Global Gulags

[Shady]

Earlier in this thread I stated the following:

The real question is who leaked this classified CIA information!

And this was the type of response I recieved from the left-wing intellectuals in the forum.

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

Shady's just trolling

Then, of course, this happened.

CIA prisons leak 'to be probed'

The US Central Intelligence Agency has taken the first step toward a criminal inquiry into who told the media that it runs secret jails abroad, reports say.

The investigation will examine possible leak of classified information, unnamed officials are quoted as saying

BBC

Ho hum, sometimes I hate being right so often, but I guess it's good that somebody in the forum can interpret relevant issues and analyze them to forecast upcoming events, such as this one, that of course, I was told was "trolling". I hate to say I told you so, but you guys got enough egg on your faces to make western omlettes for the lot of us.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Shady,

I hate to say I told you so, but you guys got enough egg on your faces to make western omlettes for the lot of us.

Not egg, really, just 'imperialist yoke'.

Ho hum, sometimes I hate being right so often, but I guess it's good that somebody in the forum can interpret relevant issues and analyze them to forecast upcoming events, such as this one,

Yes, it is good that someone does. It just isn't you.

It is not a question of 'missing the real story'. There are two different takes on the matter. You seem to think that torture, secret prison camps, etc. are ok and that the real story is the fact that someone leaked the secret. (This is the 'right-wing' moral dilemma', if I may use so simple a term.) The 'left' seems to think that the real story is that the side that is fighting to 'defend freedom' is doing exactly the opposite of what they claim to be defending against. So, there isn't much water to be held with 'I told you so', it is merely a side issue of 'how the information came to light'.

[BHS]

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

A) You don't know the status of the information before it got out, nor do you know how this information was obtained.

The existence of these prisons has been discussed since at least last year, so its not really news.

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

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

...says the guy who's been hyperventilating about the Plame nonesense for two plus years...

[PocketRocket]

BlackDog provided a couple links......

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."

...so I went to have a look at them.

Amongst a lot of other stuff, the first had this tidbit....

Cheney is seeking to persuade Congress to exempt the Central Intelligence Agency  from the proposed torture ban if one is passed by both chambers.

Interesting. If "we" do indeed "not torture", then why do "we" want to reserve the right to tortue for the CIA???

But then again, even though torture may be illegal under the Geneva Convention, not to mention under UN laws (but hey, they're "irrelevant", so who cares), if Congress says it's okay, then that makes it legal for the USA to do it, right???

After all, an act of congress made it "legal" to invade Iraq.....

And, it's not like "we're" detaining anyone who's not a proven "criminal", is it........

On Monday, the Pentagon announced that five additional terror suspects at Guantanamo will face military trials on various charges including attacking civilians and murder. That brought to nine out of about 500 detainees at the facility who have been charged with criminal offenses.

.....or at least, not many. At Guantanamo, only about 95% have not been charged with anything.

But that's alright. "We" can choose to ignore international law, and "our" own domestic law because.....

"Our country is at war, and our government has the obligation to protect the American people."

.....and, dammit, that's all the answer "we" need.

[BHS]

PocketRocket:

Short answer: "we" need torture because the Dems have been remarkly effective at redefining the word to mean everything from electrocution, mutlitation and slow painfull death, on down to dirty looks and mishandling a book, and every form of treatment or mistreatment in between. I don't think the current adminstration is going to agree to any twisted sob-sister take on civil liberties that sees the worst of the worst set free because you accidently peed on their holy books.

At Guantanamo the inmates aren't suspected criminals, they're illegal combatants. And even if they the Geneva Convention rules were rewritten to allow them to be treated as bona fide prisoners of war, they still wouldn't need to be charged with anything to be held indefinitely. They can be held until a ceasefire is declared. Do you think Osama et al are going to negotiate a legitimate ceasefire any time soon?

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear BHS,

And even if they the Geneva Convention rules were rewritten to allow them to be treated as bona fide prisoners of war, they still wouldn't need to be charged with anything to be held indefinitely. They can be held until a ceasefire is declared.

Since there was no 'declaration of war' for Iraq, (one of the main reasons the invasion was 'illegal') the issue of adhering to the Geneva Convention is a bit muddy.

After all, did the US accept or refuse capitulation? After a country capitulates, the occupying force makes the rules, if they were smart enough to say so in the surrender documents. With no documents of capitulation, technically, the 'war' (if anyone argues that it is one) is not over, so the combatants would still be 'legal'.

Just as the invasion of Panama was condemned as a 'flagrant violation of international law', so too are the actions of the US today, on many levels. The biggest problem is that 'the good guys' have chosen to ignore or throw away the rules as it suits them. Then if no one at all sticks to the rules, what is the point of having any?

[Montgomery Burns]

These terrorists are not covered by the Geneva Convention.

This is a typical emotion-ridden "progressive liberal" nonstory.

There are Islamic fanatics out there and yet some are wringing their hands over "the rights" of these fanatics. Next, they'll be complaining that the terrorists aren't being served enough Duck a la Orange at "Gulag" Gitmo.

[tml12]

These terrorists are not covered by the Geneva Convention.

This is a typical emotion-ridden  "progressive liberal" nonstory.

There are Islamic fanatics out there and yet some are wringing their hands over "the rights" of these fanatics.  Next, they'll be complaining that the terrorists aren't being served enough Duck a la Orange at "Gulag" Gitmo. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

There is some truth to that.

[Black Dog]

Ho hum, sometimes I hate being right so often, but I guess it's good that somebody in the forum can interpret relevant issues and analyze them to forecast upcoming events, such as this one, that of course, I was told was "trolling". I hate to say I told you so, but you guys got enough egg on your faces to make western omlettes for the lot of us.

No Shady, you were trolling.

The leak matters, but so does the information it contained. You deemed the latter irrelevant in an attempt to draw some equivilance between this and the Plame case. Humourously enough, in both cases, the leak is linked to Dick "Big Time" Cheney.

At Guantanamo the inmates aren't suspected criminals, they're illegal combatants. And even if they the Geneva Convention rules were rewritten to allow them to be treated as bona fide prisoners of war, they still wouldn't need to be charged with anything to be held indefinitely. They can be held until a ceasefire is declared. Do you think Osama et al are going to negotiate a legitimate ceasefire any time soon?

Every captured fighter is entitled to humane treatment, understood at a minimum to include basic shelter, clothing, food and medical attention. In addition, no detainee – even if suspected of war crimes such as the murder of civilians – may be subjected to torture, corporal punishment, or humiliating or degrading treatment. If captured fighters are tried for crimes, the trials must satisfy certain basic fair trial guarantees.

Prisoners of war (POWs) are entitled to further protections, commensurate with respect for their military status as soldiers. Indeed, the Geneva Conventions provide that prisoners of war must be quartered in conditions that meet the same general standards as the quarters available to the captor´s forces, e.g. the U.S. armed forces. In addition, POW´s prosecuted for war crimes must be tried by the same court under the same rules as the detaining country´s armed forces. In the current conflict, an Afghan POW could not be tried by the proposed military commissions, although they could be tried by an American court-martial.

Under the Geneva Conventions, captured fighters are considered prisoners of war (POWs) if they are members of an adversary state´s armed forces or are part of an identifiable militia group that abides by the laws of war. Al-Qaeda members, who neither wear identifying insignia nor abide by the laws of war, probably would not qualify. Taliban soldiers, as the armed forces of Afghanistan, may well be entitled to POW status. If there is doubt about a captured fighter's status as a POW, the Geneva Conventions require that he be treated as such until a competent tribunal determines otherwise.

HRW

[Black Dog]

Short answer: "we" need torture because the Dems have been remarkly effective at redefining the word to mean everything from electrocution, mutlitation and slow painfull death, on down to dirty looks and mishandling a book, and every form of treatment or mistreatment in between. I don't think the current adminstration is going to agree to any twisted sob-sister take on civil liberties that sees the worst of the worst set free because you accidently peed on their holy books.

Fearful of future terrorist attacks and frustrated by the slow progress of intelligence-gathering from prisoners at Guantánamo Bay, Pentagon officials turned to the closest thing on their organizational charts to a school for torture. That was a classified program at Fort Bragg, N.C., known as SERE, for Survival, Evasion, Resistance, Escape. Based on studies of North Korean and Vietnamese efforts to break American prisoners, SERE was intended to train American soldiers to resist the abuse they might face in enemy custody.

The Pentagon appears to have flipped SERE's teachings on their head, mining the program not for resistance techniques but for interrogation methods.

Link.

[crazymf]

I think the very nature of war is to abandon diplomacy and rules of civilized conflict.

A civilized war is a fantasy of yesteryear when Britons duelled and slapped each other in the face with white gloves. Only the side that appears to be winning honors the morality of a 'Geneva Convention'.

At no time in history has North America been seriously threatened to the point of extinction of it's inhabitants, at least once the white boy took over.

It's easy to sit back on the computer 10000 miles from any danger and criticize what other people do. I suspect the tune would change around here (ie BD) if a few suicide jockies walked into some Canadian cities and said 'honey we're home' click, BOOM!!!

Torture probably doesn't really work because the info probably is coerced. However, I'm sure the CIA and every other Intel Agency out there has great ways to extract info that aren't palatable to the public. I say let them do their work and leave them alone for the same old reason as always:

Better over there than over here.

[BHS]

Okay, Blackdog. It's clear there's some disagreement about what constitutes torture, and the Geneva Conventions and the American military's definition of torture need to be updated, for a number of new scenarios that the Conventions were never intended to cover (ie. paramilitaries and/or terrorist groups that fight without representing a sovereign state).

[theloniusfleabag]

Dera BHS,

Okay, Blackdog. It's clear there's some disagreement about what constitutes torture, and the Geneva Conventions and the American military's definition of torture need to be updated, for a number of new scenarios that the Conventions were never intended to cover (ie. paramilitaries and/or terrorist groups that fight without representing a sovereign state).

It really doesn't matter much if definitions are changed, the point is that the US refuses to acknowledge the existing ones (Though they have lied, saying "We don't torture"), so why would they acknowledge any amendment? You are right, though, the rules are broken so often now a revisit of the regulations is in order. But, is it really greater leniency that should be applied, or or a greater condemnation of transgressions, for both sides?

[Black Dog]

I think the very nature of war is to abandon diplomacy and rules of civilized conflict.

A civilized war is a fantasy of yesteryear when Britons duelled and slapped each other in the face with white gloves. Only the side that appears to be winning honors the morality of a 'Geneva Convention'.

Nonsense. This is particularily asinine when you consider this current "wa" is being fought (so we're told) between the forces of freedom and civilization and those of barbarism. Take away any sembelance of rules or diplomacy and you are left with a nest of vipers, none of whom deserve anything more than extinction.

At no time in history has North America been seriously threatened to the point of extinction of it's inhabitants, at least once the white boy took over.

It's easy to sit back on the computer 10000 miles from any danger and criticize what other people do. I suspect the tune would change around here (ie BD) if a few suicide jockies walked into some Canadian cities and said 'honey we're home' click, BOOM!!!

Ignoring the historical context to this conflict is no way to resolve it.

Torture probably doesn't really work because the info probably is coerced. However, I'm sure the CIA and every other Intel Agency out there has great ways to extract info that aren't palatable to the public. I say let them do their work and leave them alone for the same old reason as always:

So torture doesn't work, but we should let them torture anyway??

What I find interesting about the revalations that the CIA has adopted old Communist Bloc interregation techniques is that those techniques weren't designed to produce intelligence, but false confessions.

[crazymf]

I don't know what the CIA does during interrogations. Do you? That would be assuming a lot to think that they do torture people. I'm 'guessing' that they use techniques unknown to myself, but yet less than palatable to public view.

I'm trying to agree with you BD. Torture is bad.

[Black Dog]

I don't know what the CIA does during interrogations. Do you? That would be assuming a lot to think that they do torture people. I'm 'guessing' that they use techniques unknown to myself, but yet less than palatable to public view.

Prolonged isolation, sleep deprivation, painful body positions and punitive control over life's most intimate functions produced overwhelming stress in these prisoners. Stress led in turn to despair, uncontrollable anxiety and a collapse of self-esteem. Sometimes hallucinations and delusions ensued. Prisoners who had been through this treatment became pliable and craved companionship, easing the way for captors to obtain the "confessions" they sought.

This is from the article I linked to above, which would also seem to correspond with information about interregation techniques used at Abu Ghirab and Gitmo. I guess the question is: are these things torture? I would say yes: there are ways to break someone that don't involve bamb shoots under the finger nails. But they are no less evil in their intent.

[crazymf]

And just how is it you would have them give you info that they don't want to give?

3 meals a day, cable tv and a warm kitchenette appartment to live in?

Again, you seem to miss the point of the whole thing. These guys are 'enemies', a**holes. They want to kill you and rape your wife and sodomise your kids and then go downtown and blow up your office building. They wouldn't be there if they were at home on the farm in Iraq working like a decent human being.

Again, what's your solution rather than just merely criticising everyone elses like usual?

[Black Dog]

Again, you seem to miss the point of the whole thing. These guys are 'enemies', a**holes. They want to kill you and rape your wife and sodomise your kids and then go downtown and blow up your office building. They wouldn't be there if they were at home on the farm in Iraq working like a decent human being.[/

Actually, you're missing the point. As I said before, it isn't just that people are being treated inhumanely (though, of course that's a major consideration), but that there's no way of knowing whether they are even guilty of anything at all.

For examples, we need to look no further than Abu Ghirab, where between 70 and 90 per cent of detainees were completely inocent. According to the article that broke the story of the secret detention facilities, 70 per cent of captives have little direct connection to terrorism and are considered to be of low intelligence value.

Again, what's your solution rather than just merely criticising everyone elses like usual?

Um...not acting like the despotic third world regimes "we" claim to oppose would be a good start. How about trials? How about transparency? There's systems in place for dealing with war criminals and assorted scumbags: use them.

[crazymf]

oyyyyy...........bd.

The rubber has to meet the road.

You remind me of that tv commercial where the guy chokes and all his friends can do is talk about saving him while he dies. You're probably going to run for PM someday right? You seem to have the nonproductive blathering down pat that seems to be needed in Ottawa. Even though you tend to piss me off with your wiggling and skirting the issues when confronted, I'm going to gracefully leave this topic to you and leave this thread, again.

[Black Dog]

oyyyyy...........bd.

The rubber has to meet the road.

You remind me of that tv commercial where the guy chokes and all his friends can do is talk about saving him while he dies. You're probably going to run for PM someday right? You seem to have the nonproductive blathering down pat that seems to be needed in Ottawa. Even though you tend to piss me off with your wiggling and skirting the issues when confronted, I'm going to gracefully leave this topic to you and leave this thread, again.

In other words, you've nothing to offer but the same bad ideas which put the guardians of freedom and democracy in the illustrious company of folks like Km Jong Il or Assad? Awesome. Let there be no talk, then, of any moral compass guiding the war on terror or its supporters. Of course, when confronted with the glaring moral vacumn within themselves (not to mention, pesky facts), these people skitter off like cockroaches exposed to the light.

[crazymf]

In other words, you've nothing to offer but the same bad ideas which put the guardians of freedom and democracy in the illustrious company of folks like Km Jong Il or Assad? Awesome. Let there be no talk, then, of any moral compass guiding the war on terror or its supporters. Of course, when confronted with the glaring moral vacumn within themselves (not to mention, pesky facts), these people skitter off like cockroaches exposed to the light.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So what you are saying is that the very people doing the fighting have no moral values and people like you should set policy from your armchair?

Sounds an awful lot like the way the Vietnam war was conducted. By politicians who hogtied the generals and prevented them from doing their job.

So while you accuse me of repeating barbaric practices of the past, you seem to be repeating useless political gestures of the past as well.

[Black Dog]

So what you are saying is that the very people doing the fighting have no moral values and people like you should set policy from your armchair?

I'm saying the people who are torturing people in secret have no moral values, yeah. As for the rest, well, enjoy your strawman.

[Shady]

I think this thread, and especially Black Dog are in need of some enlightening words from Col. Jessep from A Few Good Men. I think his words aptly apply in this situation, especially to the Black Dog types out there.

JESSEP:

Son, we live in a world that has walls.

And those walls have to be guarded by men

with guns. Who's gonna do it? You? You,

Lt. Weinberg? I have a greater

responsibility than you can possibly

fathom. You weep for Santiago and you

curse the marines. You have that luxury.

You have the luxury of not knowing what I

know: That Santiago's death, while tragic,

probably saved lives. And my existence,

while grotesque and incomprehensible to

you, saves lives.

You don't want the truth. Because deep

down, in places you don't talk about at

parties, you want me on that wall. You need

me there.

We use words like honor, code,

loyalty...we use these words as the

backbone to a life spent defending

something. You use 'em as a punchline.

I have neither the time nor the

inclination to explain myself to a man who

rises and sleeps under the blanket of the

very freedom I provide, then questions the

manner in which I provide it. I'd prefer

you just said thank you and went on your

way. Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a

weapon and stand a post.

You hear that? Pick up a weapon and stand a post. If not, then STFU!!!!! And let the brave men and women go on protecting your freedom.

[Black Dog]

I think this thread, and especially Black Dog are in need of some enlightening words from Col. Jessep from A Few Good Men. I think his words aptly apply in this situation, especially to the Black Dog types out there.

I'll see your fictional Marine and raise you a real one.

You hear that? Pick up a weapon and stand a post. If not, then STFU!!!!! And let the brave men and women go on protecting your freedom.

Wellm, for starters I have no inclination to put my ass on the line to defend the interests of the people who run the show. Fuck 'em and their con's game.

Even if I were to accept for a half-second that these folks were genuinely defending my freedom, I would hope that they would conduct themselves in accordance with the values they claim to be defending.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Shady,

A Few Good Men. I think his words aptly apply in this situation, especially to the Black Dog types out there.

It was a movie....and the actor makes hundreds of millions of dollars a year to play make-believe while the rest of his time is spent wandering around in a drug addled, drunken stupor.

I would hope that they would conduct themselves in accordance with the values they claim to be defending.

As Black Dog states, you can't so easily seperate your end from your means.

I doubt very much that someone could expect to enjoy the 'rewards and fruits of Heaven' if they set out to conquer it by force.