US shifts to ban cruelty to detainees abroad

[ReBirth 0]

Guess the noise does work sometimes. If I were bitter and partisan I'd say Bush is just capitulating to public opinion polls. But I'll give him the benefit of the doubt that he truly believes in the ideals of our constituton....after a little "arm twisting".

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=578&u=/nm/20051207/ts_nm/security_usa_torture_dc_2

[kallend 2,099]

Quote

Guess the noise does work sometimes. If I were bitter and partisan I'd say Bush is just capitulating to public opinion polls. But I'll give him the benefit of the doubt that he truly believes in the ideals of our constituton....after a little "arm twisting".

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=578&u=/nm/20051207/ts_nm/security_usa_torture_dc_2

So on Monday she said we don't do it at all, now she says we won't do it any more.

Hmmm.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[mr2mk1g 10]

Quote

The United States said on Wednesday it had changed its policy on interrogations of detainees, putting a worldwide ban on U.S. personnel subjecting prisoners to cruelty, U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said.

That's bloody well tantamount to an admission it's been going on up to now. What about giving detainees over to third parties to torture for you? Is that still legal under US interpretation of international law?

If Condi is going to admit that US servicemen have been subjecting prisoners to torture, when are those people who committed or ordered such acts going to be brought before a court?

Torture is an international crime against humanity - nearly any court in the world has jurisdiction to hear such cases - against people of any nationality. If the administration is ever dumb enough to admit they've ordered this sort of thing they better get used to the idea a retirement without the prospect of ever taking an overseas holiday.

[ReBirth 0]

Quote

What about giving detainees over to third parties to torture for you? Is that still legal under US interpretation of international law?

We don't do that. But we'll make every effort to fight any laws that say we can't.

[kallend 2,099]

Quote

Quote

What about giving detainees over to third parties to torture for you? Is that still legal under US interpretation of international law?

We don't do that. But we'll make every effort to fight any laws that say we can't.

"United States does not permit or tolerate torture under any circumstances", C. Rice, Monday 12/5/2005

Noticed how her nose is getting longer?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Channman 2]

>...when are those people who committed or ordered such acts going to be brought before a court?

As President and absolute ruler I'll send in the Military to remove US service men from any said court.

And just for go measure, slap the judge or judges with the bill for having to tear up several European cities.

[noluckned 0]

As regards the whole situation: A few years ago I got to wondering, after seeing the umpteenth movie in which a referal was made to the CIA not being allowed to operate within the continental United States. The conclusion I came to was that their operations include activities which are not legal or constitutional under U.S law. It has always seemed a bit odd to me that this fact was out in the open but nobody chose to make an issue of it...until now.

So if anybody else has an explanation for why they are theoretically not allowed to operate on U.S soil I would love to hear it.

*Disclaimer*
The views expressed in the above post may or may not be the result of drunkeness or temporary insanity and should only rarely be construed as the views of the poster himself

[kallend 2,099]

Quote

>...when are those people who committed or ordered such acts going to be brought before a court?

As President and absolute ruler I'll send in the Military to remove US service men from any said court.

And just for go measure, slap the judge or judges with the bill for having to tear up several European cities.

Congratulations, Channman. More than 24 hours and you're the only person with a rightist worldview to comment on this. Are the others still waiting for Ann Coulter to tell them how to spin it?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[mikkey 0]

I think it was Kallend who said to notice how carefully Condi was choosing her words.

Quote

a worldwide ban on U.S. personnel subjecting prisoners to cruelty

What does this mean? Well probably that the US will continue to "render" people and have locals subject the detainees to torture.

---------------------------------------------------------
When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray.

[lummy 4]

Quote

So if anybody else has an explanation for why they are theoretically not allowed to operate on U.S soil I would love to hear it.

I think the reason was because there was a separation of duties between the FBI and the CIA. The FBI was/is responsible for activities within the US and The CIA was/is responsible for activities abroad. I'll google to confirm but that is the explantion I remember.

found this

Quote

Unlike in many other countries, domestic and foreign intelligence functions have been kept distinctly separate in the United States. There was in fact an uproar at the creation of the C-I-A in 1947 from people who felt it would create an "American Gestapo." For that reason, the C-I-A is by law forbidden to conduct operations in the United States, and the domestic intelligence function has stayed with the F-B-I.

source

I promise not to TP Davis under canopy.. I promise not to TP Davis under canopy.. eat sushi, get smoochieTTK#1

[shropshire 0]

Maybe Bushs' goverment has started to realise that IT is one of the best recruiters for global terrorism and wants to make amends.

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[billvon 3,058]

>Well probably that the US will continue to "render" people and have
>locals subject the detainees to torture.

Yep. From the LA Times:

------------------------------------
Pentagon Memo on Torture-Motivated Transfer Cited

A court filing describes a classified proposal to send a detainee away for information extraction.

WASHINGTON — Although Bush administration officials have denied that they transfer terrorism suspects to countries where they are likely to be abused, a classified memorandum described in a court case indicates that the Pentagon has considered sending a captured militant abroad to be interrogated under threat of torture.

The classified memo is summarized — its actual contents are blacked out — in a petition filed by attorneys for Majid Mahmud Abdu Ahmad, a detainee held by the Pentagon at its Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, facility.

The March 17, 2004, Defense Department memo indicated that American officials were frustrated in trying to obtain information from Ahmad, according to the description of the classified memo in the court petition. The officials suggested sending Ahmad to an unspecified foreign country that employed torture in order to increase chances of extracting information from him, according to the petition's description of the memo.
. . .
The memo appears to call into question repeated assertions by the administration that it does not use foreign governments to abuse suspected militants — what critics call "torture by proxy."

Pentagon officials did not return calls Wednesday seeking comment on the memo.

[ReBirth 0]

Quote

There was in fact an uproar at the creation of the C-I-A in 1947 from people who felt it would create an "American Gestapo."

Considering the CIA was formed with the assistance of former Gestapo that we gave citizenship to in exchange for their expertise......they were probably right to feel that way.

[kallend 2,099]

Funny that the Right has had almost no comment on this.

What's up, guys, no way to spin it your way?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[waltappel 1]

Quote

Funny that the Right has had almost no comment on this.

What's up, guys, no way to spin it your way?

I don't know if I am on the Right or not, but if torture results in saving American lives by generating information that prevents terrorist acts, I have no problem with it.

Terrorists are not choir boys. I don't want choir boys dealing with them. Talk all the crap you want about us losing the moral high ground if we stoop to their level but if losing the moral high ground is the price of survival then I consider it to be a damn good deal.

Many people claim that torture is not effective in interrogation. I have no idea whether that is true or not. If true, then there is absolutely no point in using it at all.

I think there have been some instances, though, when it was effective.

Remember that Army officer who got information out of an Iraqi prisoner by firing a handgun next to his head? He got information that saved American soldiers' lives. Instead of screwing the guy over, they should have given him a medal IMO.

I know you have a son serving in Iraq. I greatly respect your restraint in having the opinions you do and being able to stick to them. While I do respect you and your opinions, though, I disagree with what you are saying.

I would much rather see our country send the following message to terrorists:

"Fuck with us and we will hunt you down and make you watch while we kill every member of your family before we gut you."

"If you help terrorists, we will treat you like one."

Terrorists seem to understand little else.

Walt

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

>Well probably that the US will continue to "render" people and have
>locals subject the detainees to torture.

Yep. From the LA Times:

------------------------------------
Pentagon Memo on Torture-Motivated Transfer Cited

A court filing describes a classified proposal to send a detainee away for information extraction.

WASHINGTON — Although Bush administration officials have denied that they transfer terrorism suspects to countries where they are likely to be abused, a classified memorandum described in a court case indicates that the Pentagon has considered sending a captured militant abroad to be interrogated under threat of torture.

The classified memo is summarized — its actual contents are blacked out — in a petition filed by attorneys for Majid Mahmud Abdu Ahmad, a detainee held by the Pentagon at its Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, facility.

The March 17, 2004, Defense Department memo indicated that American officials were frustrated in trying to obtain information from Ahmad, according to the description of the classified memo in the court petition. The officials suggested sending Ahmad to an unspecified foreign country that employed torture in order to increase chances of extracting information from him, according to the petition's description of the memo.
. . .
The memo appears to call into question repeated assertions by the administration that it does not use foreign governments to abuse suspected militants — what critics call "torture by proxy."

Pentagon officials did not return calls Wednesday seeking comment on the memo.

Now you know why there's been no response.

[shropshire 0]

<>

Well, I guess that my problem with what you support/advocate is that it goes against everythin gthat we in the west hold as decent and good - Innocent until proven gulity or Due Process...

Would it be O.K for some foreigen power to grab YOU (or one of your kids) off the street, ship you to another part of the world and 'ask' you some questions to see what you know about terrorism? - No Clearly not, so why oh why is it perfectly O.K for the Good Old US of A to do it?

2 wrongs NEVER make a right .

Sleep soundly in your beds.... some foriegn kids may be abducted in your name

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[waltappel 1]

Quote

<>

Well, I guess that my problem with what you support/advocate is that it goes against everythin gthat we in the west hold as decent and good - Innocent until proven gulity or Due Process...

Would it be O.K for some foreigen power to grab YOU (or one of your kids) off the street, ship you to another part of the world and 'ask' you some questions to see what you know about terrorism? - No Clearly not, so why oh why is it perfectly O.K for the Good Old US of A to do it?

2 wrongs NEVER make a right .

Sleep soundly in your beds.... some foriegn kids may be abducted in your name

Let's look at it a different way. If I were to conspire with others to kill innocent civilians in another country, got caught, and was tortured by that government, would you feel sorry for me?

I hope not.

Presumption of innocence is a good thing but how far do you want to take it? In the US if I am caught in the act of killing someone and arrested, I am presumed innocent and referred to as a "suspect". That's almost funny, it's so ridiculous.

"What makes you suspect this man of murder?"

"For starters, we have video of him hacking the victim to pieces with an axe."

"That does indeed sound suspicious. Do you have any other evidence?"

I do not believe for a moment that the US government detains and tortures innocent people just for fun. I do not trust the government but even I do not think they are slimy enough to knowingly torture innocent people.

Your example of me being grabbed off the street, shipped to a foreign country and interrogated seems to imply some sort of random act on the part of a foreign government. What if I really was guilty and they had solid evidence of such. Should I be able to hide behind the borders of the US? Depends on your point of view, I suppose.

The bottom line is the value we place on some of our deeply held principles versus the value we place on the safety of our borders and citizens.

In past times, we had the luxury of being able to hold onto our principles without fear of our country being savagely attacked by small groups of highly-motivated terrorists. I think we must adjust our tactics to whatever is effective at stopping them.

I don't think they understand anything except violence at a very personal level. Do you think otherwise?

Walt

[shropshire 0]

O.K ... so if the US thinks it's doing the right thing.... then why is it not bringing these 'suspects' to their own country? Why use a proxy?

How do WE know that the people that have been abducted are guilty of anything.... your firm belief that your/our governments would never do naughty stuff, just does not cut it for me... I need proof, not the word of politicians, who by their nature are self-serving. I need (to quote an Amicanism) Oversight!

And to suggest that it's different for terrorism, is bogus at best... the terrorsit threat has been hyped out of all proportion for political and financial reasons(IMHO). The number of terrorist inicendents in our countries are (thankfully) very small. Is that something to make light of, No. Is it something to be scared shitless of, again no. Is the loss of freedom to the public at large something to be scared of - Oh Yes... be scared of that.

.

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[waltappel 1]

Quote

O.K ... so if the US thinks it's doing the right thing.... then why is it not bringing these 'suspects' to their own country? Why use a proxy?

My best guess is politics. I'm all for doing it as openly as possible. We are talking survival. I don't think it's the time for bullshit games. I'm with you on this.

Quote

How do WE know that the people that have been abducted are guilty of anything.... your firm belief that your/our governments would never do naughty stuff, just does not cut it for me... I need proof, not the word of politicians, who by their nature are self-serving. I need (to quote an Amicanism) Oversight!

I do too, but I'll take what I can get in the near-term.

Quote

And to suggest that it's different for terrorism, is bogus at best... the terrorsit threat has been hyped out of all proportion for political and financial reasons(IMHO). The number of terrorist inicendents in our countries are (thankfully) very small. Is that something to make light of, No. Is it something to be scared shitless of, again no. Is the loss of freedom to the public at large something to be scared of - Oh Yes... be scared of that.

.

See this shot of the aftermath of the 9/11 attack. Really zoom in on it.

Don't you ever fucking tell me that the terrorist threat is overhyped.

Walt

[shropshire 0]

<
Don't you ever fucking tell me that the terrorist threat is overhyped. >>

Calm Matey... America wasn't the first country to ever be hit by terrorist bombs.... but as soon as it does, the rest of the world has to sit up and take notice.. what were they doing when the IRA et al. was bombing my countrymen?
11/9 was one big nasty incident and one could never make light if it or any other incident but nothing else has happened on mainland USA since... we need to look at the big picture and get perspective. Take a leaf out of Londons' (and elsewhere)book during the Blitz ..... you cann't let the bastards change your life and niether can you let you goivernment either otherwise they've won. They've achieved, excactly, exactly what they wanted to achieve, without having to do any more work at all.

And sinking to their level by not following our own rules of the process of law stinks of vigilantism and that leaves a really nasty taste and does our countries no credit at all.

Hey, I know, lets change our way of life....., If we think that someone is a killer, lets not bother with a trial... lets just hang them from the nearest tree.... If they weren't gulity, shame, we got the wrong guy..... so where do you draw your new line? Possible terrorists? Possible drug dealers (hey the kill more people a year that terrotists)......


P.S are we the only two wankers here tonight?.... I've a bottle of Turner Road Pinot Grogio that's going down rather well - I raise a glas to you -Slangeva

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[kallend 2,099]

Quote

11/9 was one big nasty incident and one could never make light if it or any other incident but nothing else has happened on mainland USA since... we need to look at the big picture and get perspective. Take a leaf out of Londons' (and elsewhere)book during the Blitz ..... you cann't let the bastards change your life and niether can you let you goivernment either otherwise they've won.

Too late, the White House has been exploiting 9/11 for its own ends ever since it occurred.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Funny that the Right has had almost no comment on this.

What's up, guys, no way to spin it your way?

....cause it is so easy to watch some one tell you what you want to hear and let you forget about it .......after you puff up your chests and say, "see, I knew I was right!"

Then you find your next subject to complain about...................and we do it all again and nothing changes...............................but you feel vindicated



Next.............

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[shropshire 0]

To be fair .... not just the White House. No 10 has done the same and so have an awful lot of security contractors..... There's money in them there kills.

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[likearock 2]

Quote

Calm Matey... America wasn't the first country to ever be hit by terrorist bombs.... but as soon as it does, the rest of the world has to sit up and take notice

3000 dead in one day. Did any IRA bombing ever come close to that? Did all the IRA bombings come close to that?