C.I.A. Sponsored Gulags?

[DarthMaximus]

EDIT:

You’re right Falk, that was a flame.

Sorry Mary.

[Guest]

I know i am probably the worst person to judge about this, but if i post such a thing, then i must have been seriously angered by that person.

[DarthMaximus]

I think all these people (reporters) should be indicted and arrested for leaking CIA information.

[Yanny]

If they find out who leaked the information, you might be right.

But if the camps are illegal, it isn’t illegal to leak the information with the intention of instigating an investigation.

Still, it’s not like it’s anything new. We’ve been doing this since the Cold War began. I mean, we did some serious shit in Vietnam and South America.

[Yanny]

I just read all four pages of the article, and I have to say it’s a very fair piece of journalism. Not entirely negative of the CIA or the Bush Administration.

[Wargaming_nut]

I saw this recently as well.

Mary: why are you ashamed to be an American? What the CIA does does not reflect on all Americans in the minds of intelligent people, and who gives a darn what unintelligent people think?

While I’m at it, why is everyone assuming these prisons are a bad thing? You have no evidence of any actual wrongdoing having been committed, so why are you so quick to decide these are terrible places, worth becoming ashamed over?

I think I’ll start referring to “certain people” as The Perpetually Ashamed…. ;) :D

[Yanny]

While I’m at it, why is everyone assuming these prisons are a bad thing? You have no evidence of any actual wrongdoing having been committed, so why are you so quick to decide these are terrible places, worth becoming ashamed over?

… come on dude. Logically tell me why the CIA would endeavor for three years to find a site where they could secretly interrogate top-level terrorists outside of US borders if they weren’t doing illegal things. The article very clearly lays out what is going on here, without getting graphic or grusome. The CIA prisons that they are speaking of are places where a lot of bad stuff happens. The article lays a lot of prior examples from Afganistan and other incidents out for you.

[DarthMaximus]

Yanny, some instance could be:

1)  if you capture a high level terrorist and don’t want other terrorists to know.

Ex.  A top Lt. of UBL, if they don’t know you have him you may be able to foil more plans, b/c if they knew they obviously would change their plans.

2)  You don’t want terrorists to know where the prisons are, otherwise they could come attack and try to free people

3)  Maybe the host country does not wish to have its alliance with the US known

Ex.  Say there was a US prison in Germany, they may not wish to be a public target of the terroists, but have obviously helped in rounding up people locally.

I’m sure there are a few others that don’t necessarily lead to “abuse” or “torture” but I think you can see have so called “secret” prison would be needed for high level captures.

Imagine if we ever caught UBL alive.  There aren’t too many countries that would want to have it known publically that they are holding him.

I’m not defending these particular places, I haven’t read up on it enough, but I just wanted to point out a few reasons why not all prisons would be revealed publically.

[Rune Blade]

So what if the CIA is sponsoring Gulags for captured terrorists.  These terrorists would slit your throat if they had the chance.  And on top of that, they’re not protected by the Geneva Convention, so, yeah, let’s dig a hole, throw them in it, and put a bamboo shoot over them.

Did any of you complain to what the Chinese, North Koreans, and North Vietnamese did to our POWs?

I’m glad President Bush has the knowledge and intelligence to put these people in camps across the globe and away from the US where the Terrorist sympathizers in the Democratic party and the ACLU can’t give these killers lawyers.  Lawyers for terrorists.  YIKES!!!

Did anyone forget 9/11?  Don’t ever forget what evil people can do.  Sometimes the only way to make muslim killers respect you is by a brutal display of power and force.  That is the only way things are finalized.  That is the way war is won.

Rune Blade

[Rune Blade]

I still prefer the approach of sticking them in a hole and not letting them out again.  Maybe I’m the only one who doesn’t want to see those savages to see the light of day again so they can kill more innocent people.

Whether or not secret prisons will help or hurt the cause is open to debate.  I’m for them for the simple fact that we cannot bring them anywhere in the US due to our liberal population that believes that all people (including muslim killers) have a right to an attorney.  That type of thinking is outdated and dangerous.

A high moral standard is great, but sometimes you have to fight fire with fire if you’re going to burn out the other’s flame.  Violence is the true law of the middle east.  It is the only thing they respect.  Holding hands will not make them like us.  Appeasement under Clinton didn’t work.  Cutting and running out of Somalia didn’t help.  We have to win, period.  I dont’ care how many of them we have to kill to get there, I just don’t want to see an American die because we didn’t act.  That includes tourchering prisoners if they know about an upcomming attack on the US.  Including a nuclear attack.  Time will tell.

A liberal president was the one that started concentration camps for Japanese Americans in WWII and no one batted an eye.  Remember that as well.

Rune Blade

[cystic crypt]

It’s pretty amusing (when you ignore the horror I’m feeling) when watching people who decry SH’s putative torture chambers and use this as a pretext for war go ahead and justify the torture of suspects captured from Iraq.  These guys can’t win - they are either tortured by SH, or they are tortured by Bush/Chaney.  Also - there were few terror attacks coming out of Iraq prior to the invasion.  So did you cripple your economy just to be the ones to supply the secret prisons and torture chambers (instead of SH, i mean)?

[Rune Blade]

Sigh…

Terrorists can’t win?  Please, the US military does not torcher people.  I don’t even care if the CIA does or not.  If these people are trying to kill Americans and are captured, then yeah, let’s find out what they know.

I think your argument is a little shallow though.  Saddam didn’t torcher Al Zaquari when he went there for surgery… :-o

If these people are trying to kill US troops, then they are terrorists.  Terrorists have no statutes in the Geneva Convention.  Bush/Cheney do not torcher people.  But if they do and they find out useful intelligence on upcoming terrorists plots, more power to them.

Rune Blade

[Janus1]

im not sure if anyone “torchers” people. did you possibly mean “torture?”

[Rune Blade]

Maybe,  I’m not sure.  It’s late right now where I am and I’m probably getting tired as my typing is suffering badly.

Rune Blade

[cystic crypt]

@Rune:

Terrorists can’t win?

you haven’t even demonstrated that they are terrorists.  The US has repeatedly demonstrated that it does not believe in the ideas of “trials” so basically you have convicted people without a trial.  I hope this happens to you one day.

  Please, the US military does not torcher people.  I don’t even care if the CIA does or not.  If these people are trying to kill Americans and are captured, then yeah, let’s find out what they know.

“torcher” does not work.  Everyone knows this.  And the US military DOES “torcher” people to death - this has been demonstrated in several autopsies.

I think your argument is a little shallow though.  Saddam didn’t torcher Al Zaquari when he went there for surgery…… :-o

it’s just such a joke that the US does everything that it used as a basis for invading Iraq.  WMD’s, invading other nations, torturing people, killing civilians etc.  You have no credibility.  I realize that you don’t care - but you might as well be aware that few people (outside of you and your buddies) are buying it anymore.

If these people are trying to kill US troops, then they are terrorists.  Terrorists have no statutes in the Geneva Convention.  Bush/Cheney do not torcher people.  But if they do and they find out useful intelligence on upcoming terrorists plots, more power to them.

So people trying to kill US troops are terrorists?  What does that make US troops trying to kill Iraqi troops or civilians?  I thought this was a “war”? 
Anyway you have not appropriately defined terrorism, and i don’t even think you can properly apply a label to someone who has not been demonstrated to be committing terrorist acts.  Have you even properly convicted one person who you have in Gitmo, Abu Gharab or your secret CIA prisons?  What difference is there between the way you deal with people that you “arrest” and the way SH dealt with people he “arrested”?  None of them got a fair trial.  Face it - GW is SH, but with a lot more power behind him.  He is as evil as SH is.  Too bad that USans are being painted with the same brush as he.

Rune Blade

[Guest]

@Rune:

Please, the US military does not torcher people.

Even your judges disagree with you.

If these people are trying to kill US troops, then they are terrorists.  Terrorists have no statutes in the Geneva Convention.

Simplistic and misleading. The Geneva Conventions do cover civil war and resistance against occupation. So, your initial “If-then” is just painful to the eyes.

[Candyman67]

If these people are trying to kill US troops, then they are terrorists.  Terrorists have no statutes in the Geneva Convention.Â

Simplistic and misleading. The Geneva Conventions do cover civil war and resistance against occupation. So, your initial “If-then” is just painful to the eyes.

First off, there is no civil war in Iraq.   A civil war is defined as "a war between opposing groups of citizens of the same country."  There aren’t factions of Iraqis fighting each other miltiarily, but politically speaking, that’s another story.  8-)Â

Second, the Geneva Conventions do cover resistance movements but there is criteria that the movement has to meet (Got it all from Wikipedia):
   
1. that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates

We think it’s al-Zarqawi.  If it is al-Zarqawi, this is how Wikipedia describes him: "a Jordanian terrorist. A convicted murderer, Zarqawi is the guerrilla leader of Al Qaeda in Iraq."  Anyone that fights for him is a terrorist.Â

2. that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance

This is an obvious no.

3. that of carrying arms openly

Some do, some don’t.  Some carry assault rifles and other weapons openly, while others strap explosives to themselves and such.

4. that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war

Taking civilians hostage and chopping their heads off is not in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

You may or may not think they are terrorists, but these “resistance fighters” are certainly non-combatants by definition and thus the Geneva Conventions do not apply to them.

[Guest]

To the last post, you’re not quite right about the Geneva Conventions.  First, yes, there are four defined criteria for attaining combatant status.  However, they’re not hard criteria:  you don’t need all of them to be considered a combatant.  At a minimum, open display of arms is needed, but the others have been more flexible in the past.

Also, you missed Falk’s point about occupation.  While whether there is a civil war in Iraq is debatable (I don’t think there really is, but it’s a fluid situation anyway), it nevertheless is an occupation.  And resistance to occupation is most certainly protected under the fourth Geneva Convention as well as the Hague Convention of 1908 (I think it was that year).

Be careful about sweeping generalizations about the insurgency.  Zarqawi is the head of a group, not the entire resistance.  This is an organization much more akin to network warfare than traditional command structures.

Finally, you’re only analyzing one part of the Geneva Conventions.  You make the mistake of creating a third category:  they’re not combatants, and they’re not non-combatants (civilians), so they are terrorists.  But, there is no terrorist category in international law, barring possibly Annan’s latest statement in “In Greater Freedom,” but that has not passed into customary law.  Rather, there is an acknowledgement of “terror tactics,” but where this comes into play is in military discrimination.  International law only has two categories - combatants and civilians, and if you’re not in one, you’re in the other.  The Convention does include protections for civilians, and that includes a fair trial, although recognizing the particular problems of military occupation for carrying out trials.

That said, once you define what category these individuals fall under, you can either prosecute them for war crimes (if combatants) or domestic crime (if civilians).  But you cannot create a legal black hole for “terrorists” where nothing applies.  Remember, you do that, and you destroy the rule of law, which is ostensibly something that the US troops are fighting for in Iraq.

[Rune Blade]

you haven’t even demonstrated that they are terrorists.  The US has repeatedly demonstrated that it does not believe in the ideas of “trials” so basically you have convicted people without a trial.  I hope this happens to you one day.

Considering the fact the the US goverment has let some detainees go especially from Gitmo, I think that it’s a good possiblity that the ones we still have are more than likely terrorists, don’t you?

“torcher” does not work.  Everyone knows this.  And the US military DOES “torcher” people to death - this has been demonstrated in several autopsies.

And just where exactly is your evidence of this.  Please, Moveon.org does not count.  The US military does not torture people.  Oh and by the way, putting ladies panties on a terrorists’s head is not torture.

it’s just such a joke that the US does everything that it used as a basis for invading Iraq.  WMD’s, invading other nations, torturing people, killing civilians etc.  You have no credibility.  I realize that you don’t care - but you might as well be aware that few people (outside of you and your buddies) are buying it anymore

You can buy what ever you want crypt.  I didn’t realize you hated freedom so much.  I’m sure that according to you, you’d just as well let Iraqi civilians go back to brutal dictatorships like Iraq had under Saddam instead of giving them a fighting chance at freedom.  Sheesh, where do you get off lecturing me?  At least I believe in freedom.

Were there any WMD’s there prior to the war?  So far the evidence is - No.  I say “so far” because even Bill Clinton said back in 1998 when he launched three days worth of cruise missles (killing God knows how many civilians, where is your outrage there?) that Saddam’s WMD’s posed a grave threat.

So people trying to kill US troops are terrorists?  What does that make US troops trying to kill Iraqi troops or civilians?  I thought this was a “war”?Â

Good question, and one that is easily answered.  If you are not wearing a uniform and are trying to kill US troops, you are a terrorist.  That’s what differentiates these muslim terrorists from the Kamakazis of Japan.  The Kamakazis wore uniforms.   :-o

Anyway you have not appropriately defined terrorism, and i don’t even think you can properly apply a label to someone who has not been demonstrated to be committing terrorist acts.  Have you even properly convicted one person who you have in Gitmo, Abu Gharab or your secret CIA prisons?  What difference is there between the way you deal with people that you “arrest” and the way SH dealt with people he “arrested”?  None of them got a fair trial.  Face it - GW is SH, but with a lot more power behind him.  He is as evil as SH is.  Too bad that USans are being painted with the same brush as he

You are as evil and misguided as you accuse me of being.  Sheesh.  GW is not Saddam.  GW believes in freedom, Saddam did not.  I don’t agree with all of what GW does and says, but I do agree that this war in Iraq must be won.

Convicting terrorists?  I really do not care.  As long as they can’t get us, They could be burried in a hole for all I care.

Terrorism = Killing and destroying individuals or property in an effort to shape a world view based off of a Muslim Fascist policy.  Muslim Fascism is Hitler with a headscarf.

Even your judges disagree with you.

And which would those be?

Simplistic and misleading. The Geneva Conventions do cover civil war and resistance against occupation. So, your initial “If-then” is just painful to the eyes.

These terrorists are not fighting for anyone’s freedom.  If you think they are, then you are painful to the eyes.

You have just been schooled by Rune Blade, The Master of Debate

[Candyman67]

@Chengora:

Also, you missed Falk’s point about occupation.  While whether there is a civil war in Iraq is debatable (I don’t think there really is, but it’s a fluid situation anyway), it nevertheless is an occupation.  And resistance to occupation is most certainly protected under the fourth Geneva Convention as well as the Hague Convention of 1908 (I think it was that year).

Occupation entails authority.  The US Army or government has no ruling authority or power in Iraq; hell, the legitimate Iraqi government can tell us to leave and we should if that happens.  Before the Iraqi government was established, we could have been called occupiers, but not anymore.

When I used the term non-combatant, I should have used the term ‘unlawful combatant.’

You mention that the minimum criterian is an open display of arms, but most of them don’t even do that.  Even if you try to be flexible with the criteria, they still can not possibly be defined as ‘comabtants’.