Amnesty: Where are 39 Secret Detainees? [Archive]

Dancing David

7th June 2007, 04:37 PM

Amnesty :Where are the 39 individuals?

And fiveother groups ask : Where are they?

http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGAMR510992007

London and New York, 7 June 2007) -- In the most comprehensive accounting to date, six leading human rights organizations today published the names and details of 39 people who are believed to have been held in secret US custody and whose current whereabouts remain unknown. The briefing paper also names relatives of suspects who were themselves detained in secret prisons, including children as young as seven.

…

It reveals how suspects’ relatives, including wives and children as young as seven, have been held in secret detention. In September 2002 Khalid Sheikh Mohammed’s two young sons, aged seven and nine, were arrested. According to eyewitnesses, the two were held in an adult detention centre for at least four months while US agents questioned the children about their father’s whereabouts.

Similarly, when Tanzanian national Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani was seized in Gujarat, Pakistan, in July 2004, his Uzbek wife was detained with him.

…

The secrecy surrounding the programme also means that no one outside the US government knows exactly how many prisoners have been detained and how many remain “disappeared”. The transfer in April 2007 of Abd al-Hadi al-Iraqi from CIA custody to Guantánamo indicates that the programme continues to operate, although some prisoners may have been transferred to prisons in other countries, possibly as a form of proxy detention. Off the Record indicates that some missing detainees may have been moved to countries where they face the risk of torture and where they continue to be held secretly, without charge or trial.

Darth Rotor

7th June 2007, 05:18 PM

Amnesty :Where are the 39 individuals?

And fiveother groups ask : Where are they?

http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGAMR510992007

Let me see if I have this right:

I don't know where he is, the CIA must have shipped him to Gitmo, like that Abd al-Hadi al-Iraqi guy.

Am I close?

ETA:
The secrecy surrounding the programme also means that no one outside the US government knows exactly how many prisoners have been detained and how many remain “disappeared”.
By the way, I'll pont out that not many people within the government would know, if this is a secret program, and thus restricted to a 'need to know' basis like any other 'secret' program.

DR

This Guy

7th June 2007, 05:21 PM

I suspect this will be a lively thread once it gets going :)

I'm a bit torn on the subject of the "Secret Prisons".

As a freedom loving American, I oppose the idea of my country holding anyone in a manner that would not be allowed of either an American, or an enemy soldier. As I understand the situation, these people are called "Enemy Combatants"? Or something? What the hell is that except an enemy soldier? And their kids! As young as 7!

Then there is the fact that these jerks that are looking forward to getting those virgins are willing to kill us and themselves, in any manner they can.

Every time this topic comes up I remember those words - "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety".

Is allowing our government to take these people's liberty in a manner outside normal laws and rules not the same as giving up our liberty? Who's to say one of us won't be suspected, and whisked away in the night.

Brings visions of the Gestapo to mind. Not a group I want associated with my country.

These are strange times, and I'm hopeful that when the dust settles we will still be a nation that promotes liberty and justice for all.

Comrade Ogilvy

7th June 2007, 05:24 PM

Let me see if I have this right:

I don't know where he is, the CIA must have shipped him to Gitmo, like that Abd al-Hadi al-Iraqi guy.

Am I close?

ETA:

By the way, I'll pont out that not many people within the government would know, if this is a secret program, and thus restricted to a 'need to know' basis like any other 'secret' program.

DR

Maybe they are being forced to do Karl Rove`s lawn and garden work?

Darth Rotor

7th June 2007, 05:26 PM

Maybe they are being forced to do Karl Rove`s lawn and garden work?
Rove has a garden in Gitmo? :confused:

*wrinkles brow*

I suppose I've seen stranger things, why the hell not?

DR

Comrade Ogilvy

7th June 2007, 05:31 PM

As a freedom loving American, I oppose the idea of my country holding anyone in a manner that would not be allowed of either an American, or an enemy soldier. As I understand the situation, these people are called "Enemy Combatants"? Or something? What the hell is that except an enemy soldier? And their kids! As young as 7!

Got a source for the 7 year olds?....

or an enemy soldier?...look up the Geneva convention, there are some rules that you have to pass to be consider a "Soldier". In WWII a soldier could be legally shot dead for being out of uniform behind enemy lines as a spy.

Comrade Ogilvy

7th June 2007, 05:32 PM

Rove has a garden in Gitmo? :confused:

*wrinkles brow*

I suppose I've seen stranger things, why the hell not?

DR

SHHHHssss!....TOP SECRET!

Unabogie

7th June 2007, 05:36 PM

Got a source for the 7 year olds?....

Are you being serious? It's in the original post. Is this the first you've heard that children have been detained? Are you in favor of children being held for the alleged crimes of their parents (note that none of these people have been convicted of anything)?

Comrade Ogilvy

7th June 2007, 05:50 PM

Are you being serious? It's in the original post. Is this the first you've heard that children have been detained? Are you in favor of children being held for the alleged crimes of their parents (note that none of these people have been convicted of anything)?

Sorry....I take everything those radical groups say with a grain of salt... apparently your willing to swallow every outlandish claim they make without any hard facts...because you want to.

This Guy

7th June 2007, 06:05 PM

Got a source for the 7 year olds?....

or an enemy soldier?...look up the Geneva convention, there are some rules that you have to pass to be consider a "Soldier". In WWII a soldier could be legally shot dead for being out of uniform behind enemy lines as a spy.

I can't confirm the 7 year old stuff. It may or may not be true. My main points were aimed at the general idea of secret prisons.

I'll concede that our enemy in Iraq does not wear a uniform, nor do the terrorist around the world. That would make things easy wouldn't it :)

And yes, as a veteran, I'm aware of the potential penalty of being behind enemy lines out of uniform, or in the enemies uniform.

But does the enemy not having uniforms allow us to hold them without charges, treating them as neither enemy soldiers, nor legal prisoners? If the Geneva Convention doesn't apply, would not the laws of either the US or the country they are detained in apply?

You don't have to answer. It was rhetorical, and mostly thinking out loud on my part.

Again I'll say the whole secret prison thing causes me mixed thoughts/feelings. This is a case when my gut says it's wrong, but my brain isn't so sure. ;)

But this isn't a topic I'm prepared to debate. I can't even decide for myself if I agree with our nation's actions in this case, how can I argue either side? :)

Unabogie

7th June 2007, 07:16 PM

Sorry....I take everything those radical groups say with a grain of salt... apparently your willing to swallow every outlandish claim they make without any hard facts...because you want to.

This was reported in mainstream newspapers.

LINK (http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/03/09/1047144871928.html)

The boys have been held by the Pakistani authorities but this weekend they were flown to America where they will be questioned about their father. CIA interrogators confirmed that the boys were staying at a secret address where they were being encouraged to talk about their father's activities. "We are handling them with kid gloves," said one official. "After all, they are only little children, but we need to know as much about their father's recent activities as possible. We have child psychologists on hand at all times and they are given the best of care."

Mohammed, 37, is being held in solitary confinement at the Bagram US military base in Afghanistan. He is being subjected to "stress and duress" interrogation techniques.

He has been told that his sons are being held and is being urged to divulge future attacks against the West and reveal the whereabouts of Osama bin Laden.

"He has said very little so far," a CIA official said on Saturday. "He sits in a trance-like state and recites verses from the Koran. But while he may claim to be a devout Muslim, we know he is fond of the Western-style fast life. His sons are important to him. The promise of their release and their return to Pakistan may be the psychological lever we need to break him."
Apparently "your" willing to stick your head in the sand and remain ignorant of basic facts..."because you want to"?

So now would you care to answer my question? I just want to see how radical you really are, and what limits you think are appropriate for your country. Do you support detaining children for the alleged crimes of their parents? Let's get your extreme authoritarianism out on the table, shall we?

Darth Rotor

7th June 2007, 07:22 PM

Are you in favor of children being held for the alleged crimes of their parents (note that none of these people have been convicted of anything)?
It's right out of the Torah, and the OT, is this a problem?

DR

:duck:

Muahahahahaha!!!!

Unabogie

7th June 2007, 07:27 PM

It's right out of the Torah, and the OT, is this a problem?

DR

:duck:

Muahahahahaha!!!!

Missed you by that much...:mad:

Comrade Ogilvy

7th June 2007, 07:52 PM

This was reported in mainstream newspapers.

LINK (http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/03/09/1047144871928.html)

Apparently "your" willing to stick your head in the sand and remain ignorant of basic facts..."because you want to"?

So now would you care to answer my question? I just want to see how radical you really are, and what limits you think are appropriate for your country. Do you support detaining children for the alleged crimes of their parents? Let's get your extreme authoritarianism out on the table, shall we?

Link...PAGE NOT FOUND?

This Guy

7th June 2007, 08:06 PM

Link...PAGE NOT FOUND?

Might try it again. It seems to be working OK right now.

Zep

7th June 2007, 08:13 PM

Comrade Ogilvy

7th June 2007, 08:17 PM

Might try it again. It seems to be working OK right now.

The boys have been held by the Pakistani authorities but this weekend they were flown to America where they will be questioned about their father. CIA interrogators confirmed that the boys were staying at a secret address where they were being encouraged to talk about their father's activities. "We are handling them with kid gloves," said one official. "After all, they are only little children, but we need to know as much about their father's recent activities as possible. We have child psychologists on hand at all times and they are given the best of care."

HAAAAAAAAA....Haaaaaaaaa....this in a forum that prides itself on only the truth?....Haaaaaa....Haaaaa...

Unabogie

7th June 2007, 08:26 PM

HAAAAAAAAA....Haaaaaaaaa....this in a forum that prides itself on only the truth?....Haaaaaa....Haaaaa...

I'm sorry, are you trying to make a point or are you just embarrassed?

ETA: This is what annoys me about "movement conservatives". How can we have a discussion about this policy if they just refuse to accept the fact that it exists?

They took it on faith that Terry Schiavo was not really brain dead, denying themselves the chance to have the valid debate about how to handle a case where a person is no longer alive except by machine.

They take it on faith even now that Abu Ghraib was an aberration, and that the US only engages is "rough interrogation", thereby refusing to address the US policy as it exists under Bush.

They insist that Valerie Plame was a desk jockey, no matter what evidence emerges.

They shout form the rooftops that Iraq is actually going well, and it's all the media's fault for not reporting on all the newly painted school rooms.

I forget who said it, but a great quote is "you're entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts". Seems apropos.

Daylight

7th June 2007, 09:04 PM

Maybe they are being forced to do Karl Rove

For a minute there I thought we found who Jeff Gannon was secretly visiting. :D

richardm

8th June 2007, 02:50 AM

OK, let me get this straight.

1) Some people are allegedly being held in SOOPER SEKRIT SEKURITY where no-one knows they are even there, to be interrogated by the MIB. No-one, not even other government agencies, knows they are there, or if they do, where they are.

2) But somehow this group of whistleblowers DOES know they are there.

3) ...something or other...

4) Profit???

Well, we know that these people were arrested. We do not know what happened to them subsequently, but periodically one of them will reappear at Guantanamo. So asking "Where are the others?" is not an unreasonable question, is it?

Dancing David

8th June 2007, 03:54 AM

Let me see if I have this right:

I don't know where he is, the CIA must have shipped him to Gitmo, like that Abd al-Hadi al-Iraqi guy.

Am I close?

ETA:

By the way, I'll pont out that not many people within the government would know, if this is a secret program, and thus restricted to a 'need to know' basis like any other 'secret' program.

DR

The question is simply what happened to them. I am not comfortable with our government practicing secret detention.

I feel it is wrong and something that shouldn't be done. We won't know for a long time.

Dancing David

8th June 2007, 03:57 AM

Dancing David

8th June 2007, 04:02 AM

Sorry....I take everything those radical groups say with a grain of salt... apparently your willing to swallow every outlandish claim they make without any hard facts...because you want to.

And that just demonstrates that you don't know much about Amnesty, they are not radical, they are a group of people who report human rights abuses. Why not take a look and see what they do before you call them radical. Most reports concern events outside the United States, generally in areas of the world where political people practice human rights abuses.

Do you actually check the facts or just say MOOOO along with the rest of the herd?

What proof do you have they are radical, they do cite their sources, unlike you.

http://web.amnesty.org/library/eng-recent/reports

Amnesty cites the sources, and they give what information they have,

Countries/regions mentioned on first page of reports:

USA, Hungary, Israel/Occupied territories ,Kosovo(Serbia) ,Kenya ,Nigeria ,Mexico ,Peru,(Same story four more times) Ethiopia, Balkans, India, Canada, Russia, Russia, Russia, Russia, Russia, Russia, Zimbabwe, USA, Bangladesh, Hungary

Subjects of reports:

Disappearance: 7
Rape/Maternal Care: 6
Occupation: 1
Forced return: 1
Forced eviction: 1
Courts: 1
War on terror: 1
Police: 3
Execution: 1
Death in custody/torture: 1
Political pressure: 5
AI documents: 4

07/06/2007 USA: Off the Record. U.S. Responsibility for Enforced Disappearances in the "War on Terror"
AMR 51/093/2007
04/06/2007 Hungary: Health Professional Action: Rape and sexual violence in the home
EUR 27/007/2007
04/06/2007 Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories: Enduring occupation. Palestinians under siege in the West Bank
MDE 15/033/2007
01/06/2007 AI Bulletin Vol. 10, No. 11, 01 June 2007
ACT 84/011/2007
01/06/2007 The Wire, June 2007. Vol. 37, No. 5
NWS 21/005/2007
31/05/2007 Kosovo (Serbia): No Forcible Return of Minorities to Kosovo
EUR 70/004/2007
30/05/2007 International Criminal Court: Implementing the Assembly's Plan of Action for achieving universality and full implementation of the Rome Statute
IOR 40/009/2007
30/05/2007 Kenya: Nowhere to go: Forced Evictions in Mau Forest - Briefing Paper, May 2007
AFR 32/006/2007
29/05/2007 Nigeria: Are human rights on the political agenda?
AFR 44/013/2007
28/05/2007 Mexico: Laws without justice: Appeal cases
AMR 41/015/2007
28/05/2007 Peru: Denial of the right to Maternal and Child Health: Illegal charges for health services
AMR 46/006/2007
28/05/2007 Peru: Denial of the right to Maternal and Child Health: Summary of Amnesty International's findings and recommendations
AMR 46/007/2007
28/05/2007 Peru: Denial of the right to Maternal and Child Health: This is the law and you can tell whoever you like
AMR 46/005/2007
28/05/2007 Peru: Denial of the right to Maternal and Child Health: "Why have children when you're so poor?"
AMR 46/004/2007
25/05/2007 Ethiopia: Horn of Africa: unlawful transfers in the 'war on terror'
AFR 25/006/2007
25/05/2007 Europe and Central Asia: Summary of Amnesty International's Concerns in the Balkans. July - December 2006
EUR 05/002/2007
24/05/2007 India: A pattern of unlawful killings by the Gujarat police: Urgent need for effective investigations
ASA 20/011/2007
23/05/2007 Canada: Inappropriate and excessive use of tasers
AMR 20/002/2007
23/05/2007 Russian Federation: Aminat Dugaeva, aged 15, has not been seen since May 2003 (Postcard)
EUR 46/016/2007
23/05/2007 Russian Federation: Bashir Mutsolgov has not been seen since December 2003 (Postcard)
EUR 46/017/2007
23/05/2007 Russian Federation: Bulat Chilaev has not been seen since April 2006 (Postcard)
EUR 46/018/2007
23/05/2007 Russian Federation: What justice for Chechnya's disappeared?
EUR 46/015/2007
23/05/2007 Russian Federation: What justice for Chechnya's "disappeared"? Executive Summary
EUR 46/020/2007
23/05/2007 Russian Federation: Zelimkhan Murdalov has not been seen since January 2001 (Postcard)
EUR 46/019/2007
22/05/2007 Zimbabwe: human rights in crisis. Shadow report to the African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights
AFR 46/016/2007
18/05/2007 AI Bulletin Vol. 10, No. 10, 18 May 2007
ACT 84/010/2007
17/05/2007 USA: Prisoner-assisted homicide - more ‘volunteer’ executions loom
AMR 51/087/2007
10/05/2007 Bangladesh: Death in custody and reports of torture
ASA 13/005/2007
10/05/2007 Ensuring protection? The European Union and human rights defenders
EUR 01/007/2007
10/05/2007 Hungary: Cries unheard: The failure to protect women from rape and sexual violence in the home: Summary

E.J.Armstrong

8th June 2007, 04:07 AM

Perhaps the true ethical nature of the secret prisons, torture and human rights abuses committed by the CIA is most clearly highlighted by the fact that those CIA members charged in Italy with perpetrating the kidnapping of people into the system have refused to front up for trial.

Talk about standing up for freedon and justice. The programme is the complete antithesis of freedom and justice.

Perhaps a supporter of the rendidtion torture programme could tell us on what basis Bush calls on people to obey the law when he flouts it so openly?

Kerberos

8th June 2007, 04:10 AM

They took it on faith that Terry Schiavo was not really brain dead, denying themselves the chance to have the valid debate about how to handle a case where a person is no longer alive except by machine.
[/nitpick]Terry Schiavo was, in fact, not really brain dead, and IIRC she was not being kept alive by machines, but simply by feeding her intravenously. A brain-dead person cannot be kept "alive", by any means currently existing for more than a few days. A person whose cerebral cortex has been fried, as was the case here, can be kept "alive" indefinitely, simply by feeding that person. A permanent vegetative state is a different thing than brain death.[/nitpick]

Comrade Ogilvy

8th June 2007, 02:34 PM

I'm sorry, are you trying to make a point or are you just embarrassed?

ETA: This is what annoys me about "movement conservatives". How can we have a discussion about this policy if they just refuse to accept the fact that it exists?

They took it on faith that Terry Schiavo was not really brain dead, denying themselves the chance to have the valid debate about how to handle a case where a person is no longer alive except by machine.

They take it on faith even now that Abu Ghraib was an aberration, and that the US only engages is "rough interrogation", thereby refusing to address the US policy as it exists under Bush.

They insist that Valerie Plame was a desk jockey, no matter what evidence emerges.

They shout form the rooftops that Iraq is actually going well, and it's all the media's fault for not reporting on all the newly painted school rooms.

I forget who said it, but a great quote is "you're entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts". Seems apropos.

CIA interrogators confirmed that the boys were staying at a secret address where they were being encouraged to talk about their father's activities. "We are handling them with kid gloves," said one official. "After all, they are only little children, but we need to know as much about their father's recent activities as possible. We have child psychologists on hand at all times and they are given the best of care."

Unnamed CIA interrogators confirmed .....Gimmie a freaking break!

Dancing David

8th June 2007, 07:17 PM

Sounds a lot like the crap that comes out of the White House to me, they use anonymous government official all the time?

And you say that Amnesty doesn't have 'hard evidence', just like some of the Gitmo detainees. they are in Gitmo because of 'eye witness testimony', hmm at least Amnesty talks about who the witness is and doesn't pay them a bounty for the information.

Comrade Ogilvy

8th June 2007, 08:29 PM

"We are handling them with kid gloves," said one official. "After all, they are only little children, but we need to know as much about their father's recent activities as possible. We have child psychologists on hand at all times and they are given the best of care."

Haaaaaa....Haaaaaa...

Dancing David

9th June 2007, 06:36 AM

Yeah, I wouldn't trust some people regardless of their title.

Unabogie

9th June 2007, 10:11 AM

I notice we're still waiting for an answer to the question.

Do you support detaining children for the alleged crimes of their parents?

MaGZ

9th June 2007, 10:45 AM

It's right out of the Torah, and the OT, is this a problem?

DR

:duck:

Muahahahahaha!!!!

It seems plausible.
I know the Israelis hold Palestinian children in their prisons.

Comrade Ogilvy

9th June 2007, 05:37 PM

Whacko Left winger conpsiracy theory gets shot down....

British police say no evidence for CIA flights claim

Sat Jun 9, 9:29 AM ET

LONDON (Reuters) - British police say they have found no evidence to support claims
CIA planes transporting terrorism suspects to face possible torture in secret prisons in Europe landed illegally at British airports.

The allegations over the "extraordinary rendition" flights, made by British human rights group Liberty, could not be substantiated, the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) said in a statement late on Friday.

Michael Todd, the chief constable of Greater Manchester Police, had agreed to look at the Liberty allegations after it wrote to 10 police forces in November 2005.

Liberty asked police to investigate whether the United States used British airports to transport suspects to countries where they might face torture, in breach of British law.

Its request came after the Guardian newspaper reported the CIA had flown planes into Britain around 210 times since 2001.

"Mr. Todd has now examined all of the information available relating to this issue and has concluded that there is indeed no evidence to substantiate Liberty's allegations," ACPO said.

Liberty questioned the timing of the police announcement, released on the same day a European investigator said he had proof Poland and Romania hosted secret CIA prisons.

"When politicians spin it is disappointing," said Liberty Director Shami Chakrabarti.

"When police engage in the same activity it is rather more dangerous."

Swiss senator Dick Marty said on Friday top al Qaeda suspects were interrogated using methods akin to torture in Polish and Romanian prisons, in a report for the Council of Europe human rights watchdog.

He said U.S. intelligence and other sources told him the two countries hosted the jails under a CIA program, created by
President George W. Bush's administration after 9/11, "to 'kill, capture and detain' terrorist suspects deemed of 'high value."'

In an earlier report last year Marty named Britain as one of a number of countries that provided refueling stopovers for flights involving the unlawful transfer of detainees.

He listed Prestwick airport in Scotland as part of a "spider's web" of flights and secret jails.

The British government said last year it had no evidence of detainees being transferred through British territory or its airspace since 2001.

But it said six planes identified by campaigners as involved in rendition flights landed at British airports 73 times between 2001 and 2005.

Transport Secretary Alistair Darling said there was no evidence any of these flights were involved in rendition

Unabogie

9th June 2007, 06:13 PM

Whacko Left winger conpsiracy theory gets shot down....

Good thing Idiot Boy has a big mouth (http://www.tarpy.net/2006/POLITICS/09/06/bush.speech/index.html).

The CIA operates secret prisons abroad for holding key suspects in the war on terror, President Bush acknowledged Wednesday.

Seriously, it shouldn't be this easy to to embarrass you. You really should try reading more, and not only sources which confirm your biases. This is old news. It's real. Please answer the question I keep posing?

Comrade Ogilvy

9th June 2007, 06:45 PM

Good thing Idiot Boy has a big mouth (http://www.tarpy.net/2006/POLITICS/09/06/bush.speech/index.html).

Seriously, it shouldn't be this easy to to embarrass you. You really should try reading more, and not only sources which confirm your biases. This is old news. It's real. Please answer the question I keep posing?

Your not embarrassing me it`s the other way around...sure they have secret prisons (why not in war time?)..but most likely they are in Iraq,Afghanastan or other middle eastern places..not in europe (why there anyway?).

Friday, 8 June 2007, 22:58 GMT 23:58 UK

CIA rejects secret jails report

The CIA has dismissed a Council of Europe report alleging that it ran secret jails for terror suspects in Europe after the 11 September attacks.

A CIA spokesman said the report was biased and distorted, and that the agency had operated lawfully.

Swiss Senator Dick Marty, who wrote the report, said secret CIA prisons "did exist in Europe from 2003 to 2005, in particular in Poland and Romania".

The charge was denied by both Polish and Romanian officials.

Former Polish President Aleksander Kwasniewski, who served from 1995 to 2005, said on Friday: "There were no secret prisons in Poland."

Romanian senator Norica Nicolai, who headed an investigation into the allegations, also denied his country's involvement.

"All statements made by Dick Marty are totally groundless," he said.

A spokesman for the CIA told the BBC that the agency's "operations have been lawful, effective, closely reviewed and of benefit to many people - including Europeans - by disrupting plots and saving lives".

Mr Marty - working on behalf of the Council of Europe, a human rights body - has been investigating the CIA's "extraordinary renditions" programme, under which terror suspects were transported around the world for interrogation.

In his report, he said a secret agreement among Nato allies allowed the CIA to operate the camps.

Unnamed CIA sources quoted by Mr Marty said Poland was the "black site" where eight "high-value detainees (HVDs)" were interrogated, including Khalid Sheikh Mohammed - alleged mastermind of the 9/11 attacks on the US in 2001.

The report says Romania "was developed into a site to which more detainees were transferred only as the HVD programme expanded".

"The secret detention facilities in Europe were run directly and exclusively by the CIA," the report says.

But it said "the highest state authorities" knew of the CIA's activities.

A report approved by a European Parliament committee earlier this year said more than 1,000 covert CIA flights had crossed European airspace or stopped at European airports in the four years after the 9/11 attacks.

US President George Bush admitted last year that terror suspects had been held in CIA-run prisons overseas, but he did not say where the prisons were located.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6736385.stm

Unabogie

9th June 2007, 10:07 PM

Your not embarrassing me it`s the other way around...sure they have secret prisons (why not in war time?)..but most likely they are in Iraq,Afghanastan or other middle eastern places..not in europe (why there anyway?).

So your contention is that the US has secret prisons in Iraq, that it's ok because it's "war time", and it's acceptable to detain seven year olds there because they're not in Europe?

Care to answer my question yet?

Comrade Ogilvy

10th June 2007, 09:53 AM

So your contention is that the US has secret prisons in Iraq, that it's ok because it's "war time", and it's acceptable to detain seven year olds there because they're not in Europe?

Care to answer my question yet?

Yeah it`s O.k. for the C.I.A. to have secret prisons as they have had them since the cold war under a charter I imagine our Govt. has given them. Get caught being a spy or terrorist and you get turned over for interrogation at a secret place...which I believe is SOP in any country. What I laugh at is the article which quotes an Agent saying that they are holding 7 year olds (what possible intel could you get from a child except whether they like Barney or the teletubbies?) and also they tracked down a real C.I.A. agent and he was willing to be interviewed?....Gimmie a break!

I swear to God I`m a C.I.A. agent..do you believe it?

FarmallMTA

10th June 2007, 09:55 AM

Amnesty :Where are the 39 individuals?

And fiveother groups ask : Where are they?

http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGAMR510992007

Dangling from a hangman's noose, we can only hope.

Unabogie

10th June 2007, 10:10 AM

I swear to God I`m a C.I.A. agent..do you believe it?

Only if they've started recruiting from junior high. Care to answer my question? Do you approve of the US detaining children? Let's try and, at least for the sake of argument, stop debating the report's accuracy. Let's stipulate that it's accurate. The report states that the CIA confirmed that it's doing so to blackmail a terrorist into revealing information.

Do you approve of the US detaining children of terrorists in order to pressure them for information? Yes or no?

Unabogie

10th June 2007, 10:23 AM

By the way, here's the full report, which is a much more detailed read, complete with supporting documentation (for the over 13 set).

LINK (http://web.amnesty.org/library/pdf/AMR510932007ENGLISH/$File/AMR5109307.pdf)

Comrade Ogilvy

10th June 2007, 10:28 AM

More left wing whacko conspiracy...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=461024&in_page_id=1770&ct=5

Notice the plane...is this the best airplane the C.I.A. can come up for trans -Atlantic flights? Also they appeared to land and takeoff during daylight hours..way to go "Secret Agent Men".

Comrade Ogilvy

10th June 2007, 10:34 AM

Only if they've started recruiting from junior high. Care to answer my question? Do you approve of the US detaining children? Let's try and, at least for the sake of argument, stop debating the report's accuracy. Let's stipulate that it's accurate. The report states that the CIA confirmed that it's doing so to blackmail a terrorist into revealing information.

Do you approve of the US detaining children of terrorists in order to pressure them for information? Yes or no?

Quit...your hurting my feelings....There are no children being detained to blackmail terrorist. You should take your"Tin Foil Hat" off once and a while.

Unabogie

10th June 2007, 10:36 AM

Quit...your hurting my feelings....There are no children being detained to blackmail terrorist. You should take your"Tin Foil Hat" off once and a while.

So your final answer is that you refuse to answer the question? Willful ignorance and obtuseness won't win you points around here. The least you can do if you're going to use such poor spelling and grammar is play along with the grownups.

Comrade Ogilvy

10th June 2007, 10:42 AM

So your final answer is that you refuse to answer the question? Willful ignorance and obtuseness won't win you points around here. The least you can do if you're going going to use such poor spelling and grammar is play along with the grownups.

..There are no children being detained to blackmail terrorist

The least you can do if you're going going to use such poor spelling and grammar is play along with the grownups.

Haaaaaaa....Haaaaaaaaa....

Dancing David

11th June 2007, 05:37 AM

Dangling from a hangman's noose, we can only hope.

Thanks Farmall, so what about the cases of people who were not terrorists that went into secret detention? And weren't guilty of any crime. I suppose that we should just blindly trust that the government is always right and that the king has our best interests at heart?

Dancing David

11th June 2007, 05:40 AM

Yeah it`s O.k. for the C.I.A. to have secret prisons as they have had them since the cold war under a charter I imagine our Govt. has given them.

I missed that part , where is that in the Constitution, I can guess where this will be headed but can you point to secret detention being in the Constitution? It may be a common practice, but that does not mean it is allowed.

Comrade Ogilvy

11th June 2007, 02:19 PM

I missed that part , where is that in the Constitution, I can guess where this will be headed but can you point to secret detention being in the Constitution? It may be a common practice, but that does not mean it is allowed.

What`s the constitution got to do with foreign nationals...I remember that a prominent Russian spy defected in the70`s...the cia thought he was a double agent and held him as a prisoner in a safe house in Virginia and tortured him for over a year.

MIKILLINI

11th June 2007, 03:24 PM

From www.hrw.org/english/docs/2007/06/06/usint16089.htm

The secrecy surrounding the program also means that no one outside the US government knows exactly how many prisoners have been detained and how many remain “disappeared.” The April 2007 transfer of Abd al-Hadi al-Iraqi from CIA custody to Guantanamo indicates that the program continues to operate, although some prisoners may have been transferred to prisons in other countries, possibly as a form of proxy detention. “Off the Record” indicates that some missing detainees may have been moved to countries where they face the risk of torture and where they continue to be held secretly, without charge or trial.

Canadian Maher Arar has real first hand experience with this, they sent him to Syria to be tortured.
www.cbc.ca/news/background/arar/arar_statement.html

Interviews with prisoners who have been released from secret CIA prisons indicate that low-level detainees have frequently been arrested far from any battlefield, and held in isolation for years without legal recourse or contact with their families or outside agencies. Those who have been released have received no acknowledgment of their detention or any legal or financial redress.
The War "of the tactics, by the tactics, and for the tactics" continues. And if you be a detainee, the world becomes a very unforgiving place.

Comrade Ogilvy

11th June 2007, 04:16 PM

From www.hrw.org/english/docs/2007/06/06/usint16089.htm

Canadian Maher Arar has real first hand experience with this, they sent him to Syria to be tortured.
www.cbc.ca/news/background/arar/arar_statement.html

The War "of the tactics, by the tactics, and for the tactics" continues. And if you be a detainee, the world becomes a very unforgiving place.

It reveals how suspects’ relatives, including wives and children as young as seven years old, have been held in secret detention. In September 2002, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed’s two young sons, aged seven and nine, were arrested. According to eyewitnesses, the two were held in an adult detention center for at least four months while US agents questioned the children about their father’s whereabouts.

It`s always...According to unnamed eyewitnesses ...unnamed sources...high level officials who can`t be named...ect..ect.. It`s all political SIFI for the gullible "Tin Foil Hat' lefty's. Lefty groups took this propaganda page from the communist and nazi`s.

WildCat

11th June 2007, 04:54 PM

This would have never happened if Al Gore was POTUS, according to Richard Clarke (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraordinary_rendition#References):
"'extraordinary renditions', were operations to apprehend terrorists abroad, usually without the knowledge of and almost always without public acknowledgement of the host government...The first time I proposed a snatch, in 1993, the White House Counsel, Lloyd Cutler, demanded a meeting with the President to explain how it violated international law. Clinton had seemed to be siding with Cutler until Al Gore belatedly joined the meeting, having just flown overnight from South Africa. Clinton recapped the arguments on both sides for Gore: Lloyd says this. Dick says that. Gore laughed and said, 'That's a no-brainer. Of course it's a violation of international law, that's why it's a covert action. The guy is a terrorist. Go grab his ass.'"

Oops! I had it all wrong... :rolleyes:

Comrade Ogilvy

11th June 2007, 05:16 PM

Gore laughed and said, 'That's a no-brainer. Of course it's a violation of international law, that's why it's a covert action. The guy is a terrorist. Go grab his ass.'"

Damn...good one Albert!

WildCat

11th June 2007, 06:11 PM

Gore laughed and said, 'That's a no-brainer. Of course it's a violation of international law, that's why it's a covert action. The guy is a terrorist. Go grab his ass.'"

Damn...good one Albert!
Hey, Al Gore invented extraordinary renditions!

Dancing David

12th June 2007, 06:30 AM

What`s the constitution got to do with foreign nationals...I remember that a prominent Russian spy defected in the70`s...the cia thought he was a double agent and held him as a prisoner in a safe house in Virginia and tortured him for over a year.

Just because it was done doesn't mean it is constitutional, I believe that the language of the constitution does not make a difference in who you are, that is a matter of interpretation.

It says things like:

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on ..." , notice that it does not state "no citizen of these United States" but it does state "No person".

or

"The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion, the public safety may require it."

It does not state that habeas corpus applies only to citizens. It states when and where it may be suspended.

Also the constitution does not state that the rules of constitution apply only to the actions of the government on USA soil, such as the Gitmo argument put forward by some.

"Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."

It does not state that this applies only to citizens.

I am aware that our government works as it does, that does not mean it's behavior is sanctioned by the constitution.

Dancing David

12th June 2007, 06:32 AM

This would have never happened if Al Gore was POTUS, according to Richard Clarke (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraordinary_rendition#References):

Oops! I had it all wrong... :rolleyes:

And it would be wrong for Al Gore to do it as well?

:rolleyes:

Dancing David

12th June 2007, 06:51 AM

It is the same for the "It`s always...According to unnamed eyewitnesses ...unnamed sources" people who are taken into custody as well, always eyewitnesses who can't be named, hmmmmmmm?

maybe you should take off your tin foil hat once in a while.

Standards are the same, the US and pakistani government havre used the same sources and name the same sort of names.

Funnt thing some of the missing detainees were reported by our government to be in custody.

1. Hassan Ghul
2. Ali Abd al-Rahman al-Faqasi al-Ghamdi (Abu Bakr al Azdi)
3. Ali Abdul-Hamid al-Fakhiri (Ali Abd-al-Hamid al-Fakhiri, Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi)

Amnesty hasn't put the full report on the web. Which makes it hard to defend.

Comrade Ogilvy

12th June 2007, 01:49 PM

Just because it was done doesn't mean it is constitutional, I believe that the language of the constitution does not make a difference in who you are, that is a matter of interpretation.

It says things like:

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on ..." , notice that it does not state "no citizen of these United States" but it does state "No person".

or

"The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion, the public safety may require it."

It does not state that habeas corpus applies only to citizens. It states when and where it may be suspended.

Also the constitution does not state that the rules of constitution apply only to the actions of the government on USA soil, such as the Gitmo argument put forward by some.

"Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."

It does not state that this applies only to citizens.

I am aware that our government works as it does, that does not mean it's behavior is sanctioned by the constitution.

I think they wrote the constitution for citizens of the United States not terrorist from the Middle East.

Comrade Ogilvy

12th June 2007, 01:51 PM

MIKILLINI

12th June 2007, 02:18 PM

I think they wrote the constitution for citizens of the United States not terrorist from the Middle East.

That's what the Geneva Convention was made for;

Article 3 describes minimal protections which must be adhered to by all individuals within a signatory's territory during an armed conflict not of an international character (regardless of citizenship or lack thereof): Noncombatants, combatants who have laid down their arms, and combatants who are hors de combat (out of the fight) due to wounds, detention, or any other cause shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, including prohibition of outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment. The passing of sentences must also be pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples. Article 3's protections exist even if one is not classified as a prisoner of war. Article 3 also states that parties to the internal conflict should endeavour to bring into force, by means of special agreements, all or part of the other provisions of GCIII.

But the government can make exceptions ;)

Comrade Ogilvy

12th June 2007, 03:10 PM

That's what the Geneva Convention was made for;

Article 3 describes minimal protections which must be adhered to by all individuals within a signatory's territory during an armed conflict not of an international character (regardless of citizenship or lack thereof): Noncombatants, combatants who have laid down their arms, and combatants who are hors de combat (out of the fight) due to wounds, detention, or any other cause shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, including prohibition of outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment. The passing of sentences must also be pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples. Article 3's protections exist even if one is not classified as a prisoner of war. Article 3 also states that parties to the internal conflict should endeavour to bring into force, by means of special agreements, all or part of the other provisions of GCIII.

But the government can make exceptions ;)

But you left something out.......

Article 3

In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions:

1. Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.

To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:

(a) Violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;

(b) Taking of hostages;

(c) Outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment;

(d) The passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.

2. The wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for.

An impartial humanitarian body, such as the International Committee of the Red Cross, may offer its services to the Parties to the conflict.

The Parties to the conflict should further endeavour to bring into force, by means of special agreements, all or part of the other provisions of the present Convention.

The application of the preceding provisions shall not affect the legal status of the Parties to the conflict.

When did the terrorist sign the Geneva Convention and besides they have broken every law above.

Schneibster

12th June 2007, 03:37 PM

When did the terrorist sign the Geneva Convention and besides they have broken every law above.The Geneva Convention applies to all acts by a signatory, whether the person(s) offended against are signatory or not. In other words, it limits what a signatory can do to ANYONE. And if you read right through it, spies and saboteurs caught in a war zone when fighting is going on can be summarily shot- BUT THEY CAN'T BE TORTURED.

Gee, it seems the US Constitution applies to how our government can treat non-citizens, too- it doesn't apply to individuals, it applies to what the government can and cannot do, to ANYONE.

You'd know that about both of them if you'd ever actually read them instead of listening to what mommy and daddy think and repeating it like a good little Bush Youth member.

So much for 13-year-old logic.

Comrade Ogilvy

12th June 2007, 04:09 PM

The Geneva Convention applies to all acts by a signatory, whether the person(s) offended against are signatory or not. In other words, it limits what a signatory can do to ANYONE. And if you read right through it, spies and saboteurs caught in a war zone when fighting is going on can be summarily shot- BUT THEY CAN'T BE TORTURED.

Gee, it seems the US Constitution applies to how our government can treat non-citizens, too- it doesn't apply to individuals, it applies to what the government can and cannot do, to ANYONE.

You'd know that about both of them if you'd ever actually read them instead of listening to what mommy and daddy think and repeating it like a good little Bush Youth member.

So much for 13-year-old logic.

BUT THEY CAN'T BE TORTURED.

What TORTURE? sounds like most of what has gone on is like fraternity hazing.... Besides we need a new convention that applies to the new type of war

. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:

(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;

(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;

(c) That of carrying arms openly;

(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

a good little Bush Youth member.

I would call you a Brown Shirt liberal but I guess only the regular anti-Bush regulars can make slurs like that.

Schneibster

12th June 2007, 04:17 PM

The relevant portions of a treaty we are signatory to have already been posted here.

Again, so much for 13-year-old logic; and I note you don't deny it.

Ziggurat

12th June 2007, 04:21 PM

Just because it was done doesn't mean it is constitutional, I believe that the language of the constitution does not make a difference in who you are, that is a matter of interpretation.

It says things like:

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on ..." , notice that it does not state "no citizen of these United States" but it does state "No person".

That's a pretty shallow reading of the constitution. Prisoners of war are not "held to answer" for crimes, and they are not given any right to trials, for example. And that's universally accepted, and always has been. It has always been accepted, even by the framers of the constitution, that different rules apply to war, and that constitutional protections that we normally enjoy (including foreign nationals, you are right about that bit) simply are not applicable to matters of war.

Schneibster

12th June 2007, 04:57 PM

I don't think you are old enough to have watched many old war movies from the 50s, 60s, and 70s, Zig. Part of the whole point of many of those movies was how evil the Germans/Japanese were because they did stuff like that, and how the Good Ol' USA was better than those scumbuckets because we didn't. I suspect Shrub isn't old enough to have watched very many of them, either, or else not bright enough to have gotten the point, considering what I've watched him do. Granted this was pretty crude stuff, and relatively propagandistic as such things went, but I and most of the people I grew up with absorbed some morals from them, to the extent that I can at least embarrass my conservative friends by mentioning such things. They at least acknowledge that there is some question to be asked about anything involving prisoners held by the US government being mistreated, no matter the circumstances, rather than just brushing it off the way I've seen a lot of people here do.

See, if you want to not be considered evil, you have to not do stuff that you accused people of being evil for doing several decades ago. If I had to stick a pin in the moral principle I think the current administration is violating, I think that's it. It goes a lot further than that, but it certainly starts there.

Comrade Ogilvy

12th June 2007, 05:08 PM

The relevant portions of a treaty we are signatory to have already been posted here.

Again, so much for 13-year-old logic; and I note you don't deny it.

I read it Mr. 6 year old logic ...what crimes besides letting dogs bark at terrorist (which a soldier went to jail over)...Naked prisoners (silly reservist stunts which soldiers went to jail over) did we commit..To tell the truth I went through more harsh treatment in escape and evasion courses before I went to Vietnam by my own Army than these terrorist did.

Ziggurat

12th June 2007, 05:08 PM

Dancing David

12th June 2007, 05:10 PM

I think they wrote the constitution for citizens of the United States not terrorist from the Middle East.
Okey dokey, I read "no person", you read "no citizen".

Only the future will tell.

Comrade Ogilvy

12th June 2007, 05:16 PM

Okey dokey, I read "no person", you read "no citizen".

Only the future will tell.

Yeah I suppose the framers of the constitution were looking out for the rights of people in a world federation...nobel thought... but I doubt they would give a **** for the rights of terrorist.

Dancing David

12th June 2007, 05:18 PM

That's a pretty shallow reading of the constitution. Prisoners of war are not "held to answer" for crimes, and they are not given any right to trials, for example. And that's universally accepted, and always has been. It has always been accepted, even by the framers of the constitution, that different rules apply to war, and that constitutional protections that we normally enjoy (including foreign nationals, you are right about that bit) simply are not applicable to matters of war.

I would argue then that a matter of war may have strict defintitions that do not apply to civilians taken away from the battle field, but i have granted that the interpretation of the CotUS vaies.

I see that it says "No person", if you wish to interpret that differently, you may do so. The CotUS trumps all acts of the US government, the Star Courts were a familiar part of the history of our nation.

If you think our government should hold people in secret dentention, that is your belief.

i agree that the CotUS allows for special provisions during war, I do not think that deporting a Canadian citizen to Syria to be tortured would be a good one.

Dancing David

12th June 2007, 05:21 PM

I read it Mr. 6 year old logic ...what crimes besides letting dogs bark at terrorist (which a soldier went to jail over)...Naked prisoners (silly reservist stunts which soldiers went to jail over) did we commit..To tell the truth I went through more harsh treatment in escape and evasion courses before I went to Vietnam by my own Army than these terrorist did.

So when did waterboarding become a fraternity stunt? I think it a shame that you mock the American POWs who were tortured using a towel over the head and having water poured over it by the VC, the technique that inspired waterboarding.

If you are a vet I thank you for your service to our nation. Thank You!
:)

Ziggurat

12th June 2007, 05:35 PM

i agree that the CotUS allows for special provisions during war, I do not think that deporting a Canadian citizen to Syria to be tortured would be a good one.

I believe the person you refer to was a dual Canadian/Syrian citizen. He was therefore deported to one of the countries of which he was a citizen. Whether this was the right or wrong thing to do (and it seems to me it was probably a mistake), I don't see how it's a question of constitutionality.

Comrade Ogilvy

12th June 2007, 06:00 PM

So when did waterboarding become a fraternity stunt? I think it a shame that you mock the American POWs who were tortured using a towel over the head and having water poured over it by the VC, the technique that inspired waterboarding.

If you are a vet I thank you for your service to our nation. Thank You!
:)

Actually I had that done to me plus even worst...and please dont tell me that I am mocking real American POWs who I realize were never in a game situation. But at least we are not sawing peoples heads off.....rough interrogation's..I suppose..but too bad for hiding behind womans dresses and killing children for the political sport of it.

Comrade Ogilvy

12th June 2007, 06:04 PM

Schneibster

12th June 2007, 06:08 PM

I read it Mr. 6 year old logic ...what crimes besides letting dogs bark at terrorist (which a soldier went to jail over)...Naked prisoners (silly reservist stunts which soldiers went to jail over) did we commit..To tell the truth I went through more harsh treatment in escape and evasion courses before I went to Vietnam by my own Army than these terrorist did.So, it's apparent you're pegged and you're 13 years old, arguing on the 'Net with your elders (and betters). C'est la vie, guess the ol' ignore list gets one longer today. Next time respond to what people say, not what you want to cherry-pick from what they say, and maybe your next avatar will last longer.

Unabogie

12th June 2007, 06:13 PM

Actually I think the Canadians deported him..not sure...but good riddance.

Good thing you're not sure, since, as seems typical, you don't base your opinion on facts (http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2005/02/14/050214fa_fact6).

Arar, a thirty-four-year-old graduate of McGill University whose family emigrated to Canada when he was a teen-ager, was arrested on September 26, 2002, at John F. Kennedy Airport. He was changing planes; he had been on vacation with his family in Tunisia, and was returning to Canada. Arar was detained because his name had been placed on the United States Watch List of terrorist suspects. He was held for the next thirteen days, as American officials questioned him about possible links to another suspected terrorist. Arar said that he barely knew the suspect, although he had worked with the man’s brother. Arar, who was not formally charged, was placed in handcuffs and leg irons by plainclothes officials and transferred to an executive jet. The plane flew to Washington, continued to Portland, Maine, stopped in Rome, Italy, then landed in Amman, Jordan.

During the flight, Arar said, he heard the pilots and crew identify themselves in radio communications as members of “the Special Removal Unit.” The Americans, he learned, planned to take him next to Syria. Having been told by his parents about the barbaric practices of the police in Syria, Arar begged crew members not to send him there, arguing that he would surely be tortured. His captors did not respond to his request; instead, they invited him to watch a spy thriller that was aired on board.

Ten hours after landing in Jordan, Arar said, he was driven to Syria, where interrogators, after a day of threats, “just began beating on me.” They whipped his hands repeatedly with two-inch-thick electrical cables, and kept him in a windowless underground cell that he likened to a grave. “Not even animals could withstand it,” he said. Although he initially tried to assert his innocence, he eventually confessed to anything his tormentors wanted him to say. “You just give up,” he said. “You become like an animal.”

A year later, in October, 2003, Arar was released without charges, after the Canadian government took up his cause. Imad Moustapha, the Syrian Ambassador in Washington, announced that his country had found no links between Arar and terrorism.One wonders why you would say "good riddance" to an innocent man who was sent to be tortured by your own government?

Schneibster

12th June 2007, 06:15 PM

"stuff like that" - stuff like what? Perhaps you think I'm talking about something other than what I'm actually talking about. I am not talking about torture, for example. I'm talking about the Constitution, which provides specific protections which are not applicable in war, and never have been. And none of those old war movies pretends otherwise. That constitutional protections do not exist does not mean that no protections exist. You have read far more into my post than was actually there.I think you've missed my point entirely- I wasn't talking about torture, I was talking about the subject of this thread: secretly holding people who were not taken prisoner on the battlefield or fleeing from it, without the necessity of proof that they were involved in any illegal act or the opportunity to force those holding them to show cause for doing so- which is the point of habeas corpus. The remainder of the rights in the US Constitution depend, as has been repeatedly stated by numerous legal analysts from all sides of the political spectrum (except perhaps the neocons), upon forcing the government to show cause. Without the ability to do that, none of the other protections in the Constitution is worth the paper they're written on.

Comrade Ogilvy

12th June 2007, 06:55 PM

So, it's apparent you're pegged and you're 13 years old, arguing on the 'Net with your elders (and betters). C'est la vie, guess the ol' ignore list gets one longer today. Next time respond to what people say, not what you want to cherry-pick from what they say, and maybe your next avatar will last longer.

Wow...words of wisdom from a failed Birkenstock wearing "Master Of The Internet"...carry on elder better.

Haaaaaa....Haaaaaaa....

P.S. you photo avatar somehow fits you......

WildCat

12th June 2007, 08:07 PM

I was talking about the subject of this thread: secretly holding people who were not taken prisoner on the battlefield or fleeing from it,
Can you define where exactly the battlefield is in the Terrorist War? Was NYC a battlefield on 9/11, for example? I really want to hear the boundaries of said battlefield.

Comrade Ogilvy

12th June 2007, 08:11 PM

I think you've missed my point entirely- I wasn't talking about torture, I was talking about the subject of this thread: secretly holding people who were not taken prisoner on the battlefield or fleeing from it, without the necessity of proof that they were involved in any illegal act or the opportunity to force those holding them to show cause for doing so- which is the point of habeas corpus. The remainder of the rights in the US Constitution depend, as has been repeatedly stated by numerous legal analysts from all sides of the political spectrum (except perhaps the neocons), upon forcing the government to show cause. Without the ability to do that, none of the other protections in the Constitution is worth the paper they're written on.

Give us a legit case of that..that has been brought up in a legit world forum..that has been legitimately prosecuted....until you do it`s just left wing anti-war speculation.

Unabogie

12th June 2007, 08:20 PM

Give us a legit case of that..that has been brought up in a legit world forum..that has been legitimately prosecuted....until you do it`s just left wing anti-war speculation.

So, when I posted the story of Maher Arar (http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2005/02/14/050214fa_fact6), you didn't read it? I can't imagine how you'd ask that question if you had.

Wait. Yes I can.

MIKILLINI

12th June 2007, 08:40 PM

But you left something out.......

When did the terrorist sign the Geneva Convention and besides they have broken every law above.

But the government can make exceptions ;) at the risk of requoting myself, that is what I was going to post next. But You beat Me to it. :duck:

By the way comrade, I do want to thank you for service to this nation, it's something I always go out of My way to do.

Comrade Ogilvy

12th June 2007, 08:51 PM

So, when I posted the story of Maher Arar (http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2005/02/14/050214fa_fact6), you didn't read it? I can't imagine how you'd ask that question if you had.

Wait. Yes I can.

February 14, 2005

Yep...why haven`t we heard anymore about it?

Comrade Ogilvy

12th June 2007, 08:57 PM

But the government can make exceptions ;) at the risk of requoting myself, that is what I was going to post next. But You beat Me to it. :duck:

By the way comrade, I do want to thank you for service to this nation, it's something I always go out of My way to do.

Thank you... but I was only a reluctant 19 year old draftee in 1969..the best thing to do is visit a V.A. hospital and do something for them all...I do..as I belong to the DAV.

Schneibster

12th June 2007, 09:05 PM

Can you define where exactly the battlefield is in the Terrorist War? Was NYC a battlefield on 9/11, for example? I really want to hear the boundaries of said battlefield.Good question.

Answer: you can't define it either, which means it doesn't exist. Which, in turn, means there are no battles. Which basically means it's not a war; never was.

We're dealing here with criminals. They should be treated as criminals, captured as criminals, tried as criminals, and imprisoned as criminals. Posse Comitatus only applies within the borders of the US- the US military is perfectly free to prosecute actions against criminals outside our borders. c.f. "Barbary Pirates." I bet there are a lot of people in the Army who would enjoy doing it. I'd enjoy watching- and enjoy even more following the trials. Just deserts and all that.

But attacking a country that wasn't even involved, splitting our military power up, trashing our army, and blunting the edge of the moral superiority we naturally should have over these pigs, but seem somewhere between Gitmo and Iraq to have lost? Sorry, not on board with that one. Mission not accomplished; mission ignored.

Imprisoning people without trial, without habeas corpus, without judicial overview? Subjecting them to treatment that is illegal under our laws (by ratifying the Geneva Conventions, we made them part of our law by an Act of Congress)? All on nothing but the supposition that they might be terrorists, without ever bothering to subject the evidence to rigorous review? This is also something I'm not on board with. I listened to two generations of US Presidents revile Communist countries for doing precisely that. We're now going to abandon that, for a bunch of stinkin' terrorists? You have GOT to be kidding. We didn't abandon it for global thermonuclear war, or perhaps you're too young to remember living for all your life under the threat that over any one-hour period, the vast majority of your country's population could be wiped off the Earth.

Hey, what the hell was it that happened at the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001, anyway? Didn't look like an act of war to me- looked like criminal activity, and we got the death penalty here in the US. Was ever a time to use it, that was it- but there the planner sits in Gitmo. And now that they've contaminated the case with acts that any court would frown on against this individual, it doesn't look like he even gets to spend a night with Bubba. I don't even get to make jokes about Mohammed whatever trying to deal with Bubba asking him if he wants to be the husband or the wife. What is THAT?

We have a legal system; we have treaties and allies; we have a military, and a covert operations wing of said military; we have an intelligence service. Yet, there they sit in Gitmo. And there we sit in Iraq; we're even losing control in Afghanistan, because frat boi can't figure out which side of the bread the butter's on, so we can't put more military in where the real s**t is, we've got Iraq to deal with, and we can't get any help, because frat boi has alienated all our allies because he never talks to anyone, or when he does, all he does is push them around or lie to them. And meanwhile, those same criminals are both reveling in their status as being important enough to have a war with the most powerful country in the world, and dreaming up their next strike in caves we don't have enough troops to root them out of, because why? Because frat boi's got us stuck in Iraq.

Total incompetence is the only explanation for this. Incompetent to distinguish between a war and the pursuit of criminals; incompetent to negotiate with our allies, not to even mention our enemies; incompetent to understand, much less comply with, not to even mention properly enforce, our laws; incompetent to deal with disasters within or without our borders; incompetent to keep the economy running; incompetent to keep the ripoff corporations from getting away with the boodle; incompetent to run an intelligence agency without stepping on his schlong by outing a member of it; incompetent to see to it that the returning wounded are properly taken care of; incompetent to balance the budget; incompetent to hear proper science that has a profound effect on all our lives when shown it and actually do something about it instead of whining about others who aren't.

And if they're NOT incompetent, then I have a simple question for you: Why does Bush hate America? Because he's done more damage to us than a thousand terrorists ever could.

One last time: we have a Constitution that was written by some very imaginative and smart men, that has served us well in peace and in war for two centuries. It is a document respected and pointed to around the world. It sets forth principles that we ignore at our peril. And the terrorists have won: we are shredding it. They say their aim is to destroy our way of life; they have so far succeeded. Keep this up, and in two decades we'll be the Soviet Union. Until we use our laws against them, we are helpless, and they know it, you'd better believe that. They love this "War on Terror" stuff. They don't even need to attack us any more; we're doing more damage to ourselves than they ever could.

There are THREE HUNDRED MILLION PEOPLE in the United States. I don't wish to belittle what happened on 9/11, but I do have to point out that it seems like a lot of fuss for a couple thousand people. And in closing let me point this out: the worst incompetence of all, incompetent to deal with criminals. There he sits, with several million soldiers at his command, and seven thousand nuclear weapons, and the most technically advanced military forces in the world- and he can't successfully deal with, at most, a couple thousand criminals. Absolutely, totally, completely incompetent.

WildCat

12th June 2007, 09:17 PM

Good question.

Answer: you can't define it either, which means it doesn't exist. Which, in turn, means there are no battles. Which basically means it's not a war; never was.
It's not a war? Then what is the criminal motive for al Qaeda, if it is indeed a criminal rather than a military organization?

Comrade Ogilvy

12th June 2007, 09:19 PM

Good question.

Answer: you can't define it either, which means it doesn't exist. Which, in turn, means there are no battles. Which basically means it's not a war; never was.

We're dealing here with criminals. They should be treated as criminals, captured as criminals, tried as criminals, and imprisoned as criminals. Posse Comitatus only applies within the borders of the US- the US military is perfectly free to prosecute actions against criminals outside our borders. c.f. "Barbary Pirates." I bet there are a lot of people in the Army who would enjoy doing it. I'd enjoy watching- and enjoy even more following the trials. Just deserts and all that.

But attacking a country that wasn't even involved, splitting our military power up, trashing our army, and blunting the edge of the moral superiority we naturally should have over these pigs, but seem somewhere between Gitmo and Iraq to have lost? Sorry, not on board with that one. Mission not accomplished; mission ignored.

Imprisoning people without trial, without habeas corpus, without judicial overview? Subjecting them to treatment that is illegal under our laws (by ratifying the Geneva Conventions, we made them part of our law by an Act of Congress)? All on nothing but the supposition that they might be terrorists, without ever bothering to subject the evidence to rigorous review? This is also something I'm not on board with. I listened to two generations of US Presidents revile Communist countries for doing precisely that. We're now going to abandon that, for a bunch of stinkin' terrorists? You have GOT to be kidding. We didn't abandon it for global thermonuclear war, or perhaps you're too young to remember living for all your life under the threat that over any one-hour period, the vast majority of your country's population could be wiped off the Earth.

Hey, what the hell was it that happened at the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001, anyway? Didn't look like an act of war to me- looked like criminal activity, and we got the death penalty here in the US. Was ever a time to use it, that was it- but there the planner sits in Gitmo. And now that they've contaminated the case with acts that any court would frown on against this individual, it doesn't look like he even gets to spend a night with Bubba. I don't even get to make jokes about Mohammed whatever trying to deal with Bubba asking him if he wants to be the husband or the wife. What is THAT?

We have a legal system; we have treaties and allies; we have a military, and a covert operations wing of said military; we have an intelligence service. Yet, there they sit in Gitmo. And there we sit in Iraq; we're even losing control in Afghanistan, because frat boi can't figure out which side of the bread the butter's on, so we can't put more military in where the real s**t is, we've got Iraq to deal with, and we can't get any help, because frat boi has alienated all our allies because he never talks to anyone, or when he does, all he does is push them around or lie to them. And meanwhile, those same criminals are both reveling in their status as being important enough to have a war with the most powerful country in the world, and dreaming up their next strike in caves we don't have enough troops to root them out of, because why? Because frat boi's got us stuck in Iraq.

Total incompetence is the only explanation for this. Incompetent to distinguish between a war and the pursuit of criminals; incompetent to negotiate with our allies, not to even mention our enemies; incompetent to understand, much less comply with, not to even mention properly enforce, our laws; incompetent to deal with disasters within or without our borders; incompetent to keep the economy running; incompetent to keep the ripoff corporations from getting away with the boodle; incompetent to run an intelligence agency without stepping on his schlong by outing a member of it; incompetent to see to it that the returning wounded are properly taken care of; incompetent to balance the budget; incompetent to hear proper science that has a profound effect on all our lives when shown it and actually do something about it instead of whining about others who aren't.

And if they're NOT incompetent, then I have a simple question for you: Why does Bush hate America? Because he's done more damage to us than a thousand terrorists ever could.

One last time: we have a Constitution that was written by some very imaginative and smart men, that has served us well in peace and in war for two centuries. It is a document respected and pointed to around the world. It sets forth principles that we ignore at our peril. And the terrorists have won: we are shredding it. They say their aim is to destroy our way of life; they have so far succeeded. Keep this up, and in two decades we'll be the Soviet Union. Until we use our laws against them, we are helpless, and they know it, you'd better believe that. They love this "War on Terror" stuff. They don't even need to attack us any more; we're doing more damage to ourselves than they ever could.

There are THREE HUNDRED MILLION PEOPLE in the United States. I don't wish to belittle what happened on 9/11, but I do have to point out that it seems like a lot of fuss for a couple thousand people. And in closing let me point this out: the worst incompetence of all, incompetent to deal with criminals. There he sits, with several million soldiers at his command, and seven thousand nuclear weapons, and the most technically advanced military forces in the world- and he can't successfully deal with, at most, a couple thousand criminals. Absolutely, totally, completely incompetent.

Imprisoning people without trial, without habeas corpus, without judicial overview? Subjecting them to treatment that is illegal under our laws (by ratifying the Geneva Conventions, we made them part of our law by an Act of Congress)? All on nothing but the supposition that they might be terrorists, without ever bothering to subject the evidence to rigorous review? This is also something I'm not on board with.

Lincoln suspended habeas corpus during the civil war...

And if they're NOT incompetent, then I have a simple question for you: Why does Bush hate America? Because he's done more damage to us than a thousand terrorists ever could.

Emotional drivel...

Mission not accomplished; mission ignored.

Lefty knee jerk propaganda cliche...

Hey, what the hell was it that happened at the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001, anyway? Didn't look like an act of war to me- looked like criminal activity

How profoundly stupid...like we should let O.J`s lawyers handle it..as a criminal act?

Comrade Ogilvy

12th June 2007, 09:29 PM

The Great Emancipator....

Proclamation Suspending the Writ of Habeas Corpus

Abraham Lincoln
September 24, 1862

Proclamation Suspending the Writ of Habeas Corpus

BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A PROCLAMATION

Whereas, it has become necessary to call into service not only volunteers but also portions of the militia of the States by draft in order to suppress the insurrection existing in the United States, and disloyal persons are not adequately restrained by the ordinary processes of law from hindering this measure and from giving aid and comfort in various ways to the insurrection;

Now, therefore, be it ordered, first, that during the existing insurrection and as a necessary measure for suppressing the same, all Rebels and Insurgents, their aiders and abettors within the United States, and all persons discouraging volunteer enlistments, resisting militia drafts, or guilty of any disloyal practice, affording aid and comfort to Rebels against the authority of United States, shall be subject to martial law and liable to trial and punishment by Courts Martial or Military Commission:

Second. That the Writ of Habeas Corpus is suspended in respect to all persons arrested, or who are now, or hereafter during the rebellion shall be, imprisoned in any fort, camp, arsenal, military prison, or other place of confinement by any military authority of by the sentence of any Court Martial or Military Commission.

In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand, and caused the seal of the United States to be affixed.

Done at the City of Washington this twenty fourth day of September, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-two, and of the Independence of the United States the 87th.

ABRAHAM LINCOLN

By the President:

WILLIAM H. SEWARD, Secretary of State

Schneibster

12th June 2007, 09:45 PM

It's not a war? Then what is the criminal motive for al Qaeda, if it is indeed a criminal rather than a military organization?Motive is immaterial. You want to bring intent into a discussion of law? Who cares? Motive is about selling it to the jury. These dips**ts, you don't even need to talk about motive- get one of them on the stand and he does his Great Satan bit and the conversation about motive is OVER. For that matter, just play a videotape of ol' Osama- you know, the one we never have captured? (Yes, I did mean to say "incompetent" again.)

But that pales in comparison to "military organization." You are kidding, or you are insane. Paramilitary at best- and their "best" is somewhere on the close order of twenty individuals, two of whom on a good day could last perhaps twelve seconds in a knife fight with a single SEAL. You may not have met any SEALs; I spotted one's feet to make sure he didn't fall over and hurt himself while he did a hundred and ten handstand pushups. So where are the SEALs? You get one guess.

Comrade Ogilvy

12th June 2007, 09:52 PM

Motive is immaterial. You want to bring intent into a discussion of law? Who cares? Motive is about selling it to the jury. These dips**ts, you don't even need to talk about motive- get one of them on the stand and he does his Great Satan bit and the conversation about motive is OVER. For that matter, just play a videotape of ol' Osama- you know, the one we never have captured? (Yes, I did mean to say "incompetent" again.)

But that pales in comparison to "military organization." You are kidding, or you are insane. Paramilitary at best- and their "best" is somewhere on the close order of twenty individuals, two of whom on a good day could last perhaps twelve seconds in a knife fight with a single SEAL. You may not have met any SEALs; I spotted one's feet to make sure he didn't fall over and hurt himself while he did a hundred and ten handstand pushups. So where are the SEALs? You get one guess.

Wow... either drunk or a mental political breakdown?

Zep

12th June 2007, 10:47 PM

Well, we know that these people were arrested. We do not know what happened to them subsequently, but periodically one of them will reappear at Guantanamo. So asking "Where are the others?" is not an unreasonable question, is it?I was under the impression that their arrests were SOOPER SEKRIT too, so that no-one knew they happened. However if I'm wrong, yes - it is a good question.

Ziggurat

13th June 2007, 04:33 AM

Good question.

Answer: you can't define it either, which means it doesn't exist. Which, in turn, means there are no battles. Which basically means it's not a war; never was.

Wrong, wrong, and wrong. Oh, and also wrong.

Battlefields are defined by wherever the enemy is, not vice versa. It is the enemy which you need to define in order for a war to exist, NOT the battlefield.

We're dealing here with criminals. They should be treated as criminals, captured as criminals, tried as criminals, and imprisoned as criminals.

Congress AND the Supreme Court disagree. And treating them like criminals is a failed policy. The discovery process of criminal trials has already caused serious damage to national security when terrorists are tried as simple criminals.

Posse Comitatus only applies within the borders of the US- the US military is perfectly free to prosecute actions against criminals outside our borders. c.f. "Barbary Pirates." I bet there are a lot of people in the Army who would enjoy doing it. I'd enjoy watching- and enjoy even more following the trials. Just deserts and all that.

Sure. Because the Barbary wars were all about the trials. :rolleyes:

Imprisoning people without trial, without habeas corpus, without judicial overview?

Standard operating procedure in a war. Always has been, always will be.

Subjecting them to treatment that is illegal under our laws (by ratifying the Geneva Conventions, we made them part of our law by an Act of Congress)? All on nothing but the supposition that they might be terrorists, without ever bothering to subject the evidence to rigorous review? This is also something I'm not on board with.

It's also something that doesn't exist. There IS a review process for determining their status.

Hey, what the hell was it that happened at the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001, anyway? Didn't look like an act of war to me- looked like criminal activity, and we got the death penalty here in the US. Was ever a time to use it, that was it- but there the planner sits in Gitmo. And now that they've contaminated the case with acts that any court would frown on against this individual, it doesn't look like he even gets to spend a night with Bubba. I don't even get to make jokes about Mohammed whatever trying to deal with Bubba asking him if he wants to be the husband or the wife. What is THAT?

Do you have ANY clue as to what happened when the criminal process was applied to the 1993 WTC bombers? It was a disaster. A complete and utter disaster. Thank GOD we didn't try that route again.

And the terrorists have won: we are shredding it.

Spare me this trite crap. That's not what the terrorists are after: they're after you and me dead. You can complain all you want to about whether we're paying too high a price to achieve victory, but the whole "the terrorists have won" nonsense is as pathetic an argument as they come.

They say their aim is to destroy our way of life; they have so far succeeded.

No, the terrorists say their aim is to destroy us. There's a rather critical difference in there: can you spot it?

Keep this up, and in two decades we'll be the Soviet Union.

:rolleyes: Yeah, because that's how the Soviet Union formed.

Dancing David

13th June 2007, 04:39 AM

I believe the person you refer to was a dual Canadian/Syrian citizen. He was therefore deported to one of the countries of which he was a citizen. Whether this was the right or wrong thing to do (and it seems to me it was probably a mistake), I don't see how it's a question of constitutionality.

Quite true. Hmmm. I would have to check deportation laws to see what the standards are for deportation. Again, it is my belief that taking secret evidence and using it to effect an action by our government on an individual is not permitted by the constitution. Especialy when that action involves detention.

I still think meself that taking people who might be innocent of any crime or war act against our nation and holding them in secret prisons is unconstitutional. Only the future will know for sure.

Dancing David

13th June 2007, 04:48 AM

Actually I had that done to me plus even worst...and please dont tell me that I am mocking real American POWs who I realize were never in a game situation. But at least we are not sawing peoples heads off.....rough interrogation's..I suppose..but too bad for hiding behind womans dresses and killing children for the political sport of it.

So you are saying that torture is okay? Or that drowning someone and then reviving them is not torture? How many times do you have to be drowned and asphyxiated for it to become torture?

Sawing someone’s head off would be execution.

I am not even arguing the enemy combatant status, or partisan or undeclared enemy combatants.

I don't believe that I mentioned wearing women's clothes as torture.

You could keep your conversation to statements I have made.

I have said that I believe the constitution applies to all people who are effected by an action of our government. Which does have some latitude and judgment of interpretation. I also have said that I feel our government is not allowed to use torture and secret detention.

Ziggurat may be correct, if SCOTUS rules that the constitution allows for the use of torture and secret detention upon non-citizens, than that will be the interpretation of the constitution.

Dancing David

13th June 2007, 04:53 AM

Actually I think the Canadians deported him..not sure...but good riddance.

Okey dokey. I don't want people in the government to have that power. Someday it may be used by a democrat even Hillary Clinton or John Edwards. I don't think that the nature of humans is so infallible that I would allow government agents that power.

It seems that what can be abused gets abused.

So when an american national transiting another nation gets deported for torture I guess you think that is okay.

I have placed straw in your mouth. I guess that makes sense.

Dancing David

13th June 2007, 05:04 AM

Thank you... but I was only a reluctant 19 year old draftee in 1969..the best thing to do is visit a V.A. hospital and do something for them all...I do..as I belong to the DAV.

Or be friends with the ones in your neighborhood. I really miss my buddy Richard Owens. I have to see if there is a way to find out where he was buried. he was a very interesting man, moved to my town when he was eight(1935), wore moccasins to school and was sent home. helped his mom after his father died and volunteered to join up during WWII (age 15).

Thank you again for serving, I have met and been befriended by many a Vietnam vet. The ones at a local VFW post threw a great Xmas party for the kid's at the DV shelter and they had all their kids there for the party as well.

WildCat

13th June 2007, 05:06 AM

Motive is immaterial.
No, it is not. Every crime has a motive (even insane people have a reason, crazy as it may be). So what are the motives of terrorists?

Unabogie

13th June 2007, 08:46 AM

No, it is not. Every crime has a motive (even insane people have a reason, crazy as it may be). So what are the motives of terrorists?

Seriously? That seems quite apparent to me. They seek to "affect political change through asymmetrical warfare". And for each terrorist or group, the political change sought is different. What motivated Timothy McVeigh? Eric Rudolph? Are they the same as Bin Laden's?

Hezbollah and Al Qaeda have similar methods, but different aims. Yet they are both terrorist organizations. If you appease one group (not in the Churchillian sense of the word) would that placate the other? I doubt it.

That's why it's so silly for people to say that they "hate us for our freedoms" when that's obvious tripe. So since terrorist organizations have overt, public political demands, why would it be so hard to prove motive in that way? And that ignores the fact that motive is not a necessary component for conviction in a terrorist act.

MIKILLINI

13th June 2007, 04:37 PM

That's why it's so silly for people to say that they "hate us for our freedoms" when that's obvious tripe. So since terrorist organizations have overt, public political demands, why would it be so hard to prove motive in that way? And that ignores the fact that motive is not a necessary component for conviction in a terrorist act.

Well defined Unaboogie; Motive would be more of a criteria for a criminal act in a civil matter to show intent as opposed to an act of terror which is a criminal act directed generally at a group or country to kill, maim, and terrorize for effect.

Schneibster

13th June 2007, 11:34 PM

Wrong, wrong, and wrong. Oh, and also wrong.

Battlefields are defined by wherever the enemy is, not vice versa. Battlefields are where battles happen. I don't see any battles.

It is the enemy which you need to define in order for a war to exist, NOT the battlefield."War" is when armies fight. I don't see any army on the other side.

Congress AND the Supreme Court disagree. Congress, not so much. At least not since we got rid of the sycophants. And the Supreme Court is a rigged table. Get the news much?

And treating them like criminals is a failed policy. First, show evidence of when they have ever been treated like criminals by the current administration. Second, show evidence that it has failed.

The discovery process of criminal trials has already caused serious damage to national security when terrorists are tried as simple criminals.Oh, really? Honestly, do you just make this stuff up? Listen, the national security of the US requires that people who are accused of commiting crimes be tried under our system of laws, which is how we DETERMINE they committed crimes. That's what a trial is FOR. So basically, you advocate imprisoning people for suspicion, and never giving them a chance to show that the suspicion is wrong, have I got that right? Because if there's no trial, all they are is a suspect. Criminals are people who get convicted.

The purpose of law enforcement is not to determine guilt or innocence. The abuses of the power to do so by law enforcement are manifest; I won't invite Godwin's Law, but I'll point to the Terror in the French Revolution, and the practices of "courts" in Communist countries in the mid-twentieth century. We have the system of law we do for a very good reason. If you don't think so, I invite you to consider the alternatives. There are many examples on my side, and almost none on yours. I could make this a ten-page post full of such examples, ranging back to before the formation of the Roman Empire.

Your faith in the rectitude of the law enforcement of this country is currently disputed by strong evidence uncovered in ongoing investigations of the US Department of Justice, in which it has been shown just about conclusively that ideologues have been favored over professional law enforcement personnel. Professionals at least have some chance of being right when the case is difficult; ideologues have none.

Sure. Because the Barbary wars were all about the trials. :rolleyes: Cherry-pick much? Gonna respond to the argument? It stands, because you haven't refuted it. Just cherry-picked.

Standard operating procedure in a war. Always has been, always will be.I repeat, what war? Where are the battlefields where tens or hundreds of thousands have died? Where are the opposing military forces?

It's also something that doesn't exist. There IS a review process for determining their status.There was not for six years, and six years is a term in prison. Tell me again how it doesn't exist. Maybe I won't laugh quite so loudly the second time.

Do you have ANY clue as to what happened when the criminal process was applied to the 1993 WTC bombers? Yes; the mastermind got life, and the other nine got 240 years apiece. They were tried, convicted, and imprisoned, under our law. A judge oversaw the presentation of evidence, and a jury made a finding based on that evidence, and they went to prison, and they are still there today. Bubba wants to know whether they want to be the husband or the wife.

It was a disaster. A complete and utter disaster. Thank GOD we didn't try that route again.So, it's a "disaster" when someone gets convicted of plotting to blow up New York landmarks, and gets put in prison? What's the next disaster for you, when they convict someone of child abuse? How about murder? Is convicting murderers a problem for you?

Spare me this trite crap. That's not what the terrorists are after: they're after you and me dead. Hmmm, I think you missed the memo where it said they hate our freedom. Or was that a pResidential utterance? Without a Constitution, if they hate our freedom, they've WON, on YOUR TERMS.

The US Constitution is the law of my country. If you don't respect my Constitution, then leave.

You can complain all you want to about whether we're paying too high a price to achieve victory, but the whole "the terrorists have won" nonsense is as pathetic an argument as they come.As long as people are being held without trial, and as long as surveillance is being done without warrant or legal justification, they have won. Simple as that. And you're an accessory by defending it.

No, the terrorists say their aim is to destroy us. There's a rather critical difference in there: can you spot it?And they're starting with our most important document; and people who think like you are HELPING THEM.

Arguing with you is like waking up after you dreamed you ate a marshmallow and finding your pillow missing. Do you have the least, slightest clue what the people who wrote the US Constitution were thinking of when they wrote it? They were tired of being abused by the British government under King George. They intended to see to it that no government could abuse them, or us, their descendants. When you ignore the protections of the Constitution, and justify it by claiming a minute organization has the power to kill us all, you invite Ben Franklin's quote: Those who would sacrifice their essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.

I'll also point out that if the point is to capture terrorists, it seems the biggest one has been totally ignored. Osama bin Laden is still out there, and in Afghanistan, and there we are in Iraq. Osama ain't in Gitmo; Osama ain't in Iraq. Osama ain't in Iran, either. He's in Afghanistan. Clue, type A, quantity one.