and we moderns have blithely welcomed them within our citadels and invited them to make themselves at home. This is the definition of insanity.

 

[Farnham]

I'm glad we've got a few places to stash the captured vermin overseas. I'd rather they got a 9mm hole in the back of the head, but I'm sure someone would call that a war crime.

I'm fairly certain that were I an Al Qaeda detainee, I'd rather cool my heels in a secret CIA prison than a secret Jordanian, Turkish, or Egyptian one. I could be sure the ACLU, the MSM, and/or the liberals would someday set me free in their quest to make all the world fluffy.

S/F

Farnham

 

[shootinstudent]

This could be done as a matter of immigration policy rather than a law passed by Congress. It was, in fact, our policy until the early 1960s.

How do you think Congressional policy is made? Hint: Congress does things by statute....so no, you can't change a "policy" of Congress without passing something.

No, just quietly change the immigration policy. We don't need to insult anyone by stating that Islam is evil. Nor am I saying it. It is just not particularly compatible with our culture. We can absorb those who are already citizens, and given enough time they will likely become Americanized, but for that to work we need to close the floodgates.

National origin and religion are not the same thing. You are confusing past policies limiting immigration from certain countries with limiting immigration based on religion.

To recognize that Islam has historically been a danger to Western society is not to promote religious hatred. It is merely to recognize a fact of history confirmed repeatedly over many centuries, and revealing itself to be undeniably true as we speak. If history proves anything, it is that Islam is destructive of Western society.

You could not be more wrong. If you're genuinely interested in the subject, I have a boat load of primary sources that you can look through in order to see this for yourself. The "West" that the Arab conquerors took over was a deeply sick, feudal, and violent place, which is why the Muslim armies were welcomed by both Christians and Jews wherever they went. Conversely, the spread of Nazi and before that western totalitarian philosophy since the late 1800's in the Muslim world has wreaked havoc on those societies. If anything, you could make a weak claim that Western culture has threatened and is now destroying the Muslim world via the influence of sick, twisted western philosophies.

Our culture has been nearly wiped out on numerous occasions by the proponants of this "religion of peace," and we moderns have blithely welcomed them within our citadels and invited them to make themselves at home. This is the definition of insanity.

"They" are not all one people. It's not insane, but certainly incorrect and likely dangerous to our mission against terrorism, to view the Muslim world in this light. The mistake we're making isn't inviting Muslims to America. It's being so ignorant of what is happening in the Muslim world that we can't combat terrorism effectively...because we don't know enough to recognize potential allies nor to identify the most dangerous elements.

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

How do you think Congressional policy is made? Hint: Congress does things by statute....so no, you can't change a "policy" of Congress without passing something.

For the moment I will concede this point to you. Regardless, adjustments in immigration policy hardly amount to establishing an official religion in the United States, and would thus not be barred by the First Amendment's Establishment Clause.

National origin and religion are not the same thing. You are confusing past policies limiting immigration from certain countries with limiting immigration based on religion.

You are both right and wrong. National origins were historically selected at least partially based on the religions previlent therein. The point is that religion was considered an important factor in making our immigration policy, and ought to be again.

You could not be more wrong. If you're genuinely interested in the subject, I have a boat load of primary sources that you can look through in order to see this for yourself. The "West" that the Arab conquerors took over was a deeply sick, feudal, and violent place, which is why the Muslim armies were welcomed by both Christians and Jews wherever they went. Conversely, the spread of Nazi and before that western totalitarian philosophy since the late 1800's in the Muslim world has wreaked havoc on those societies. If anything, you could make a weak claim that Western culture has threatened and is now destroying the Muslim world via the influence of sick, twisted western philosophies.

A weak claim, indeed.

"They" are not all one people. It's not insane, but certainly incorrect and likely dangerous to our mission against terrorism, to view the Muslim world in this light. The mistake we're making isn't inviting Muslims to America. It's being so ignorant of what is happening in the Muslim world that we can't combat terrorism effectively...because we don't know enough to recognize potential allies nor to identify the most dangerous elements.

If we weren't there, they wouldn't be here, and we wouldn't need to decipher the regional peculiarities of the various cultural experiences of Islamic peoples.

 

[shootinstudent]

You are both right and wrong. National origins were historically selected at least partially based on the religions previlent therein. The point is that religion was considered an important factor in making our immigration policy, and ought to be again.

Sure, behind the scenes, and wrongly so, just like race was once a major factor. The constitution forbids religious bias in Government.

A weak claim, indeed.

Somewhat, but much stronger than the claim that Islam is on a mission to destroy the west.

If we weren't there, they wouldn't be here, and we wouldn't need to decipher the regional peculiarities of the various cultural experiences of Islamic peoples.

We need to be there for lots of reasons, and we have to learn to deal with different cultures and religions. And of course, you can't really make decisions about whether or not it's worthwhile to keep relations up when you don't really know what's going on.

Let's keep up all freedoms, religious and otherwise.

 

[mercedesrules]

Well, I certainly meant to be good natured. None of us has to be on this forum, it's supposed to be enjoyable. I hadn't meant to be an attacker at all, but I may have a problem with that. My wife sometimes says the same thing.

I was referring to the islamic fundamentalist "terrorists" as enemies. It may have been an exageration to say they surrounded us. But they are to the east and west of us. I think they would be very happy to see our society collapse into anarchy, and would try to perpetuate it.

My point is that I don't think a libertarian anarchy (anarcho-capitalism) would have any enemies of the sort we are discussing. I hesitate to describe that type of anarchy to you; most here have at least heard of it. Why would anyone want to attack a bunch of well-armed, widely-dispersed, self-governors that only trade and mind their own business? No one has attacked Switzerland - even with all of that money!

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

My point is that I don't think a libertarian anarchy (anarcho-capitalism) would have any enemies of the sort we are discussing. I hesitate to describe that type of anarchy to you; most here have at least heard of it. Why would anyone want to attack a bunch of well-armed, widely-dispersed, self-governors that only trade and mind their own business? No one has attacked Switzerland - even with all of that money!

The key phrase there is "and mind their own business."

 

[blackguns]

WOW,

This has been a discussion.
I won't even pretend that I will have the last word here. Way too many of us like the sound of our own keyboard.

I will say this. We have all profusely and prodigiously pontificated on our point. The fact of the matter is that secert prisions exists, nasty, nasty things are probably being done to never convicted prisioners in our national name.

Some of us are OK with that while others feel it is a betrayal of our national principals in the worst way. (I will admit to having a better overall picture of the issue because of this thread)

The real question is........what will be done about it?

I feel one of the most basic principals of any republic is the ability to effect changes in government when it is desired by the populace.

I'm not talking about revolt or even huge public demonstrations......how about you write a letter to your representatives expressing your outrage......join a group that is fighting for the rights of those in these prisions......maybe do something other than be quietly indignant.

There are groups that know the names of some of these prisioners. Get involved.

It's like voting, if you didn't vote, don't complain. If you have a problem with it and don't voice that grievence, what right do you have to be upset?

This is a pro-gun board, how many of us belong to the NRA or some organization that promotes gun owners right? If you don't don't complain when your rights are lost. (it's an example, let's not start a debate over the way things should be, let's deal with the way things are)

There may be senetors or congressmen here on this board, but I don't think this audience as a whole spends a lot of time in the capital building.

Get up! Go do something about it! I'm pretty sure the founding fathers would want you to.

 

[antarti]

Let's take Osama Bin Laden as an example. Let's suppose we put him on trial for 9/11. What evidence is there? His own admission that he was responsible on his video tapes? He can say that was simply propaganda he was fabricating for recruitment purposes. All other evidence is the result of illegal search and seizure. The case would be thrown out of court for insufficient evidence.

You're kidding right? People are convicted every day of murder without a body or a weapon. Somehow a video of you taking credit for the crime of killing 3000+ isn't enough? In whose court? Judge Judy's?

Certainly you were a LOT less likely to get in trouble for killing prisoners in WW2. In a lot of the personal accounts I have read it was commonplace.

AND

I'd rather they got a 9mm hole in the back of the head, but I'm sure someone would call that a war crime.

You got the whole thing backwards. If these people are real terrorists, caught planning/doing/fighting etc. There is no problem shooting on sight. Nobody is calling for "war crimes tribunals" or for our military to adopt "peace officer" standards. Kill the terrorist bastiges. If they don't die, interrogate. You know who these people are, they are not "suspects".

Where the difference lies in when you have a suspect.

You pull "Achmed" out of his mud-hut in the middle of the night because "Ali" (who is a terrorist who survived his gunshot) said he's a WMD mastermind. Now nobody tells you that Achmed's only crime was having an ancestor 400 years ago that delivered a swift kick to Ali's progenitors testicles (which, according to oral formulaic storytelling, resulted in the cleft palate all of Ali's relatives are born with).

After you're done laughing, realize these clowns hold grudges that make the Hatfields and McCoys look like pikers. They're still holding one against US for things that happened almost 1000 years ago.

So do we:
1) Waste time and money keeping Achmed in jail, maybe forever since he's "holding out on us" by not telling us about WMD
2) Go ahead and torture Achmed unrepentantly without ever looking at the facts?

AND NOW THE BIGGIE

3) Do the SAME THING to American citizens related to both of these men? Or maybe people with names they decided to "make up" under duress?

And do we do all that secretly...

Somebody tell me how this can possibly be a good idea?

 

[mercedesrules]

The key phrase there is "and mind their own business."

Why?

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

Why?

How ofter are Swiss citizens targeted by terrorists? Wonder why?

 

[GigaBuist]

I would cheerfully inflict great amounts of pain on someone I felt had designs on another 9/11 if that meant that I could save the lives of innocent people.

I would hope I could do the same, although "cheerfully" wouldn't be a word I'd use to describe my mindset in that setting.

However, I would expect to be investigated for what I did, possibly brought up on charges, and judged by a jury of my peers if there was a possibly that I may have done something wrong.

Seems simple to me.

 

[LawDog]

How ofter are Swiss citizens targeted by terrorists?

About as often as Swiss movies hit the Top 40 to be emulated by adoring masses everywhere, Swiss fast-food places wind up on every corner, the Swiss internet tells other people that things can be different and Swiss fashions marketed by Swiss ad agencies "corrupt" the youth of other countries.

LawDog

 

[mercedesrules]

How ofter are Swiss citizens targeted by terrorists? Wonder why?

So, we agree?

'Cause that was the point I was making: that a continent full of peaceful libertarian anarchists wouldn't stir up hatred overseas.

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

So, we agree?

'Cause that was the point I was making: that a continent full of peaceful libertarian anarchists wouldn't stir up hatred overseas.

On that point, yes, we agree, so long as you remove the word anarchists, because the Swiss are not that, though their government is small, decentralized, limited, and heavily checked. I do believe that some level of government is necessary, but the least of it the better. It needs to be heavily checked, however, or it will certainly expand in power ad infinitum, until it inevitably becomes totalitarian in nature, i.e., or it will take the road ours took with the election of Honest Abe Lincoln. Today we see the result of that path, and it will only get worse with time.

 

[coylh]

Vice President Dick Cheney made an unusual personal appeal to Republican senators this week to allow CIA exemptions to a proposed ban on the torture of terrorism suspects in U.S. custody ...

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002605281_watch05.html

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

[Darth Vadar's Imperial Theme Music]Vice President Dick Cheney made an unusual personal appeal to Republican senators this week to allow CIA exemptions to a proposed ban on the torture of terrorism suspects in U.S. custody .. [/Darth Vadar's Imperial Theme Music]

 

[antarti]

Vice President Dick Cheney made an unusual personal appeal to Republican senators this week to allow CIA exemptions to a proposed ban on the torture of terrorism suspects in U.S. custody

And once they allow it, fedgov will put out a release saying:

"We have closed all the 'mildly controversial' foreign secret CIA interrogation complexes due to public outcry and questionable Constitutionality. It had the 'appearance of impropriety' and we (in this administration) felt it was better to have everything 'above board' out of respect for the Law and our people."

...because they won't need them anymore.

And the masses will applaud.

 

[Don't Tread On Me]

On that point, yes, we agree, so long as you remove the word anarchists, because the Swiss are not that, though their government is small, decentralized, limited, and heavily checked. I do believe that some level of government is necessary, but the least of it the better. It needs to be heavily checked, however, or it will certainly expand in power ad infinitum, until it inevitably becomes totalitarian in nature, i.e., or it will take the road ours took with the election of Honest Abe Lincoln. Today we see the result of that path, and it will only get worse with time.

Quoted for truth.


Those not in the know, please refer to "The Real Lincoln" by Thomas DiLorenzo.

 

[carebear]

When institutions become self-perpetuating the people become secondary.

mercedes,

I think if I was any kind of capitalist, anarcho- or otherwise, I would have paid SOMEONE to take out the Barbary Pirates. At the time, the "someones" were the US Navy and Marines. If they hadn't existed, the A-C's would have had to invent them.

Besides, Presley O'Bannon basically bought the services of a rival claimant to the throne (and his army) to do it. All very mercantile in it's way.

I did wonder in Boot how just seven Marines took a whole city by themselves. Twelve? Sure, anybody could see that happening. But just seven? That's WAY unbelieveable.