Secret Prisons

[Elind]

Evil or not has a lot to do with the context, and who the act is being committed on.

For example, it is evil to randomly grab somebody off the street and lock them in prison for life. It is not evil to take a triple-murderer and lock them in prison for life. It is evil to kill an innocent person because you are bored. It is not evil to kill a person in self-defense, because they are trying to kill you because they are bored.

I'm not saying this to defend torture. I'm saying that it is not appropriate to argue that actions should always be evaluated outside of their context. Context can mean a lot.

??

Your point presumably is that the US randomly grabs (random) people off the street and locks them up for life or kills them when they are bored?

Please tell us more.

On second thought; don't.

 

[Charlie Monoxide]

I used to think that Bush and Co. might be the worst administration ever visited upon the fine people of United States. With each day comes more revelations of the nasty things that the ruling leaders and their minions do.

I no longer "think" they "might be" the worst ...

Charlie (I'm positive that they "are") Monoxide

 

[Mark]

More tears for terrorists.

There are better causes, or at the very least - don't talk so much.

My tears are not for the terrorists...they are for my once great nation that has been dragged down into the muck by a president with no integrity or sense of honor whatsoever.

I am already aware that Republicans couldn't care less about that.

 

[Mycroft]

I am relieved that at least one person here is completely unconcerned by its country´s gross violations of too many principles to list them all here, and indeed seems to find the whole affair funny.

Chaos, I'm cheered to learn you think personal attacks are okay when they support your side of the political argument.

 

[AnnonUSA]

The fact that anyone here should think that this sort of thing has not gone on before and by different leaders, is ridiculous.

While I don't truly condone these tactics, I see a need for some of them. When the goal is protecting American lives both at home and abroad, and when dealing with the intolerant, mindless ignorance of some of the Islamic faith, you must sometimes get your hands dirty.

We would all do well to remember that there are sons and daughters putting their lives at risk in Iraq, and for whatever the reason that they are there, THEY ARE THERE. To handicap intelligence and methods that will keep them safer and help them achieve their goals is stupid for any reason.

Is it sad the United States must resort to these tactics? Yes it is. But Victors of wars are typically the participants that adapt their strategy to the particular enemy.

I believe the frustration of the American people is amplified by the fact that we are trying to help a Country develop a future whose own people seem to not really care about.

Just my two cents....

 

[headscratcher4]

Well...apparently we learned one important lesson from Vietnam: you have to burn the village to save it. I don't think the coiners of that phrase intended it to represent America, but, hey, it is a tricky world what's a few human rights?

P.S. I am reminded that representatives of the Soviet Union always used to argue that our focus in the West on individual rights, as opposed tot he rights of the masses ... I am glad that we in the West have evolved to understand that the cherished standards upon which our society was supposedly built can, in times of "emergency" (how ever you define it) can give way to this lovely Marxist idea....

 

[Cleon]

So secret prisons are ok.
And torture is ok.
Locking people up with no trial? Hey, no problem!
Summary execution--as long as we're told they had a military tribunal, no problem.

Long live democracy.

 

[headscratcher4]

So secret prisons are ok.
And torture is ok.
Locking people up with no trial? Hey, no problem!
Summary execution--as long as we're told they had a military tribunal, no problem.

Long live democracy.



Indeed, Nazis, Stalinists, etc. justify their entire terror states because of the importance of giving their people secutiry against their enemies...we should be so proud.

 

[Chaos]

Chaos, I'm cheered to learn you think personal attacks are okay when they support your side of the political argument.

Personal attack? What personal attack? I didn´t accuse you of anything you don´t consider absolutely okay.

In fact, I didn´t accuse you of anything at all. If you object to me finding your humor a little bit peculiar, that´s your problem, not mine.

Besides, it is more than a little ironic that the patron saint of personal attacks finds personal attacks on himself objectionable...

 

[Leif Roar]

While I don't truly condone these tactics, I see a need for some of them. When the goal is protecting the communist revolution both at home and abroad, and when dealing with the intolerant, mindless ignorance of some of the capitalists, you must sometimes get your hands dirty.

I made a couple of small changes to your text. Can you spot them?

 

[Dan Beaird]

I think a number of people here are making a load of assumptions:

1. The allegations are true
2. People in these secret prisons are being tortured
3. People in these secret prisons are being murdered
4. People in these secret prisons are held for life (in other words: until we kill 'em)

I do think these are all very serious allegations, but they are at this point only allegations. We know for a fact that the enemy has secret prisons where they torture their kidnapped prisoners until they kill them, but of course they're just ignorant savages and can't be held to the same standard as the United States. At least that's the only way I can understand the argument of anyone who can complain about the crimes of one side while ignoring those of the other... I have yet to hear anyone call for Al Qaeda to impeach Zarqawi.

A good part of the War on Terror (tm) is clandestine; similar in many ways to the nastier parts of the Cold War. Success or failure depends on the ability to keep the other side in the dark about what you know and what you don't know, including information about who you have in custody and who you don't.

So the question really isn't are we doing this or doing that against normal law (since clandestine activity tends to involve things that break laws), but are they necessary and is there adequate oversight. We have rules that govern how intelligence operations are performed and congress is part of that. If it's some yahoo reincarnation of Iron Felix creating his own Lefortovo then yeah, someone needs to stop him cold. If it's the administration doing an end-run around congressional oversight rules then the same thing applies. But there seems to be a legal way (legal, not moral) that we could run such an operation if we wanted to and the government is not required to tell us (at least not yet).

 

[headscratcher4]

Fair point...the allegations may not turn out to be true (though this Administration's track record leads to obvious skepticism).

As to your additional points...if these people aren't being held so that they can be tortured, etc. what's the fun of having secret prisons? I mean, if you don't expect the squimish to object to the possiblitiy of abuse in an un-regulated, un-accountable situation, why not just move them of to Gitmo, admit they are there and let the UN and the Human Rights groups bleet at you from the sidelines as they do? If they exist, they are secret because they don't want the public to know what goes on there (whimps that we are), and they don't want us to know what goes on there because it isn't very pretty...at least that would be my guess...if the reporting is true, of course.

 

[Freakshow]

??

Your point presumably is that the US randomly grabs (random) people off the street and locks them up for life or kills them when they are bored?

Please tell us more.

On second thought; don't.

No. My point was that when people say "We can't do bad things to evil people, lest we become evil ourselves", I think the matter requires a bit deeper thought than just evaluating the action itself. You also need to consider who the action is being done to, and what the context of the situation is.

I'm not referring necessarily here to the subject of torture (although I could think of some extreme circumstance where it would be okay; but we haven't discussed anything even close to it in this thread). I am referring to a comment made earlier in this thread.

Make sense now?

 

[Dan Beaird]

... If they exist, they are secret because they don't want the public to know what goes on there (whimps that we are), and they don't want us to know what goes on there because it isn't very pretty...at least that would be my guess...if the reporting is true, of course.

As I mentioned in my previous post, I think it is more likely we don't want the enemy (terrorists, freedom fighters, insurgents or what have you) to know who we have. If they know who has been captured and who has been killed then they know which plans might have been compromised and so invalidate any operational intelligence we may gain (regardless of how it is obtained). So I see a legitimate operational reason to have a place to keep people when we don't want the enemy to know we have them. You'll have to admit it's impossible to let the rest of the world know who we have in custody without telling the enemy.

I think that FOI will eventually tell us the whole story. At least I really hope it will. I may find what little faith I have left shattered.

 

[CBL4]

John McCain is leading the effort to prevent US personnel from using torture.

Led by Vice President Dick Cheney, the Bush administration is floating a proposal that would allow the president to exempt covert agents outside the Defense Department from the prohibition.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/10/25/congress.detainees.ap/?section=cnn_allpolitics

It is possible that Bush is doing this for purely academic reasons but it seems much more likely that "covert agencies" are currently doing so. And Bush want to keep do this.

CBL

 

[CBL4]

Originally posted Ian Osborne
It's time Bush was impeached. It seems crazy to me that getting a blow job in the oval office can land a president in court, yet Bush can take his nation to war on false pretenses and ignore international law with impunity.

I believe that Bush is a minor war criminal for personally approving of torture. However, when it come to impeachment, I think the standards need to kept very high. All presidents lie to the American people. Lying is not illegal. Torture is. You should keep this distinction in mind.

CBL

 

[Mark]

I believe that Bush is a minor war criminal for personally approving of torture. However, when it come to impeachment, I think the standards need to kept very high. All presidents lie to the American people. Lying is not illegal. Torture is. You should keep this distinction in mind.

CBL

Um...lying is impeachable, but being a war criminal is not? Huh?

 

[BPSCG]

The existence and locations of the facilities -- referred to as "black sites" in classified White House, CIA, Justice Department and congressional documents -- are known to only a handful of officials in the United States and, usually, only to the president and a few top intelligence officers in each host country. . . .

Highlights mine.

Questions:

• If these documents are classified, did someone in the White House leak the information to the reporter, Dana Priest?
• If so, did that person commit a crime?
• Should a special prosecutor be appointed to investigate whether a crime was committed?
• Should Ms. Priest be required to divulge the source of her information?
• If she refuses, should she go to jail?
• Should we look to l'affaire Plame for guidance on how to proceed?
• What kind of nickname is "Scooter"?

 

[Kopji]

It sad that our government has become something for its citizens to fear.
And I am ashamed because I hesitated to post the words below. They are certainly the words of terrorist sympathizers out to overthrow a government who would have no rights at all in the eyes of this administration, if they only lived today. I am evil to find hope in the words.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/index.htm

 

[a_unique_person]

Major Michael Mori seems to believe that David Hicks allegations, which include sexual abuse, hold water, and bear serious investigation.