BUSH ADMITS CIA HAD SECRET PRISONS
 

So, not like it wasn't already known, but W just admitted for the first time that the CIA has secret prisons, and that a bunch of the prisoners (the implication is all, but in no way has that been said) are being transfered to military cutsody and will recieve Geneva convention rights.

Anyone care to speculate on what shoe is about to fall that made for this decision? Or, posed less cynically, why would W, cop to secret prisons or transfer prisoners now, after all this time?

Uh.

Bush just admitted that Iraq had no WMDs and not linked to 9/11 in a press conference just about a week ago. What's going on here? He's either on a drinking binge, someone injected him some truth serum or he's worried about democratic victory in the upcoming election.

anyway sorry to have gone slightly off topic.

Did he actually ever deny that, max?

I imagine it was somewhere in the "We do not torture" speech.

because we know Bush likes Black people

Personally, as I have stated before, I would not live in a country I did not think was up to torturing criminals to some degree in order to extract information required to hinder chaotic behavior on the level of mass-murder. I accept and embrace the fact that torture of a terrorist might sometimes be necessary action by my government if it means saving my life randomly.

Do we, in fact, TORTURE? Look into the "international law" on that... it's history over thast 40 years if you want to get a full picture. "Torture" has come to mean anything that might make someone feel uncomfortable in any way. The worst modern America has done institutionally (and that's a big word you'll need to remember if you choose to start responding with references to Abu Ghraib) is giving the enemy the impression that REAL torture might be used upon them. Without that, waterboarding and stress positions are a cake-walk.

Where did I say that I disagreed with any of that? In retrospect, I admit it does sound sarcastic, but there wasn't any criticism in the statement. I am almost positive that the subject of secret prisons was discussed in the "We do not torture" speech.

For the record, My personal beliefs can be summed up as follows:

I do not feel that we have truly tortured anyone, in that nobody had bamboo slivers shoved up their fingernails. However, I do heartily disapprove of people being held without a trial.

Y'know, I'm pretty sure I heard something out of the corner of my ear today along the lines of some of the folks previously released from custody due to international pressure have been found, once again, on the battlefield, fighting coalition forces.

International pressure, my ass. If we had evidence that they were terrorists, we should have put the bastards on trial. If we didn't, then we shouldn't have arrested them, as it goes against what we stand for as a country.

Yeah, we don't need no steenking principles.

I'm pretty much anti-torture, 'cause it doesn't work any better than anything else, it tends to spread, and people really, really like doing it.

Here's the definition of torture I like to work with. Would it be okay if someone did it to an American prisoner, say a real high value one who might have knowledge of upcoming airstrikes or such?

Preech, you're aware that a small but not insignificant number of detainees have died from their interogations, right? Is that, like the definition of what's approved torture and what isn't? Like, if it was really bad for the detainee, then it was a rougue agent acting on their own, but if it didn't do a whole lot of damge then it was the good kind of okay torture?

Torture is mcuh to nasty a treat to trust these bozos with. If they don't get an enormous amount of shit for the torturing their enaged in already, they'd be torturing every Tom Dick and Harry they had in secret lock up just to invent new torture techniques.

I'm against torture for the same reason the founding fathers were.

It's wrong. Period.

Even if you call it "frat pranks".

The camp administration says: It is unfortunate that despite the promises of those released, some of them - at least 20 if not more - have returned to fighting. One of those, Abdullah Maqsud, claimed that he was a clerk and a driver for Taliban, and had denied any links to Al Qaeda. Maqsud said that he was forced to join the battalions of the Taliban, and that he did not receive any military training, or training to use weapons. After he was released, it became apparent that he was behind the orders given to an armed group to kidnap Chinese engineers. Another detainee, after being released, assassinated an Afghan judge. Many of the released detainees have been killed after returning to fighting.

http://aawsat.com/english/news.asp?section=3&id=6170

How's it feel to be spun, guys?

They say "secret prisons" and gasp, looking at you with big, disappointed eyes, and you drop your pants and start a protest without even an effort at a second thought. If there ever even has been one, I am not aware of a war fought by any country without POW camps. Those are by defintion "secret prisons," and for damn good and excruciatingly obvious reasons.

Let's focus for a moment and ponder the possible opportunities provided to our enemies were we to publish the location for these "secret prisoners," shall we?

I'm using my vivid imagination to picture immmediate attacks on those "secret prisons" based in hope that either their buddies could rejoin the fighting or (and this is easily just as advantageous for these folks) everybody just dies. Wouldn't it be wonderful to see what the western media would do with a "secret camp" full of 1,000 or so dead bodies? Somebody's headline is eventually gonna contain the word "genocide." Geggy's far from a unique individual, unfortunately, so I'm thinking a lot of people are going to believe it when Al Jazeera reports those detainees were exterminated by the Great Satan.

Here's the kicker, guys: Why the fuck do YOU need to know where these prisons are located? Personally, I am just tickled to know they have locations! Alternate Option #1: a glass Iraq... not my favorite... Option #2: Immediate trials for suspected terrorists. Let's look into that second one, Ok?

Where the hell are we gonna get our evidence for these trials, Mr. Matlock? War Crimes Trials are held AFTER the war. Until the dust settles, we simply do not have all the information we need to know what these jokers have done or were prepared to do. A FAIR trial is fair on both ends. Until we have defeated the organizations we are currently fighting and have access to all their plans and history, we could not hope to know for what to prosecute them. Personally speaking, I am not at all comfortable with the notion of letting even one mass murderer loose to assist in the next 9/11... are either of you?

As for torture, Max, your definition was more of a condition. In that vein, I'd offer you some reality: Our enemy has proven itself to be not such a big fan of interrogation... much closer to (if not surpassing) the sickos you seem to think our soldiers are, preferring mutilation and beheading pretty much immediately after capture in most cases. Theirs is a war of propaganda and manipulation where ours is a war of information.

As for acceptable conditions for torture, I'm falling on the side of whenever even a single innocent life is at stake and offers of cigarettes and candy fail. We've previously shaken out our personal differences regarding human nature, so I'm not gonna attack your sad and bleak near total lack of belief in the innate integrity of most people. I'm not sure I believe in it, either, but I question your own position's credibility based on it's inherent and unavoidable foundation in the value of human life. What I do know is, however, without the belief of torture being an available option... without the pretense that we can fight just as dirty as they do... all our detainees have to do is wait out their detentions. In that case, and in light of the actual enemy we are currently fighting, innocent people WILL die... unnecessarily, in my opinion.

That being said, even the most horrible means of information extraction MUST be a tool at our disposal as a necessary condition of our eventual victory. I hope you know by now that my feelings on this are not based in any sort of bloodlust. If I am a "hawk," I follow that path unwillingly. I would have much preferred a Colin Powell victory, or no war at all. My support for this effort comes only from my belief that the WOT is a war to end war and that the closing of Globalization's gap will benefit mankind as a whole beyond my abilities to explain it.

The greatest mistake a person of virtue can make is the assumption that all others already are equal in virtue. To anthropomorphize those of such a terribly different culture is to commit such an error. Our enemy simply does not share our modern and distinctly Western respect for human life and we can't make them fight on our level anymore than they'll submit to living on our level. They are betting they will win by overcoming our incredible power with sheer inhumanity. To avoid fighting this fight from 50,000 feet... again, not my favorite option... we must meet their fight to as much a degree as is possible on the lowest level necessary to prove to them they are wrong.

It might make you feel a bit better, though I still doubt the reasoning behind your outrage and so doubt you'll ever feel better about anything Bush-related, to consider that our side won't be fessing up to much in regards to actual torture being practiced institutionally until well after the war is won. The only conclusion to be drawn from that is that we are actively promoting the rumor that we are, in fact, doing much more than we are being caught at. The obvious conclusion coming from that is we are, in fact, NOT institutionally torturing to a very high degree, but only keeping a rumor alive for psy-ops purposes.

Does that make you feel better, Max?

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/printFr...81-525,00.html



Nuff said.

No it's not.

I truly hope you aren't really THAT big of a dumbass. Please, prove me right.

No? The idea that a loyal US Officer could be imprisoned for no apparent reason in one of these camps means nothing?

Nice. Glad to see you supporting the troops.

Yes. You really ARE supporting troops. Makes sense.

Especially if I ignore the guys stuck in Camp Pendleton upon acusations leveled upon them only by potential enemy groups. If I don't contrast that with your contrite allegiance to the past events involving one soldier better understood here: http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/...ee-cover_x.htm ... a bit more updated version of the story... I can also ignore that you are full of shit, at least on this: your first attempt to engage this conversation "seriously." I wish you better luck in the future, and again I hope you prove to be much less disappointing.

Funny, btw, isn't it, that my link was actually much older than yours? Doesn't that cast a bad light on your ability to source crap properly?

Not really. Why should it?

You exhibit some very odd behavior, Preechr.

I try

Does that mean you think I write funny or that you quit?

He never started.

It means I'm waiting for you to make your point.

Waiting is good.

Keep doing that.

It's okay if you're afraid.

Most of the sissies are.