Bush acknowledges secret CIA prisons

[soblessed53]

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

Indeed this is true, but why not simply hold them as PoWs?

You are so right. This whole situation is just "WRONG" and it really creeps me out!

 

[Brimshack]

An Eye for an Eye is not what you were advocating Mike. What you were advocating is summary execution. Now you pretend you got the principle from the Bible, which is a bald-faced lie.

I also love the pretense to know exactly who is and who is not a terrorist, like they wear signs or something. In practice, summary execution means innocents die. Those advocating it are doing nothing short of advocating terrorism themselves. And of course, Mike adds the pretense to be doing it on biblical principles. Might as well say it's for Allah.

 

[HumbleMan]

Everyone seems to be focusing on whether the prisons were right in the first place or not. Why isn't anyone taking notice that this administration has lied, again, and then come out in public once it feels it's poll numbers are sufficient? I can't remember if Bush outright denied the existence of these prisons, but the propoganda machine most certainly insinuated that.

 

[Guttermouth]

Ah! There you go Humble Man. That's the whole point. Rovian political strategy revolves around two major points. First, exploit your opponents strengths, not thier weaknesses. John kerry is a perfect example of this. Create a story, truth be damned, to destroy his status as a decorated veteran.

Second is to turn your weaknesses into strengths. We know right now that the Republican machine has a stated goal of playing up fear of terrorism and then using that fear to claim they are doing a better job to fight it than the Democrats. This is a prefect opportunity for them to use the weakness that is torture and clandestine prisons to their advantage. If and when the Democrats speak out against this, and fight congressional moves to make Bush policies legal, the Republicans will use it to claim the Dems are weak on terrorism.

So we have a double whammy. Bush is weak on terrorism, and is eroding human rights by condoning torture. So they'll take the Democratic stand to protect human rights and use it aganst them. And, I am sad to say it will work. Just watch.

 

[JPPT1974]

I wonder if he was keeping those prisons a secret
In order to protect those terrorists from trying to plot again another 9/11 attack.

 

[mwb]

So, all a President has to do is tell you we are at war with an unconventional entity and the full extent of your concerns about human rights boils down to is a vague and contradictory "hope."

To say nothing of the increasingly obvious fact that many of the prisoners taken in this war have NOT been treated well. and the fact that many of them are NOT terrorists, not even close.

I'm beginning to understand the appeal of Bush's make it up as you go approach. Since so many people do that when they form their opinions, his own whims don't seem so strange. The fact is that international law does deal with non-uniformed combatants. People could actually address the real laws and the real issues, but it's much more fun to speak as though we already know who is and isn't a terrorist (with no trial), and imagine a good fun world in which Uncle Bush handles it all just like we'd want him to. ...even if we do have to ignore a rape here and a murder there. ...or a completely irrelevent little adventure into a nation with no direct connections to Al Qaida.

"many of them are NOT terrorists, not even close."

Many?? I'd like a percentage-50%, 75%, 99%.

I'm not sure where you get your information.

 

[mwb]

I forgot the terrorists have name tags that say: "I'm a terrorist". It seems pretty simple to me.

 

[mwb]

Here's an idea: Capture no one. Let them run loose because we may capture a few that are innocent.

Sounds like the Clinton Doctrine. The terrorists thanked us with 9/11.

 

[Brimshack]

Tell you what MWB, just as soon as you show me how it is that you know those in the prisons really are terrorists, I'll be happy to dig up my own source, But don't send me digging for sources when you are so content to assume the most convenient scenario yourself.

 

[Brimshack]

"Here's an idea: Capture no one. Let them run loose because we may capture a few that are innocent.

Sounds like the Clinton Doctrine. The terrorists thanked us with 9/11."

Here is an idea. How about you address actual arguments instead of making up alternatives that are neither necessary nor suggested by anyone here.

 

[Nightson]

Here's an idea: Capture no one. Let them run loose because we may capture a few that are innocent.

Sounds like the Clinton Doctrine. The terrorists thanked us with 9/11.

How about we follow treaties we've signed and our own Constitution? A shock I know, we might have to actually have evidence people are terrorists.

 

[ACougar]

I spent over 20 years in the military, I didn't do it to defend a nation of torture and secret prisons, I did it to defend the land of the free.

Secret Prisons should not be legal (assuming they are somehow legal) and puting somone in a secret prison is the same as kidnapping. I heard someone on the radio joke about putting Paris Hilton in a secret prison or GITMO because she was DUI or borderline DUI, it struck me how much this nation has changed. We are in real danger of becoming that which I thought I was always defending us against.

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!

 

[ACougar]

Prisons, no problem.

Why do they need to be secret? Why must the government be able to hold people without anyone knowing about it?

Because they are unprepared to justify that siezure out in the light of day.

Knock, Knock!

Who's there?

Department of Fatherland Security. We heard a rumor that you were a member of organization X which supported Hamas with funds to build a Hospital in 1999. We also noticed that you surf to the wrong websites and that you usually discuss the President in a negative fashion. Would you please come with us.

 

[ACougar]

The point that's constantly lost on the right is that if someone is secretly held in a secret prison, we don't know who they are or why they are there.

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.

 

[ACougar]

There are legitimate reasons for secret prisons when dealing with terrorist suspects.

A terrorist suspect is no diferant from any other criminal suspect. It is not constitutional to throw suspected terorists or other types of suspected criminals into Secret prisons.

 

[mwb]

Tell you what MWB, just as soon as you show me how it is that you know those in the prisons really are terrorists, I'll be happy to dig up my own source, But don't send me digging for sources when you are so content to assume the most convenient scenario yourself.

I'd like to hear your definition of many.

Some-maybe. But many-I don't think so.

I wonder why no one complains when innocent people in Afghanistan are captured or killed. Oh that's right, we are ok with that war. Only certain lives that fit our political agenda are important.

 

[Brimshack]

What the heck, here's one:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/13/AR2005111301061.html

One you would condemn to prison with your hopes.

And here is 22 more that were held long after the Pentagon deicded they were either entirely innocent or low risk at best.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/23/AR2005082301362.html

These are people known by government officials to be innocent and held anyway. You can hold out for statistics if you want, and that'll work fine, because it was hard enough for folks to document these cases. Innocent people can rot in prison for all you care, just don't pretend you "hope" it's being handled well. Not when your only active position on the subject is acceptance of a system completely eliminating all safegaurds against this sort of thing.

 

[Sycophant]

I'd like to hear your definition of many.

Some-maybe. But many-I don't think so.

I wonder why no one complains when innocent people in Afghanistan are captured or killed. Oh that's right, we are ok with that war. Only certain lives that fit our political agenda are important.

So how many innocent people is it okay to deny rights to in order to capture some terrorists?

If 5% are innocent, is that okay? 10%? 15%?

What should happen to those that are not deemed innocent? They should just be hidden somewhere forever?

Why is it okay for the US to do this to foreign nationals? Would if be okay if the US federal government were to adopt the same practices with domestic terrorists?

 

[mwb]

I suggested not capturing anyone. For some reason thatw was shot down.

 

[mwb]

What the heck, here's one:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/13/AR2005111301061.html

One you would condemn to prison with your hopes.

And here is 22 more that were held long after the Pentagon deicded they were either entirely innocent or low risk at best.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/23/AR2005082301362.html

These are people known by government officials to be innocent and held anyway. You can hold out for statistics if you want, and that'll work fine, because it was hard enough for folks to document these cases. Innocent people can rot in prison for all you care, just don't pretend you "hope" it's being handled well. Not when your only active position on the subject is acceptance of a system completely eliminating all safegaurds against this sort of thing.

Sorry but I don't have the answer. You don't either so don't accuse me of anything. There are innocent people on death row in the US while criminals go free. No one has the answer to that either. You want perfection so badly, do something about it.

I said don't capture anyone. That's the most effective way to stop holding these MANY innocent people. For some strange reason, that wasn't a good enough suggestion.