The first reason is because knowledge of a "secret" CIA prison was leaked to the Washington Post. Regardless of your personal feelings on this, these operations are classified and should remain classified. Revealing them in this manner endangers the lives of people that are serving our country.
The second reason this bothers me is that our administration continues to silently endorse the torture and abuse of "enemy combatants".
Posts: 1480 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I cannot fathom what could make people think this was a good idea. I hope that this story doesn't just go away, and nobody ever hears about it again, but I fear that is exactly what will happen.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
All administrations have sent 'people of interest' to foriegn countries for interrogation. This is nothing new.
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
ElJay, The validity and usefullness of intelligence gathered from prisoners often has a very short shelf-life. So, in that regard, it makes a lot of sense to me to have these prisons set up in foreign countries where an interrogation can occur immediately.
Posts: 1480 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
"All administrations have sent 'people of interest' to foriegn countries for interrogation. This is nothing new."
Then it's about time something is done to stop it. I don't care if this is done by a democratic administration or a republican one. This is not a partisan issue. It's wrong and it needs to stop.
Posts: 739 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The rightness or wrongness of the situation can vary. If torture is being used or condoned, then it's wrong. If torture is not being used, then it may be right.
Posts: 1480 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
THT, I realize the whole shelf-life thing. But you'll note they've had people held for 4 years. And they have no plan for how/if they will ever be released. So while I can certainly see value in, say, keeping the people who were captured during battles in Afghanestan in prisons in the region and interrogating them immediately, while still making it public that such facilities existed and maybe letting someone other than CIA agents take a walk through them every now and then, I can't so much see the value of "disappearing" those same people off to underground prisons in Thailand or Eastern Europe where no one knows they exist and they are never seen by anyone but their guards and interrogators. No one deserves that sort of power. No one can be trusted with it. There must be accountability for your actions, or you end up with a situation like this, years later, when people start to realize that 70% of the people they are holding are probably worthless and they have no procedure in place for getting them out of this "invisible world" that they've built.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
"The rightness or wrongness of the situation can vary. If torture is being used or condoned, then it's wrong. If torture is not being used, then it may be right."
Maybe. But I still think holding people without trial is wrong.
Posts: 739 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:you'll note they've had people held for 4 years. And they have no plan for how/if they will ever be released.
I don't remember a reference to people being held for four years, only a reference to the system being enacted after 9-11 (which is funny because these "arrangements" have existed since the beginning of the cold war)
As far as holding people indefinitely, I disagree. Unlike a conventional war, there is no true "end" to the conflict. Releasing captured terrorists would do nothing but swell their ranks and allow them to pass on knowledge of our interrogation techniques.
I do,however, think that the names of captured terrorists should be published and accessible to the public once it's been deemed that we have all of the useful information that we will get out of them.
Posts: 1480 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: Maybe. But I still think holding people without trial is wrong.
Trial in what country? Sentencing by whose standards? If they're foreign citizens, by what right do we invoke a trial?
Posts: 1480 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I just read this story over at CNN and came right here to see if it had been posted yet.
I'm kind of surprised that there isn't more discussion going on. Me, I'm horrified, though unfortunatly not terribly surprised, and like ElJay am hoping that this story stays in view. Something has got to be done about this kind of thing.
Posts: 3214 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Virtually nothing is known about who is kept in the facilities, what interrogation methods are employed with them, or how decisions are made about whether they should be detained or for how long.
This type of power just begs to be abused.
quote:successful defense of the country requires that the agency be empowered to hold and interrogate suspected terrorists for as long as necessary and without restrictions
This is the part that probably scares me the most. All they need to do is suspect you of aiding a terrorist organization, resulting in life in prison with the occasional torture. Really, what's stopping them from imprisoning innocent people that happen to voice negative opinions about the government? Unfortunately there doesn't seem to be any accountability and no system of checks to ensure that power isn't being abused for political agendas.
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
Libby's replacement(s) had their fingers in fishy business too.
Addington is the guy who drafted the "Geneva convention is quaint" memo. This is the policy that is STILL running the country, even though it has been exposed. Sickening, eh?
Posts: 1592 | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
This whole thing seems very surreal to me - like some sort of horrible Tom Clancy novel.
The thing that horrifies me most is that there is nothing that we (the public) can do about it. We can discuss it, we can be outraged by it, we can protest and petition, but we have no power to enforce our will. The very lack of accountability that enables it to happen is what will allow it to continue.
Posts: 5879 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
You have much more power than you think you do. Have you contacted your Representative? Senators? Started a website? Started a non-profit organization to stop this? You can change things that you don't like but it requires massive effort. Most of us don't do anything but complain. Plus this article is written from the perspective that this just has to be an evil thing and all kinds of dastardly deeds are being done. Most of the sources are high level people, but no names which should always put in the information is a suspect light. I wonder if anyone's opinion would change if a suspected enemy combatant was let go and then showed up in America with a large bomb... Then again, I am not a fan of the IF type questions because anything could happen and it is more helpful to deal with what is happening instead of all the IFs.
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, DK, if I knew just what could be done to stop this kind of abuse, I certainly would have done it by now. As it is, I have written to my Senators and my Representative, as well as the White House, actually.
Also, as camus pointed out, the lack of named sources does not, in fact, put the information in a suspect light. It is, in my opinion, a completly neutral fact.
Posts: 3214 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
There are rules, and we wouldnt do this if it didn't save american lives in the long run. and it does.
Posts: 1156 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Regardless of your personal feelings on this, these operations are classified and should remain classified. Revealing them in this manner endangers the lives of people that are serving our country."
That should give one pause to reflect upon what is going on over there that is torquing CIA agents off enough to endanger their own lives and careers, which could be: Prisoners who were just at the wrong place at the wrong time, and are still in jail for no other reason than the fact that those in charge will never admit that they were wrong. Interrogator/prosecutors know that they were wrong, and are just covering up their own crimes. Interrogations which are occurring solely for the pleasure of interrogators who have developed an addiction to sadism. Etc... Which is why trials are necessary. To prevent mistaken detentions from becoming permanent detentions for no other reason than to cover up mistakes or crimes by government employees. To provide an external conscience so that interrogators&jailers maintain their own.
"Trial in what country? Sentencing by whose standards? If they're foreign citizens, by what right do we invoke a trial?"
Trial and sentencing by US standards: whatever they may be, cuz the normal beyond a reasonable doubt exposes society to unreasonable risk, as do normal sentencing guidelines. This new generation of terrorism has an agenda of committing mass assassination of random people by the thousands, with no discernable goal. At least none beyond holding absolute power over what people do. And even less acceptable, absolute power over what people think. That being the case, I'd think the standard of proof should be a reasonable&strong belief that the suspect is guilty held by at least an 8to5 majority; with the 13th vote to be cast by the judge should the jury return a 7to5 vote. The right to trial derives from the fact that the America holds the accused as prisoners, and other countries can't pry them out of US hands.
Trial should be by a jury of US citizens not currently working as an employee of the intelligence services, the military, a politician, political parties or think tanks, or paramilitary organizations such as the police and prosecutors. The idea that everyone who isn't in the one of those groups must be held suspect as traitors -- which is basicly the assumption under which current intelligence committees and intelligence courts operate -- is absolutely absurd. Besides, there are plenty of people who have held security clearances, as well as plenty of folks who have had even more extensive background checks by private companies.
If the evidence is insufficient to provide reasonable&strong belief, the defendent should be compensated for the full time spent in custody, with the minimum compensation being: Twice the world's highest minimum wage (Luxemburg's at the moment) for all of the hours that defendent was held in custody, including those spent sleeping. Untaxed. Paid immediately upon release. Full lifetime coverage of all medical, dental, and psychiatric bills for the defendent and his/her immediate family. And a lifetime untaxed weekly subsidy of that highest minimum wage for 168hours per week -- without regard to other income s/he may earn after release -- with survivor benefits for the immediate family equalling half that subsidy In the event that the defendent was earning more before being taken into custody, the monetary compensation for time held in custody should be 8.4 times his/her average weekly earnings before detainment. And the untaxed lifetime subsidy should be equal to double those earnings.
With three other provisos: The lifetime subsidy remains unattachable: ie future legal claims against the accused cannot deprive the defendent of use of that subsidy. Creditors may not place a lien against that subsidy: any lending based on that income is at the creditor's own risk. The lifetime subsidy should be contingent upon public non-disclosure of what/etc occurred while held in custody; and upon the lack of deliberate contact with terrorist organizations and/or those who fund terrorist organizations. In the event that in a future time, the grounds for detainment should be found to have been true, the subsidy&etc is cancelled. However, there shall be no payback of that subsidy/etc, and no deprivation of assets except by transfer of legal ownership over to the accused's immediate family. Should the accused be tried in open court and found guilty, those assets transferred to the accused's immediate family become subject to seizure through lawsuits by victims of the accused's crimes. But not by the government.
Note that I am talking of minimum compensation, which begins immediately upon release, with no negotiations whatsoever on any grounds whatsoever.
Lawsuits inregard to punitive awards for the damage created by detainment remain legally persuable; as personal lawsuits against any and all individuals who approved of, who were involved in, or who knew of any torture -- as defined by the portions of the GenevaConvention to which the US is a signatory -- up the entire chain of command. And while the government may provide lawyers for those defendants, any and all compensation or settlement will be paid for by those individuals, and not by the government. The jury should assign portions of the total responsibility for damages amongst the defendents found to be at fault. Only after assignation of those portions should the total monetary award be decided upon. And no defendant shall be forced to pay a greater portion of the total award than the percentage of fault assigned to that defendent.
Lawsuits for release or partial release from the non-disclosure agreement while still remaining eligible for the lifetime subsidy also remain legally persuable.
All to be tried by the same type of court, with the same type of supermajority vote. And with the trial judge disallowed from overturning any majority vote or reducing the jury's judgment as to monetary compensation.
Should the case be fatally flawed, an appeals judge should be disallowed from any action other than returning the case for retrial under a different judge&jury. ie An appeals judge may not dismiss a case. If the case is not fatally flawed in the legal sense, but the appeals judge thinks the judgment to be excessive, that judge may return the case for a retrial upon the total monetary compensation -- again under a different judge&jury -- but not upon the finding of fault/guilt. A 12-0 verdict on compensation may not be retried. If an appeals judge returns a case for retrial, that judge may not hear appeals on the retrial. A new appeals judge must be assigned to the case.
posted
Signatories to the Geneva Convention, and countries who are pointing fingers at others for Human Rights abuses have no business "disappearing" prisoners. I say that if the people are out of touch of the Red Cross, or the American Judicial System, then something is terribly wrong.
This is the sort of thing that does more to justify other countries' abuses of our prisoners.
It also seems to run counter to what our own intelligence services say about the data gathering value of torture.
And make no mistake, the reports of at least some of these people being tortured on OUR BEHALF are credible. At least the International Human Rights community is believing them after some careful research.
posted
While I disagree with the actions that have been taken in this matter, I think that aspectre has demonstrated why I am glad he has no real power over this, any many other, issues.
Now, before I get smacked, I recognize the need for an international intelligence gathering service. I'm just amazed that we still have _this_ one. On an organizational level it has proven itself incompetent in directing and reacting to important information, prone to moles at the highest levels, and generally made itself into a public relations nightmare. They assassinate people and make themselves look like thugs (Allende), and they fail to assassinate people and make themselves look like idiots (Castro). Isn't it time for a _real_ reorganization? Something on the level of the change from the OSS?
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sounds like extraordinary rendition? This years debate topic involves a lot of this kind of stuff.
Posts: 879 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
Because the only thing you hear about are their failures. To keep the success a success, to keep successful agents alive and functional, secrecy must be maintained. If an operation isn't a major failure, the public will never hear of it: at least not before the era in which it occurred becomes history.
"On an organizational level it has proven itself incompetent in directing and reacting to important information."
Possibly, but every failure* occurred with the greatest portion of fault being at the political level because of: law voted on and approved by Congress; policy decided by a past President or by the current President; policy guidelines created by those nominated by a past President or by the current President and approved by the Senate; interpretations of those policy guidelines by those appointed by the current President. (I'm not sure how far down the chain of command that appointees must be confirmed by the Senate). eg The coup which led to the Allende assassination was approved by the top level of the Executive branch. eg FBI agents and CIA agents&analysts strongly suspected that something was coming down before 9/11 occurred, and were told that policy prevented them from following up on their investigations. eg The CIA analytical department believed that Saddam had no WoMDs, and had no connections to terrorist organizations outside of Iraqs borders. It took a handpicked team of political appointees to cull&edit the raw intelligence to come up with the conclusion that led to the IraqWar.
* Which only means those which I assume to have been failures. Intelligence work is so convoluted that the only way to have some surety in ones opinions is to outlive everyone who was involved in the presumed failure. At which point, it becomes history; ie distorted by professionals with their own agendas, which rarely has anything to do with truth. Except by accident to the discerning eye: witness SouthernHeritage "history".
quote:"Isn't it time for a _real_ reorganization? Something on the level of the change from the OSS?"
Well, if you're familar with the world of intelligence, you would realize that this does currently exist...the SecDef/DoD controls probably around 80 percent of the intelligence community (resources) anyway, including NSA, all of those fun satellites, DIA, military intelligence, etc.
Posts: 57 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm all for the decentralizing of our intelligence community to allow for quicker responses on incoming intelligence. The need for coordination still exists, but our new Homeland Defense agency did nothing but add red tape and delays to inter-agency cooperation.
Posts: 1480 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm also somewhat concerned that Congress is starting to beat war drums about national security and finding the source of the leak... Despite the implication that, but for the leak, they wouldn't be paying as much attention to the issue of torture.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
If you don't like the idea of prison torture, why are you upset about the leak?
It's different than divulging the name of a CIA operative. This leak came at a time where Bush was trying to skirt around the issue of prison torture- so I'm glad for the leak because it gives the issue a better chance at being taken seriously. Before it would have been swept under the rug.
Posts: 70 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's still being swept under the rug. Congressional Republicans have launched an investigation to plug the leak concerning the existence of secret interogation camps, and have blocked investigation of what is going on in those camps.
posted
The Senate just recently voted to require the National Intelligence Director to provide both the House and the Senate with information on the secret prisons. This is a good thing, and it makes me almost *happy* that this happened.
Posts: 70 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm against torture. I don't care if we don't get ideal intelligence because of it. I believe that if the United States behaves morally, people will stop hating us and trying to attack us.
---------------------------------- Also, something everybody should know: The House International Relations Committee voted today to not investigate the lies that led up to the Iraq war: http://www.commondreams.org/news2005/1109-06.htmPosts: 1592 | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree with Nato, and I would like to add that torture damages those who engage in it, not just those who are tortured. Even if you believe that every single person who has been tortured is guilty, even if you believe that they got what they deserved, consider what it does to us when we permit it. Is this information so valuable that we ought to surrender the moral high ground for it? Is it worth scarring the souls of agents and soldiers when our government asks them to commit terrible acts?
I am proud to live in a country where I can say these things without fear. This is not the Soviet Union, or North Korea, or China, or Iran. But it seems we have some pretty awful secrets of our own, and for that I am ashamed and sorry.
Posts: 3546 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
This must stop. There is no place for this in a free society. Did we win the cold war or did we become the other side?
This administration has embraced Lysenkoism in place of science, secret police in place of rule of law, and disappearings in place of trials by jury. We have to stop this right now. We don't want to live in a police state. The world's leading democracy can't become a police state. This matters.
Posts: 6246 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The way the Administration and the GOP are going about this is pretty disgraceful. The fact that the idiotic stance they're taking-that the leak is more important than the fluid dripping out of it-will probably work, and that the DNC will permit it to work, is both disgraceful and depressing.
----
However, I remain convinced that torture is not an objective evil, and that it is not always wrong. I remain convinced that sometimes it is necessary, and even right. But I still support outlawing it, even though I think those things.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
