CIA holds terror suspects in secret prisons

[Don't Tread On Me]

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

Semantics.


You're calling a lie "bad intelligence". Bad intelligence = accidental. Lie = intentional.


But that is somewhat of a redherring. It takes away from the FACT that Bush said himself, that WMD's were in Iraq. Now, he bases his "facts" on intelligence. Bad or good.


So it becomes a matter of where does the buck stop? I guess not at Bush - isn't that letting them off the hook a little bit?


Note the hypocrisy, or better yet, double-standard in your own logic. Had YOU lied to the Government, Martha Stewart style...for a crime that wasn't commited -- you will go to prison. But not for our masters and Gods in Washington.


That is the same type of elitist goverment statism that people espouse around here when they hold LEO's in some higher respect than regular citizens.


Anyway, back to the WMD thing. He made those statements AS HIS OWN, as President. They were lies - because they were false.

lie
n.

1. A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood.
2. Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression.


Saying WMD's were in IRAQ has been shown to be false. Therefore, Bush made a false statements. He deliberately presented these "facts" as the truth about Iraq prior to the war. Therefore, Bush lied.

You can say that at the time he thought they were "true"..so it's not a lie, since he didn't make a false statement deliberately being presented as true, since he believed that information to be true.

Well, in that case, I've got a bridge to sell you, or some photo's of "Mobile Anthrax Labs", ex-scientists on CIA payroll, and evil death drones that will spray VX and Sarin over our children's preschools- all remotely controlled from Saddam's palace.


I guess we wasted a lot of money on those satellites that can read 12pt fonts from outer space...


ty

 

[TarpleyG]

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.

No, it's not all right but it might just happen and I couldn't do squat about it. War is war and ????? happens. You're telling me now that POWs should have legal representation??? At whose expense BTW?

I guess I better not give the impression that I am an enemy they are seeking. Oh, and I should stay out of Omaha.

Greg

 

[Don't Tread On Me]

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

That's pretty weak. I remind you again of the facts.


Fact #1. Bush said WMD's were in Iraq. He said they had irrefutable proof - via satellite photos (Colin Powell special), testimony from Iraqi exiles on CIA payroll (agents working to destabilize Saddam), Yellow Cake and all sorts of other garbage.


Now, given the fact THEY made those claims. I'd like to see the evidence. Don't you?


It isn't MY burden to prove they don't exist, it's THEIR burden to prove they DO exist.


Good thing your logic isn't used in criminal courts.


You claim I support an argument of silence, IE, I say they haven't been found, therefore they don't exist. That isn't really my argument, that's your argument to keep the "WMD's are in Iraq" statement Pending....perhaps FOREVER.


Guess what guys! WMD statement wasn't a lie - because we still might find them! Did you know that in a debate - God doesn't exist, because you can't prove that God exists? Any scholar would reject your argument that "God exists because you can't prove that he doesn't"....That doesn't fly.

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

As far as I am concerned, if they are not US citizens, the Constitution simply does not apply.

In point of fact, the Constitution doesn't apply to American citizens at all. It only applies to the United States Federal Government, while it pertains to both American citizens and to all of humanity. The Constitution says that "No person shall be deprived of life or liberty without due process of law." It doesn't say no American citizen. This was intentional. The Founders didn't believe that only those lucky enough to be born in America had inalienable rights. No, they believed that "All men are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, among which are life and liberty." In my day, you couldn't graduate the sixth grade if you didn't know this stuff, but it seems as if this is all new to you. What a shame what has happened to our education system.

 

[twency]

You claim I support an argument of silence, IE, I say they haven't been found, therefore they don't exist. That isn't really my argument, that's your argument to keep the "WMD's are in Iraq" statement Pending....perhaps FOREVER.

No, I say that if they haven't been found, that's not proof that Bush lied.

Let's say told you I have evidence that my grandfather buried a gold coin somewhere on my parent's 60-acre farm, and invited you to come find it with your metal detector. You come and look for it, and can't find it. Does that prove that I lied?

Not at all. It may mean that the coin never existed, and my information was wrong. It may mean that the coin is there, but you just didn't find it. It may mean that the coin was there, but someone else found it first. Finally, it may mean I made up the whole thing. But the fact that you didn't find the coin doesn't prove that I lied.

________________
-twency

 

[antarti]

You're telling me now that POWs should have legal representation??? At whose expense BTW?

That's a little "off" unless you want to call these "detainees" (just a convenient word while making this point, don't read into it) POWs. That point can be debated, but I'll use POWs since you did.

Yes, the Nazi's even took POWs. IIRC, some 94% of our guys in Nazi POW camps survived. The German people paid for that. Not so with the Japanese, who were far more barbaric at the time. So there IS a code of ethics in war, that even some provenly craven regimes (not AlQuaeda though) will adhere to.

Is it too much to ask that we do the same? We did sign the same documents, and it's our tradition. A tradition of showing the world that we are not the same as you, we are better.

Or couldn't a military tribunal vet these people and declare them at least as enemy combatants, at which point they could be detained (or even tossed into a big meat grinder)?

It's about not leaving a record, IMHO. No transparency, zip.

So why all the skullduggery?

Prior to Sept 11th, it wasn't necessary, and I think we have a LOT less to fear from the current crop of death-worshippers than the last.

OTOH, we have one heck of a lot more to fear from our own home-grown miscreants in elected office.

 

[twency]

Anyway, back to the WMD thing. He made those statements AS HIS OWN, as President. They were lies - because they were false.

lie
n.

1. A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood.
2. Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression.


Saying WMD's were in IRAQ has been shown to be false. Therefore, Bush made a false statements. He deliberately presented these "facts" as the truth about Iraq prior to the war. Therefore, Bush lied.

First, "Saying WMD's were in IRAQ" has not been proven to be false. See the analogy i just posted above. Second, I understand the word "lie" to refer to an intentionally false statement. An inadvertant false statement based on bad information is not, in my opinion, a lie. Is that a huge stretch of the facts? (Is it, gasp, a lie????)

____________
-twency

 

[JJpdxpinkpistols]

So, "because most of them have already admitted to being wrong on the WMD's," that's proof that Bush lied?

Lets just sidestep this whole process:

Show me the WMDs.
Show me the WMDs.

You get Bush to show us the WMD's and I will AGAIN throw my support behind the war on terror. Until then, yeah, Bush is an out and out liar.

And now back on target: my granddad got his foot crushed by a shell (C-BeeS) defending against people who took folks and imprisoned them based upon their beliefs and supposed actions against the State. These folks were primarily imprisoned in countries allied to them and kept until the end of their lives.

The country: Germany
The detainees: Jews...Gypsy's...homosexuals...politicians.
The countries: Poland, France, Austria, Hungary

This doesn't make me feel all warm and fuzzy. In fact, it makes me feel a bit queesy. The actions of my government shouldn't make me feel queesy.

 

[Shalako]

In the past wars, if an enemy combatant was wearing a regular uniform, they were taken prisoner and put into a POW camp.

Enemies captured not wearing a uniform were considered spies and could be shot.

Show me the regular uniform on our enemies.

We could shoot them on site, but instead keep them alive for information. Are you saying we should just go back to just shooting them? I see the value in obtaining information from them as we are fighting a hidden enemy. They choose to fight from the shadows, so we must do so as well or just stand there and be picked off.

They called the dance.....

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

First, "Saying WMD's were in IRAQ" has not been proven to be false. See the analogy i just posted above. Second, I understand the word "lie" to refer to an intentionally false statement. An inadvertant false statement based on bad information is not, in my opinion, a lie. Is that a huge stretch of the facts? (Is it, gasp, a lie????)

____________
-twency

Bush was planning this war before 9/11. He was happy to use 9/11 as an excuse to take us to war with Iraq, and used every trick in the book. He may not have lied, per se, but he chose to create an image in the minds of the American people that Saddam was on the verge of nuking US cities, and that he had intelligence to this effect. This was a false impression intentionally placed in the American mind for the purpose of getting popular support for what he had been determined to do since before he was elected. He knew that Iraq had nothing to do with the attacks on our soil, but intentionally manipulated available evidence to create a false impression that this was in fact the case.

 

[JJpdxpinkpistols]

First, "Saying WMD's were in IRAQ" has not been proven to be false.

Horsepucky.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-10-06-wmd_x.htm

If you so wish, we can now take up arguements relating to Knaves and Knights.

 

[Don't Tread On Me]

So you're allowing the Bush argument of ignorance to prevail?

It was an "honest mistake". It wasn't. There is enough evidence and testimony, and history in place to find leaves NO doubt whatsoever that there was a concerted effort to fabricate the WMD "evidence"...


If Bush has simply said "we think"...it would have been as you say, a matter of an honest mistake - implying no conspiracy to lie, a conspiracy to lie which I claim. I said it was intentional, based on his statments, statements which were made with the utmost confidence in being fact, and backed by evidence...


Speaking of evidence...


Then explain the evidence, like satellite photo's of mobile wmd labs, killer drones, barrels of gas etc....How can it have been "bad intelligence" or unintentional misinformation when they came forth with "evidence"...?


Wait..let me see - ALL the evidence was wrong? How can this be? ALL that evidence was wrong? ALL at the same time? WMD labs, barrels of gas, NUKE program, unmanned aerial vehicles, yellow cake, witnesses...wow --- all that sh*t was all wrong all at the same time, and Bush and his entire staff, and the entire government fell for it?


There's no weaseling out of this one.


Where is the investigation into which analyst totally misinterpreted that satellite photo of the mobile WMD lab that Colin Powell displayed at the U.N. Where is the investigation into how the military or CIA could have misidentified that? I mean they had ARROWS pointing to every part of those vehicles explaining how they relate to the production of nerve gas!!!!


Ok...zoom to present. All of the administration, sans the Pres and Vice, have admitted to being "wrong"...how can that be when they aren't wrong according to YOU who still claims that it wasn't a lie because they haven't "found them yet"...Can't they just fall back on those photo's that clearly show WMD's? Say -- yes!!!!! They were there, but not anymore!


They vanished into thin air! Just like 2000 dead soldiers and 200+ billion of our dollars.

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

In the past wars, if an enemy combatant was wearing a regular uniform, they were taken prisoner and put into a POW camp.

Enemies captured not wearing a uniform were considered spies and could be shot.

Show me the regular uniform on our enemies.

We could shoot them on site, but instead keep them alive for information. Are you saying we should just go back to just shooting them? I see the value in obtaining information from them as we are fighting a hidden enemy. They choose to fight from the shadows, so we must do so as well or just stand there and be picked off.

They called the dance.....

Apples and oranges. What you say only applies when we are in a declared war with a nation. In which case, soldiers of that nation are required to wear their uniforms. That doesn't apply to this situation, though. Someone from a country with which we are not at war cannot be considered in this way. If they commit crimes, no matter how heinous, they are criminals, and when arrested enjoy the rights of any accused person under our system. If you are invading someone else's country, and the people (not regular soldiers) rise up and defend their land with weapons, they are not violating some military code of ethics. They are defending their land from the invader, the same as you and I would in similar circumstances. These people don't fit the category you describe either. When apprehended, they have rights, and shouldn't be treated as if they don't.

 

[Mongo the Mutterer]

In the past wars, if an enemy combatant was wearing a regular uniform, they were taken prisoner and put into a POW camp.

Enemies captured not wearing a uniform were considered spies and could be shot.

Show me the regular uniform on our enemies.

We could shoot them on site, but instead keep them alive for information. Are you saying we should just go back to just shooting them? I see the value in obtaining information from them as we are fighting a hidden enemy. They choose to fight from the shadows, so we must do so as well or just stand there and be picked off.

They called the dance.....

Bingo !! +1

 

[Don't Tread On Me]

You've given us all the common argument that the government has been using. Finding a techinicallity in the Geneva conventions or whatnot. That we aren't fighting uniformed military personnel.


Guess what, the American revolution wasn't fought soley by uniformed continental army soldiers. It was fought by militia. Hypocritical eh? Would you have looked at England as just, had a geneva convention existed back then, and the militia men were tortured, while the continental army were detained in accordance to the convention?



It really isn't about what every letter of the geneva convention says. It is about American's expecting their elected government to act with decency, even when our enemy does not. We don't do that to look good, we do that because we don't want our government justifying that treatment for us.


Besides, by arguing the geneva convention, you're saying by default that the geneva convention is the standard by which we measure our morality. LOL. That's terrible. Guys, I think we're a little bit better than a contract between European nations....We're only as good as the Geneva Convention makes us!!!! Whaahoo!



Here's another angle. How long does it take to get information out of the detainees? It can't possibly take more than a year. Give them a lawyer, give them a trial (even if it is a joke), then either let them free if found innocent, sentence them to prison, or execute them. DON'T just hold them there.


Even the most left-wing liberals don't sympathize with these terrorist, they just want to see some action - as indefinate detention is perhaps the worst precedent and act our government can ever do.


It's not why our fathers all bleed for. They didn't die for this.

 

[Winnisimmet]

Excellent! Go! Go! Go! CIA !!

Lock em up . . . Keep em there and do what's ever required. We need to start a new support group for our gallant CIA officials. . . "American Citizens for Foriegn Prisons for Foriegners". The new ACFFPFF organization backs increased funding to bankroll even more deep dark dank secret prisons outside of CONUS to warehouse enemies of America. Maybe too, a little extra cash can be slipped to our overseas minions so from time to time they'll forget the location of the miscreant filled secret prisons. Oooops, it slipped our minds as to where that secret lock up is located with the thugs, murderers and prisoner scum not being fed or watered in several weeks. Oh, well . . .so it goes.

 

[Bruce H]

So are Valerie Plame and Joe Wilson part of the sources for this nugget? I will reserve judgement until I can look the sources in the eye.

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

Lock em up . . . Keep em there and do what's ever required. We need to start a new support group for our gallant CIA officials. . . "American Citizens for Foriegn Prisons for Foriegners". The new ACFFPFF organization backs increased funding to bankroll even more deep dark dank secret prisons outside of CONUS to warehouse enemies of America. Maybe too, a little extra cash can be slipped to our overseas minions so from time to time they'll forget the location of the miscreant filled secret prisons. Oooops, it slipped our minds as to where that secret lock up is located with the thugs, murderers and prisoner scum not being fed or watered in several weeks. Oh, well . . .so it goes.

I am assuming you are about twelve, based on your response, so you likely have an excuse. But, when you grow up, you will realize that not all who are apprehended are actually guilty of what they are charged with. This is why we place limits on what our government may do when it suspects someone of a crime. This is why we no longer have sovereign kings who can arrest political enemies and stick them in dungeons for the rest of their lives under some kind of manufactured charge, never to be heard from again. If you allow your government to do this to "terror suspects," you can be sure that the definition of a "terror suspect" will, sooner or later, magically expand to include just about anyone they want out of the way. You might find yourself to be a terror suspect under the Hillary Clinton administration one day. Off you go to a secret prison for questioning, which will likely involve repeated simulated drownings, and being chained in odd positions for days on end in between simulated drowning sessions. You want to see your lawyer? What a laugh! You're not in the United States anymore, and your citizen status has been stripped from you since you're suspected of being a member of that terror group known as The High Road. Those rights only belong to US citizens, which you are no longer. You will have to tell us what you know about the other members of this group before we will stop the drowning sessions today, but you can never see a lawyer. No one even knows you're alive, and we need to keep it that way, so just cooperate and the rest of your life might not be quite as agonizing as it might otherwise be.

 

[JohnBT]

"Can't anybody keep a SECRET???"

Obviously there are some traitors who can't.

John

 

[Ezekiel]

Lock em up . . . Keep em there and do what's ever required. We need to start a new support group for our gallant CIA officials. . .

I don't even know how to reply to this miscreant: it's almost as if the fundamental aspects of how "wrong" this is have eluded him.

(sigh)

I just don't understand how...um..."forget it". Lost cause. :banghead:

 

[Mongo the Mutterer]

So are Valerie Plame and Joe Wilson part of the sources for this nugget? I will reserve judgement until I can look the sources in the eye.

Yep Show Me... Me too.

Oh, an anecdote. Fiance and I went to dinner at a sport's bar, and CNN was on TV. Wooof woof Blitzer was interviewing Wilson. Sound was off the TV.

Watching the stern, serious expressions on both of these COLOSSAL losers was absolutely hilarious.

I'll bet Wilson pays $500 for a haircut, too.

 

[Ezekiel]

"Can't anybody keep a SECRET???"

Obviously there are some traitors who can't.

John

Whoa!

Typically I appreciate your posts, but are you saying that the overt "right", "patriotic" and "morally correct" thing to do was -- if aware -- keep secret the fact that the United States both sponsors and runs "secret prisons" in other countries?

Basically, your dilemma is that someone told, not that these places actually exist? And, that by telling, these folks are now traitors?

Do I have your point and meaning correct? Because, yesterday, I thought it was satire...

 

[goosegunner]

Looks like it becomes harder and harder everyday to find a reason, other than who has the strongest army, to support the USA. I was hoping you where the 'Good Guys' for better reasons than short term profits.

 

[El Tejon]

The New Barbary pirates are that--pirates. They are not subject to due process under U.S. or international law. By declaring themselves free of civility, they have identified themselves as targets in a free fire zone.

This, along with shooting them behind the ear with a .22, is exactly what the CIA SHOULD have been doing years ago! Decades ago when the USA was run by real men we knew this. Now we face a thick cadre of cookie pushers who shuffle paper and want people who have sworn to murder our children to love us so the cookie pushers can get invited to the right cocktail parties in Georgetown.

Best wishes to the CIA and why weren't you doing this sooner? The world is not a violence free petting zoo filled with fuzzy bunnies and baby lambs. The USA is the best house on the block in a horrible neighborhood. If we have to let the crazy uncle who lives in the apartment over our garage go out at night and shoot the crackheads down the street so we can live in the security that our kids do not disappear on the way to school--just fine with me.

 

[Ezekiel]

Best wishes to the CIA and why weren't you doing this sooner?

"Because it's draconian, an international witch-hunt, morally indefensible and not proven effective?"

I'm not being sarcastic or an ass, I think those are valid reasons.