Bush admits the CIA runs secret prisons

[RalphyS]

Quote: (Originally Posted by Chase)

First of all, the whole "presumed innocent" thing doesn't apply to Taliban and Al Qaeda fighters caught in the battlefields of Afghanistan. It's different if a suspected terrorist was caught in Cleveland, Ohio.

Well first of all, you do 'presume' a lot in regard to the people in the secret prisons. You do presume that they are only caught in the battlefields, where do you get that info from? Have you seen the accounts of the 3 British guys who had been detained in Gitmo? They have never been on a battlefield!

Quote: (Originally Posted by Chase)

Nevertheless, Al Qaeda is not a military representing a certain country, nor are they uniformed soldiers. They break the rules of war on a daily basis and to me, that means that they agree to void any sorts of rules of engagement used towards them. What possibly irks me even more is that the United States is villified here and not Al Qaeda or any other Islamo-fascist organization. It's like "although Al Qaeda is infamous for brutally executing the innocent civilians they capture, they deserve to be treated with nothing but utmost respect when arrested by uniformed, enemy soldiers." We're not executing people, we don't set up concentration camps for terrorists. We're holding them in locations that we prefer not to disclose. I mean, the world knows where Gitmo is... but there are still people who have some sort of problem with it. What do you propose we do? Have a full length, individual trial for each person that would like to kill every "infidel" of the Western world?

Well, I think you do have to pick you choice, either the USA is at war with Al Quaeda, as your president describes it a 'war on terror' or Al Quaeda are criminals. For both choices there are rules, if you are at war, the rules of the Geneva convention apply, if they are criminals, they have rights like other criminals and the innocent until proven guilty rule applies and I would indeed see them tried. But maybe we need to set a different set of rules for these 'people', but until there are different rules approved by your Supreme Court or an international court of justice, they need to be treated according to the existing rules.

Hey, I watch '24' and enjoy it just like any other guy, but tv isn't real life!

Another thing, I like to say in support of 'just treatment for captured terrorists or criminals for that matter'. I do not trust your government enough to let them decide, whoever is guilty enough to deserve this sort of treatment, detention in secret prisons or even a 'known' place like Gitmo, and yes, I would like to see independent judges rule on whether taking people to prison is indeed justified or not.

[Chase]

Quote: (Originally Posted by Lunar Shadow)

You miss the point not like that comes as a suprise... you seem to miss a lot (hell no one got the whole thing about death being funny) People seem to be so afriad of life that they can't find the humor or the irony in it that makes life interesting.

I miss a lot? I definitely haven't missed the fact that you have a sadistic sense of humor, nor have I missed the fact that you probably think the death of Steve Irwin is more hilarious than the death of Musab Al Zarqawi.

[Steve]

Tonight Bill O'Reilly made an excellent point regarding the topic of how to handle the treatment of these terrorists once they are captured. He said that sometimes in times of ware inhumane actions result in the safety of millions of lives. For example, we dropped the bomb in WWII. That was a very inhumane thing to do but it resulted in winning the war and saving thousands of more lives by ending the are.

Just thought I'd throw this idea / point of view out there for discussion.

[SecretWeapon]

You know? You guys are right, maybe it would be much more effecient to
send out emails to Al Quaeda and tell them where their members are being held at, when visiting hours are, ect....

Except that these are the ones who hijacked 747s, destroyed the WTC,
tore up the pentagon, threatened Bush's life by attempting to annhililate
the white house, as well as attacking Spain and London. Somehow just
tossing them in the ol' county slammer doesn't quite seem fit.

Just my humble opinion.

[RalphyS]

Quote: (Originally Posted by Steve)

Tonight Bill O'Reilly made an excellent point regarding the topic of how to handle the treatment of these terrorists once they are captured. He said that sometimes in times of ware inhumane actions result in the safety of millions of lives. For example, we dropped the bomb in WWII. That was a very inhumane thing to do but it resulted in winning the war and saving thousands of more lives by ending the are.

Just thought I'd throw this idea / point of view out there for discussion.

You could argue about the succes of the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. You state they saved thousands of lives, and yes, they probably saved tens of thousands of lives of allied soldiers, but they killed, if I remember correctly, something like half a million civilians. I know war is a dirty game, but you could plead for the option to let it be fought by the soldiers, that's why we here the emphasis with bombings always led on 'military targets'.

There was no doubt, that at the time of the atomic bombings, Japan was fighting a losing battle, the bombs expedited the end of the war and avoided an invasion of Japan, but was it really worth the lives lost ???

On the other hand, this tragedy also has shown us what nuclear bombs really can do and I think it was a learning moment in the history of mankind. If we hadn't seen the effects of these bombs at that time, I do not think that the cold war had remained cold.

In other words, I do not think that the end always condones the means.

[RalphyS]

Quote: (Originally Posted by SecretWeapon)

You know? You guys are right, maybe it would be much more effecient to
send out emails to Al Quaeda and tell them where their members are being held at, when visiting hours are, ect....

Except that these are the ones who hijacked 747s, destroyed the WTC,
tore up the pentagon, threatened Bush's life by attempting to annhililate
the white house, as well as attacking Spain and London. Somehow just
tossing them in the ol' county slammer doesn't quite seem fit.

Just my humble opinion.

Well actually those who hijacked the planes were all dead through their acts, expect the one guy who was tried in a normal court, no secret prisons involved. The suspects of the Spain and London bombings are also not in secret prisons in those countries, they will be tried in normal courts.

It always amazes me how if you aren't in favor of secret prisons or detaining people without access to justicial means, you are depicted as being weak and wanting to let the terrorists get 'a get out of jail for free'-card.

You people do not trust your own justice system or military, if you believe that the only option is to be inhumane, cruel and secretive about these kind of things.

The best recruitment aid for Al Queyda was probably pictures of Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, the news about secret prisons etcetera. The West claims to be so just, but we don't fall under their western laws, I can hear the speeches made by their recruiters, only I don't speak Arab.

[Steve]

Quote: (Originally Posted by RalphyS)

You people do not trust your own justice system or military, if you believe that the only option is to be inhumane, cruel and secretive about these kind of things.

It's not that I don't trust the justice system or military system here - it's the fact that these terrorists don't deserve it. And also I don't think the debate here is regarding people arrested in our homeland - the debate has to do with those captured on the "battlefield" of this war. Should these people be taken from there and brought to Guantanamo to be put in line for trial, or should they be taken to secret prisons to be questioned.

[RalphyS]

Quote: (Originally Posted by Steve)

It's not that I don't trust the justice system or military system here - it's the fact that these terrorists don't deserve it. And also I don't think the debate here is regarding people arrested in our homeland - the debate has to do with those captured on the "battlefield" of this war. Should these people be taken from there and brought to Guantanamo to be put in line for trial, or should they be taken to secret prisons to be questioned.

Who are you to decide who should be treated through the 'normal' legal process and who doesn't deserve to be? If these terrorists don't deserve it, you probably feel that a murderer doesn't deserve it either, or should we draw the line at a serial killer?

And are you absolutely sure that everyone detained is a terrorist, couldn't there be innocent people among them? On what you call the "battlefield" of this war, I assume you mean Afghanistan and Iraq, there are people living, who are no more a terrorist than you and I, still you see newsstories about innocents being picked up, who are suspected of involvement with terrorism.

But it has been proven in the recent past that every intelligence in the USA is good and perfect and therefore it is impossible that innocents would end up in these secret prisons, isn't it?

Btw if you treat them humanely, that does not mean that you cannot question your prisoners, there is no law that forbids that, torturing people, while questioning them, that is a whole other story.

[Steve]

Quote: (Originally Posted by RalphyS)

Btw if you treat them humanely, that does not mean that you cannot question your prisoners, there is no law that forbids that, torturing people, while questioning them, that is a whole other story.

Well what I've been refering to is the fact that many Democrats and Republicans are voicing their opinion over the current methods of detaining and questioning suspects. There were recent news reports that referred to how we've been questioning these terrorists once captured. They would be sent to these secret prisions and be forced to stay awake for days at a time until they cooperated. They would be forced to listen to loud music (The Red Hot Chili Peppers lol) so they could not sleep. Many leading Democrats and some Republicans as well, are calling for this to end and these terrorists be sent to Guantanamo Bay where they will not face any of these treatments. They will be given access to Bible's and be able to participate in their religious traditions. They will have two hours for excercise and free roam in the prison. 3 regular meals a day. This is what I'm referring to and am strongly against. The prisoners here have no reason to speak up if they don't feel so.

[RalphyS]

Quote: (Originally Posted by Steve)

They would be sent to these secret prisions and be forced to stay awake for days at a time until they cooperated. They would be forced to listen to loud music (The Red Hot Chili Peppers lol) so they could not sleep.

Yes, although I quite like the RHCP, this constitutes torture under national and international law and psychological torture like this is often harder to live with than actual physical torture.

Quote: (Originally Posted by Steve)

They will be given access to Bible's and be able to participate in their religious traditions. They will have two hours for excercise and free roam in the prison. 3 regular meals a day.

Although I think they have no need for bibles (you probably meant Korans), this does constitute humane treatment, but do not think they have a free ride because of this. Prison is still prison and don't state that they've got it easy, until you yourself have spent time incarcerated.

Quote: (Originally Posted by Steve)

This is what I'm referring to and am strongly against. The prisoners here have no reason to speak up if they don't feel so..

So you are actually advocating pro-torture, torture as punishment, even though noone in these secret prisons or guantanomo for that matter has even been found guilty for anything (yet).

[SecretWeapon]

Quote: (Originally Posted by RalphyS)

Well actually those who hijacked the planes were all dead through their acts, expect the one guy who was tried in a normal court, no secret prisons involved. The suspects of the Spain and London bombings are also not in secret prisons in those countries, they will be tried in normal courts.

Lol. I meant the guys in Al Qaeda, not in the planes. I'm not that
stupid, thank you.

Quote:

It always amazes me how if you aren't in favor of secret prisons or detaining people without access to justicial means, you are depicted as being weak and wanting to let the terrorists get 'a get out of jail for free'-card.

I was only trying to prove a point. I agree, there have been unnessecary
(to say the least) things done by americans, but I don't think that
someone who intends to (or is willing to) kill hundreds or even thousands
of innocent civilians should get the same treatment as someone who killed one or two or three.

[RalphyS]

Quote: (Originally Posted by SecretWeapon)

I was only trying to prove a point. I agree, there have been unnessecary
(to say the least) things done by americans, but I don't think that
someone who intends to (or is willing to) kill hundreds or even thousands
of innocent civilians should get the same treatment as someone who killed one or two or three.

Yet, we seem to base the the strength of leadership of our governments on their willingness to be determined, hard and ruthless toward the opponent, in other words their willingness to kill a lot of our opponents and to wage the life of our own.