Global Gulags

[crazymf]

Yes. That's why there's checks and balances. McCarthyism, Vietnam, Korea, all examples of a state reacting to a situation that made perfect sense at the time.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Howdy, CRAZYMF:

I have to take issue with at least part of this statement.

McCarthyism??? Reacting to a situation that made perfect sense at the time???

Are you aware of McCarthy's role in trying to have comic books banned???

You see, it was a "proven fact" that comics turned kids into murderers and, worse yet, communists.

I can't really see the "perfect sense" there.

I would agree with your statement if it included the phrase "would have made perfect sense to a paranoia-stricken person at the time".

Some people always fear the worst, and when there is no worst, they invent one.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Ok, OK I was generalizing about the communist threat that was sure to infect the world. That was reactionary to the situation after ww2. Also, paranoia about communism surely wasn't rampant, but a few after the fact whackos like McCarthey made things difficult. He was for sure a radical, just like Pat Robertson is a modern day radical of a different sort. I was merely trying to make the point that the times dictate what is the right decision and may look absurd at a later date.

We've had 4 years since 911 to understand that the muslim extremists will do anything at their disposal to eliminate anyone who doesn't share their ideals. Like it or not, we have other ideals and are merely human like them. We feel ours are right, they feel theirs are. That looks like an impasse to me because just like the Palestinians about Israel, they won't be content as long as we have a pulse.

Taking the Canadian middle of the road stance may merely weaken us in the end and cause a real inability to act if it becomes necessary. I'm not saying we should grab guns and start shooting. I'm saying lets let the CIA do their work and hope they are successful at it so we don't all have to get involved. BTW, do you think Canada's intelligence division is squeaky clean? I think they're just better at hiding their activities because we never hear about them.

[Black Dog]

Craxymf, you keep missing th epoint:

Well BD. The way I see it, if somebody picks up a gun and points it at me, to hell with his human rights.

Well, first, we're not necessarily talking about self-defence, so that dog doesn't hunt. Grabbing some guy who may or not be a terrorist, locking them away from any legal protection or representation and subjecting them to god-knows what kind of treatment is not "self-defence".

As for "bad guys" not deserving human rights protections, why not? If we are as civilized and freedom-loving as we claim, we should be setting the standard, not debasing ourselves to the level of the fiends we claim to oppose.

You make semi valid points all within the spectrum of your scope of argument. The bad guys aren't in your spectrum. What would you do then? Keep argueing while they slice your jugular?

Call me crazy, but I believe that if these fellas are so dangerous, then surely a case can be built against them. Put them on trial, expose their crimes.

I'm thinking that's where we are with the CIA and their bad guys. I don't want to know, just do what needs done, get rid of the problem and call it a day.

"First they came for the Jews..."

We know what happens when citizens of a democracy stop holding their government to account and surrender to the forces of a secretive state apparatus that claims to be acting in the best interests of the people.

And Israel handing over Gaza wasn't a major concession?

Perhaps. If it wasn't part of a continuing plan to expand the West Bank settlements.

At least Israel tries diplomacy before they shoot.

Last time I checked, they don't send 16 year old self propelled bombs out to kill people either.

No, they just send 18 year olds to kill 16 year olds from the comfort of a helicopter cockpit. But we digress...

Yes. That's why there's checks and balances. McCarthyism, Vietnam, Korea, all examples of a state reacting to a situation that made perfect sense at the time. I believe there are people in the world ie.USA, that have learned by those encounters. Are there injustices in the world? No doubt, but there are times when indecision doesn't cut it. A war is one of those times.

You should read the article again. This covert prison system operates out of the reach of any checks and balances.

The difference is this war at the present time doesn't really have an immediate chance of making us lose our land and society. If times got tough, I suspect I wouldn't hear too much whining about human rights violations.

To chracterize the struggle against the ideology that fuels terrorism as a war is both false and dangerous. False because it is a political and idealogical struggle (and please: spare me any von Clausewitz references) that cannot be resolved by force of arms). Unsavoury cloak and dagger activities are, to a degree, inevitable, but without a grand strategy, without a vision to confront th epolitical/idealogical realities, there can be no victory, only an unending and increasingly ugly struggle.

[crazymf]

Unsavoury cloak and dagger activities are, to a degree, inevitable, but without a grand strategy, without a vision to confront th epolitical/idealogical realities, there can be no victory, only an unending and increasingly ugly struggle.

..until they're extinct.

This covert prison system operates out of the reach of any checks and balances.

..but they have a mandate to operate that way from the federal government, who can ultimately shut them down if necessary. At least I hope they could. Kind of like letting a killer attack dog off leash I guess. You always really don't know if you can call it back. I'm saying necessary evil.

Call me crazy, but I believe that if these fellas are so dangerous, then surely a case can be built against them. Put them on trial, expose their crimes.

That's an unattainable ideal imo.

Well, first, we're not necessarily talking about self-defence, so that dog doesn't hunt. Grabbing some guy who may or not be a terrorist, locking them away from any legal protection or representation and subjecting them to god-knows what kind of treatment is not "self-defence".

As for "bad guys" not deserving human rights protections, why not? If we are as civilized and freedom-loving as we claim, we should be setting the standard, not debasing ourselves to the level of the fiends we claim to oppose.

That's like differentiating between the guy who pulled the trigger or the guy who held the victim to be shot. Neither is clean and both had the same intention. I don't believe we just grab people off the street for no reason and call them terrorists.

Listen, we can banter back and forth all day. I like to lean toward solving the problem even if the end justifies the means and you like to remain high, just and diplomatic no matter what. I can live with that. I'm done this.

[Black Dog]

..until they're extinct.

Nonsense. Unless you are prepare to exterminate, not just every actual terrorist, but every single person with idealogical sympathies. And then, of course, those individuals' families. And anyone who could potentially, one day, think of sympathizing with terrorists. Then congratulations: you're Hitler.

..but they have a mandate to operate that way from the federal government, who can ultimately shut them down if necessary. At least I hope they could. Kind of like letting a killer attack dog off leash I guess. You always really don't know if you can call it back. I'm saying necessary evil

They ARE the government. (Actually, given the total lack of oversight, they are above the government).

That's an unattainable ideal imo.

Why?

That's like differentiating between the guy who pulled the trigger or the guy who held the victim to be shot. Neither is clean and both had the same intention.

No its differentiating between someone involved in the crime and someone you think may have been involved in the crime.

I don't believe we just grab people off the street for no reason and call them terrorists

Well, given that this is the same government that held hundreds of people in Iraq's worst prison by mistake (70 to 90 per cent of detainees in Abu Ghriab were innocent of any wrongdoing) and is holding a majority of detainees in these black sites who have little direct involvement in terrorism and limited intelligence value, I'd say I have every reason to believe that is exactly what is going on.

[moderateamericain]

Again my question goes back to the validity of this article, it does not give clear cut sources. so im still in doubt of some of what was said. however it would not overly shock me if it was true. call me a skeptic. But the first thought i had after reading that is "where did this information come from?" and "How do i validate that its true" clearly there is more than needs to be found out before a clear condemnation can be handed down.

[Black Dog]

Again my question goes back to the validity of this article, it does not give clear cut sources.  so im still in doubt of some of what was said.  however it would not overly shock me if it was true.  call me a skeptic.  But the first thought i had after reading that is  "where did this information come from?"  and "How do i validate that its true"  clearly there is more than needs to be found out before a clear condemnation can be handed down.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well, a lot of it has been circulating for a while. Sy Hersh, the Independent (UK) and others reported on how the U.S. is keeping secret detainees starting back in (IIRC) 2003. And we know about the practice of "rendition" thanks to the Arar case here in Canda. So the pieces are there, it seems like the WaPo is trying to put them all together. Finally, the very nature of this story (that is: the high level of secrecy which keeps these gaols hidden even from other branches of government) means that "official" confrimation would be impossible. I dunno. When it comes to this administration, where there's smoke, there's probably fire.

[Guest eureka]

The suspicion comes from, amongst others, the International Red Cross and Amnesty International. There are also diplomatic sources.

[newbie]

I think the effectiveness of the CIA was undone long before "slam dunk" Tenant came on board. Much of the strife in the world has been caused by this agency, from Central and South America to Iran and Indonesia, in addition to importing crack cocaine. Their total screw-up over Iraq intelligence proved finally that they are a completely useless component of the U.S. govenment. These "black sites" are in keeping with their dangerous philosophy.

[Shady]

C) You're obfuscating. Or talking out of your ass. Probably both

Nope, just trying to keep you people consistent. But we both know that's impossible.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear newbie,

Much of the strife in the world has been caused by this agency, from Central and South America to Iran and Indonesia, in addition to importing crack cocaine.

I found out that the CIA denies drug trafficking involvment and implies that it wouldn't break the law.

The CIA does neither.  Executive Order 12333 of 1981 explicitly prohibits the Central Intelligence Agency from engaging, either directly or indirectly, in assassinations.  Internal safeguards and the congressional oversight process assure compliance.

Regarding recent allegations of CIA involvement in drug trafficking, the CIA Inspector General* found no evidence to substantiate the charges that the CIA or its employees conspired with or assisted Contra-related organizations or individuals in drug trafficking to raise funds for the Contras or for any other purpose. 

http://www.cia.gov/cia/public_affairs/faq.html

[newbie]

Regarding recent allegations of CIA involvement in drug trafficking, the CIA Inspector General* found no evidence to substantiate the charges that the CIA or its employees conspired with or assisted Contra-related organizations or individuals in drug trafficking to raise funds for the Contras or for any other purpose. 

http://www.cia.gov/cia/public_affairs/faq.html

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Imagine that. A covert agency saying it never breaks the law.

[newbie]

deleted, double post

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear newbie,

from... http://pages.prodigy.net/thomasn528/blog/2...923674507206233

But if Senator Stevens has his way, and successfully exempts the CIA from the McCain Amendment's otherwise unequivocal ban on cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment, the Congress will for the first time have ratified the Administration's view that such cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment is not uniformly off-limits, and will have given a green light to the CIA to engage in such conduct. Moreover, as explained above, that very unfortunate result would not be offset by any meaningful improvement in the law as it applies to the Armed Forces.

Accordingly, it is imperative that those Senators and Representatives supporting the McCain Amendment must resist any effort to "augment" the Amendment with a CIA carve-out.

The CIA seems to be saying, "Sure we abide by the law...but please, please, puh-leeease amend the law to let us torture people".

[Black Dog]

This just in for Shady, CNN is reporting that Trent Lott thinks it was a GOP Senator who leaked the info about he prisons to the Post last week. He says the details had been discussed at a meeting last week with GOP Senators and the Vice President, and that many of those details made it into the WaPo story.

Money quote: "(Cheney) was up here last wek and talked up here in that room right there in a roomful of nothing but senators and every word that was said in there went right to the newspaper."

No link yet.

[tml12]

Again my question goes back to the validity of this article, it does not give clear cut sources.  so im still in doubt of some of what was said.  however it would not overly shock me if it was true.  call me a skeptic.  But the first thought i had after reading that is  "where did this information come from?"  and "How do i validate that its true"  clearly there is more than needs to be found out before a clear condemnation can be handed down.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Whether or not it is true (I believe, for the record, that it is) we are not meant to know so what???

[moderateamericain]

Again my question goes back to the validity of this article, it does not give clear cut sources.  so im still in doubt of some of what was said.  however it would not overly shock me if it was true.  call me a skeptic.  But the first thought i had after reading that is  "where did this information come from?"  and "How do i validate that its true"  clearly there is more than needs to be found out before a clear condemnation can be handed down.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Whether or not it is true (I believe, for the record, that it is) we are not meant to know so what???

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Because a gun is a gun, its not a bouqet of flowers. A is A, A cant be B. I dont operate on pieces of information. You dont build a house with pieces of a blue print. You need the whole thing. Keep the info coming BD, i would very much like to see where this goes.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear tml12,

Whether or not it is true (I believe, for the record, that it is) we are not meant to know so what???

Pretty much a given that it is true.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/libra...109-rferl01.htm

It looks as though the US intel is going to investigate the story as a 'leak' and not a falsehood. Further,

The administration of President George W. Bush has refused to confirm or deny the "Post" story.

if there was any hope of keeping it secret, there would be denials such as 'baseless accusations' and 'entirely without proof', etc.

Another bit of the story... http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/world...tan/saltpit.htm

As of the time of the March 2005 Washington Post article, the brick factory had already been torn down. This followed the November 2002 death of an Afghan detainee at the "Salt Pit" who froze to death overnight after having been stripped naked, was buried and kept "off-the-books". The CIA case officer in charge of the facility has since reportedly been promoted, though an investigation by the CIA Inspector General had been opened. As of mid-March 2005, the US Justice Department was reportedly considering pressing charges in that case. As of early November 2005, the CIA officer had not been charged

Now, if the chimneys of Auschwitz or Bergen-Belsen once again begin to smoke, and the US says "We need to dispose of the bodies of the enemy", will you still say "So what? I wasn't meant to know."?? Ends do not justify means, unless it is the most dire of circumstances, and even then some form of judgement will be passed.

[moderateamericain]

Dear tml12,

Whether or not it is true (I believe, for the record, that it is) we are not meant to know so what???

Pretty much a given that it is true.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/libra...109-rferl01.htm

It looks as though the US intel is going to investigate the story as a 'leak' and not a falsehood. Further,

The administration of President George W. Bush has refused to confirm or deny the "Post" story.

if there was any hope of keeping it secret, there would be denials such as 'baseless accusations' and 'entirely without proof', etc.

Another bit of the story... http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/world...tan/saltpit.htm

As of the time of the March 2005 Washington Post article, the brick factory had already been torn down. This followed the November 2002 death of an Afghan detainee at the "Salt Pit" who froze to death overnight after having been stripped naked, was buried and kept "off-the-books". The CIA case officer in charge of the facility has since reportedly been promoted, though an investigation by the CIA Inspector General had been opened. As of mid-March 2005, the US Justice Department was reportedly considering pressing charges in that case. As of early November 2005, the CIA officer had not been charged

Now, if the chimneys of Auschwitz or Bergen-Belsen once again begin to smoke, and the US says "We need to dispose of the bodies of the enemy", will you still say "So what? I wasn't meant to know."?? Ends do not justify means, unless it is the most dire of circumstances, and even then some form of judgement will be passed.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

nice find, well, the good news is we we will have a new cabinet next election. Hopefully we get someone much less morally bankrupt? I cant bring myself to call bush a conservative because he is not.

[tml12]

Dear tml12,

Whether or not it is true (I believe, for the record, that it is) we are not meant to know so what???

Pretty much a given that it is true.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/libra...109-rferl01.htm

It looks as though the US intel is going to investigate the story as a 'leak' and not a falsehood. Further,

The administration of President George W. Bush has refused to confirm or deny the "Post" story.

if there was any hope of keeping it secret, there would be denials such as 'baseless accusations' and 'entirely without proof', etc.

Another bit of the story... http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/world...tan/saltpit.htm

As of the time of the March 2005 Washington Post article, the brick factory had already been torn down. This followed the November 2002 death of an Afghan detainee at the "Salt Pit" who froze to death overnight after having been stripped naked, was buried and kept "off-the-books". The CIA case officer in charge of the facility has since reportedly been promoted, though an investigation by the CIA Inspector General had been opened. As of mid-March 2005, the US Justice Department was reportedly considering pressing charges in that case. As of early November 2005, the CIA officer had not been charged

Now, if the chimneys of Auschwitz or Bergen-Belsen once again begin to smoke, and the US says "We need to dispose of the bodies of the enemy", will you still say "So what? I wasn't meant to know."?? Ends do not justify means, unless it is the most dire of circumstances, and even then some form of judgement will be passed.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Fleabag,

It was inappropriate of me to insinuate that we should not know. Yet, I standby my comment that, where the CIA and U.S. national security are concerned, there is a lot that we don't know...we might as well assume anything is possible...and maybe the CIA has a right to keep it from us. After all, if the CIA is interrogating and finding valuable pieces of information from these people to keep us safe, I don't know. Of course I support human rights but in this age of terrorism, I believe a strong central government with the will and the ability to fight terrorism is paramount. That may be a very conservative statement, but it also one that I believe we all, of th left, right, up, and down, must examine.

[Black Dog]

As near as I can tell, the administration's response to all this has been "We don't torture , but please don't take away our ability to torture people if we want to."

Of course I support human rights but in this age of terrorism, I believe a strong central government with the will and the ability to fight terrorism is paramount.

I've never been one to qualify my support of human rights. There's no "ifs", "ands" or "buts" about it. Given tortures ineffectiveness as a means of generating reliable information, I don't see any circumstances in which it would be acceptable, especially by a country to which individual rights and personal liberty are suppossed to be paramount.

[tml12]

As near as I can tell, the administration's response to all this has been "We don't torture , but please don't take away our ability to torture people if we want to."

Of course I support human rights but in this age of terrorism, I believe a strong central government with the will and the ability to fight terrorism is paramount.

I've never been one to qualify my support of human rights. There's no "ifs", "ands" or "buts" about it. Given tortures ineffectiveness as a means of generating reliable information, I don't see any circumstances in which it would be acceptable, especially by a country to which individual rights and personal liberty are suppossed to be paramount.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That may be true. But human rights is not something we can just have conversations about without fully specifying what we are talking about.

To some, the death penalty is an example of a violation of someone's human rights. To others, when you commit violent crimes or treason then you give up your rights...torture could even factor in there.

I personally do not think torture is the right way to reason or even get information about people who have been arrested. But apparently others do not agree with taht.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear tml12,

I personally do not think torture is the right way to reason or even get information about people who have been arrested. But apparently others do not agree with taht.

As Black Dog has previously pointed out to everyone, torture is a very unreliable method for gathering information. Those that crack would claim that their own mother shot JFK to escape more torture, and those that are devout think that it is more honourable to die.

To some, the death penalty is an example of a violation of someone's human rights. To others, when you commit violent crimes or treason then you give up your rights...torture could even factor in there.

Good point, but torture is outlawed in even more places and by more organizations than the death penalty.

[ceemes]

You guys are missing the whole story.  Who leaked this CIA classifed information, that's the real question.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It was apparently a REPUBLICAN Senator....seem's they were having a meeting and discussing that matter.......go figure.......

[Riverwind]

It was apparently a REPUBLICAN Senator....seem's they were having a meeting and discussing that matter.......go figure.......

The bill to drill in the Alaskan wildlife refuge has just been killed. I think there will be more and more Rupublicans distancing themselves from Dubya in the next year or so.

[Black Dog]

That may be true. But human rights is not something we can just have conversations about without fully specifying what we are talking about.

To some, the death penalty is an example of a violation of someone's human rights. To others, when you commit violent crimes or treason then you give up your rights...torture could even factor in there.

I personally do not think torture is the right way to reason or even get information about people who have been arrested. But apparently others do not agree with taht.

Even the death penalty, which I personally believe to be wrong, is accompanied by some due process. The problem with torture, in this context, is that it occurs with no oversight and no process to determine if the people being tortured "deserve" to be tortured. Now, that's not to say torture is a acceptable punishment if it follows due process, but only that the analogy is flawed.