Bush acknowledges secret CIA prisons

[steelerguy99]

There are long established laws to deal with prisoners during war.

Yes, with uniformed soldiers flying under a flag and having a centalized command. Rogue terrorist cells and terrorists do not qualify for protection under the convention

The US government with the support of the logically challanged does not follow these laws.

The logically challenged do not understand the limitations of the geneva convention

This is not war, its facisim.

Please look up the word in the dictionary before you use it
Thanks

 

[Brimshack]

I am glad that they have secret prisons. I am sure there are valid reasons for it i.e. the same reasons they use GITMO

I imagine many an Iraqie must have said pretty much the same thing under Saddam.

 

[steelerguy99]

I imagine many an Iraqie must have said pretty much the same thing under Saddam.

I don't think I should have to explain the difference in the situations to you. Your analogy doesn't apply

 

[treblebass]

There is a very fitting quote:


People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

- George Orwell -

it is these same men/women who serve their country and are willing to die for it that give YOU teh right to sit in front of your Electronic soapbox and bash the nation and its policy...

Sleep well!

You make a very firm argument, but I am afraid I cannot pick a side on this one. Both sides are right...the only reason the attempted attack on the Library tower was foiled was because of their info gathered from the detainees. On the other hand, the US DOES have laws and a right way and wrong way to do things, but let's face it-the government can pretty much get away with breaking any law that has to do with national security. The startling thing is, there is most certainly more broken laws and rules stemming from protecting us from terrorists-it's inevitable. Okay, I'm done...

 

[Brimshack]

And that's the point that's constantly lost on the left.

They love to make it sound like these guys were just sitting at the Starbucks in downtown Iowa City sipping a latte, when President Bush personally burst in and kidnapped them.

That's just not so. These men were captured on the field of battle trying or conspiring to kill American soldiers.

The Constitution details the rights the government has in dealing with U.S. citizens in criminal or civil cases.

This is neither. It's war.

What you claim the left does not understand, you yourself do not understand, nor does Steeler. Citizenship is completely irrelevant to the Bill of Rights as even the most casual reading of the text would reveal. That doesn't stop the objective supporters of torture from citing a mythical distinction between the rights of citizens and those of non-citizens. Anything will do of course when advocating the suffering of others.

How do you know these men were captured on the field of battle, btw? Have you seen their arrest records? Do you have any idea how the U.S. has been capturing these so-called terrorists? Have you seen the policies or even noticed the number of people picked up in their homes? Or did you just decide to say that without even giving it the slightest thought? And while babbling on these utter falsehoods, you pretend to comment on what the left does and does not understand.

Absolutely rediculous! read the document before you start lecturing others on what they do or not understand about it.

 

[treblebass]

Hey, this is a bit off topic but I have been seeing the acronym "BTW" a lot. What does it mean?

 

[Sycophant]

Maybe my last comment got lost...

Accepting for the moment that the US can capture and detain who it likes, where it likes, for whatever. And even afford them minimal rights.

Why should these prison's be secret. Why is it acceptable, or even commendable, that the US government has been hiding the existance of the prisons and still hides all information about who they are holding, for what.

One step at a time -
Why is it a good thing for the US government to maintain secret prisons on foreign soil?

 

[Brimshack]

I don't think I should have to explain the difference in the situations to you. Your analogy doesn't apply

You cannot explain it because you have no case. You give a blank check to Bush and you pretend you are different from Saddam's accomplices. The only difference between your approach and theirs is the language in which you express yourself.

 

[PastorMikeJ]

the correct policy for the handling of terrorist is not to take them prisoner...we can't try them..we can't hold them...so the best thing to do is to kill them...no prisoners...no prisoners no need for gitmo or secret prisons... they don't take prisoners so why do we...

 

[Brimshack]

YOu are quite literally advocating murder Mike. Congratulations.

 

[burrow_owl]

That's just not so. These men were captured on the field of battle trying or conspiring to kill American soldiers.

That, or minding their own business when thugs that we gave money to on a per-kidnapee basis stole them away. But whatever. Perhaps that's too "nuanced."

The Constitution details the rights the government has in dealing with U.S. citizens in criminal or civil cases.

Hey, it's not like Bush has been holding US citizens without trials for over three years now. Why, if he did that, the right would certainly say something.

Right?

*chirp*

 

[steelerguy99]

You cannot explain it because you have no case.

No, I just don't want to embarrass anyone by pointing out the obvious there is a big difference between the situations

You give a blank check to Bush and you pretend you are different from Saddam's accomplices.

I don't give Bush a blank check. The rules are different when you are fighting a foreign enemy

 

[Sycophant]

Anyone remember this?

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion...0,3748543.story?coll=la-news-comment-opinions

Yeah, and there was a Canadian guy who had a similar experience.

I wonder how many others are in secret prison's trying to explain that they are not terrorists?

 

[Norseman]

the correct policy for the handling of terrorist is not to take them prisoner...we can't try them..we can't hold them...so the best thing to do is to kill them...no prisoners...no prisoners no need for gitmo or secret prisons... they don't take prisoners so why do we...

Problem: Prisoners are being held without having been tried. We don't know if they're innocent or guilty.

Solution: Give them the death sentence.

 

[ElvisFan42]

What are you talking about?
If these were citizens, then you would have a legitimate point
But these are enemy combatants that weren't caught on US soil and hence do not have the same protections

Jose Padilla

Yaser Esam Hamdi

Both US citizens, both held without charges in secret prisons. Just admit it, you'll support Bush no matter what. He could arrest your mother and you'd be sure she was a terrorist.

 

[ElvisFan42]

Problem: Prisoners are being held without having been tried. We don't know if they're innocent or guilty.

Solution: Give them the death sentence.

Excellent point, no one, I said NO ONE knows wether these people are enemies or mistaken captives (you Bush cheerleaders do realize many have been released because they did nothing wrong, right?) and you want to deny them rights and humanity? Good people you are, God must be happy.

 

[Vylo]

the correct policy for the handling of terrorist is not to take them prisoner...we can't try them..we can't hold them...so the best thing to do is to kill them...no prisoners...no prisoners no need for gitmo or secret prisons... they don't take prisoners so why do we...

You can hold them, and you can try them, but there seems to be little interest in doing this and instead detaining them without rights.

Yes, with uniformed soldiers flying under a flag and having a centalized command. Rogue terrorist cells and terrorists do not qualify for protection under the convention

Care to explain what harm there is with affording then geneva protections?

 

[burrow_owl]

Problem: Prisoners are being held without having been tried. We don't know if they're innocent or guilty.

Sure we do. If they float, they're guilty, and if they drown, they were innocent.

 

[Sycophant]

the correct policy for the handling of terrorist is not to take them prisoner...we can't try them..we can't hold them...so the best thing to do is to kill them...no prisoners...no prisoners no need for gitmo or secret prisons... they don't take prisoners so why do we...

Sure, some people will be killed simply for no reason other than someone suspected they were a little shifty - but that's cool!

Why not implement some sort of policy whereby all Muslim males between 14 and 70 be detained and heavily interrogated until they can satisfy their captors that they are not in fact terrorists.

I mean all of them. From every country. If they started in Afghanistan then they would have no Taleban problem there and could build facilities to house all the other Muslim men they captured there. Afghanistan could become one giant prison to hold suspected terrorists - which we are defining as Muslim men.

That ought to fix the problem. Of course first the US government would have to define all Muslim men as enemy combatants, then they would be able to grab them and hold them forever.

 

[Brimshack]

No, I just don't want to embarrass anyone by pointing out the obvious there is a big difference between the situations

You are lying. You wouldn't hesitate to state a case if you had one, and you aren't the least bit concerned about embarrassing me. Don't pretend you care about that, because it's rediculous. You have no argument and that is all there is to it.

I don't give Bush a blank check. The rules are different when you are fighting a foreign enemy

have you read your own post. You weren't talking about alternative rules. You were talking about secret detentions carried out under NO rules whatsoever. You endorsed those prisons without any scrutiny nor even the possibility of such scrutiny. You are not talking about different rules and you know it. You have literally advocated measures placing the detentions in question beyond all enforcement. Now you talk of different rules and pretend that somehow your position doesn't amount to a blank check. Pathetic.