I thought this was a good opinion piece, as well as a good topic that I think both the liberal and conservative wings can generally agree upon.
RELEASE OF SIX DETAINEES AFTER TWELVE YEARS HIGHLIGHTS THE HISTORIC EVIL OF GUANTÁNAMO BY GLENN GREENWALD @ggreenwald TODAY AT 6:01 AM
The U.S. military overnight transferred six Guantánamo detainees to Uruguay. All of them had been imprisoned since 2002 – more than 12 years. None has ever been charged with a crime, let alone convicted of any wrongdoing. They had all been cleared for release years ago by the Pentagon itself, but nonetheless remained in cages until today.
Among the released detainees is Abu Wa’el Dhiab, a Lebanese-born Syrian national and father of four who was seized by the Pakistani police and turned over to the U.S. in 2002 for what was reportedly a large bounty. He was cleared for release in 2009 – five years ago – and has repeatedly gone on hunger strikes inside the camp to protest his treatment. At the age of 43, he has become physically debilitated. As the human rights group Reprieve detailed:
As a result of the conditions inside the prison and the callous treatment he has received, Mr Dhiab’s health has now deteriorated to such an extent that he is confined to a wheelchair. Recent revelations revealed that Mr. Dhiab is being denied access to his wheelchair, meaning he is brutally dragged from his cell and force-fed against his will every day.
As the great Miami Herald Guantánamo reporter Carol Rosenberg notes, there are – six years after Obama was elected on a pledge to close the camp – still 136 detainees there, with 67 of them cleared for release (Democrats’ claims that Obama is largely blameless are false and misleading in the extreme, as are claims that no country will accept detainees). In a just-posted article, Rosenberg notes that the release of these six men, all in their 30s and 40s, was underway for a full year, but it “sat on [Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel's] desk for months, awaiting his signature, while intelligence analysts evaluated it.”
For all the years of propagandistic assertions that the detainees are dangerous “terrorists,” almost none has been charged with any crime by a government that has repeatedly (and with disgraceful ease) convicted people on terrorism allegations. They have just been kept in cages, indefinitely, in the middle of an ocean, thousands of miles from their homes. Nine detainees have died at the camp: several allegedly by suicide, others from illness. One of the detainees was an Al Jazeera photojournalist, Sami Al-Haj, who was encaged for six years with no charges or trial and with almost no U.S. media notice (even as the U.S. media endlessly denounces the detention of U.S. journalists by other governments).
One significant reason these six detainees were released today is because Uruguay’s President, Jose Mujica, publicly shamed the U.S. into doing so. He wrote an open letter to Obama last week, posted on his presidential website, urging their release on humanitarian grounds, writing: “We have offered our hospitality for human beings who suffered an atrocious kidnapping in Guantánamo.” Mujica himself is a “former 14-year political prisoner who spent much of his captivity in solitary confinement for his guerrilla activities with the Tupamaro revolutionary movement.”
Just as the Obama administration suppressed photos showing U.S. torture and is now attempting to delay if not outright prevent release of the U.S. Senate’s torture report, Obama officials have repeatedly sought to suppress the videos showing the horrors of force-feeding at Guantanámo. It was the family of Dhiab, the Lebanese-Syrian detainee released today, which relentlessly pursued a legal and public campaign to obtain those videos to show the brutality of this treatment. As Reprieve described:
After mounting a prominent legal challenge against his treatment, lawyers from Reprieve were able to view the video tapes of Mr. Dhiab being force fed. Whilst their content is currently classified “Secret” and therefore cannot be disclosed to the public, Cori Crider, Strategic Director for Reprieve and counsel for Mr. Dhiab, said that she had ‘trouble sleeping’ after viewing the harrowing tapes. In June 2014, 16 news organisations, including Reuters and the New York Times, intervened in Dhiab v Obama to seek access to the videos on First Amendment grounds [DISCLOSURE: First Look Media, which publishes The Intercept, was one of the organizations bringing that suit].
In October, a federal judge ordered the videos released, but just last week, the Justice Department announced it was appealing the ruling. The rationale from The Most Transparent Administration Ever™ for suppressing evidence of U.S. government crimes, brutality and savagery is always the same: transparency will “adversely affect[] security conditions in Afghanistan and Iraq” by enraging people around the world. Not engaging in such behavior is never an option. The only priority is preventing its disclosure.
In a gut-wrenching July essay at The Huffington Post, Dhiab’s wife, Umm Wa’el, recounted the suffering she and her family have endured as a result of her husband’s 12-year, due-process-free imprisonment in the middle of the Caribbean Sea:
More than a decade has passed since Abu Wa’el was taken from us in the night. I had just given birth to our fourth child; our other children were just toddlers. My husband is a kind man and a superb cook. I miss the dishes he learned to prepare in his father’s restaurant. He is guilty of no crime, has never been charged, and was told by President Obama five years ago that he would be released from Guantanamo. . . .
In the past, I wouldn’t have expected this kind of secrecy of America. But over the past few months, I’ve seen it repeatedly. First, the government fought to prevent our lawyers from seeing the force-feeding videos. Now they forbid our lawyers from even discussing their content with other security-cleared lawyers in secret. Then they opposed the request from 16 of their country’s most reputed media groups for access to the material. They are doing their best to make sure that what has happened — is happening — to my husband never sees the light of day. . . .
America was shocked by the images from Abu Ghraib. These films from Guantanamo threaten to do the same. The American people should be given the chance to see them, and to decide whether they accept what is being done daily to my husband. I am certain that if they are given the chance, they will see the reality: the simple desperation of an innocent man, held without charge or trial, using the only means at his disposal to get back to his wife and children.
That is a scenario that has repeated itself over and over for the last 13 years – not just at Guantanámo but other American due-process-free hellholes at Bagram (which the Obama DOJ vehemently defended) and Abu Ghraib, as well as aboard floating lawless ships and CIA black sites. None of this has remotely deterred the U.S. and its uber-national media commentators from continuing to lecture the world on the necessity of due process and fair judicial proceedings (just as Tony Blair’s lucrative subservience to dictators doesn’t prevent him from lecturing the world on the need for democracy).
But all of this has increasingly caused the world to stop taking seriously anything American officials have to say on such matters (to the extent anyone took it seriously before). As well they should. The historic evils and shameful actions of the U.S. government during the Endless War on Terror are manifold. Keeping people in cages for more than a decade and counting in the middle of the sea, far from their families, without a shred of due process or hope for release, is near the top of that list.
Frazzled wrote: And will you applaud when they find their way back and join ISIS or some such and start killing people again?
To be fair, even if they were nothing to do with terrorism before their kidnapping, torture and imprisonment, I would imagine their treatment has inspired plenty of people to sign on the dotted line to fight against the West...
Centres like this should have never existed in the first place, nor should the people who set up, run and support the centre and treatment of those held there escape punishment for their complicity in it.
Grey Templar wrote: Where is it written that Terrorists have a right to trial?
Any suspected criminal (including terrorists) extradited to the USA would have a trial under the rule of law.
Prisoners of war don't require a trial either.
Prisoners of war are generally expected to be held under conditions imposed by the Geneva Convention too. But as your government doesn't view these people as PoW's and doesn't view them as suspected criminals, it seems happy to just lock them away and brutalise them; kind of like one might expect in a tinpot dictatorship, not "the land of the free".
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote: Considering the results to date of released inmates are that the vast majority return to jihad, I don't have to.
If a state had stolen 10 years of my life and spent that time torturing me I think I might give a thought to fighting against them if I were ever to be freed too...
I'm frankly not that ripped up about it because these people are scum, although paying to imprison people who have no value as prisoners does seem like a waste of cash.
I think that they should either be tried and convicted as terrorists(and put to death) or released while being told that if we ever find they rejoin or continue to associate with terrorists that they'll find a hellfire missile getting dropped at their feet. But I'm not overly concerned if they continue to rot.
Grey Templar wrote: I'm frankly not that ripped up about it because these people are scum, although paying to imprison people who have no value as prisoners does seem like a waste of cash.
I think that they should either be tried and convicted as terrorists(and put to death) or released while being told that if we ever find they rejoin or continue to associate with terrorists that they'll find a hellfire missile getting dropped at their feet. But I'm not overly concerned if they continue to rot.
And what if they have been wrongfully imprisoned. The reason it's so bad is that they have never been convicted of a crime, just kidnapped from their own county under suspicion of aiding terrorists. Do you not understand that?
If a state had stolen 10 years of my life and spent that time torturing me I think I might give a thought to fighting against them if I were ever to be freed too...
If a state had stolen 10 years of my life and spent that time torturing me I think I might give a thought to fighting against them if I were ever to be freed too...
So you agree with me. Excellent.
Yeah I would fight them too... In the media and the courts.
The situation in guantanamo is an outrage (and should be for a nation like the US that likes to pretend it has the moral high ground).
Anyway, the main problem with your point is the fact that if the US government hadn't made Guantanamo in the first place this would not be a problem (and terrorism wouldn't be one either.)
Although I kinda like the responses to this post.
They make fantastic quotes for my Fb discussions about americans and their defence policy (Title: is the UK or the USA more dictatorial? And are americans really stupider/less educated and aware of the world than britons?)
Anyway, the main problem with your point is the fact that if the US government hadn't made Guantanamo in the first place this would not be a problem (and terrorism wouldn't be one either.)
Really? I missed the part where terrorism didn't exist before Gitmo magically appeared and started kidnapping innocents.
Talon of Anathrax wrote: Yeah I would fight them too... In the media and the courts.
The situation in guantanamo is an outrage (and should be for a nation like the US that likes to pretend it has the moral high ground).
Anyway, the main problem with your point is the fact that if the US government hadn't made Guantanamo in the first place this would not be a problem (and terrorism wouldn't be one either.)
@bolded: you are surely not suggesting that terrorism came about because of Gitmo? I mean, that would require literal amounts of willful ignorance. Hopefully I'm misunderstanding you?
As to the article, Gitmo's mere existence should be offensive to Americans. If these people are criminals, prove it and be done with them. If they're not, there's no reason to hold them. We shouldn't be holding people for a decade or more with on charges, no rights and no repercussions. It's grotesque.
Grey Templar wrote: Where is it written that Terrorists have a right to trial?
Prisoners of war don't require a trial either.
1.) They're alleged terrorists. They have never been tried for anything, let alone convicted. They've had no chance to show evidence they're even the right person, let alone guilty of what they allegedly did. This is the same administration that brought us Fast & The Furious, Benghazi, and the IRS scandal, btw - you seemed a lot less trusting of their competence in those threads. I'm sure they made no mistakes here though!
2.) Prisoners of war also have rights that have not been accorded to these guys, either. So maybe not a great example.
Grey Templar wrote: Can you prove that anyone there has been wrongfully accused of being a terrorist or having ties to a terror group?
There's as much proof they are rightfully accused as they are wrongfully accused, i.e. none. We scooped these guys up, claimed they were terrorists, and threw them in a hole for 12 years. We can't even try them now, because of course they got tortured and any evidence is now inadmissable.
Are you really good with this? That the President of the United States can just point at someone, go "he's a terrorist", and boom, off you got into some extrajudicial gulag, without any rights or oversight? You don't see any concerns there?
Where does it say they weren't?
OK I'll give and say captured on raids and other activities as well. They weren't sitting eating a quarter pounder at Whataburger.
Frazzled wrote: Where does it say they weren't?
OK I'll give and say captured on raids and other activities as well. They weren't sitting eating a quarter pounder at Whataburger.
It doesn't matter where they were or what they were doing. They have a right to challenge their detentions, have a trial or at least a tribunal, and get sentenced appropriate to what they allegedly did.
I have no bleeding heart for these guys: if there is evidence they committed war crimes, and were sentenced to death after a tribunal, I'd be A-OK with that. That would be justice. Their lives, I don't care about.
But the idea we're a nation that lives by the rule of law is quite important to me and to be honest I thought it was to you too.
If a state had stolen 10 years of my life and spent that time torturing me I think I might give a thought to fighting against them if I were ever to be freed too...
So you agree with me. Excellent.
No, but I entirely understand why someone would go on from this and actually do the things that got them kidnapped in the first place.
Frazzled wrote: Where does it say they weren't?
OK I'll give and say captured on raids and other activities as well. They weren't sitting eating a quarter pounder at Whataburger.
It doesn't matter where they were or what they were doing. They have a right to challenge their detentions, have a trial or at least a tribunal, and get sentenced appropriate to what they allegedly did.
I have no bleeding heart for these guys: if there is evidence they committed war crimes, and were sentenced to death after a tribunal, I'd be A-OK with that. That would be justice. Their lives, I don't care about.
But the idea we're a nation that lives by the rule of law is quite important to me and to be honest I thought it was to you too.
If a state had stolen 10 years of my life and spent that time torturing me I think I might give a thought to fighting against them if I were ever to be freed too...
So you agree with me. Excellent.
No, but I entirely understand why someone would go on from this and actually do the things that got them kidnapped in the first place.
thereofre its prudent to keep them safely locked awy. Alternatively, and to link in a few threads, dump them in the middle of a furry convention. Oh the shennanigans that will ensue.
Frazzled wrote: thereofre its prudent to keep them safely locked awy. Alternatively, and to link in a few threads, dump them in the middle of a furry convention. Oh the shennanigans that will ensue.
Or maybe, you know, not do it in the first place and actually try to behave like a civilised nation?
Frazzled wrote: thereofre its prudent to keep them safely locked awy. Alternatively, and to link in a few threads, dump them in the middle of a furry convention. Oh the shennanigans that will ensue.
Or maybe, you know, not do it in the first place and actually try to behave like a civilised nation?
1. Why? It will increase the risk to our citizens. 2. When you find a civilized nation, be sure to tell us all about it.
Frazzled wrote: thereofre its prudent to keep them safely locked awy. Alternatively, and to link in a few threads, dump them in the middle of a furry convention. Oh the shennanigans that will ensue.
Or maybe, you know, not do it in the first place and actually try to behave like a civilised nation?
1. Why? It will increase the risk to our citizens.
2. When you find a civilized nation, be sure to tell us all about it.
Frazz, so will letting people have guns, or knives, or tools, or cars.
Frazzled wrote: 1. Why? It will increase the risk to our citizens.
You mean like poking the hornets nest by constantly invading half of the middle east, propping up "freedom fighters" all over the world and watching them then decide that they actually would rather start blowing you up instead?
Not having places like Guantanamo increases your risk exactly 0%.
2. When you find a civilized nation, be sure to tell us all about it.
Grey Templar wrote: Where is it written that Terrorists have a right to trial?
Prisoners of war don't require a trial either.
1.) They're alleged terrorists. They have never been tried for anything, let alone convicted. They've had no chance to show evidence they're even the right person, let alone guilty of what they allegedly did. This is the same administration that brought us Fast & The Furious, Benghazi, and the IRS scandal, btw - you seemed a lot less trusting of their competence in those threads. I'm sure they made no mistakes here though!
2.) Prisoners of war also have rights that have not been accorded to these guys, either. So maybe not a great example.
Grey Templar wrote: Can you prove that anyone there has been wrongfully accused of being a terrorist or having ties to a terror group?
There's as much proof they are rightfully accused as they are wrongfully accused, i.e. none. We scooped these guys up, claimed they were terrorists, and threw them in a hole for 12 years. We can't even try them now, because of course they got tortured and any evidence is now inadmissable.
Are you really good with this? That the President of the United States can just point at someone, go "he's a terrorist", and boom, off you got into some extrajudicial gulag, without any rights or oversight? You don't see any concerns there?
I should remind you that "Innocent until proven Guilty" only applies to people we are trying in the US or that are US citizens.
You may feel it should apply to everyone on the planet, but it actually doesn't.
So only suspected Terrorists who are US citizens actually deserve a trial under US law.
I'm not necessarily "good with this", but I'm not going to pretend I actually give a rat's sphincter about these particular individuals in question.
Frazzled wrote: 1. Why? It will increase the risk to our citizens.
You mean like poking the hornets nest by constantly invading half of the middle east, propping up "freedom fighters" all over the world and watching them then decide that they actually would rather start blowing you up instead?
Not having places like Guantanamo increases your risk exactly 0%.
2. When you find a civilized nation, be sure to tell us all about it.
You're right. we should not have left anyone behind in the first place. If only Gitmo hadn't magically appeared forcing us to launch WWIII without any reason whatsoever, there would be no terrorism, just peace and happiness and bacon. America truly the world's most evil villain.
Grey Templar wrote: I should remind you that "Guilty until proven innocent" only applies to people we are trying in the US or that are US citizens.
Surely you mean innocent until proven guilty?
You may feel it should apply to everyone on the planet, but it actually doesn't.
So only suspected Terrorists who are US citizens actually deserve a trial under US law.
Actually, if a crime is commited against America/American citizens and the suspect is remanded into US custody they would be tried under US law, regardless of what that crime was. If the nation where the person was aprehended did not agree to transfer the person into the care of the US, they could be tried in the country where they were arrested, or released, or even protected (depends on what that country feels like doing).
You seem to have a really poor grasp of American and international law...
I'm not necessarily "good with this", but I'm not going to pretend I actually give a rat's sphincter about these particular individuals in question.
"They came for the people who had dark skin, beards and funny accents and I said nothing, as I was not one of those sorts of people... wait a second? Where did everyone go and why are you taking me?!?!"
Frazzled wrote: 1. Why? It will increase the risk to our citizens.
So do a lot of other things that we do under the rule of "innocent until proven guilty". Imagine:
*police arrest a random black guy for a murder because it's easier than finding the real killer*
Police: "you're clearly guilty of something, so we'll just put you in jail forever."
Victim: "but there's no evidence! I'm innocent!"
Police: "we don't care, it would increase the risk to our citizens if we let you out."
Victim: "but the constitution says you can't do this!"
Police: "oops, you're right."
*police move the suspect to an offshore prison facility that is outside of US territory*
Grey Templar wrote: I should remind you that "Innocent until proven Guilty" only applies to people we are trying in the US or that are US citizens.
And this argument depends on the ridiculous technicality that we can have people in US prisons that are entirely under US control, but because we put those prisons outside our border they don't count as being "in the US".
You may feel it should apply to everyone on the planet, but it actually doesn't.
Obviously it shouldn't apply to everyone on the planet, because there are other countries with their own justice systems. But this isn't a case of letting other countries take care of their own business, it's a case of claiming judicial authority over a group of people while simultaneously claiming that they aren't part of our system. If the US justice system doesn't apply to these people then we shouldn't be holding them in US prisons.
I'm not necessarily "good with this", but I'm not going to pretend I actually give a rat's sphincter about these particular individuals in question.
Yeah, who cares if they might be innocent (or at least only guilty of lesser crimes that don't deserve this kind of punishment), we'll just call them "terrorists" and assume that any "terrorist" is an inhuman monster that deserves whatever happens to them.
Grey Templar wrote: Where is it written that Terrorists have a right to trial?
In the goddamn Constitution of the United States of America. Right after the bit about not depriving people of life, liberty or property without due process of law.
Grey Templar wrote: Where is it written that Terrorists have a right to trial?
In the goddamn Constitution of the United States of America. Right after the bit about not depriving people of life, liberty or property without due process of law.
The Constitution doesn't apply to these people.
What is being applied to them would be an undefined legal authority held by the US government to protect the people of the US.
I think we should write up a better defined code for dealing with Terrorists than what we currently are doing, but just shoehorning them into the existing system wouldn't work.
Then what legal system does? If they're not being held under US civilian law or as prisoners of war then what authority does the US have? Why are they in US prisons instead of free or turned over to some other country's legal system? The obvious answer here is that the US legal system should apply to them, but we've declared that it doesn't because it's much more convenient to to just decide that people are guilty and put them in prison without a trial.
What is being applied to them would be an undefined legal authority held by the US government to protect the people of the US.
It must be nice to be able to invent these things whenever it is convenient. "The existing laws are inconvenient, let's just make new ones that let us do whatever we want". Why even have laws at all if the government is allowed to ignore them whenever it feels like it?
I think we should write up a better defined code for dealing with Terrorists than what we currently are doing, but just shoehorning them into the existing system wouldn't work.
Sure it would. Most acts of terrorism (and all violent acts of terrorism) are already crimes, so people suspected of those crimes can be dealt with by the civilian court system. When people say that it "wouldn't work" what they really mean is that it would take away the ability to arbitrarily declare a person guilty and punish them, and people the US government has declared to be Bad People might be found innocent.
whembly wrote: Uh... I have no problem with the release.
If they can't/won't be charged, then release them.
Besides... more potential target practice for our drone operators.
Or... maybe they were implanted with tracking/homing devices internally. (okay... I keed. I need to stop watch spy movies).
I did think about that to be honest. GPS tag everyone you capture, let them go and just watch where they go. Leave the innocent ones alone and watch the others. For an added bonus the government declares they are not formally under US law and therefore have to be released to the government under whose jurisdiction the offence took place and then they have a trial (Some released, others aren't, doesn't need to be fixed.) which appeases a lot of the legal issues. Then follow them. If they're only a footsoldier just bomb wherever he ends up into oblivion, if they're something a bit more follow them and then bomb the more important places into oblivion.
Grey Templar wrote: Where is it written that Terrorists have a right to trial?
In the goddamn Constitution of the United States of America. Right after the bit about not depriving people of life, liberty or property without due process of law.
The Constitution doesn't apply to these people.
Why do you hate America?
Are they people? Then the constitution applies. There is no footnote in the Bill of Rights that says "* Unless they are terrorists", let alone "* Unless they are accused without evidence of being terrorists".
Terrorist is just the magical word politicians use these days to get what they want. Want to spy on your people or smash in their doors? Well we're protecting them from terrorists... Apparently there must be one of these Terrorists (I'm not sure they know what that words means...) under every bed, as countries seems to be endlessly creating new laws in order to protect us from them (I wonder how many domestic terrorist attacks happen every year in the West compared to your every day shooting sprees or gang violence).
Frazzled wrote: 1. Why? It will increase the risk to our citizens.
You mean like poking the hornets nest by constantly invading half of the middle east, propping up "freedom fighters" all over the world and watching them then decide that they actually would rather start blowing you up instead?
Not having places like Guantanamo increases your risk exactly 0%.
2. When you find a civilized nation, be sure to tell us all about it.
That was mean, cancel. I don't like captain Britain though, needs a beard.
Dropbear Victim wrote: What I don't understand is how a "terrorist" doesn't count as a prisoner of war when the USA has the "War on Terror".
For the same reason that a drug dealer doesn't count as a prisoner of war when the USA has a "War on Drugs". Colloquial naming conventions do not equal legal status.
Dropbear Victim wrote: What I don't understand is how a "terrorist" doesn't count as a prisoner of war when the USA has the "War on Terror".
Because a war depends on having a declaration of war, something only congress can do. We've replaced this inconvenience with the much more efficient approach of having the president issue a "go bomb these people, but don't explicitly call it a war" executive order.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
AlexHolker wrote: Are they people? Then the constitution applies. There is no footnote in the Bill of Rights that says "* Unless they are terrorists", let alone "* Unless they are accused without evidence of being terrorists".
This isn't really accurate. There are a lot of people that the US constitution doesn't apply to. For example, if you commit a crime in your home country (which, according to your flag, is not the US) you can't claim your 5th amendment right to remain silent. The issue here isn't that there are people that don't get any of the benefits of the US constitution and legal system, it's that we've placed certain people under our jurisdiction (holding them in US prisons, allowing the US government to decide their fate, etc) but simultaneously claim that they aren't part of our system. In normal criminal cases we would have a choice between trying the accused under the US legal system or deporting them and letting their home country deal with them. But if we say the magic "t" word we're apparently allowed to create a third status, where we get to do whatever we feel like with them and no laws apply.
I can't believe anyone in 2014 still defends this - the idea of the President of the US essentially having the powers of a king, complete with extrajudicial torture dungeons. it's just flabbergasting.
And yet, people are still screaming Benghazi, over and over again, like that's the real scandal.
Talon of Anathrax wrote: Yeah I would fight them too... In the media and the courts.
The situation in guantanamo is an outrage (and should be for a nation like the US that likes to pretend it has the moral high ground).
Anyway, the main problem with your point is the fact that if the US government hadn't made Guantanamo in the first place this would not be a problem (and terrorism wouldn't be one either.)
@bolded: you are surely not suggesting that terrorism came about because of Gitmo? I mean, that would require literal amounts of willful ignorance. Hopefully I'm misunderstanding you?
As to the article, Gitmo's mere existence should be offensive to Americans. If these people are criminals, prove it and be done with them. If they're not, there's no reason to hold them. We shouldn't be holding people for a decade or more with on charges, no rights and no repercussions. It's grotesque.
Yes, you are.
I was suggesting that the main reason to the amblitude of terrorism against the US is the US government's foreign policy.
AlexHolker wrote: Are they people? Then the constitution applies. There is no footnote in the Bill of Rights that says "* Unless they are terrorists", let alone "* Unless they are accused without evidence of being terrorists".
This isn't really accurate. There are a lot of people that the US constitution doesn't apply to. For example, if you commit a crime in your home country (which, according to your flag, is not the US) you can't claim your 5th amendment right to remain silent. The issue here isn't that there are people that don't get any of the benefits of the US constitution and legal system, it's that we've placed certain people under our jurisdiction (holding them in US prisons, allowing the US government to decide their fate, etc) but simultaneously claim that they aren't part of our system. In normal criminal cases we would have a choice between trying the accused under the US legal system or deporting them and letting their home country deal with them. But if we say the magic "t" word we're apparently allowed to create a third status, where we get to do whatever we feel like with them and no laws apply.
To be precise, the protections of the Constitution apply to everyone, but are not binding against every government. If I commit a crime in Australia I am guaranteed the protections of the United States Constitution, but only against the various governments of the United States. The United States isn't allowed to send a drone over to murder me just because I'm out of the country.
d-usa wrote: Some serious mental disconnect going on when people pretend that US laws don't give protections to the same people that are prosecuted under US laws.
Our laws either apply or they don't, picking and choosing like this is just stupid.
Exactly. Next time I'm on holiday in the USA, I'm going on a crime spree, and when the police come for me, I'll laugh and say, I'm not American, your laws don't apply to me!
Ouze wrote: I can't believe anyone in 2014 still defends this - the idea of the President of the US essentially having the powers of a king, complete with extrajudicial torture dungeons. it's just flabbergasting.
And yet, people are still screaming Benghazi, over and over again, like that's the real scandal.
You say that at the same time you support Obama flagrantly violating the law on immigration. Nice.
d-usa wrote: Some serious mental disconnect going on when people pretend that US laws don't give protections to the same people that are prosecuted under US laws.
Our laws either apply or they don't, picking and choosing like this is just stupid.
Exactly. Next time I'm on holiday in the USA, I'm going on a crime spree, and when the police come for me, I'll laugh and say, I'm not American, your laws don't apply to me!
I suggest you go all out. Wear a redcoat uniform. When the police come demand inform them that Her Majesty has sent you...
Ouze wrote: I can't believe anyone in 2014 still defends this - the idea of the President of the US essentially having the powers of a king, complete with extrajudicial torture dungeons. it's just flabbergasting.
And yet, people are still screaming Benghazi, over and over again, like that's the real scandal.
You say that at the same time you support Obama flagrantly violating the law on immigration. Nice.
Psst...
Letting people stay in the country does not equate to setting up internment camps where internationally condemned torture is being carried out...
Sorry, I meant 'does not equate' for rational people, some might have a partisan (or other) agenda so strong they can actually delude themselves it's the same thing.
Ouze wrote: I can't believe anyone in 2014 still defends this - the idea of the President of the US essentially having the powers of a king, complete with extrajudicial torture dungeons. it's just flabbergasting.
And yet, people are still screaming Benghazi, over and over again, like that's the real scandal.
You say that at the same time you support Obama flagrantly violating the law on immigration. Nice.
Although I'm aware I am now playing a rousing game of off-topic #whataboutism at this point, I nonetheless would love to see a citation for where I allegedly "supported Obama flagrantly violating the law on immigration".
AlexHolker wrote: To be precise, the protections of the Constitution apply to everyone, but are not binding against every government. If I commit a crime in Australia I am guaranteed the protections of the United States Constitution, but only against the various governments of the United States. The United States isn't allowed to send a drone over to murder me just because I'm out of the country.
President Obama has argued, and done, exactly that several times.
You say that at the same time you support Obama flagrantly violating the law on immigration. Nice.
Obama's EO didn't violate any Federal law. Greg Abbott wants that to be the case, but it didn't and it shows because he had to make a vague appeal to the "Do what I want you to do!" clause of the Constituion.
To be precise, the protections of the Constitution apply to everyone, but are not binding against every government. If I commit a crime in Australia I am guaranteed the protections of the United States Constitution, but only against the various governments of the United States. The United States isn't allowed to send a drone over to murder me just because I'm out of the country.
The protections of the US Constitution apply only to US citizens and people residing in the US, or its protectorates. If you, as an Australian citizen, commit a crime in Australia the US Constitution doesn't apply to you. It may apply to US action against you, but that's a matter of international law, international relations, and your identity.
To be precise, the protections of the Constitution apply to everyone, but are not binding against every government. If I commit a crime in Australia I am guaranteed the protections of the United States Constitution, but only against the various governments of the United States. The United States isn't allowed to send a drone over to murder me just because I'm out of the country.
The protections of the US Constitution apply only to US citizens and people residing in the US, or its protectorates. If you, as an Australian citizen, commit a crime in Australia the US Constitution doesn't apply to you. It may apply to US action against you, but that's a matter of international law, international relations, and your identity.
Wrong. The US Constitution is a set of rules binding the governments of the United States: it tells them what they must do, and what they must not do. When it says that they must not do X against people, that's what it means: any people, with no room to weasel out by saying that some subset of "people" (such as foreigners or the fiction of unlawful combatants) are exempt.
When it says that they must not do X against people, that's what it means: any people, with no room to weasel out by saying that some subset of "people" (such as foreigners or the fiction of unlawful combatants) are exempt.
If you commit a crime in Australia the US Federal Government has no responsibility to protect your self-assumed or acknowledged rights, and the US Constitution does not enshrine them absent the qualities I laid out. Natural rights follow from being a human, not from being a citizen of a particular State. This presents many problems for US detention practices, but not the one you have outlined.
AlexHolker wrote: Wrong. The US Constitution is a set of rules binding the governments of the United States: it tells them what they must do, and what they must not do.
Binding the Federal Government of the US. Whether or not it binds the State and local governments of the US is up for debate.
No, it is not up for debate. The Fourteenth Amendment even explicitly states that it binds them.
Ouze wrote: I can't believe anyone in 2014 still defends this - the idea of the President of the US essentially having the powers of a king, complete with extrajudicial torture dungeons. it's just flabbergasting.
And yet, people are still screaming Benghazi, over and over again, like that's the real scandal.
BENGHAZI IS A REAL FETHING SCANDAL!
There... better?
Anyways... we do have to be careful here guys/gals... the CIA and other intelligence operatives live in the legal grey area... and needs to in order to function. However, I will also say that there needs to be a limit and it is asinine to have indefinite detention.
No, it is not up for debate. The Fourteenth Amendment even explicitly states that it binds them.
The Fourteenth Amendment of the US Constitution explicitly states that no State shall make or enforce a law which abridges the rights and privileges of US citizens. It does not explicitly state that US States are bound to the authority of the document, that only came about due to the doctrine of incorporation.
Frazzled wrote: You say that at the same time you support Obama flagrantly violating the law on immigration. Nice.
Although I'm aware I am now playing a rousing game of off-topic #whataboutism at this point, I nonetheless would love to see a citation for where I allegedly "supported Obama flagrantly violating the law on immigration"..
Frazzled wrote: You say that at the same time you support Obama flagrantly violating the law on immigration. Nice.
Although I'm aware I am now playing a rousing game of off-topic #whataboutism at this point, I nonetheless would love to see a citation for where I allegedly "supported Obama flagrantly violating the law on immigration"..
Know ye all that on this Day of our Lord, the 9th day of December, that Frazzled – Cheuffeur of the Great Wienie-didst institute and install this Writ of…Apologee to the Right and Honorable Sir Ouze, for questioning him on the point of Honor concerning the one named Obama.
Be warned all that this Writ of Apologee does not excuse either party from the field of battle should Honor be not sufficiently clarified, with whippy stick in hand until satisfaction is dealt by Sweet Fate herself.
Ouze wrote: The urge to print that post out on some fancy paper and frame it on my wall is enormous.
To add some zest imagine some British town crier ringing a bell in the public square, shouting it out, and hammering it on the door of the nearest church.
BAGRAM AIRFIELD — Following the release of five high-ranking Taliban operatives in exchange for American prisoner of war Bowe Bergdahl two weeks ago, Air Force drone pilots have since been collectively champing at the bit, and according to several sources, are only “two Monsters and a Doritos binge” shy of working themselves into a “click-and-kill” frenzy.
With the drawdown in Afghanistan and surgical airstrikes fewer and further between, numerous drone pilots told reporters they enthusiastically approve of the Taliban detainee release. Many have lamented the lull in action and expressed a desire to return to the “good ol’ days downrange.”
“Nyah, listen here, nyah,” said Capt. Jeb Jacobs, slurping a glistening, six-inch string of drool back into his mouth, “I didn’t join up just to sit around in some chair all day!”
Jacobs, a Level 86 Blood Elf, then excused himself to resume a particularly arduous quest, explaining the importance of “stretching the legs and getting out and about in the World [of Warcraft].”
Sources at Bagram confirmed that upon news of the controversial prisoner exchange, drone pilots flooded the local MWR office in droves, seeking to purchase hunting tags in advance of Taliban season, a limited window of opportunity decreed only by the Commander-in-Chief. A dedicated 4chan forum has provided a haven where pilots aspiring to claim one of the coveted high-value targets can dispel rumors, swap embellished anecdotes, troll and Rickroll one another.
“You daggone right we ain’t gonna just sit around!” whooped Capt. Leroy Schaffer, barging in and knocking over his brimming spitter, excitedly waving a pair of red hunting tags. “We’s a gonna hunt us some Tal-EE-ban! Yee-yee!”
“YEE-YEE!”
“YEEEEEEEE-YEEEEEEEEEEEE!”
“YEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE-YEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!”
After several minutes of authentic backwoods gibberish and intermittent whoops and hollers, Jacobs and Schaffer broke out celebratory Monsters and shotgunned the energy drinks in each other’s faces.
“I’ve got a ragin’ freedom boner,” declared Jacobs.
“Me, too,” concurred Schaffer. “Let’s go wait for the Warden [Obama] to call.”
Just going to post this here. Though there's a lot of things I don't agree with Sen. McCain on, this pretty much sums up my thoughts on the entire situation, and far more eloquently than I am ever likely to be.
Psienesis wrote: Just going to post this here. Though there's a lot of things I don't agree with Sen. McCain on, this pretty much sums up my thoughts on the entire situation, and far more eloquently than I am ever likely to be.
Psienesis wrote: Just going to post this here. Though there's a lot of things I don't agree with Sen. McCain on, this pretty much sums up my thoughts on the entire situation, and far more eloquently than I am ever likely to be.
Given that John McCain was an actual PoW, and was actually tortured, and that Rick Santorum is, basically, a walking dictionary definition of "nimrod", I believe I will have to back Senator McCain on that topic.
Psienesis wrote: Just going to post this here. Though there's a lot of things I don't agree with Sen. McCain on, this pretty much sums up my thoughts on the entire situation, and far more eloquently than I am ever likely to be.
I know he is more eloquent than I would be in his position. Men like these CIA agents tortured John McCain for years, so my response would be much more along the lines of "hang the bastards, raze the CIA to the ground and let future administrations know that these men sold their souls and died for nothing."
Psienesis wrote: Just going to post this here. Though there's a lot of things I don't agree with Sen. McCain on, this pretty much sums up my thoughts on the entire situation, and far more eloquently than I am ever likely to be.
I still remember somebody telling McCain (during his 2008 run I think) that he just doesn't understand torture...
That was Santorum
That's right, during 2012:
HH: Now your former colleague, John McCain, said look, there’s no record, there’s no evidence here that these methods actually led to the capture or the killing of bin Laden. Do you disagree with that? Or do you think he’s got an argument?
RS: I don’t, everything I’ve read shows that we would not have gotten this information as to who this man was if it had not been gotten information from people who were subject to enhanced interrogation. And so this idea that we didn’t ask that question while Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was being waterboarded, he doesn’t understand how enhanced interrogation works. I mean, you break somebody, and after they’re broken, they become cooperative. And that’s when we got this information. And one thing led to another, and led to another, and that’s how we ended up with bin Laden.
A good speech by McCain, one I agree with. I hate the idea we can't release a report with all the messed up things we did in it because people might know about all the messed up things we did and be (rightfully) mad at us. I mean, WTF?
I guess two wrongs do make a right! That's why this gakky government always go after the whistleblowers - because they're only refusing to cover up agency-wide betrayals of the public trust and not lying to Congress to try to perpetuate those crimes.
Been going through media reports/analysis of the CIA torture report these past few hours, and it makes for very grim reading, very grim reading...
To save anybody else the hassle of reading what I've read, I'll sum up the key points from those in authority.
Former CIA chiefs:
"Son, we live in a world that has walls, and those walls have to be guarded by men with guns. Who's gonna do it? You?...I have a greater responsibility than you could possibly fathom. You weep for the suspects, and you curse the CIA. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know. That those suspects' death, while tragic, probably saved lives. And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives.
You don't want the truth because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that wall, you need me on that wall. We use words like honor, code, loyalty. We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to people who rise and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that I provide, and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather you just said thank you, and went on your way, Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon, and stand a post. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you are entitled to. YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!!
and a reaction from everybody's favourite commander in chief:
Bad things happened at the CIA. Torture is evil, certain individuals stepped over the line. BUT, nobody is to blame. Let's move on. I'm off to play golf...
whembly wrote: You do know that report was ginned up by Senate Democrats...right? You do know that the investigators did NOT interview the actual CIA operatives and their superiors.. right?
So? The entire reason this report is necessary is because the CIA operatives and their superiors have been lying for over a decade to make themselves look good. What possible insight do you think we are missing by not giving a bunch of war criminals another opportunity to spout counterfactual bs about their actions and the results of those actions?
Whembly, you speak a lot of sense most of the time, and this post is not directly aimed at you (or anybody else for that matter)
but
As somebody who loves American history, and has a keen interest in American politics, I watch with apprehension as it slowly morphs in a police state, IMO,
and I look at the American revolution, the struggles of John Adams, Washington, et al
Jose A. Rodriguez Jr. is a 31-year veteran of the CIA.
The men and women of my former organization, the CIA, are accustomed to frequent and sudden reversals of direction from their political leaders. But the latest twists and turns are especially dramatic.
In one ear they hear the public, the media and members of Congress raising alarms about the terrorist threat from the Islamic State: Do something! Do it now! Why didn’t you do something sooner? Politicians from both sides of the aisle are saying that the militant group is an enormous challenge and must be prevented from bringing its brutality to America’s shores. The president assures us that the United States will “degrade and ultimately destroy” these terrorists, while the vice president doubles down and says we will follow the Islamic State to “the gates of hell.”
But shouting in CIA officers’ other ear are people such as Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) regarding the 500-page summary of the Senate Intelligence Committee’s report on the agency’s interrogation efforts, which is expected to be released next week. The report’s leaked conclusion, which has been reported on widely, that the interrogation program brought no intelligence value is an egregious falsehood; it’s a dishonest attempt to rewrite history. I’m bemused that the Senate could devote so many resources to studying the interrogation program and yet never once speak to any of the key people involved in it, including the guy who ran it (that would be me).
According to news accounts of the report, Feinstein and her supporters will say that the CIA violated American principles and hid the ugly truth from Congress, the White House and the public. When the report comes out, I expect that few of the critics who will echo Feinstein’s charges will have read it — and far fewer will read or understand the minority response and the CIA’s rebuttal.
The interrogation program was authorized by the highest levels of the U.S. government, judged legal by the Justice Department and proved effective by any reasonable standard. The leaders of the Senate and House Intelligence Committees and of both parties in Congress were briefed on the program more than 40 times between 2002 and 2009. But Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) tried to deny that she was told in 2002 that detainees had been waterboarded. That is simply not true. I was among those who briefed her.
There’s great hypocrisy in politicians’ criticism of the CIA’s interrogation program. In the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, lawmakers urged us to do everything possible to prevent another attack on our soil. Members of Congress and the administration were nearly unanimous in their desire that the CIA do all that it could to debilitate and destroy al-Qaeda. The CIA got the necessary approvals to do so and kept Congress briefed throughout. But as our successes grew, some lawmakers’ recollections shrank in regard to the support they once offered. Here are a couple of reminders.
On May 26, 2002, Feinstein was quoted in the New York Times saying that the attacks of 9/11 were a real awakening and that it would no longer be “business as usual.” The attacks, she said, let us know “that the threat is profound” and “that we have to do some things that historically we have not wanted to do to protect ourselves.”
After extraordinary CIA efforts, aided by information obtained through the enhanced-interrogation program, Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the self-proclaimed architect of the 9/11 attacks, was captured in Pakistan. Shortly afterward, Sen. John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.), then the ranking Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, appeared on CNN’s “Late Edition” on March 2, 2003. Rockefeller, who had been extensively briefed about the CIA’s efforts, told Wolf Blitzer that “happily, we don’t know where [KSM] is,” adding: “He’s in safekeeping, under American protection. He’ll be grilled by us. I’m sure we’ll be proper with him, but I’m sure we’ll be very, very tough with him.”
When Blitzer asked about how KSM would be interrogated, Rockefeller assured him that “there are presidential memorandums that prescribe and allow certain measures to be taken, but we have to be careful.” Then he added: “On the other hand, he does have the information. Getting that information will save American lives. We have no business not getting that information.”
And that’s not all. Blitzer asked if the United States should turn over KSM to a friendly country with no restrictions against torture. Rockefeller, laughing, said he wouldn’t rule it out: “I wouldn’t take anything off the table where he is concerned, because this is the man who has killed hundreds and hundreds of Americans over the last 10 years.”
If Feinstein, Rockefeller and other politicians were saying such things in print and on national TV, imagine what they were saying to us in private. We did what we were asked to do, we did what we were assured was legal, and we know our actions were effective. Our reward, a decade later, is to hear some of these same politicians expressing outrage for what was done and, even worse, mischaracterizing the actions taken and understating the successes achieved.
I’m confident that my former CIA colleagues who are still on the job will do what is necessary to protect the nation from new Islamic State and continuing al-Qaeda threats. But in the back of their minds will be the nagging thought that, as they carry out legal, authorized and necessary actions, they may be only a few years away from being criticized and second-guessed by the people who today are urging them onward to the “gates of hell.”
whembly wrote: You do know that the investigators did NOT interview the actual CIA operatives and their superiors.. right?
You mean the operatives who burned the tapes they were lawfully ordered by Congress to preserve as evidence? Those guys? Huh, I wonder what they would have said.
So, this brings us to some housekeeping - Do you guys think the CIA torture report needs it's own thread or is this one close enough?
Also, I was wondering.
I'm not a historian, and this is a actual question.
Is it normal, or at least typical, for societies to trend more authoritarian over time, or does that thing sort of wax and wane with international pressures and events?
Ouze wrote: Some housekeeping - Do you guys think the CIA torture report needs it's own thread or is this one close enough?
Doesn't matter to me... but, if there's more discussion to be had then, yeah.
Also, I was wondering.
I'm not a historian, and this is a actual question.
Is it normal, or at least typical, for societies to trend more authoritarian over time, or does that thing sort of wax and wane with international pressures and events?
I'd see it waxing/waning in general.
Just look at what happened in WW2 Japanese Internment camps.
So enhance interrogation was approved at the highest level of government.
Figure they're smarter then the average Senator and if like me. Kept copies of documentation showing where the approval came from and who knew what was going on briefing recording incriminating a bunch of people in Bush and Obama Admin. Fukk it. Let's prosecute them.
I can see intel gleaned from GITMO and other unsavory source that actually tortured prisoners (standing orders were to turn some over to to nations they belong to) coming out.
Germany
UK Australia
Poland
Romania
Thailand
Japan
France
.....
Let's see what intel we got and where the intel went. This ought to be a BLAST
Edit
Countries mention being they might/might not have recieved intel from above mention situation
I'm not a historian, and this is a actual question.
Is it normal, or at least typical, for societies to trend more authoritarian over time, or does that thing sort of wax and wane with international pressures and events?
Which societies? Feudal? Capitalist? Communist? Stalinist? Theocracies?
"We did nothing wrong. We didn't brake any laws and it's a-ok because we said so. Anyone who questions us wants Americans to die!"
I'm sorry, but the defenses coming out of the CIA are BS. They are ass covering of the highest order. Even if someone did say that what they did was legal, it's clear that advice is wrong. Thats not a question of wether what was done was legal or not, but where the majority of the blaim lies. I can't believe that anyone could think that beating people, in one case to death, and many of the other violent acts were anything but torture. The excuse "I was told it was ok" just doesn't wash.
Report mention NO INTEL was gain, None, nada, zip, zero, and/or nothing leading to anything...is that what the Democrats are saying? Even though no CIA official was interviewed I heard?
Jihadin wrote: Report mention NO INTEL was gain, None, nada, zip, zero, and/or nothing leading to anything...is that what the Democrats are saying? Even though no CIA official was interviewed I heard?
The CIA had their chance. If they actually had actionable intelligence gained from torture, they should have given it to someone to use it to take action. At best, what you are suggesting is that the CIA used torture to learn something important... and then just sat on it.
Osama Bin Laden was found despite the CIA torturing people into providing false leads. The CIA tortured people into pretending they had intelligence regarding attacks that never existed. Nothing the CIA's torturers did had any positive benefits, no matter what that goat fether Rodriguez says.
Jihadin wrote: Report mention NO INTEL was gain, None, nada, zip, zero, and/or nothing leading to anything...is that what the Democrats are saying? Even though no CIA official was interviewed I heard?
The CIA had their chance. If they actually had actionable intelligence gained from torture, they should have given it to someone to use it to take action. At best, what you are suggesting is that the CIA used torture to learn something important... and then just sat on it.
Osama Bin Laden was found despite the CIA torturing people into providing false leads. The CIA tortured people into pretending they had intelligence regarding attacks that never existed. Nothing the CIA's torturers did had any positive benefits, no matter what that goat fether Rodriguez says.
Detainee's mention the name of OBL messenger runner from what I understand.
Jihadin wrote: Detainee's mention the name of OBL messenger runner from what I understand.
No, they did not. A foreign intelligence service told the CIA the name of Ibrahim Saeed Ahmed, not any of the people they were torturing.
CIA woud be a foreign intelligence service to you since your Australian. Pakistan confirm the name 2011.
Identification of al-Qaeda couriers was an early priority for interrogators at CIA black sites and the Guantanamo Bay detention camp, because bin Laden was believed to communicate through such couriers while concealing his whereabouts from al-Qaeda foot soldiers and top commanders.[23] Bin Laden was known not to use phones after 1998, when the U.S. had launched missile strikes against his bases in Afghanistan and Sudan in August (Operation Infinite Reach) by tracking an associate's satellite phone.[24]
By 2002, interrogators had heard uncorroborated claims about an al-Qaeda courier with the kunya Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti (sometimes referred to as Sheikh Abu Ahmed from Kuwait).[23] One of those claims came from Mohammed al-Qahtani, a detainee interrogated for 48 days more or less continuously between November 23, 2002, and January 11, 2003. At some point during this period, al-Qahtani told interrogators about a man known as Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti who was part of the inner circle of al-Qaeda.[25] Later in 2003, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the alleged operational chief of al-Qaeda, stated that he was acquainted with al-Kuwaiti, but that the man was not active in al-Qaeda.[26]
In 2004, a prisoner named Hassan Ghul revealed that bin Laden relied on a trusted courier known as al-Kuwaiti.[27] Ghul stated that al-Kuwaiti was close to bin Laden as well as Khalid Sheik Mohammed and Mohammed's successor Abu Faraj al-Libbi. Ghul revealed that al-Kuwaiti had not been seen in some time, which led U.S. officials to suspect he was traveling with bin Laden. When confronted with Ghul's account, Mohammed maintained his original story.[26] Abu Faraj al-Libbi was captured in 2005 and transferred to Guantánamo in September 2006.[28] He told CIA interrogators that bin Laden's courier was a man named Maulawi Abd al-Khaliq Jan and denied knowing al-Kuwaiti. Because both Mohammed and al-Libbi had minimized al-Kuwaiti's importance, officials speculated that he was part of bin Laden's inner circle.[26]
In 2007, officials learned al-Kuwaiti's real name,[29] though they said they would disclose neither the name nor how they learned it.[26] Pakistani officials in 2011 revealed the courier's name as Ibrahim Saeed Ahmed; he was from Pakistan's Swat Valley. He and his brother Abrar and their families were living at bin Laden's compound.[30]
Since the name Maulawi Abd al-Khaliq Jan appears in the JTF-GTMO detainee assessment for Abu Faraj al-Libbi released by WikiLeaks on April 24, 2011,[31] there was speculation that the U.S. assault on the Abbottabad compound was expedited as a precaution.[32] The CIA never found anyone named Maulawi Jan and concluded that the name was an invention of al-Libbi.[26]
A 2010 wiretap of another suspect picked up a conversation with al-Kuwaiti. CIA paramilitary operatives located al-Kuwaiti in August 2010 and followed him back to the Abbottabad compound, which led them to speculate it was bin Laden's location.[23]
The courier and a relative (who was either a brother or a cousin) were killed in the May 2, 2011, raid.[26] Afterward, some locals identified the men as Pashtuns named Arshad and Tareq Khan.[33] Arshad Khan was carrying an old, noncomputerized Pakistani identification card, which identified him as from Khat Kuruna, a village near Charsadda in northwestern Pakistan. Pakistani officials have found no record of an Arshad Khan in that area and suspect the men were living under false identities.[34]
Jose A. Rodriguez Jr. is a 31-year veteran of the CIA.
And a traitor to the very ideals of America. Put him up against the wall.
You can petition our Federal Prosecutor for this.
Have at it brah.
I'm working on it. The wording needs to be just right.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jihadin wrote: Report mention NO INTEL was gain, None, nada, zip, zero, and/or nothing leading to anything...is that what the Democrats are saying? Even though no CIA official was interviewed I heard?
Senator McCain was a Republican the last time I looked.
Jose A. Rodriguez Jr. is a 31-year veteran of the CIA.
And a traitor to the very ideals of America. Put him up against the wall.
You can petition our Federal Prosecutor for this.
Have at it brah.
I'm working on it. The wording needs to be just right.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jihadin wrote: Report mention NO INTEL was gain, None, nada, zip, zero, and/or nothing leading to anything...is that what the Democrats are saying? Even though no CIA official was interviewed I heard?
Senator McCain was a Republican the last time I looked.
*checks*
Yep, still an old-school Republican.
Not on the SSCI though.
Dec 09 2014
Washington, D.C. – U.S. Senator John McCain (R-AZ) today delivered the following statement on the floor of the U.S. Senate on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence report on CIA interrogation methods:
“Mr. President, I rise in support of the release – the long-delayed release – of the Senate Intelligence Committee’s summarized, unclassified review of the so-called ‘enhanced interrogation techniques’ that were employed by the previous administration to extract information from captured terrorists. It is a thorough and thoughtful study of practices that I believe not only failed their purpose – to secure actionable intelligence to prevent further attacks on the U.S. and our allies – but actually damaged our security interests, as well as our reputation as a force for good in the world.
“I believe the American people have a right – indeed, a responsibility – to know what was done in their name; how these practices did or did not serve our interests; and how they comported with our most important values.
“I commend Chairman Feinstein and her staff for their diligence in seeking a truthful accounting of policies I hope we will never resort to again. I thank them for persevering against persistent opposition from many members of the intelligence community, from officials in two administrations, and from some of our colleagues.
“The truth is sometimes a hard pill to swallow. It sometimes causes us difficulties at home and abroad. It is sometimes used by our enemies in attempts to hurt us. But the American people are entitled to it, nonetheless.
“They must know when the values that define our nation are intentionally disregarded by our security policies, even those policies that are conducted in secret. They must be able to make informed judgments about whether those policies and the personnel who supported them were justified in compromising our values; whether they served a greater good; or whether, as I believe, they stained our national honor, did much harm and little practical good.
“What were the policies? What was their purpose? Did they achieve it? Did they make us safer? Less safe? Or did they make no difference? What did they gain us? What did they cost us? The American people need the answers to these questions. Yes, some things must be kept from public disclosure to protect clandestine operations, sources and methods, but not the answers to these questions.
“By providing them, the Committee has empowered the American people to come to their own decisions about whether we should have employed such practices in the past and whether we should consider permitting them in the future. This report strengthens self-government and, ultimately, I believe, America’s security and stature in the world. I thank the Committee for that valuable public service.
“I have long believed some of these practices amounted to torture, as a reasonable person would define it, especially, but not only the practice of waterboarding, which is a mock execution and an exquisite form of torture. Its use was shameful and unnecessary; and, contrary to assertions made by some of its defenders and as the Committee’s report makes clear, it produced little useful intelligence to help us track down the perpetrators of 9/11 or prevent new attacks and atrocities.
“I know from personal experience that the abuse of prisoners will produce more bad than good intelligence. I know that victims of torture will offer intentionally misleading information if they think their captors will believe it. I know they will say whatever they think their torturers want them to say if they believe it will stop their suffering. Most of all, I know the use of torture compromises that which most distinguishes us from our enemies, our belief that all people, even captured enemies, possess basic human rights, which are protected by international conventions the U.S. not only joined, but for the most part authored.
“I know, too, that bad things happen in war. I know in war good people can feel obliged for good reasons to do things they would normally object to and recoil from.
“I understand the reasons that governed the decision to resort to these interrogation methods, and I know that those who approved them and those who used them were dedicated to securing justice for the victims of terrorist attacks and to protecting Americans from further harm. I know their responsibilities were grave and urgent, and the strain of their duty was onerous.
“I respect their dedication and appreciate their dilemma. But I dispute wholeheartedly that it was right for them to use these methods, which this report makes clear were neither in the best interests of justice nor our security nor the ideals we have sacrificed so much blood and treasure to defend.
“The knowledge of torture’s dubious efficacy and my moral objections to the abuse of prisoners motivated my sponsorship of the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005, which prohibits ‘cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment’ of captured combatants, whether they wear a nation’s uniform or not, and which passed the Senate by a vote of 90-9.
“Subsequently, I successfully offered amendments to the Military Commissions Act of 2006, which, among other things, prevented the attempt to weaken Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, and broadened definitions in the War Crimes Act to make the future use of waterboarding and other ‘enhanced interrogation techniques’ punishable as war crimes.
“There was considerable misinformation disseminated then about what was and wasn’t achieved using these methods in an effort to discourage support for the legislation. There was a good amount of misinformation used in 2011 to credit the use of these methods with the death of Osama bin Laden. And there is, I fear, misinformation being used today to prevent the release of this report, disputing its findings and warning about the security consequences of their public disclosure.
“Will the report’s release cause outrage that leads to violence in some parts of the Muslim world? Yes, I suppose that’s possible, perhaps likely. Sadly, violence needs little incentive in some quarters of the world today. But that doesn’t mean we will be telling the world something it will be shocked to learn. The entire world already knows that we water-boarded prisoners. It knows we subjected prisoners to various other types of degrading treatment. It knows we used black sites, secret prisons. Those practices haven’t been a secret for a decade.
“Terrorists might use the report’s re-identification of the practices as an excuse to attack Americans, but they hardly need an excuse for that. That has been their life’s calling for a while now.
“What might come as a surprise, not just to our enemies, but to many Americans, is how little these practices did to aid our efforts to bring 9/11 culprits to justice and to find and prevent terrorist attacks today and tomorrow. That could be a real surprise, since it contradicts the many assurances provided by intelligence officials on the record and in private that enhanced interrogation techniques were indispensable in the war against terrorism. And I suspect the objection of those same officials to the release of this report is really focused on that disclosure – torture’s ineffectiveness – because we gave up much in the expectation that torture would make us safer. Too much.
“Obviously, we need intelligence to defeat our enemies, but we need reliable intelligence. Torture produces more misleading information than actionable intelligence. And what the advocates of harsh and cruel interrogation methods have never established is that we couldn’t have gathered as good or more reliable intelligence from using humane methods.
“The most important lead we got in the search for bin Laden came from using conventional interrogation methods. I think it is an insult to the many intelligence officers who have acquired good intelligence without hurting or degrading prisoners to assert we can’t win this war without such methods. Yes, we can and we will.
“But in the end, torture’s failure to serve its intended purpose isn’t the main reason to oppose its use. I have often said, and will always maintain, that this question isn’t about our enemies; it’s about us. It’s about who we were, who we are and who we aspire to be. It’s about how we represent ourselves to the world.
“We have made our way in this often dangerous and cruel world, not by just strictly pursuing our geopolitical interests, but by exemplifying our political values, and influencing other nations to embrace them. When we fight to defend our security we fight also for an idea, not for a tribe or a twisted interpretation of an ancient religion or for a king, but for an idea that all men are endowed by the Creator with inalienable rights. How much safer the world would be if all nations believed the same. How much more dangerous it can become when we forget it ourselves even momentarily.
“Our enemies act without conscience. We must not. This executive summary of the Committee’s report makes clear that acting without conscience isn’t necessary, it isn’t even helpful, in winning this strange and long war we’re fighting. We should be grateful to have that truth affirmed.
“Now, let us reassert the contrary proposition: that is it essential to our success in this war that we ask those who fight it for us to remember at all times that they are defending a sacred ideal of how nations should be governed and conduct their relations with others – even our enemies.
“Those of us who give them this duty are obliged by history, by our nation’s highest ideals and the many terrible sacrifices made to protect them, by our respect for human dignity to make clear we need not risk our national honor to prevail in this or any war. We need only remember in the worst of times, through the chaos and terror of war, when facing cruelty, suffering and loss, that we are always Americans, and different, stronger, and better than those who would destroy us.
“Thank you.”
He's been fighting this since 2005. Yet the report is one sided. SSCI claim they were uninformed or mislead. If one going to release a report would you cover all aspects of the situation or go with what you want people to perceive you at.
You reposted the same McCain speech that I posted earlier in this thread. As I mentioned then, there are few things on which I agree with the Senator, but this is one of them.
What else do you expect the report to say? We, the United States of America, engaged in the action of torture. This is inexcusable, and unjustifiable.
Psienesis wrote: You reposted the same McCain speech that I posted earlier in this thread. As I mentioned then, there are few things on which I agree with the Senator, but this is one of them.
What else do you expect the report to say? We, the United States of America, engaged in the action of torture. This is inexcusable, and unjustifiable.
You posted the link.
All I am saying why is the report one sided. None of the CIA officers were interviewed. Brennan came out walking a tight rope basically throwing SSCI under the bus. Two versions. One "Official" Report by the Democrats and rebuttal by CIA Director today. Obama caught in the middle.
For some odd reason this focus on EIT beginning of the "war". No mention on turning over "EPW" to host nations and turning the blind eye on what intel was gain from that action. A action cover both Admin. Since CIA was basically using US Military facilities and Field Manuals to accomplish their mission the Pentagon is on the hook to. Yet it seems the report is geared to discredit Bush and Cheney.
Jihadin wrote: All I am saying why is the report one sided. None of the CIA officers were interviewed.
You keep saying this as if it means something, but it is the CIA's own internal documents that are the basis for much of this report. The CIA has done nothing but lie to the Senate for over a decade, so why do you think they should be trusted to start speaking the truth now?
Honestly, I don't like either to many civilian death for me. I'm OK with killing the millitants (it is a war after all), but the drone bombing remind me of WWII bombing runs, just a hell of a lot more accurate.
whembly wrote: One policy makes captured terrorist extermely uncomfortable. But, are still alive
The other permanently makes 'em dead-dead, which has included innocent casualties.
That's not really a fair comparison. Execution by drone has some practical value, even if it's in a legal gray area. Torture doesn't. It accomplishes nothing besides letting a bunch of sadistic s satisfy their need to hurt people.
whembly wrote: One policy makes captured terrorist extermely uncomfortable. But, are still alive
The other permanently makes 'em dead-dead, which has included innocent casualties.
That's not really a fair comparison. Execution by drone has some practical value, even if it's in a legal gray area. Torture doesn't. It accomplishes nothing besides letting a bunch of sadistic s satisfy their need to hurt people.
Just so that we're clear... when you say "torture" you meant water-boarding... right?
Peregrine wrote: That's not really a fair comparison. Execution by drone has some practical value, even if it's in a legal gray area. Torture doesn't. It accomplishes nothing besides letting a bunch of sadistic s satisfy their need to hurt people.
Just so that we're clear... when you say "torture" you meant water-boarding... right?
Have you read the report? When the CIA pretended that waterboarding was the worst of what they did, they were lying. Waterboarding was bad enough, but they were literally raping prisoners for trying to commit suicide.
Peregrine wrote: That's not really a fair comparison. Execution by drone has some practical value, even if it's in a legal gray area. Torture doesn't. It accomplishes nothing besides letting a bunch of sadistic s satisfy their need to hurt people.
Just so that we're clear... when you say "torture" you meant water-boarding... right?
Have you read the report?
Yep.
When the CIA pretended that waterboarding was the worst of what they did, they were lying. Waterboarding was bad enough,
We're talking about those three detainees...right?
but they were literally raping prisoners for trying to commit suicide.
Wut? Can you show me where? I missed that....
Unless you're talking about the rectal feeding sessions?
If people are pretending that rectal "feedings" have anything to do with nutrition or that it is a legitimate medical procedure then they are truly beyond reasoning.
d-usa wrote: If people are pretending that rectal "feedings" have anything to do with nutrition or that it is a legitimate medical procedure then they are truly beyond reasoning.
I just don't consider it torture.
Vastly inappropirate? Absolutely. At the minimum, someone should lose their job.
EDIT: removed rest of text to put it in different thread.
d-usa wrote: If people are pretending that rectal "feedings" have anything to do with nutrition or that it is a legitimate medical procedure then they are truly beyond reasoning.
I just don't consider it torture.
The CIA considers it torture, that's the whole reason why they did it. You can read their own statements to that effect: while IV rehydration is safe and effective, it doesn't have the same deterrent effect as raping them whenever they refuse to drink.
d-usa wrote: If people are pretending that rectal "feedings" have anything to do with nutrition or that it is a legitimate medical procedure then they are truly beyond reasoning.
I just don't consider it torture.
Vastly inappropirate? Absolutely. At the minimum, someone should lose their job.
EDIT: removed rest of text to put it in different thread.
It is.
While I've never been a recipient of forced rectal feedings, I have been a victim of multiple rapes of a similar vein... It is torture Whembly.
Forced naso-gastric feedings are bad enough, I've had the procedure done to me (or at least attempted to be done a few times) during my training. But while we can argue about it being a violation of rights of self determination or torture or anything else at least it is a legitimate medical procedure which actually does provide nutrition.
(Title: is the 
s satisfy their need to hurt people.
