CIA "terror prisons" outside U.S.

[Animale]

So now that the administration has admitted to breaking the Geneva convention in terms of holding terrorist leaders secretly outside of the U.S., what are we to do?

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/09/06/ ... index.html

On one hand, it is another example of how this administration feels that it is above all rules. On the other hand, it undoubtably has helped in breaking up terrorist networks. So in this case, do the ends justify the means?

My answer if no, it does not. By ignoring international custom and law, we can no longer claim any type of moral high ground. The U.S., through the use of these secret and special prisons located in areas where torture is commonly practiced, basically become what we fear. Our moral compass need re-aligning, hopefully the acknowledgement of these prisons and prisoners is the first step. In my mind, institutional torture and long-term secret imprisonment are NEVER warranted as valid tactics against an enemy.

So now what? I'd like the think that people in this country will realize that this is another reason to make sure that the excesses of this administration are controlled soon, and hopefully for a long time into the future. Unfortunately, the only way to do that is to elect the Democrats into both houses so the investigation of all that has occured in the name of "freedom" can begin in earnest (special prosecuters, etc. - call it a witch-hunt if you will). And while I don't think that such investigations are a good thing short-term for the country, it will serve us well in the long term - an open and responsible government is good for all of us.

Animale

[Kaldaur]

Personally, I feel that one party in the legislature and another in the white house has always been good for business. A domination of government by one party leads to corruption and stifling of new ideas.
I think that the breakup of terror cells is a good thing. But I fear that in our attempt to make ourselves secure, we have lost the code of ethics that we so proudly trumpet around the world. Can we not interrogate and conduct investigations into these terrorists through a legal process? Can not a legal process be set up, if one doesn't exist, that allows us to deal with these criminals in the traditions of the United States of America, and not a bad chapter of 1984?
Terrorism is our new communism. That's fine with me. But we need to continue on in the traditions of democracy and open society even when, and maybe especially when, dealing with our enemies.

[Winnow]

On one hand, it is another example of how this administration feels that it is above all rules. On the other hand, it undoubtably has helped in breaking up terrorist networks. So in this case, do the ends justify the means?

The citizens of the United States are left to ponder whether the means taken have been the reason there hasn't been a major terrorist attack in the U.S. since 911 or if nothing would be different if another approach was taken.

That is debatable. What probably isn't, is if there is another attack on the scale of 911 inside the continental United Stated, yanking off fingernails of captured al qaeda in some distant country won't be an issue again for another 5 years.

As with everything (the Holocause never happened anyone?), memories and emotions fade over time. Look at some posters on this board. Some were, "fuck muslims" and ready to kill an entire religious belief and now are probably back to only wanting to kill lots of random brownies. Given time, the focus may narrow even more.

-for war and against the troops

[*~*stragi*~*]

I think the fact that it's probably a logistical nightmare to plan an attack on foreign soil for these groups has more to do with the fact that there hasn't been a second attack than anything the govt has done.

[Winnow]

I think the fact that it's probably a logistical nightmare to plan an attack on foreign soil for these groups has more to do with the fact that there hasn't been a second attack than anything the govt has done.

You could have said that before 911 as well I suppose. Sounds nice.

[kyoukan]

Aliens haven't invaded either so obviously the Bush administration knows what they are doing. Everyone just calm down and eat some more junk food and watch some TV.

[Xyun]

On one hand, it is another example of how this administration feels that it is above all rules. On the other hand, it undoubtably has helped in breaking up terrorist networks. So in this case, do the ends justify the means?

The citizens of the United States are left to ponder whether the means taken have been the reason there hasn't been a major terrorist attack in the U.S. since 911 or if nothing would be different if another approach was taken.

That is debatable. What probably isn't, is if there is another attack on the scale of 911 inside the continental United Stated, yanking off fingernails of captured al qaeda in some distant country won't be an issue again for another 5 years.

As with everything (the Holocause never happened anyone?), memories and emotions fade over time. Look at some posters on this board. Some were, "fuck muslims" and ready to kill an entire religious belief and now are probably back to only wanting to kill lots of random brownies. Given time, the focus may narrow even more.

-for war and against the troops

Yeah. It is pretty goddamn pathetic that our adherence to international laws (that we helped write), and furthermore our own laws, depend solely on the insecurities and vindictiveness of retarded crispies. Let's disregard two centuries of progress because our god hates sand niggers.

[Nick]

Ultimately if you act in a similar way as the "terrorists" to fight them, you have to ask if you're any better than them and if that's how you want your country to operate.

If the answers yes, you're just going to create more resentment against yourselves by extremists and prolong a fight. On the other hand, if you aren't tough, you risk letting them bully you.

At the end of the day though on an International war on terror you have to make sure you don't come off looking like the enemy you want to destroy, otherwise the other countries you need to help you, will rightfully turn their backs on the whole thing.

[vn_Tanc]

Hey remember when Clinton lied to America about his blow job?

How many times has this administration baldly denied the existence of any secret CIA prisons?

This is going to kick off the extraordinary rendition arguments again as well.

[Kylere]

Umm crispie is the lamest insult yet.

Could you all PLEASE come up with something new?

[Xyun]

Umm crispie is the lamest insult yet.

Could you all PLEASE come up with something new?

Hey! I used booboisie. Sorry you missed it.

[*~*stragi*~*]

I think the fact that it's probably a logistical nightmare to plan an attack on foreign soil for these groups has more to do with the fact that there hasn't been a second attack than anything the govt has done.

You could have said that before 911 as well I suppose. Sounds nice.

I don't see why it wouldn't apply pre or post. Not counting Oklahoma since it was an American dude, how many attacks have there been in my lifetime? Two that I know of. They aren't really all that common is my point and I doubt this administration has anything to do with a reduction in frequency of attacks that acutally happen within North America.

[Spang]

the world trade center was attacked before 9/11 along with 2 embassaies and the U.S.S. Cole. all that happened before G.W. took office. we've been attacked once during this administration.

[masteen]

the world trade center was attacked before 9/11 along with 2 embassaies and the U.S.S. Cole. all that happened before G.W. took office. we've been attacked once during this administration.

But the price of shifting their focus is the war in Iraq. How much are we spending on that every day?

The sad part is that we still have a porous southern border, an undermanned and overextended coast guard, an open border with those crazy canuks, and an airplane security network that is only marginally more effective than it was before 9/11. All of those would have been easier and cheaper than fucking with Iraq. Plus none of those involve killing or getting our soldier killed.

[*~*stragi*~*]

the world trade center was attacked before 9/11 along with 2 embassaies and the U.S.S. Cole. all that happened before G.W. took office. we've been attacked once during this administration.

Notice I specified North America and the first WTC attack was obviously counted as one of the two. We've constantly been over there during this administration so why bother. And are you sure the USS Cole was during Clinton? My memory is skewed on that.

edit: yeah october, nm. it's still irrelevant to my point.

[Nick]

Anyone who is trying to argue that the USA is safer now than it was before 9/11 needs their head screwed on.

You thought the blowback from Bin Laden was bad on 9/11? I can barely imagine what it's going to be like after the last 5 years actions.

Bit of a fucking awful thought that one.

[Spang]

i don't think the war in iraq is (was) necessary.

i forgot about the khobal towers. the United States is all over the world. you don't have to attack the US within US borders to attack the US. the United States had been attacked several times during a previous administration.

i personally don't feel safer but i don't feel any less safe either.

[Kelshara]

you don't have to attack the US within US borders to attack the US. the United States had been attacked several times during a previous administration.

So with this argument all the suicide bombings and attacks on US forces are terrorist attacks. Which makes this completely incorrect:

the world trade center was attacked before 9/11 along with 2 embassaies and the U.S.S. Cole. all that happened before G.W. took office. we've been attacked once during this administration.

By your own arguments there have been plenty of attacks during this administration.

[Cartalas]

you don't have to attack the US within US borders to attack the US. the United States had been attacked several times during a previous administration.

So with this argument all the suicide bombings and attacks on US forces are terrorist attacks. Which makes this completely incorrect:

the world trade center was attacked before 9/11 along with 2 embassaies and the U.S.S. Cole. all that happened before G.W. took office. we've been attacked once during this administration.

By your own arguments there have been plenty of attacks during this administration.

Not as many against American Civilians.

[Kelshara]

He didn't specify And since I'm in a grumpy tired mood today I'll smack him down for it!

[Spang]

i didn't count the attacks in Iraq and Afghanistan since they're both in a war and that's what happens in wars.

[Kelshara]

i didn't count the attacks in Iraq and Afghanistan since they're both in a war and that's what happens in wars.

Ah but the mission is accomplished, the war is over!

[Cartalas]

i didn't count the attacks in Iraq and Afghanistan since they're both in a war and that's what happens in wars.

Ah but the mission is accomplished, the war is over!

Your Right the War against the country of Iraq and Afghanistan were over before they started not the war on terror.

[*~*stragi*~*]

lol the war in iraq and afghanistan won't be over until we pull out.

[Cartalas]

lol the war in iraq and afghanistan won't be over until we pull out.

We are not fighting Iraq or Afghanistan we are fighting terror.

[Hesten]

lol the war in iraq and afghanistan won't be over until we pull out.

We are not fighting Iraq or Afghanistan we are fighting terror.

/em hands Cartalas the Dumbass of the Day award.

[Cartalas]

lol the war in iraq and afghanistan won't be over until we pull out.

We are not fighting Iraq or Afghanistan we are fighting terror.

/em hands Cartalas the Dumbass of the Day award.

Its been on your shelf for a long time I see.

[miir]

The invasion and occupation of Iraq just gave the terrorists a closer and more convenient target. They can kill american infidels on their doorstep instead of having to travel halfway around the world.

[Winnow]

The invasion and occupation of Iraq just gave the terrorists a closer and more convenient target. They can kill american infidels on their doorstep instead of having to travel halfway around the world.

Yeah, that's what it did!

[*~*stragi*~*]

well if you look at it that way then i guess we all win

[ooloof]

So now that the administration has admitted to breaking the Geneva convention in terms of holding terrorist leaders secretly outside of the U.S., what are we to do?

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/09/06/ ... index.html

On one hand, it is another example of how this administration feels that it is above all rules. On the other hand, it undoubtably has helped in breaking up terrorist networks. So in this case, do the ends justify the means?

My answer if no, it does not. By ignoring international custom and law, we can no longer claim any type of moral high ground. The U.S., through the use of these secret and special prisons located in areas where torture is commonly practiced, basically become what we fear. Our moral compass need re-aligning, hopefully the acknowledgement of these prisons and prisoners is the first step. In my mind, institutional torture and long-term secret imprisonment are NEVER warranted as valid tactics against an enemy.

So now what? I'd like the think that people in this country will realize that this is another reason to make sure that the excesses of this administration are controlled soon, and hopefully for a long time into the future. Unfortunately, the only way to do that is to elect the Democrats into both houses so the investigation of all that has occured in the name of "freedom" can begin in earnest (special prosecuters, etc. - call it a witch-hunt if you will). And while I don't think that such investigations are a good thing short-term for the country, it will serve us well in the long term - an open and responsible government is good for all of us.

Animale

I was reading an article about this the other day that this is not new (holding terrorist leaders secretly outside of the U.S.) and has been going on for over 30 years. Its just being publicized now as a way to blast the administration. Then again, He is the only one to admit it (at laest he is truthful?)