CIA holds terror suspects in secret prisons

[Don't Tread On Me]

It was just a bad dream in the cinematic style of Dr. Zhivago - except not funny.


Isn't there a missing girl in Aruba or an accused child-mollesting pop-singer to be discussing? Hurry along now, go back to what you were doing. Nevermind what the Government is doing. The gover-media...err I mean CNN/FOX are reporting on Martha Stewart's ankle bracelet removal and how it left a "tan line".

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

I may be dating myself, but isn't this precisely the type of behavior we (collectively) held up as proof that the Soviets were a bunch of evil bastiges during the Cold War? The kind of folks we Americans would detest and never tolerate, much less emulate?

Or did I just dream that?

No, you didn't just dream it, unless I was in your dream too, because that's exactly the way I remember it. That was how we knew we were the good guys, i.e., we didn't torture people, we didn't snatch people up and send them off to secret prisons without due process or access to representation. We didn't attack countries that didn't attack us first. We were, after all, the good guys. Only the bad guys did that sort of thing, and we all knew who they were.

 

[antarti]

We were, after all, the good guys

Sad how times have changed...

and people wonder how/why some on this (and other) forums can speak of voting from a good high vantage point, printing "recall ballots" on your progressive press, etc.

It's getting more obvious to me day-by-day that the guys leaning toward voting "early and often" just might be right.

Damn, I thought I'd be at least 20 years older before becoming such a curmudgeon. My mistake was never accounting for all the traitors, and that snowballing effect that Socialism has on a population.

Oh well... fool me once...

 

[TarpleyG]

I didn't read the entire article but I did read most of the replies. Maybe someone can answer my question.

The CIA is operating out of the country which it is supposed to do by charter and from what I gather, no where was it mentioned that these folks being held and questioned in these secret prisons were Americans in any sense of the notion. If that is the case, why all the comparisons to Germany and Russia and secretive operations like the CIA is doing something immoral/illegal. As far as I am concerned, if they are not US citizens, the Constitution simply does not apply. I sincerely doubt they are capturing "terror" suspects here in the States and carting them off to this secret prison for interrogation. I am under the assumption these are folks captured outside our borders in which case I have zero problem with it.

Greg

 

[antarti]

and from what I gather, no where was it mentioned that these folks being held and questioned in these secret prisons were Americans in any sense of the notion. If that is the case,

I am under the assumption these are folks captured outside our borders in which case I have zero problem with it.

And congress can't even confirm that... can you?

like the CIA is doing something immoral/illegal

You're ostensibly an American, yet see nothing wrong with jailing somebody for their whole life? Without a trial? Without even a rigged Military Tribunal? Even the Nazi's got that... What part of justice (civilian or military) do you not get?

Times have indeed changed..

 

[twency]

You're ostensibly an American, yet see nothing wrong with jailing somebody for their whole life?

I don't recall seeing any allegation that this is being done.
___________________
-twency

 

[davec]

I gather you're being facetious, but the idea of the U.S. having secret prisons isn't exactly novel, nor was it unheard-of when your grandfather was fighting the Nazis. For example, there was a secret prisoner-of-war camp used for interrogation of enemy officers here in the mountains of central Pennsylvania. I can't find a whole lot of information on what happened there (imagine that - a secret camp without a lot of existing documentation) but there doesn't seem to be any question it existed, and prisoners were interrogated in secret.

Yeah, that's a clear analogy. A Prisoner of War camp set up on American soil used to house uniformed military officers of a nation that had declared war on the United States (and had war declared on them by the United States Congress) temporary housing said officers till being transferred to much less "secret" POW camps.


[BLOCKQUOTE]The camp was not operated as a final destination for the POWs as the POWs were kept for a short period of time for interrogation and then dispersed to other POW camps.

..

The prisoners included members of Rommel's Africa Corp. In accordance with the Geneva Convention, POW officers were not involved in contract labor or major forestry projects, but did perform maintenance-related activities around the camp such as road construction and brush clearing. For the most part, the POWs spent their time involved in recreational activities including painting and sports. Prisoners were, well treated although unlike other POW the security of camp was tighter in relation to the intelligence gathering activities. A reported 15 prisoners escaped from the camp and legends still exist that one of these escapees lives in the forest around the camp.[/BLOCKQUOTE]

http://www.beulahpresby.org/webmaster/michaux/SURVEY.htm

Though, to be fair it sounds like torture was a common practice at that camp in rural Pennsylvania.

[BLOCKQUOTE]At one time during the war a German Naval Officer was quartered in Trail Lodge. He was a very stubborn prisoner and for two weeks would not divulge any secrets. Someone found out that this prisoner was very fond of American Whiskey. So they brought him down to Michaux Lodge and put him in with another prisoner. The Americans gave them two bottles of whiskey. They became very drunk and the conversation which ensued was recorded by means of a Dictaphone hidden in the ceiling. A few days later a submarine base in Germany was bombed for the first time.[/BLOCKQUOTE]

http://www.wartimememories.co.uk/pow/pinegrove.html

Giving Whiskey to Germans has been against all conventional rules of war farce since at least the 1700's.


Yup, clear comparison between a camp set up on foreign soil in secret by the CIA used to house god knows who, and doing who knows what and a camp in Pennsylvania used to temporarily hold uniformed officers of the German military.

 

[twency]

Let's be fair. I never said it was a perfect analogy. I said it was a fact that secret prison camps have been used by the United States for a long time. Based on earlier comments in this thread, the mere existence of a secret prison was apparently enough to signal the end of western civilization as we had known it.
___________
-twency

 

[Don't Tread On Me]

Oh come now! We're past the trivial nonsense of circuses like the Nuremberg Trials.


It is much better to detain people indefinately, not give them access to a government-approved attorney for 18 months, and certainly not give that pesky media a REAL look into our TAX-payer funded prison system.


I'd rather they bombed them into a bloody paste in the desert than conduct these attrocious anti-American acts. Now they've set a precedent. While many American's don't approve. You don't see American people marching on D.C. or marching throughout the streets demanding our government act in an American manner.


That's the scary part. They are doing it, and we're sending the message that we don't give a damn. That's a stamp of approval in the eyes of our ever power hungry leviathan state.


Bush lied about the reasons to go into Iraq. This is fact, it is unrefutable. Imagine their closed door meetings? They must be laughting their butts off that America bit into that one. They must be planning the next great lie or stunt.


It's like Jerry Springer's "talk" show. What's the next most extreme thing they can get away with?

 

[cropcirclewalker]

Osamer won.

He has us doing his work for him.

When evil is used to fight evil then evil has won. Evil has won.

 

[twency]

Bush lied about the reasons to go into Iraq. This is fact, it is unrefutable.

Show me a single shred of evidence to support this statement.
________
-twency

 

[Don't Tread On Me]

Show me a single shred of evidence to support this statement.

I'll do that when you find me those WMD's

 

[antarti]

Twency,

Since then, the arrangement has been increasingly debated within the CIA, where considerable concern lingers about the legality, morality and practicality of holding even unrepentant terrorists in such isolation and secrecy, perhaps for the duration of their lives. Mid-level and senior CIA officers began arguing two years ago that the system was unsustainable and diverted the agency from its unique espionage mission.

OR

"We never sat down, as far as I know, and came up with a grand strategy," said one former senior intelligence officer who is familiar with the program but not the location of the prisons. "Everything was very reactive. That's how you get to a situation where you pick people up, send them into a netherworld and don't say, 'What are we going to do with them afterwards?' "

I thought those were pretty clear that it was contemplated... or not, what their dispositions would be.

 

[twency]

I'll do that when you find me those WMD's

The burden of proof is not on me to prove that they do, or did, exist. I'm not making a claim that they did, although I have referenced high government officials who have said they did, including statements made before January 2000, when BushHitler took office. I want to know why so many people, like Madeline Albright stated that they did, even though they later couldn't be found.

On the other hand, you make the assertion flat-out that:

Bush lied about the reasons to go into Iraq. This is fact, it is unrefutable.

I haven't seen any evidence of this. Please support your statement.

__________________
-twency

 

[RealGun]

Not true. The legal system is based on the rule of law, which is grounded in the Constitution, which is accessible to anyone with a fifth grade education. It is, however, the case that those in charge of our legal system ignore the rule of law, and the document in which it is grounded.

Those "in charge of our legal system" define the rule of law. It is not some disconnected absolute. The rule of law is both a noble concept and a cruel, corrupted reality. It is well established that in practical terms the Constitution DOES NOT mean what it literally says. There is always that pesky "compelling government interest", which makes it all rather elusive. Some rights are more popular than others. Some are very inconvenient to powerful people.

 

[twency]

I thought those were pretty clear that it was contemplated... or not, what their dispositions would be.

True, if this article is accurate, it is being contemplated. Thanks for clarifying. My apologies.

_______________
-twency

 

[antarti]

Cropcirclewalker +P+

When evil is used to fight evil then evil has won. Evil has won.

I thought that our "righteous indignation" was always enough motivation to get anything done.

Shame we're running out of "righteous", but not "indignant" anymore.

And pardon me for using the word "shame", since we're running perilously low on that as well these days.

 

[Don't Tread On Me]

The burden of proof is not on me to prove that they do, or did, exist. I'm not making a claim that they did, although I have referenced high government officials who have said they did, including statements made before January 2000, when BushHitler took office. I want to know why so many people, like Madeline Albright stated that they did, even though they later couldn't be found.

On the other hand, you make the assertion flat-out that: I haven't seen any evidence of this. Please support your statement.

__________________
-twency

Holy Argumentum ad verecundiam Batman!


It is IRRELEVANT if Clinton, Bush Sr., or Bozo the clown "said" that WMD's were in Iraq. This doesn't make it proof, or evidence of any kind whatsoever.


Now - Bush said IRAQ HAS WMD's AND IS DEVELOPING NEW ONES.


Burden of proof on Bush and YOU. "Show me the WMD's"

*edited to correct the type of flawed argument

 

[twency]

Holy strawman argument Batman!

It is IRRELEVANT if Clinton, Bush Sr., or Bozo the clown "said" that WMD's were in Iraq. This doesn't make it proof, or evidence of any kind whatsoever.

Now - Bush said IRAQ HAS WMD's AND IS DEVELOPING NEW ONES.

Burden of proof on Bush and YOU. "Show me the WMD's"

I have no obligation to show you the WMDs, because I am not asserting that it is undeniable fact that they exist now, or that they ever existed. I am questioning your assertion as undeniable fact that:

Bush lied about the reasons to go into Iraq. This is fact, it is unrefutable.

Very simple and clear.
________
-twency

 

[Aguila Blanca]

I'm on the side that thinks America's "Whatever, I'll do what I want" policy is more dangerous than the terrorists.

x 2

 

[Don't Tread On Me]

Play semantics all you want. If it were my burden to prove, that would be convenient for you or Bush. I'd rely on the evidence, or in this case, lack thereof.

It is safe to say there are no WMD's in Iraq. Are they still burried in the desert? Are we still waiting for Saddam's former Baathist buddies to come forth and tell us where they bulldozed a massive crater to hide them all?

We can find Saddam in a spider hole, where are all those WMD's? Barrels of anthrax? Barrels of nerve gas? Not 1 scientist (except the one's on CIA payroll) has come forth to admit or give us clues into the phantom WMD program.


Bizarre. With over 150,000 military personnel, and triple that in civilian and contractors, compound that with international media, private inspectors, and we haven't seen not one teeny tiny shred of WMD's. Oh let me guess....Iraq is the size of California, so it's hard to find them? ROFLAHAHAH. If so, then why doesn't the Administration keep on the rhetoric of looking for them


Simple - because most of them have already admitted to being wrong on the WMD's. Remember, politicians don't admit to lying - that would imply conspiracy, instead it was just an honest mistake, a miscalculation. You know ...it's REALLY easy to mistake spy satellite photography of old run down military transport vehicles for "mobile WMD labs" before the U.N. Hahahaha.


Like I said, they already admitted it.


Now, that exercise was fun wasn't it? Now, back to reality, and back to the fact that the burden of proof sits with the accuser (Bush) and not me.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

I didn't read the entire article but I did read most of the replies. Maybe someone can answer my question.

The CIA is operating out of the country which it is supposed to do by charter and from what I gather, no where was it mentioned that these folks being held and questioned in these secret prisons were Americans in any sense of the notion. If that is the case, why all the comparisons to Germany and Russia and secretive operations like the CIA is doing something immoral/illegal. As far as I am concerned, if they are not US citizens, the Constitution simply does not apply. I sincerely doubt they are capturing "terror" suspects here in the States and carting them off to this secret prison for interrogation. I am under the assumption these are folks captured outside our borders in which case I have zero problem with it.

Greg

According to your logic, if the intelligence apparatus of, for example, Iran decided that YOU are a terrorist who might be plotting to assasinate their leader, if they grab you off the street in Omaha and whisk you off to a secret prison in Syria or Lebanon so they can torture you for as long as they wish, without telling anyone where you are or allowing you any legal representation ...

It's all okay, right? Because you're not a citizen or Iran, and the prison isn't in Iranian soil.

 

[twency]

Simple - because most of them have already admitted to being wrong on the WMD's. Remember, politicians don't admit to lying - that would imply conspiracy, instead it was just an honest mistake, a miscalculation. You know ...it's REALLY easy to mistake spy satellite photography of old run down military transport vehicles for "mobile WMD labs" before the U.N. Hahahaha.

So, "because most of them have already admitted to being wrong on the WMD's," that's proof that Bush lied? I'm not following your line of logic. Bush said WMDs were present. So did lots of other people, including Democrats within the past couple years, and Democrats in the Clinton White House, before BushHitler came on the scene. Let's assume for the sake of argument that not a single WMD ever existed (excluding, of course, those Saddam is known to have used on the Kurds). How is it "unrefutable" that "Bush lied about the reasons to go into Iraq." Even if we agree that no WMDs existed, that just means that the U.S. had bad intelligence information. It doesn't mean "Bush Lied, Kids Died!"

__________
-twency

 

[benEzra]

HMM, dont want to be held in a prison in BFE, dont fly planes, or support those that do, into our buildings.

Umm, what if Attorney General Feinstein in some future administration decides that some THR members are "terrorism suspects" because of their "known anti-government views," their attendance at "paramilitary training camps" (Gunsite, DTI, Front Sight, LFI), their stockpiles of "sniper rifles" and "paramilitary weapons," and their alleged support for "armed resistance against the government" (i.e., wearing a Molon Labe hat or quoting Jefferson in their sig line).

If the decision is made today that abducting someone and holding them for the rest of their life in a secret prison in Romania or Uzbekistan, because a government agent suspected them of being a terrorist, is OK...remember that the system will then be used by every administration in the FUTURE. This system in doesn't worry you, as long as the target is suspected Islamic terrorists? What about ten years from now, when your worst political nightmare could be president and the target could be "antigovernment extremists"? Be careful what you wish for; what goes around, comes around. ..

 

[twency]

Play semantics all you want. If it were my burden to prove, that would be convenient for you or Bush. I'd rely on the evidence, or in this case, lack thereof.

An argument from silence. Always a winner.

"There are no WMDs in evidence now, therefore there never were any, therefore when someone stated that there were, he was lying (and if he says he relied on bad information, that also proves he was lying)."

Very powerful.

_________
-twency