Bush admits to CIA secret prisons

Hobbes

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5321606.stm

Only admitting it now because they have (supposedly) moved all the people who were renditioned to Gitmo. That is supposed to make us feel better? o_O

Frederico

Has anyone seen any of these people, who were captured and tortured in these CIA prisons, actually interviewed on mainstream TV?.. or a news station? I can only seem to find small random columns in newspapers about it maybe.

A Dub in Glasgo

I have seen interviews with the British guys who have been released from Gitmo

It is highly unlikely you will ever get a TV interview with any of the people who have been rendered. Heck, up until this statement, a lot of people were calling it hat foil tin stuff.

Loved the bit in the report that Bush 'denied the use of torture.' lol

Manic Moran

I don't seem to recall the major drama being over the existance of the prisoners, as much as whether or not they stopped at Shannon on the way over, which has not been addressed.

NTM

Hobbes

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

It is highly unlikely you will ever get a TV interview with any of the people who have been rendered. Heck, up until this statement, a lot of people were calling it hat foil tin stuff.

Well the most famous one I know of is the Canadian National who was renditioned from the US to Syria and tourtred.

http://www.maherarar.ca/ (for those that missed it).

MM wrote:

I don't seem to recall the major drama being over the existance of the prisoners, as much as whether or not they stopped at Shannon on the way over, which has not been addressed.

Actually that was the major drama. The US where claiming no rendition flights went through the EU.

Sleipnir

Guys call it what it is, not what the Bush administration calls it.

It's kidnap, not "renditioning" They were taken from there homes or wherever without being arrested by the police force of a legitimate government.
These people were kidnapped, plain and simple.

sovtek

I noticed that he referred to everyone in Gitmo as "turrists".

Frederico

Manic Moran wrote:

I don't seem to recall the major drama being over the existance of the prisoners, as much as whether or not they stopped at Shannon on the way over, which has not been addressed.

NTM

I remember it being quite an issue in the news, and debates as to whether they existed or not, there was even a long post on this boards if someone wants to dig it up. So the US government lied again, no surprise there.

lostexpectation

its wonder what the countries with these sites or helped in the transfer will say anymore now, post it if you see nay info on that

Moriarty

Hobbes wrote:

Bush admits to renditions

No he didn't.

Hobbes wrote:

bush admits the us outsource torture

No he didn't.

It would be nice if you could at least put your political bias aside long enough to not lie and mislead in the opening post of a thread. Otherwise, there's always indymedia.

ircoha

Mod:
Unless the the tags and heading of this post can be verified, I believe they need to be corrected as they are misleading.

Edit: have just noticed that the OP is a mod on the boards, which is not acceptable in my opinion.

I am not pro Bush etc, I am pro accurate reporting of publically verifiable information which in many cases may be lies anyway but at least the the reporting on boards be verifiable.

Edit 2: thanks to mod for changing titles.

Edit 3. May have offended OP with my comments, never my intention to do so so remarks removed.
OP: If I did offend, sorry.

Ok thread title changed to mirror the title in the BBC news report quoted.

Hobbes

Moriarty wrote:

No he didn't.

So they just magically appeared in these countries to be tourtured? Or prehaps they bought thier own tickets to totally different countries so that they could be tourtured?

No he didn't.

Yes he did. What he didn't do was admit he had anything to do with it if anything he denies it.

It would be nice if you could at least put your political bias aside long enough to not lie and mislead

If I am lying or misleading prehaps you could point that out instead of "No he didn't".

oscarBravo

ircoha wrote:

Edit: have just noticed that the OP is a mod on the boards, which is not acceptable in my opinion. I note that the OP is a mod of Islam. Is that a clue?

He's not a mod on this board. End of discussion.

gandalf

BTW the OP is mod of the Islam forum but is in fact not Muslim, anyway what has that got to do with this.

As for the tags I believe they are accurate and the US is outsourcing torture and they have just admitted as much.

Hobbes

It basically all turns down to word games.

I say tourture, Bush says "tough but necessary interrogation methods"

I say rendition, Bush says "it's been necessary to move these individuals to an environment where they can be held secretly, questioned by experts, and when appropriate, prosecuted for terrorist acts"

They are moved into countries where Tourture is used and can then claim "Well they aren't on American Soil so our laws don't apply".

Here is another take on it.
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/09/07/bush_admits_to_cia_jails_top_suspects_are_relocated/

He's not doing this because he cares about human rights, he's doing it because of the elections in November.

sovtek

Hobbes wrote:

It basically all turns down to word games.

I say tourture, Bush says "tough but necessary interrogation methods"

I say rendition, Bush says "it's been necessary to move these individuals to an environment where they can be held secretly, questioned by experts, and when appropriate, prosecuted for terrorist acts"

They are moved into countries where Tourture is used and can then claim "Well they aren't on American Soil so our laws don't apply".

I believe it's also illegal (Geneva Convention) to move POW's to another country in the first place.

Moriarty

Hobbes, did Bush at any point say 'We admit we carry out rendition' or 'We admit that the US outsources torture'? No, he didn't. So you're both misleading and lying in the original post.

gandalf wrote:

As for the tags I believe they are accurate and the US is outsourcing torture and they have just admitted as much.

You believe. You can believe the moon is made of cheese for all I care. If you lied and misrepresented the facts to make people believe that the moon was infact indisputably made of cheese, I'd also have a problem with that.

Lies, propaganda and misinformation are wrong, no matter what side they come from.

The Saint

sovtek wrote:

I believe it's also illegal (Geneva Convention) to move POW's to another country in the first place.

But luckily you can just redefine them as enemy combatants to circumvent international law as you please therefore giving them no legal status so you can do anything you want to them. There is bugger all anyone else can do about it given the position of power that the US is in.

Hobbes

Moriarty wrote:

Hobbes, did Bush at any point say 'We admit we carry out rendition' or 'We admit that the US outsources torture'? No, he didn't. So you're both misleading and lying in the original post.

I am not misreading anything. He said he did not authorise torture, however his has said they are using thier own interegation techniques. Of course his defination of torture and the rest of the worlds is very different.

Prehaps you can fill us in exactly in what way transporting a prisoner from thier own country to a non-US country in secret helps. If thats the case why not just move them to Gitmo and be done with it?

Also I suggest you read up the reports of people who have been released in such instances. There is already a link in the thread to one of them who spent a year in Syria being tourtured and if wasn't for the fact he was Canadian and had family looking for him probably would never of been released so soon.

gandalf

So what would you class "water boarding" as then, an aggressive shower maybe?? What they are doing is wrong and is torture and illegal movement of prisioners, infact it is kidnapping.

If these people do not follow the letter of the law then they are as bad as those they claim to fighting. To justify torture, kidnapping, ignoring the letter of the law to "protect peoples freedoms" is an oxymoron and smacks of hypocrasy of the most distasteful and disgusting kind.

Moriarty

Apparently neither of you get it. You've both being proffering opinion as reported fact. Hobbes has stated things which just aren't true.

Why do you feel the need to lie and distort to get your point across? Why not just let the plain facts speak for themselves instead of editorialising to the point of deceit?

Victor

Moriarty wrote:

You can believe the moon is made of cheese for all I care.

This bit doesn't kill people.

RedPlanet

Should we presume American's would be ok with [insert foreign country here] lift an "enemy combatant" (read: US Marine or BlackWater employee) from America and secretly transported them to another country for "interrogation"?

How about it Manic Moran?

The Saint

RedPlanet wrote:

Should we presume American's would be ok with [insert foreign country here] lift an "enemy combatant" (read: US Marine or BlackWater employee) from America and secretly transported them to another country for "interrogation"?

How about it Manic Moran?

But they wouldn't be 'enemy combatants'.

bonkey

I find it somewhat amusing that you guys are bickering over somthing Hobbes allegedly said in the original post, but which is no longer there.

I would also note that there is a distinction between saying something that is untrue, saying something that may be untrue, and lying. Whether or not Hobbes is correct in what he claims, if he believes he is correct then he cannot be deliberately misleading and thus cannot be lying. He can be wrong (and thats a matter of perspective rather than fact), but unless someone can show that Hobbes believes what he says is incorrect then I would suggest the moderators should be taking a long, hard look at the multiple accusations of lying going on here and asking for them to be retracted rather than worrying about what Hobbes might have said in a post thats no longer part of the thread.

Of course...not being a moderator myself, my opinion on teh matter should be worthless and I should probably be cautioned for offering it...just like everyone else here who's discussing moderation.

Getting back on topic

I disagree with Hobbes assertion that this is being announced now because the people in question have allegedly all been removed to Gitmo. I think instead, its being put out into the open at a very-carefully-timed 4 days before the 5th anniversary of 11/9/2001. The cynic in me would say that the publication of information on the healtcare plight of neglected 911 first-responders is also tied in.

Put simply, this isn't a story Bush wants breaking at a time other than of his choosing. So its out in the open, by his own admission, at a time when the country is about to get caught up in remembering a tragedy and having their anger rekindled at whoever their told to blame.

Bush will. I believe, also step in to "rescue" the neglected first-responders (or at least promise rescue to them) within the next 10 days, showing that he really does have America's best interests at heart.

This being an election year, the unpleasant questions of rendition, torture, etc. will be minimised, and offset as much as possible by a big reminder of why they are allegedly necessary, and plenty of photo-ops to show how Evil those Tourists really are, and how keeping the country safe is far more important than worrying about those few who might suffer so that America doesn't have to.

Subsequent to the refocussing of the public psyche on all of this in the coming week, the Republican Election Machine (no, not Diebold) will swing into full gear, and security and the threat from terrorism will be once again kept centre-stage until such times as the Senate is secured from those Cheeseburger-Eating Surrender Monkey Democrats.

Moriarty

Victor wrote:

This bit doesn't kill people.

Oh right, so it's ok to lie or mislead for the greater good as you see it then.

mmmmm.. hypocrisy. Tasty.

bonkey

RedPlanet wrote:

Should we presume American's would be ok with [insert foreign country here] lift an "enemy combatant" (read: US Marine or BlackWater employee) from America and secretly transported them to another country for "interrogation"?

Or indeed if they were lifted from a third country...say, while on vacation.

I'm guessing its a case of "one law for us (or US), and one for the rest of them"....

which leads nicely to....

...a quick quiz...who wrote the following, and what were they writing about...

Section 1b--Disappearance
"There were reports of disappearances perpetrated by government forces during the year, some of which may have been politically motivated. In nearly all cases, security forces abducted persons and detained them in undisclosed locations for varying lengths of time ranging from weeks to months."

Section 1c--Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment
"The constitution prohibits torture....Nevertheless, there were numerous credible reports that security forces and prison personnel tortured detainees and prisoners."

Section 1d--Arbitrary Arrest or Detention
"In practice there is no legal time limit for incommunicado detention nor any judicial means to determine the legality of detention. In the period immediately following detention or arrest, many detainees were held incommunicado and denied access to lawyers and family members. Security forces often did not inform family members of a prisoner's welfare and location. Authorities often denied visits by family members and legal counsel."

Section 1e--Denial of Fair Public Trial
"The constitution provides for an independent judiciary; the judiciary was under intense pressure to conform to government policies, and the government repeatedly refused to abide by judicial decisions."

Section 1f--Arbitrary Interference with Privacy, Family, Home, or Correspondence
"Security forces monitored the social activities of citizens, entered homes and offices, monitored telephone conversations, and opened mail without court authorization."

Section 3--Government Corruption and Transparency
"Top ruling party officials and businessmen supporting the ruling party received priority in distribution of the country's resources..."

"In practice the government occasionally denied access to information, citing reasons of confidentiality or national security."

Section 4--Governmental Attitude Regarding International and Nongovernmental Investigation of Alleged Violations of Human Rights
"ICRC [International Committee of the Red Cross] access to prison and other detention facilities was restricted..."

Victor

I'm guessing it is U.S. Department of State "Country Report" language (lots of use of stock phrases) ... about Iraq?

Moriarty

Ethiopia.

Hobbes

Quick Google. Report by a US body on Iran.
http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2003/27927.htm

Oh right, so it's ok to lie or mislead for the greater good as you see it then.

You say fortnight, I say two weeks. Which one is a lie?