welcome to the fest
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

The secret CIA prisons are real, it's Official!
Goto page 1, 2, 3 ... 9, 10, 11  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Sinfest Forum Index -> General Discussion
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Sam



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 9495

PostPosted: Wed Sep 06, 2006 7:15 pm    Post subject: The secret CIA prisons are real, it's Official! Reply with quote

ABC

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=2400844

A bunch of famous names on the 'human beings in cold storage' list have reappeared, transferred to Guantanamo custody.

I AM ABSOLUTELY POSITIVE THAT NONE OF THEM WERE TORTURED

bush says so
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Snorri



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 10878
Location: hiding the decline.

PostPosted: Wed Sep 06, 2006 7:22 pm    Post subject: FTW! Reply with quote

First reply!
_________________

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Sam



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 9495

PostPosted: Wed Sep 06, 2006 7:26 pm    Post subject: Re: FTW! Reply with quote

Snorri wrote:
First reply!


You are posting in my high quality thread!!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mouse



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 17134
Location: under the bed

PostPosted: Thu Sep 07, 2006 12:19 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

i heard that they had been transferred to guantanamo.

didn't hear anything about planned trials, or anything else that would give the families of the 9/11 victims the justice bush says they are waiting for.

i did hear him give what sounded to me like a whole lot of details, like about how this one guy was giving them things that he thought were trivial, but that meant a whole lot to _us_ (like who ksm was)(and it's a little disturbing to find out we didn't know things this guy thought were trivial), and then how, with perfectly legal interogation techniques (he said legal more than once, so it must be true), we got him to tell us a whole lot of other things (which bush listed, but i wasn't taking notes)....why do i think that if a democrat announced all that stuff, he would be crucified for giving vital information to the enemy?
_________________
aka: neverscared!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Agamemnon



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 907
Location: Studying somewhere. Or at least that's where I should be.

PostPosted: Thu Sep 07, 2006 2:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

mouse wrote:
i heard that they had been transferred to guantanamo.

didn't hear anything about planned trials, or anything else that would give the families of the 9/11 victims the justice bush says they are waiting for.


Bolded below answers this question for you, mouse.
****************
Lawmakers Prepare for Showdown Over Detainee Legal Rights
Thursday, September 07, 2006
Associated Press

WASHINGTON The GOP is once again divided over how the nation should treat its most dangerous terror suspects, setting up a showdown in Congress just weeks away from elections when all members will try to sell themselves as tough on terror.

President Bush on Wednesday acknowledged for the first time that the CIA had secret prisons overseas and defended the practice of tough interrogations to force terrorists to reveal plots to attack the United States and its allies.

He revealed that 14 suspects, including the alleged mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks, had been turned over to the Defense Department and moved to the U.S. detention center at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, for trial.

The president also sent Congress a legislative proposal that would aid the government in prosecuting terrorists using secret military tribunals. The military's top lawyers and a Justice Department official were expected to discuss the plan Thursday before the House Armed Services Committee.

Bush's announcement was immediately praised by those who said his policies were necessary to win the War on Terror.

"My interest is to protect our troops on the battlefield from becoming involved in a legal quagmire which would prevent us from effectively pursuing terrorists and to ensure that America can effectively protect its citizens," said Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., who chairs the Armed Services panel.

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., said he would like to take up the bill on the Senate floor as soon as possible, leaving open the door for a vote on the measure before lawmakers break at the end of the month for election campaigning.

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid said Bush's decision to prosecute the terrorists held by the CIA was long overdue. But, he added, the military commission system should be properly vetted through the Armed Services Committee.

"The last thing we need is a repeat of the arrogant, go-it-alone behavior that has jeopardized and delayed efforts to bring these terrorists to justice for five years," Reid said.

While Bush's proposal could allow the administration to begin prosecuting high-profile terrorists as Republicans fight to keep their majority in Congress, his plan also presents political risks.

GOP moderates and Democrats oppose some aspects of the proposal because they say it could set a dangerous precedent. The legislation would deny certain legal rights to defendants common in civilian and military courts, such as the ability to access all evidence used in the prosecution to mount an adequate defense and to ban hearsay and coerced testimony.

GOP moderates challenging the proposal include three senators with hefty credentials: Sen. John McCain of Arizona, who spent more than five years as a prisoner of war in North Vietnam; Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, a former military lawyer who still serves in the Air National Guard as a reserve judge; and Sen. John Warner of Virginia, chairman of the Armed Services Committee.

Last year, Bush threatened to veto legislation proposed by the three senators to ban cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment of military detainees. He then signed the prohibition into law after the Senate voted overwhelmingly in favor of it.

While Frist has voiced support for Bush's plan, Warner is spearheading his own draft. Meanwhile, two separate proposals are being devised by the House Armed Services Committee, one by Hunter and another by Ike Skelton of Missouri, the ranking Democrat on the panel.

Bush previously denied that he needs legislation to convene military commissions to prosecute unlawful enemy combatants. The Supreme Court ruled in June that his system was illegal and violated treaty obligations.

Democrats simultaneously praised and scolded the president's announcement.

"It's a shame that it took a Supreme Court opinion, a law banning torture and public outcry to get him here," said Jane Harman of California, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee. "He should have done this years ago, not on the eve of an election."

Bush's announcement "is essentially a mea culpa, cloaked in rhetoric," said Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif.

Sen. Jay Rockefeller, the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, said he was skeptical the announcement would mean an end to the CIA prison program. Declining to discuss the details of the program because they were classified, Rockefeller, D-W.Va., would only note both the effectiveness and intense controversy surrounding the government's interrogation system.

Regarding the announcement to transfer the handful of CIA detainees, Rockefeller said "they'll have to show me it's significant" and a shift in policy.
_________________
-Agamemnon.....but you can call me Jake.

P: They don't know we know they know we know. And Joey, you can't say anything!

J: Couldn't if I wanted to.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
kame



Joined: 11 Jul 2006
Posts: 2565
Location: Alba Nuadh

PostPosted: Thu Sep 07, 2006 4:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

If you don't give your worst enemies fair and public trials, then you fail as a democracy. It's really that simple.
_________________
bi-chromaticism is the extraordinary belief that there exists only two options
each polar opposite to each other
where one is completely superior to the other.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message MSN Messenger
Agamemnon



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 907
Location: Studying somewhere. Or at least that's where I should be.

PostPosted: Thu Sep 07, 2006 4:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I thought part of the geneva convention forbids public showing of prisoners' faces.
_________________
-Agamemnon.....but you can call me Jake.

P: They don't know we know they know we know. And Joey, you can't say anything!

J: Couldn't if I wanted to.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
kame



Joined: 11 Jul 2006
Posts: 2565
Location: Alba Nuadh

PostPosted: Thu Sep 07, 2006 5:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

You don't have to see a defendant's face to be aware and informed on the proceedings. And the Nuremburg trials were public, so is that really true?
_________________
bi-chromaticism is the extraordinary belief that there exists only two options
each polar opposite to each other
where one is completely superior to the other.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message MSN Messenger
Agamemnon



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 907
Location: Studying somewhere. Or at least that's where I should be.

PostPosted: Thu Sep 07, 2006 5:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Nuremburg tirals took place after the war, if memory serves.
_________________
-Agamemnon.....but you can call me Jake.

P: They don't know we know they know we know. And Joey, you can't say anything!

J: Couldn't if I wanted to.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Sam



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 9495

PostPosted: Thu Sep 07, 2006 6:37 pm    Post subject: burden of lame Reply with quote

Quote:
I thought part of the geneva convention forbids public showing of prisoners' faces.


You'd have to back that up, as well as define which convention you're talking about!

(you'll also have to clue me in on what point you are addressing)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Agamemnon



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 907
Location: Studying somewhere. Or at least that's where I should be.

PostPosted: Thu Sep 07, 2006 6:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sam wrote:
(you'll also have to clue me in on what point you are addressing)


The idea of public trials:

kame wrote:
If you don't give your worst enemies fair and public trials, then you fail as a democracy. It's really that simple.

*****
Sam wrote:
You'd have to back that up, as well as define which convention you're talking about


Okay, from www.genevaconventions.org:

Geneva Convention III wrote:
Art. 13. Prisoners of war must at all times be humanely treated. Any unlawful act or omission by the Detaining Power causing death or seriously endangering the health of a prisoner of war in its custody is prohibited, and will be regarded as a serious breach of the present Convention. In particular, no prisoner of war may be subjected to physical mutilation or to medical or scientific experiments of any kind which are not justified by the medical, dental or hospital treatment of the prisoner concerned and carried out in his interest.

Likewise, prisoners of war must at all times be protected, particularly against acts of violence or intimidation and against insults and public curiosity.

Measures of reprisal against prisoners of war are prohibited.

_________________
-Agamemnon.....but you can call me Jake.

P: They don't know we know they know we know. And Joey, you can't say anything!

J: Couldn't if I wanted to.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
kame



Joined: 11 Jul 2006
Posts: 2565
Location: Alba Nuadh

PostPosted: Thu Sep 07, 2006 7:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

You know what, I like this quote better.

Geneve Convention wrote:
fair trial

The passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions are forbidden unless all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized people have been met and a regularly constituted court has pronounced a judgment. (Convention I, Art. 3, Sec 1d)

Depriving combatants, prisoners of war, refugees, or medical or religious personnel of a fair trail is a grave breach of the Geneva Convention. (Protocol I, Art. 85, Sec. 4e)


Now for bonus points can anyone tell me the rights referred to by these two statutes?

I'll start: Habeus Corpus
_________________
bi-chromaticism is the extraordinary belief that there exists only two options
each polar opposite to each other
where one is completely superior to the other.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message MSN Messenger
Agamemnon



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 907
Location: Studying somewhere. Or at least that's where I should be.

PostPosted: Thu Sep 07, 2006 7:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

You'll notice that there are no time tables set for those trials.

We've all seen the bogus trials held by Saddam during the first gulf war, right? Do we want those accusations leveled against us? (I guarantee that this will be the case)

As I understand it, POW's are generally repatriated at the end of hostilities.


[edit] Are we to the point, yet, of arguing whether Miranda rights need be read to the prisoners on the battlefield?
_________________
-Agamemnon.....but you can call me Jake.

P: They don't know we know they know we know. And Joey, you can't say anything!

J: Couldn't if I wanted to.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
eureka00



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 1993
Location: Pretzel City

PostPosted: Thu Sep 07, 2006 7:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

ABC interrupted my mother's viewing of All My Children yesterday for news of this. She was quite upset.
_________________
Eureka00: "Reminding you of your addictions" since 1982.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger
Sam



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 9495

PostPosted: Thu Sep 07, 2006 7:45 pm    Post subject: . Reply with quote

Agamemnon wrote:
Okay, from www.genevaconventions.org:

Geneva Convention III wrote:
Art. 13. Prisoners of war must at all times be humanely treated. Any unlawful act or omission by the Detaining Power causing death or seriously endangering the health of a prisoner of war in its custody is prohibited, and will be regarded as a serious breach of the present Convention. In particular, no prisoner of war may be subjected to physical mutilation or to medical or scientific experiments of any kind which are not justified by the medical, dental or hospital treatment of the prisoner concerned and carried out in his interest.

Likewise, prisoners of war must at all times be protected, particularly against acts of violence or intimidation and against insults and public curiosity.

Measures of reprisal against prisoners of war are prohibited.


This didn't really answer my question at all. This doesn't tell me if the convention forbids or allows showing of prisoner's faces!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Sinfest Forum Index -> General Discussion All times are GMT
Goto page 1, 2, 3 ... 9, 10, 11  Next
Page 1 of 11

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group