Mike111 0 #126 November 4, 2005 Yup im guilty Ive committed thousands of crimes which have harmed millions. Mate this is an internet forum, we both got a bit heated. When we look at it, we just normal people with differnngi viewpoints on a sensitive subject. now ill delete the previous post becuase it was out of order , ok that fair? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Trent 0 #127 November 4, 2005 QuoteBut those things are going on in gitmo, Iraq and Afghanistan, in the open. You don't think the tactics are harsher in the covert, hidden from scrutiny prisons? The tactics in covert prisons may be more harsh, such as sleep deprivation, controlled food and water, various psychological games, and an occasional bitch-slap. However, if you're using experience interrogators, they will know that actual torture will not get them any good info... unless of course experience in the real world (not a college paper) leads them to think otherwise. If, in practice, torture doesn't reveal any good intel AND you have professional interrogators trying to do the best for their country... you won't see torture on the level that the Soviets and Vietnamese did against people. It just wouldn't make sense, and any professional would know that. Hence, I think that any of the abuses and beatings to death are comitted by overzealous, frustrated, and maybe sadistic lower-level people who are not trained interrogators. That is not policy, that would be exception. But hey, that's just me... I don't think that everyone in the US government and armed forces is evil or stupid.Oh, hello again! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ReBirth 0 #128 November 5, 2005 And I obviously don't believe that you are guilty. But I think EVERYONE deserves the same benefit of the doubt. That's what our (over here anyway) justice system is based on and what we are supposedly fighting to defend. If we compromise those standards, then what are we defending? We might as well elect some mullahs and get on with it. That would stop the terrorism right quick. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rickjump1 0 #129 November 5, 2005 Quote If it's appropriate, why was this Gulag kept secret?.................. One of the most spectacular escapes of high level prisoners in Afghanistan occurred no doubt with a little help from friends on the outside.That is why the location of some Gulags are kept secret.Do your part for global warming: ban beans and hold all popcorn farts. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites ReBirth 0 #130 November 5, 2005 I would hope that you are right. But I'm still missing the reason that you think they would be covert then? If they aren't doing anything wrong, why hide it from human rights organizations? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Mike111 0 #131 November 5, 2005 Agreed. Although i wasn't referring toABu ghraib - i was tothe secret camps - the masterminds. I have no idea of the people in Abu ghraib. All govt's use it (torture ) to certain degrees. It aint gna change. I don't approve the mindless torture of thousands of people, im dead opposed. But take WW2 - flattening cities??? Killings thousands of INNOCENT civilians. Well, it was deemed necessary but not justifiable That it was I hold on this issue. Anyway, good havea discussion with you mate, least we are clear on one thing - we are on the same side! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Amazon 7 #132 November 5, 2005 QuoteHi guys, have you missed me? (((((((((((((((((((((NACIEPOOOOOOOOOO))))))))))))))))))) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites downwardspiral 0 #133 November 5, 2005 You all should read this article. All 4 pages. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/01/AR2005110101644.html What I was arguing earlier was that torture/abuse is not US policy. The incidents of torture/abuse we have seen in afghanistan and iraq were a result of war not policy. However I cannot argue that the CIA's use of black sites to imprison terrorists is not sketchy to say the least. I don't think they wanted to keep it secret so that can use torture techniques. I think its so they can detain them indefinately with out rights, without a lawyer, and without a trial.www.FourWheelerHB.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites ReBirth 0 #134 November 5, 2005 QuoteCIA's use of black sites to imprison terrorists is not sketchy to say the least. I don't think they wanted to keep it secret so that can use torture techniques. I think its so they can detain them indefinately with out rights, without a lawyer, and without a trial. They're already doing that at gitmo. And you know what? You're right...this discussion got diverted into topics about what is and what isn't torture, whether torture is justified, and whether it's being used systematically. All that crap is fluff. The question is...is it right for the CIA along w/ the whitehouse and justice dept. (note, htese all fall under the executive branch) to hide from congress the fact that tey "hold and interrogate suspected terrorists for as long as necessary and without restrictions imposed by the U.S. legal system or even by the military tribunals established for prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay."? I say no. No one branch of gov't should have that much power. And that kind of treatment of human beings, while not torture per se, is diametrically opposed to the ideals of basic human rights that we use to DEFINE OUR NATION! What are we if we are not the nation that holds these truths to be self evident, that ALL men are created equal and are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights? Do we or don't we believe that is true? If we do, let's live up to it. If we don't, let's drop the charade. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites downwardspiral 0 #135 November 5, 2005 QuoteThey're already doing that at gitmo. And you know what? You're right...this discussion got diverted into topics about what is and what isn't torture, whether torture is justified, and whether it's being used systematically. No way that just happened.....someone pinch me QuoteI say no. No one branch of gov't should have that much power. And that kind of treatment of human beings, while not torture per se, is diametrically opposed to the ideals of basic human rights that we use to DEFINE OUR NATION! What are we if we are not the nation that holds these truths to be self evident, that ALL men are created equal and are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights? Do we or don't we believe that is true? If we do, let's live up to it. If we don't, let's drop the charade. Can't disagree with ya there. www.FourWheelerHB.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Trent 0 #136 November 5, 2005 QuoteThe question is...is it right for the CIA along w/ the whitehouse and justice dept. (note, htese all fall under the executive branch) to hide from congress the fact that tey "hold and interrogate suspected terrorists for as long as necessary and without restrictions imposed by the U.S. legal system or even by the military tribunals established for prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay."? Actually the military and intelligence agencies hide a lot of things from congress. And by "hiding" I mean, they usually have a "pool" of money designated for classified projects or covert operations. Congress allots money for this "pool" and is almost entirely in the dark as to what it is used for. Why? Because time and time again, politicians have proven that they cannot keep their mouths shut when it involves national security. It is completely reasonable to think that these covert prisons are to prevent people from raising a ruckus like they did about Guantanamo. Maybe they do feel the need to detain suspects indefinitely when they think they have good reason and they don't want people to know they've got them. Like has been mentioned twice... maybe they don't want people knowing the locations so we don't have any hare-brained escape attempts. Maybe they keep them covert so they can use the interrogation techniques they feel are necessary that people here would cry about and claim as torture... when it really isn't. Maybe they don't want the cooperating countries revealed for their own protection. Enough possible reasons yet? Either way, I'll say it again... I should hope that, even if only for the base reason of money, these prisons aren't just used for any average guy who is remotely suspected as a terrorist. That would not make sense. Instead, I would think that they'd be used for higher level people who are more than just SUSPECTED of being a terrorist. (Kinda like you KNOW Osama is a terrorist, trial or not... reality) And yes, these people were endowed with the same rights as all of us, but pretty much gave them up when they made the decision to be a terrorist.Oh, hello again! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites IanHarrop 42 #137 November 5, 2005 QuoteEither way, I'll say it again... I should hope that, even if only for the base reason of money, these prisons aren't just used for any average guy who is remotely suspected as a terrorist. That would not make sense. Instead, I would think that they'd be used for higher level people who are more than just SUSPECTED of being a terrorist. (Kinda like you KNOW Osama is a terrorist, trial or not... reality) And yes, these people were endowed with the same rights as all of us, but pretty much gave them up when they made the decision to be a terrorist. I agree with you and I think that we should all hope for the same thing. I just have so little faith in decisions made without oversight."Where troubles melt like lemon drops, away above the chimney tops, that's where you'll find me" Dorothy Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Trent 0 #138 November 5, 2005 QuoteI agree with you and I think that we should all hope for the same thing. I just have so little faith in decisions made without oversight. It is sticky isn't it? We have also learned the hard way that too much oversight can lose wars as well.Oh, hello again! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites ReBirth 0 #139 November 5, 2005 I just have a huge problem with any body that REPRESENTS the people of the US, not being accountable to the people of the US. The mechanism for that is congress. When you keep them out of the loop then you have independent organizations making very important decisions for a quarter billion people without consulting them or even letting them know what they are doing. There should at least be some form of bipartisan Senate oversite committee that they report to. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Trent 0 #140 November 5, 2005 Oh, there are the Security and Intelligence Comittees, but even they can't know everything since, as I said before, politicians can't keep their mouths shut. They are still accountable for the amount of slack they give to the agencies and for trusting them to do the right things. Surely you can understand a need for completely "black" operations, can't you?Oh, hello again! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites ReBirth 0 #141 November 5, 2005 QuoteSurely you can understand a need for completely "black" operations, can't you? No...I really can't. Have you seen the recently released classified report of how the Gulf of Tonkin incident was deliberately, and with foresite, completely made up with the intention of starting a war. That decision was made be a few people who thought they knew better than everyone else. I don't think they did. It's bad enough that i have to go along with policies that i don't support because i didn't vote with the majority. But to have to go along with policies being made by a couple guys in a backroom? No thanks. That's not gov't by the people. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,027 #142 November 5, 2005 QuoteOh, there are the Security and Intelligence Comittees, but even they can't know everything since, as I said before, politicians can't keep their mouths shut. They are still accountable for the amount of slack they give to the agencies and for trusting them to do the right things. Surely you can understand a need for completely "black" operations, can't you? I certainly can, but operating a secret Gulag is not one of them. It makes us no better than those we fought in the Cold War - in fact it makes us worse, because it makes us hypocrites too.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Trent 0 #143 November 5, 2005 QuoteI certainly can, but operating a secret Gulag is not one of them. It makes us no better than those we fought in the Cold War - in fact it makes us worse, because it makes us hypocrites too. Back to the point that the article that started this post makes no mention of torture in secret prisons. Then we started talking about what torture really was... which led some of us to say that what the media presents as torture (intimidation, sleep dep, drug use) really isn't. So until we have wholesale slaughter of people in secret prisons because they're jewish, or arabs, or capitalists... I find it pretty offensive to compare the US to Soviet Russia because of our prisons. So none of the reasons I listed in previous posts would be a good reason to have a secret prison? Sometimes we just have to disagree, as usual!Oh, hello again! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites ReBirth 0 #144 November 5, 2005 QuoteSo until we have wholesale slaughter of people in secret prisons They are SECRET. How do you know there aren't? I hope the purpose is as you say....but if they are SECRET we will never know. And history has shown that no one, including us, are innocent of never having committed attrocities. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Trent 0 #145 November 5, 2005 We'll just have to disagree here. I like to put my faith in that, USUALLY we are, or try to be the good guys. I also see a need for secrecy on occasion. It would seem that you'd rather have a general vote on every operation run by any agency. I don't think that's a good idea, or reasonable. Like I said, we'll just disagree.Oh, hello again! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites downwardspiral 0 #146 November 5, 2005 QuoteQuoteThe question is...is it right for the CIA along w/ the whitehouse and justice dept. (note, htese all fall under the executive branch) to hide from congress the fact that tey "hold and interrogate suspected terrorists for as long as necessary and without restrictions imposed by the U.S. legal system or even by the military tribunals established for prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay."? Actually the military and intelligence agencies hide a lot of things from congress. And by "hiding" I mean, they usually have a "pool" of money designated for classified projects or covert operations. Congress allots money for this "pool" and is almost entirely in the dark as to what it is used for. Why? Because time and time again, politicians have proven that they cannot keep their mouths shut when it involves national security. It is completely reasonable to think that these covert prisons are to prevent people from raising a ruckus like they did about Guantanamo. Maybe they do feel the need to detain suspects indefinitely when they think they have good reason and they don't want people to know they've got them. Like has been mentioned twice... maybe they don't want people knowing the locations so we don't have any hare-brained escape attempts. Maybe they keep them covert so they can use the interrogation techniques they feel are necessary that people here would cry about and claim as torture... when it really isn't. Maybe they don't want the cooperating countries revealed for their own protection. Enough possible reasons yet? Either way, I'll say it again... I should hope that, even if only for the base reason of money, these prisons aren't just used for any average guy who is remotely suspected as a terrorist. That would not make sense. Instead, I would think that they'd be used for higher level people who are more than just SUSPECTED of being a terrorist. (Kinda like you KNOW Osama is a terrorist, trial or not... reality) And yes, these people were endowed with the same rights as all of us, but pretty much gave them up when they made the decision to be a terrorist. You make many valid points there trent. Its almost as if you read the article I posted the link to. www.FourWheelerHB.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites ReBirth 0 #147 November 5, 2005 QuoteIt would seem that you'd rather have a general vote on every operation run by any agency. How can you type that after we discussed the issue of a small senate oversite committee? That's not anywhere close to a general vote. Are you deliberately trying to twist what I've said? Because I know you understood what I meant. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Trent 0 #148 November 5, 2005 If you read the article that DownwardSpiral posted, you will see that there are indeed senate intelligence committee members who DO have some oversight into these secret camps, as do some DOJ lawyers, and Whitehouse lawyers. It says that due to the nature of the camps and importance of security only the highest ranking senators are kept up-to-date on them. Forgive me, I thought we had both read the article and that you thought that the limited group who does know what's up, wasn't good enough. That's why I guessed that only a full committee vote or entire senate vote would be more along the lines of what you'd want to see. If you haven't read that article, it's pretty decent in explaining the camps as far as the author can.Oh, hello again! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites ReBirth 0 #149 November 5, 2005 I did read it....and I just checked again. I don't see anything about them reporting to or being directed by a senate committee. they talk about the pres authorizing it and the defense and justice depts. being involved. Again, all executive branch. All appointees or hires. Not elected representatives of the people. I think something as important as indefinite imprisonment of foreign nationals in foreign lands by our agences needs that level of oversite. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Trent 0 #150 November 6, 2005 Like I said, not the entire intelligence committee, but the top officials in it were aware according to the 2nd page of the article, 2nd to last paragraph. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/01/AR2005110101644_2.htmlOh, hello again! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next Page 6 of 7 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
ReBirth 0 #130 November 5, 2005 I would hope that you are right. But I'm still missing the reason that you think they would be covert then? If they aren't doing anything wrong, why hide it from human rights organizations? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mike111 0 #131 November 5, 2005 Agreed. Although i wasn't referring toABu ghraib - i was tothe secret camps - the masterminds. I have no idea of the people in Abu ghraib. All govt's use it (torture ) to certain degrees. It aint gna change. I don't approve the mindless torture of thousands of people, im dead opposed. But take WW2 - flattening cities??? Killings thousands of INNOCENT civilians. Well, it was deemed necessary but not justifiable That it was I hold on this issue. Anyway, good havea discussion with you mate, least we are clear on one thing - we are on the same side! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #132 November 5, 2005 QuoteHi guys, have you missed me? (((((((((((((((((((((NACIEPOOOOOOOOOO))))))))))))))))))) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
downwardspiral 0 #133 November 5, 2005 You all should read this article. All 4 pages. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/01/AR2005110101644.html What I was arguing earlier was that torture/abuse is not US policy. The incidents of torture/abuse we have seen in afghanistan and iraq were a result of war not policy. However I cannot argue that the CIA's use of black sites to imprison terrorists is not sketchy to say the least. I don't think they wanted to keep it secret so that can use torture techniques. I think its so they can detain them indefinately with out rights, without a lawyer, and without a trial.www.FourWheelerHB.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ReBirth 0 #134 November 5, 2005 QuoteCIA's use of black sites to imprison terrorists is not sketchy to say the least. I don't think they wanted to keep it secret so that can use torture techniques. I think its so they can detain them indefinately with out rights, without a lawyer, and without a trial. They're already doing that at gitmo. And you know what? You're right...this discussion got diverted into topics about what is and what isn't torture, whether torture is justified, and whether it's being used systematically. All that crap is fluff. The question is...is it right for the CIA along w/ the whitehouse and justice dept. (note, htese all fall under the executive branch) to hide from congress the fact that tey "hold and interrogate suspected terrorists for as long as necessary and without restrictions imposed by the U.S. legal system or even by the military tribunals established for prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay."? I say no. No one branch of gov't should have that much power. And that kind of treatment of human beings, while not torture per se, is diametrically opposed to the ideals of basic human rights that we use to DEFINE OUR NATION! What are we if we are not the nation that holds these truths to be self evident, that ALL men are created equal and are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights? Do we or don't we believe that is true? If we do, let's live up to it. If we don't, let's drop the charade. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
downwardspiral 0 #135 November 5, 2005 QuoteThey're already doing that at gitmo. And you know what? You're right...this discussion got diverted into topics about what is and what isn't torture, whether torture is justified, and whether it's being used systematically. No way that just happened.....someone pinch me QuoteI say no. No one branch of gov't should have that much power. And that kind of treatment of human beings, while not torture per se, is diametrically opposed to the ideals of basic human rights that we use to DEFINE OUR NATION! What are we if we are not the nation that holds these truths to be self evident, that ALL men are created equal and are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights? Do we or don't we believe that is true? If we do, let's live up to it. If we don't, let's drop the charade. Can't disagree with ya there. www.FourWheelerHB.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Trent 0 #136 November 5, 2005 QuoteThe question is...is it right for the CIA along w/ the whitehouse and justice dept. (note, htese all fall under the executive branch) to hide from congress the fact that tey "hold and interrogate suspected terrorists for as long as necessary and without restrictions imposed by the U.S. legal system or even by the military tribunals established for prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay."? Actually the military and intelligence agencies hide a lot of things from congress. And by "hiding" I mean, they usually have a "pool" of money designated for classified projects or covert operations. Congress allots money for this "pool" and is almost entirely in the dark as to what it is used for. Why? Because time and time again, politicians have proven that they cannot keep their mouths shut when it involves national security. It is completely reasonable to think that these covert prisons are to prevent people from raising a ruckus like they did about Guantanamo. Maybe they do feel the need to detain suspects indefinitely when they think they have good reason and they don't want people to know they've got them. Like has been mentioned twice... maybe they don't want people knowing the locations so we don't have any hare-brained escape attempts. Maybe they keep them covert so they can use the interrogation techniques they feel are necessary that people here would cry about and claim as torture... when it really isn't. Maybe they don't want the cooperating countries revealed for their own protection. Enough possible reasons yet? Either way, I'll say it again... I should hope that, even if only for the base reason of money, these prisons aren't just used for any average guy who is remotely suspected as a terrorist. That would not make sense. Instead, I would think that they'd be used for higher level people who are more than just SUSPECTED of being a terrorist. (Kinda like you KNOW Osama is a terrorist, trial or not... reality) And yes, these people were endowed with the same rights as all of us, but pretty much gave them up when they made the decision to be a terrorist.Oh, hello again! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
IanHarrop 42 #137 November 5, 2005 QuoteEither way, I'll say it again... I should hope that, even if only for the base reason of money, these prisons aren't just used for any average guy who is remotely suspected as a terrorist. That would not make sense. Instead, I would think that they'd be used for higher level people who are more than just SUSPECTED of being a terrorist. (Kinda like you KNOW Osama is a terrorist, trial or not... reality) And yes, these people were endowed with the same rights as all of us, but pretty much gave them up when they made the decision to be a terrorist. I agree with you and I think that we should all hope for the same thing. I just have so little faith in decisions made without oversight."Where troubles melt like lemon drops, away above the chimney tops, that's where you'll find me" Dorothy Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Trent 0 #138 November 5, 2005 QuoteI agree with you and I think that we should all hope for the same thing. I just have so little faith in decisions made without oversight. It is sticky isn't it? We have also learned the hard way that too much oversight can lose wars as well.Oh, hello again! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ReBirth 0 #139 November 5, 2005 I just have a huge problem with any body that REPRESENTS the people of the US, not being accountable to the people of the US. The mechanism for that is congress. When you keep them out of the loop then you have independent organizations making very important decisions for a quarter billion people without consulting them or even letting them know what they are doing. There should at least be some form of bipartisan Senate oversite committee that they report to. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Trent 0 #140 November 5, 2005 Oh, there are the Security and Intelligence Comittees, but even they can't know everything since, as I said before, politicians can't keep their mouths shut. They are still accountable for the amount of slack they give to the agencies and for trusting them to do the right things. Surely you can understand a need for completely "black" operations, can't you?Oh, hello again! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ReBirth 0 #141 November 5, 2005 QuoteSurely you can understand a need for completely "black" operations, can't you? No...I really can't. Have you seen the recently released classified report of how the Gulf of Tonkin incident was deliberately, and with foresite, completely made up with the intention of starting a war. That decision was made be a few people who thought they knew better than everyone else. I don't think they did. It's bad enough that i have to go along with policies that i don't support because i didn't vote with the majority. But to have to go along with policies being made by a couple guys in a backroom? No thanks. That's not gov't by the people. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #142 November 5, 2005 QuoteOh, there are the Security and Intelligence Comittees, but even they can't know everything since, as I said before, politicians can't keep their mouths shut. They are still accountable for the amount of slack they give to the agencies and for trusting them to do the right things. Surely you can understand a need for completely "black" operations, can't you? I certainly can, but operating a secret Gulag is not one of them. It makes us no better than those we fought in the Cold War - in fact it makes us worse, because it makes us hypocrites too.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Trent 0 #143 November 5, 2005 QuoteI certainly can, but operating a secret Gulag is not one of them. It makes us no better than those we fought in the Cold War - in fact it makes us worse, because it makes us hypocrites too. Back to the point that the article that started this post makes no mention of torture in secret prisons. Then we started talking about what torture really was... which led some of us to say that what the media presents as torture (intimidation, sleep dep, drug use) really isn't. So until we have wholesale slaughter of people in secret prisons because they're jewish, or arabs, or capitalists... I find it pretty offensive to compare the US to Soviet Russia because of our prisons. So none of the reasons I listed in previous posts would be a good reason to have a secret prison? Sometimes we just have to disagree, as usual!Oh, hello again! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ReBirth 0 #144 November 5, 2005 QuoteSo until we have wholesale slaughter of people in secret prisons They are SECRET. How do you know there aren't? I hope the purpose is as you say....but if they are SECRET we will never know. And history has shown that no one, including us, are innocent of never having committed attrocities. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Trent 0 #145 November 5, 2005 We'll just have to disagree here. I like to put my faith in that, USUALLY we are, or try to be the good guys. I also see a need for secrecy on occasion. It would seem that you'd rather have a general vote on every operation run by any agency. I don't think that's a good idea, or reasonable. Like I said, we'll just disagree.Oh, hello again! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
downwardspiral 0 #146 November 5, 2005 QuoteQuoteThe question is...is it right for the CIA along w/ the whitehouse and justice dept. (note, htese all fall under the executive branch) to hide from congress the fact that tey "hold and interrogate suspected terrorists for as long as necessary and without restrictions imposed by the U.S. legal system or even by the military tribunals established for prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay."? Actually the military and intelligence agencies hide a lot of things from congress. And by "hiding" I mean, they usually have a "pool" of money designated for classified projects or covert operations. Congress allots money for this "pool" and is almost entirely in the dark as to what it is used for. Why? Because time and time again, politicians have proven that they cannot keep their mouths shut when it involves national security. It is completely reasonable to think that these covert prisons are to prevent people from raising a ruckus like they did about Guantanamo. Maybe they do feel the need to detain suspects indefinitely when they think they have good reason and they don't want people to know they've got them. Like has been mentioned twice... maybe they don't want people knowing the locations so we don't have any hare-brained escape attempts. Maybe they keep them covert so they can use the interrogation techniques they feel are necessary that people here would cry about and claim as torture... when it really isn't. Maybe they don't want the cooperating countries revealed for their own protection. Enough possible reasons yet? Either way, I'll say it again... I should hope that, even if only for the base reason of money, these prisons aren't just used for any average guy who is remotely suspected as a terrorist. That would not make sense. Instead, I would think that they'd be used for higher level people who are more than just SUSPECTED of being a terrorist. (Kinda like you KNOW Osama is a terrorist, trial or not... reality) And yes, these people were endowed with the same rights as all of us, but pretty much gave them up when they made the decision to be a terrorist. You make many valid points there trent. Its almost as if you read the article I posted the link to. www.FourWheelerHB.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ReBirth 0 #147 November 5, 2005 QuoteIt would seem that you'd rather have a general vote on every operation run by any agency. How can you type that after we discussed the issue of a small senate oversite committee? That's not anywhere close to a general vote. Are you deliberately trying to twist what I've said? Because I know you understood what I meant. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Trent 0 #148 November 5, 2005 If you read the article that DownwardSpiral posted, you will see that there are indeed senate intelligence committee members who DO have some oversight into these secret camps, as do some DOJ lawyers, and Whitehouse lawyers. It says that due to the nature of the camps and importance of security only the highest ranking senators are kept up-to-date on them. Forgive me, I thought we had both read the article and that you thought that the limited group who does know what's up, wasn't good enough. That's why I guessed that only a full committee vote or entire senate vote would be more along the lines of what you'd want to see. If you haven't read that article, it's pretty decent in explaining the camps as far as the author can.Oh, hello again! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ReBirth 0 #149 November 5, 2005 I did read it....and I just checked again. I don't see anything about them reporting to or being directed by a senate committee. they talk about the pres authorizing it and the defense and justice depts. being involved. Again, all executive branch. All appointees or hires. Not elected representatives of the people. I think something as important as indefinite imprisonment of foreign nationals in foreign lands by our agences needs that level of oversite. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Trent 0 #150 November 6, 2005 Like I said, not the entire intelligence committee, but the top officials in it were aware according to the 2nd page of the article, 2nd to last paragraph. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/01/AR2005110101644_2.htmlOh, hello again! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
