Bush acknowledges secret CIA prisons

[Nightson]

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.

There's a thing called due process of law which, amazingly, was set up for the sole purpose of determining whose guilty and innocent. How bout we use that.

 

[Brimshack]

I don't recall asking for perfection. What I am opposing is abandonment of checks and balances on police powers. This is something you advocated earlier in the thread. Hyperbolic alternatives are neither useful nor logically warranted in view of the facts. If the only choices you can envision are secret prisons or no prisons altogether, then we are done talking about the matter.

 

[mwb]

I say close secret prisons if we are trying to prevent innocent people from being held. I don't care if terrorists are set free to continue to kill people.

I've also advocated closing Guantanamo too. If a detainee ends up on an airplane with a bomb then that's the breaks. There are a few innocent people there as well.

I've also advocated doing nothing against Iran. Why should there be sanctions against a country that wants to use nukes peacefully? We could be wrong about Iran like we were about Iraq. The world was certain Iraq had WMD.

 

[Nightson]

I say close secret prisons if we are trying to prevent innocent people from being held. I don't care if terrorists are set free to continue to kill people.

I've also advocated closing Guantanamo too. If a detainee ends up on an airplane with a bomb then that's the breaks. There are a few innocent people there as well.

I've also advocated doing nothing against Iran. Why should there be sanctions against a country that wants to use nukes peacefully? We could be wrong about Iran like we were about Iraq. The world was certain Iraq had WMD.

NORMAL HIGH SECURITY PRISONS AND DUE PROCESS OF LAW

False dilemmas are a logical fallacy, please stop using them.

 

[mwb]

All three of my points have been suggested at one point or another. I'm just agreeing.

This thread is about whether the US needs secret prisons. I say close them.

Democrats have wanted to close Guantanamo for years. I say close it.

Democrats point out that Iraq was a mistake. I'm using the same logic for Iran. We should not presume guilt.

It's great when Kerry, Kennedy, Clinton, Murtha etc. stand at the podium & make these suggestions because they're playing politics. I guess it's not so fun when it comes down to actually discussing these points & implementing them. Then we see how ridiculous they are.

 

[marshlewis]

I say close secret prisons if we are trying to prevent innocent people from being held. I don't care if terrorists are set free to continue to kill people.

I've also advocated closing Guantanamo too. If a detainee ends up on an airplane with a bomb then that's the breaks. There are a few innocent people there as well.

I've also advocated doing nothing against Iran. Why should there be sanctions against a country that wants to use nukes peacefully? We could be wrong about Iran like we were about Iraq. The world was certain Iraq had WMD.

Why do you say that the world was certain that saddam had WMD. This is like saying that the world was certain that saddam was on the brink of setting up a democratic system in Iraq. Both statements are utter nonsence.
You do realise that the world was allmost unanimous in its opposition to the Iraq war right?. Even in the "coalition of the Willing" countries puplic support was 50% at best and 5% at worst.

So why would you repeat this blather as if it ment something?

 

[Brimshack]

So, MWB, you can't make up your mind what your point is and you've been playing a tangent the whole time. Box at shadows all you want. I'm done with you.

 

[Sycophant]

All three of my points have been suggested at one point or another. I'm just agreeing.

This thread is about whether the US needs secret prisons. I say close them.

Democrats have wanted to close Guantanamo for years. I say close it.

Democrats point out that Iraq was a mistake. I'm using the same logic for Iran. We should not presume guilt.

It's great when Kerry, Kennedy, Clinton, Murtha etc. stand at the podium & make these suggestions because they're playing politics. I guess it's not so fun when it comes down to actually discussing these points & implementing them. Then we see how ridiculous they are.

No one here has suggested that nothing be done with terrorists. No politicians I know of have suggested that.

I fail to see, and you certainly haven't illustrated, how the idea of justice and punishment for terrorist requires secret detention and undisclosed tactics.

As it is by engaging in these tactics the US seems to be making itself a hypocrite. It critisises the failure of other countries to recognise human rights, and to operate without legal oversight and yet it does these very things in the war on terror.

I can see absolutely no reason why it must be "secret prisons" or "let them all go free".

Posing a false dichotomy is simply a way to avoid discussion of the issues at hand.

These people, terrorist suspects have to be afforded some sort of due process otherwise it is nothing more than arbitary detention.

Policies such as offering significant bounties for captured 'terrorists' means that innocent people will be swept up. To simply remove them from their lives while providing them no recourse is simply inhumane.

 

[Machjo]

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.

Oh this is just too good to be true. From the first link:

The US is now looking for a home for Chinese Uighurs who were potentialy engaged in terrorist activity against the Chinese government. Just wow! So the US arrests them and puts them in Guantanamo. Then it realises that they were never a threat to the US but to China. So now the US is looking for an assylum for terrorists?

Oh wow!

And from both links. Bounty hunters are scavenging for anyone because if they hand in anyone who looks like a terrorist, the US gives them financial compensation.

"Hey Hamid! Look at those guys there. They could look like terrorists in US eyes, don't you think?"

"Oh yeah, brother. Let's get 'em! USD 5,000 a head! We'll just make up a bogus story that we'd overheard them taling about AlQaeda! brilliant! We'll be rich!"

And this is what the CIA and military call professionalism? Man, a five year old could establish such a well thought out system!

But hey, God bless America!

 

[mwb]

I'm glad I didn't read the link about the Chinese. I'm not an expert on world affairs. I'm not here to be the spokeman for the president. So rant & rave to someone else. No one here has the specifics on every single person held in secret or known prisons. I'm not going to go prisoner by prisoner with you guys & argue whether they are a threat or not. You guys come up with these links in 30 seconds & I'm supposed to spend 6 hours researching whether they are guilty or innocent. My time is more valuable than that. None of us know the facts.

The question in a broad sense is should there be secret prisons? Should there be prisons at all? You can't rail against secret prisons then qualify your opinion by saying they're not ok if innocent people are being held. Then when I suggest closing them, I'm being unreasonable because their might be guilty people there.

Since you guys are so smart, perhaps we should discuss who has jurisdiction if we were to put them on trial. I asked that earlier & no one has responded to how that could occur. From what I've read, many terrorists have been sent home for trials. Some have been acquitted at home & then gone on to get right back into terrorism.

I could see how the government doesn't want to release them immediately because this war is not about countries. Some prisoners could be sent back to their home country & set free because the country supports terrorism. Some of the prisoners are not representing a country, they're representing a terrorist organization. their home country may not care about these people's terrorist activities.

So there is a big question about who has jurisdiction.

 

[mwb]

Let's stop the Daily Show, Moveon rhetoric. It is sooooo played.

 

[Nightson]

mwb, you seem to have no concept of a prisoner transfer. Let me explain. That's when you take a prisoner in a secret prison and then, now this is the tricky part, MOVE HIM TO A NON SECRET PRISON!

 

[CaligulaNero]

Expect other disturbing revelations to come out about the Bush administration. They have done the math, realize they will lose control of congress, and are trying to deflate all secrecy/unconstituional acts it has taken to lessen the possibility of impeachment. If they disclose them now, it will probably work.

 

[Sycophant]

I'm glad I didn't read the link about the Chinese. I'm not an expert on world affairs. I'm not here to be the spokeman for the president. So rant & rave to someone else. No one here has the specifics on every single person held in secret or known prisons. I'm not going to go prisoner by prisoner with you guys & argue whether they are a threat or not. You guys come up with these links in 30 seconds & I'm supposed to spend 6 hours researching whether they are guilty or innocent. My time is more valuable than that. None of us know the facts.

The question in a broad sense is should there be secret prisons? Should there be prisons at all? You can't rail against secret prisons then qualify your opinion by saying they're not ok if innocent people are being held. Then when I suggest closing them, I'm being unreasonable because their might be guilty people there.

Since you guys are so smart, perhaps we should discuss who has jurisdiction if we were to put them on trial. I asked that earlier & no one has responded to how that could occur. From what I've read, many terrorists have been sent home for trials. Some have been acquitted at home & then gone on to get right back into terrorism.

I could see how the government doesn't want to release them immediately because this war is not about countries. Some prisoners could be sent back to their home country & set free because the country supports terrorism. Some of the prisoners are not representing a country, they're representing a terrorist organization. their home country may not care about these people's terrorist activities.

So there is a big question about who has jurisdiction.

But again - there is not binary condition that says you must either hold these people in secret or let them go.

The US seems fairly confident that they have some jurisdiction in capturing and prosecuting people who they believe have been plotting crimes against the USA. And I believe there is some international law to support that position. But that is not the issue here anyway.

Up until now the US has held people captive in undisclosed locations, without affording them any rights. Not informing their home nations of their capture or imprisonment, and not being accountable to any US court or body of oversight. This has been done secretly specifically to avoid any need to submit to oversight.

I cannot perceive, nor have I seen, any reason why these suspects must be held in secret. Why they cannot be afforded basic rights, and why they should be allowed to do this without oversight or regulation under any defined framework of law.

The program is not secret anymore, but there's no indication it's going to stop. We still may never know who is held, why or for how long. With no requirement for a trial they can rot in prison for ever as far as anyone knows. Why is that necessary?

Why is it okay for the US government to do it in it's war on terror, but not okay for local police departments to do in their wars on crime. Should it be okay for the police to arrest people they believe might be guilty of something and hold them, in secret, because they might be (heck, even probably are) guilty of something?

The answer for the police is that the US bill of rights forbids it. But those rights are considered to be a nicety that the US government extends to it's residents, they are considered to be basic human rights that are protected by law. Yet the government that will legislate to protect those rights for it's own people, will happily do whatever it can to deny them to others. Why must it be that way?

 

[blueapplepaste]

I'm surprised noone has brought up the fact that Bush and his admin flat out lied on this one. Flat out lied.

 

[mwb]

Sychophant: Maybe there should be a Geneva Convention for terrorists. The only problem with that is terrorists will gain more rights & countries who capture them will have less rights. It's only a matter of time before terrorist groups would exploit that advantage.

I really think there is trouble ahead. The terrorists are gaining the upper hand because the world has not yet taken them seriously. I find this shocking.

And before everyone chimes in that the U.S. has created more terrorists, just remember we left them alone from 1993-2001 & they thanked us on 9/11/01.

So basically we're screwed either way until the world gets it.

 

[Machjo]

Sychophant: Maybe there should be a Geneva Convention for terrorists. The only problem with that is terrorists will gain more rights & countries who capture them will have less rights. It's only a matter of time before terrorist groups would exploit that advantage.

I fully agree. Do you realise that some criminals might have also gotten away scott free because fo that pesty Bill of Rights? We really ought to get rid of that outdated thing and let the police do their jobs already.

I really think there is trouble ahead. The terrorists are gaining the upper hand because the world has not yet taken them seriously. I find this shocking.


Yeah! Just like all other criminals. People don't take them seriously, so we give all those criminals all kinds of rights like the chance to prove their innocence. I mean, gee wiz, what a waste of money. OK, so some innocents might suffer, but think of all the money saved if we could just assume "wrong place at the wrong time? Sucks to be you!"


And before everyone chimes in that the U.S. has created more terrorists, just remember we left them alone from 1993-2001 & they thanked us on 9/11/01.

Exactly. It wasn't the US that was pestering all those Palestinians. The US was just providing weapons to Isreal. It was Israel. And as for the US being allied with Iraq againsts Iran, or allied with Saudi Arabia for strategicreasons, or supporting the taliban against the USSR, etc., well, that's history. It's not our fault their memory sticks around past 1996. We never asked them to remember.

So basically we're screwed either way until the world gets it.

Precicely. Andit's America's job to make sure the world gets it, whatevr it takes, even if that's a war on terra.

 

[mwb]

Everybody's innocent in your mind except big bad America. Just because you think you're funny, it doesn't mean you've made any solid fundamental points.

 

[mwb]

I've stated we should close all prisons, get out of Iraq & Afghanistan & put Saddam Hussein back in power but no one seems to want to do that either. You guys need to get together on your rhetoric.

Reminds me of the Democratic Party over the last few days. They have offered no concrete plans on handling Iran, Iraq or terrorism. They only come out of hiding during campaign season saying they would have done things differently.

 

[Sycophant]

I've stated we should close all prisons, get out of Iraq & Afghanistan & put Saddam Hussein back in power but no one seems to want to do that either. You guys need to get together on your rhetoric.

You have not offered that as an honest opinion. You merely offer that as an attempt to lampoon what you believe to be the opinion of your opposition.

How is it exactly you think that us 'guys' are are not 'together' on our 'rhetoric'?

None of us have suggested anything like the option you are putting forward and seem to be surprised that we are not endorsing.

We are all arguing for accountability and due process - issues that are fundemental to US and international law.