Bush admits to CIA secret prisons

bonkey

Source is indeed correct. US State Department "Country Report" 2006.

As to who its talking about...no one specific country, actually. Its just a list of things the US notes are unacceptable or disapproves of when other countries get up to them...but which are defended to the hilt as good, democratic, legal, necessary, freedom=protecting practices when they themselves get a piece of the same action.

To give credit where credit is due, I took the material from this blog entry, which caught my eye cause I was looking at the guys book in the bookshop today.

Moriarty

Hobbes wrote:

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

Neither. But that isn't a valid comparison. Bush admiting to CIA secret prisons around the world and Bush (not) admiting to rendition and "outsourcing torture" are two very different things. They aren't two sides of the same coin.

As more of a general point instead of something specific to just this thread, I find it tiresome when people have to resort to creating emotive - often inaccurate to the point of misleading - soundbites while attempting to persuade people of their position. If a position is worthy of support, it doesn't need pimping up with flashy tabloid headlines.

freddyfreeload

From today's Guardian:

"George Bush acknowledged for the first time yesterday the existence of a secret CIA prison network, and said the mastermind of the September 11 2001 terror attacks and other high-value detainees had been transferred to Guantánamo Bay."

Call it transfer from secret CIA prisons to Gitmo, or rendition, detention without trial, internment, kidnapping, whatever: I can't find any basis for it in law.

As for whether the methods used in interogating these and other prisoners are torture or "an alternative set of procedures that are tough, safe, lawful and necessary," you can make your own minds up by reading Amnesty's report on the detention in Afghanistan and Guantánamo Bay of Shafiq Rasul, Asif Iqbal and Rhuhel Ahmed, the recently released British detainees.

Here a some excerpts:

"They kept calling us mother f****rs and I think over the three or four hours
that I was sitting there, I must have been punched, kicked, slapped or struck
with a rifle butt at least 30 or 40 times."

After this tent, Shafiq was taken by the soldiers who were carrying a blanket and clothes (though he had to walk naked) through a maze made out of barbed wire. Even the doors in the maze were made of barbed wire. If he tripped or slipped, which was likely given how exhausted he was, the wire would cut him.

"An American came into the tent and shouted at me telling me I was Al-Qaeda. I said I was not involved in Al-Qaeda and did not support them. At this, he started to punch me violently and then when he knocked me to the floor started to kick me around my back and in my stomach."

"I was taken outside. I was completely naked with a sack on my head and I could hear dogs barking nearby and soldiers shouting “get ‘em boy”. Although I couldn’t see I had a sense that there were a lot of soldiers around. I was taken, still naked with a sack on my head, to another tent for a so called cavity search. I was told to bend over and then I felt something shoved up my anus. I don’t know what it was but it was very painful."

"After three days I was taken to “the Brown building”. I was long shackled
and sat in a chair. I was left in a room and strobe lighting was put on and very loud music. It was a dance version of Eminem played repeatedly again and again. I was left in the room with the strobe lighting and loud music for about an hour before I was taken back to my cell. Nobody questioned me."

"I certainly began to think that junior interrogators were being brought in to “practice” on us because they would repeatedly go over the same ground that had been covered by another interrogator say a week or ten days earlier. They were often junior and confused about our background or the circumstances that had led to us arriving in Guantanamo".

ff

oscarBravo

Moriarty wrote:

If a position is worthy of support, it doesn't need pimping up with flashy tabloid headlines.

It also doesn't warrant accusations of lying, which - as bonkey has pointed out - are unfounded and against the charter.

bonkey banned for three minutes for moderating after he was supposed to have retired.

Hobbes

Moriarty wrote:

They aren't two sides of the same coin.

*Shrug* Heres a defination for you.

Rendition is the practice of clandestine capture and extradition of individual suspects outside the country in which they were caught. Suspects are moved to third countries for the purposes of detention, interrogation, and, it is alleged, torture.

Strange, that sounds exactly like transferring prisoners to secret CIA prisons in other countries. Prehaps we should rewrite what the term rendition means?

As for torture. Bush himself says "tough but necessary interrogation methods". What is that exactly? A stern talking to? No tea and crumpets if they don't answer the questions?

I'll leave it to you to define that one, I've already read the reports of those who have been in "tough but necessary" interrogrations in these camps.

[edit] Actually Moriarty is right. This isn't rendition. I take it all back. The correct term is "Extraordinary rendition".

Hobbes

Heres a few you can go read up on that got extraordinary Rendition.

Mamdouh Habib - Australian/Egyptian duel nationality. Detained in pakistan. Sent to Egypt then Gitmo. Tortured and later released without any charge. Austraila had to pay an insane amount of cash to bring him home because the US refused to. Total time detained: 4 years.

Ibn al-Shaykh al-Lib - Claimed AQ and his interrogation reports are the basis that the Iraq war was started on. Later the belief is he fabricated it to stop the interrogations.

Mohammad Al-Zery - Taken from Sweden to Egypt. Tourtured. Released without charge. Total 2 years.

Ahmed Agiza - Taken from Sweden to Egypt. Currently charged with 25 years.

Abu Omar - Kidnapped by the CIA from Italy while an italian investigation was going on to capture him and his people working with him. Deported to Egypt. Currently all CIA involved are wanted in Italy on charges.

Khaled el-Masri - Kuwait born, German nationality. Taken while on holiday and sent to Afganistan. Tortured for five months and then released without charge or any details as to why he was taken in the first place. Dumped in Albaina and had to make his own way back to Germany. Sometime later the CIA operative in charge claimed he was picked up "on a hunch".

Laid Saidi - Algerian. Abducted in Tanzania and taken to Afghanistan. Held for 1 year + 4 months and then released without charge. Was taken because his phone conversation that was being tapped was mistranslated.

Maher Arar - Link back in the thread for that one.

Saddiq Ahmad Turkistani - Freed from Taliban prison by US forces. Was in jail for attempting to kill OBL. Was then transported to a jail in Afganistan and then to Gitmo where he spent 4 years. Released without any charges.

Moriarty

I love the presumption that I'm a card carrying neo-con with diametrically opposing views to you because I dared to possibly deviate slightly from the party line.

I'm well aware of what has been and is going on. Thanks for your interest though.

Hobbes

Moriarty wrote:

I love the presumption that I'm a card carrying neo-con with diametrically opposing views to you because I dared to possibly deviate slightly from the party line.

Your presumption. Not mine. I don't recall saying any of that.

You call me a liar I point out why I am not. All I am saying is a rose by any other name is still a rose.

If you think otherwise prehaps something a bit more other then "Liar" or "Hes calling me names". I'll even agree to read it.

Mick86

Sleipnir wrote:

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.

Have any of them been beheaded and their deaths broadcast on CNN?

Seth Brundle

Mick86 wrote:

Have any of them been beheaded and their deaths broadcast on CNN?

It would be very unusual for a western station to show any direct killing (bombing from afar excepted)

As for showing stuff on TV - C4 did a good series about a year ago
www.channel4.com/news/microsites/T/torture/index.html

Frederico

Mick86 wrote:

Have any of them been beheaded and their deaths broadcast on CNN?

Comparing us to them?

At least we don't behead them and show their deaths on TV.. is that what you are saying?

RedPlanet

Mick86 wrote:

Have any of them been beheaded and their deaths broadcast on CNN?

um, yeah....
Because...wait i think i got it:

Because Kidnapping someone, tormenting them for a few weeks before brutally killing them is worse than kidnapping them, secretly transporting them, torturing them then imprisoning them indefinately.

So civilised.

ISAW

Originally Posted by 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.

Mick86 wrote:

Have any of them been beheaded and their deaths broadcast on CNN?

Oh so the definition of kidnap now includes beheading and broadcasting on CNN does it? Look the european versiuon of CNN international shows things that the US CNN light wont show. the exact same coverage can be "slanted" by adding or changing the titling scrolling on the screen.

also US TV is loathe to show dead american soldiers. A nipple at the superbowl became a natinal issue for Gods sake!

So your "what aboutery" slant that "The US is kidnapping but others are doing worse" just doesn't gel! Two wrongs do not make a right and it is not for the civilised state to copy the methods of terrorists and barbarians!

Tha Gopher

Moriarty wrote:

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

Stop the press, Hobbes has lied?

If you think thats a lie check out the Traveller threads from last Christmas. Pork pies for everybody......


Admittedtly Im sure mistakes must have been made and innocent people framed. Whilst Im not huge pro Bush (and I utterly completely despise Blair) the US is not in the business of kidnapping innocent muslims for no good reason. If they were, you wouldnt of heard of these mens stories via sympathetic websites, we would have learned their names by triumphant "we got `em" reports on Fox News.

Hobbes

Tha Gopher wrote:

Stop the press, Hobbes has lied?

If you think I am lying kindly post why (with facts rather then opinion) or STFU. And give it a rest with the stupid traveller thread. Seems to be your response to everything.

the US is not in the business of kidnapping innocent muslims for no good reason.

Go read up on why some of them where arrested. For some examples, "CIA mistranslating phone conversation", "A hunch", "Similar sounding name".

They are being detained on little to no evidence of any such crime.

oscarBravo

Tha Gopher wrote:

If you think thats a lie check out the Traveller threads from last Christmas. Pork pies for everybody......

I'm not sure what your personal issue with Hobbes is, but it has no place on this board. If you drag an argument from another board in here again you will be banned.

Hobbes, you know where the "report post" button is.

ISAW

Tha Gopher wrote:

the US is not in the business of kidnapping innocent muslims for no good reason. If they were, you wouldnt of heard of these mens stories via sympathetic websites, we would have learned their names by triumphant "we got `em" reports on Fox News.

Actually we got both! But your analysis is not good enough! It is just not acceptable to say you believe if something is going wrong then we will find out about it. Isnt it ab bit hypocritical to demand the Gardai, politicians, the GAA etc. all have systems to expose abuse but then not have similar systems elsewhere?

as regards the Us not intervening and only doing it for a "just cause"
http://www.zmag.org/crisescurevts/interventions.htm

Iraq has gone through this type of "democratisation" before. In the 1920's for example. that was the French and Brits but as you can see from Above the US also have a record of "democratisation". It just isnt good enough to say "wait and see". We were told that about WMD. We waited. WE didnt see any WMD.

Hobbes

Interview of Bush, the reporter trying to bring him up on waterboarding.

http://onegoodmove.org/1gm/1gmarchive/2006/09/cover_your_ass.html

Summary: Bush claims that the CIA were not torturing people, they were "using techniques within the law". When asked about Waterboarding he totally blanks the question.

As we know waterboarding is being used and Bush saying "Legal and within the law".

So the other question he blanks is that if this is within in the law then why did they have to send these people off to secret prisons.

Bushes quote "Whatever we have done is legal".

Hobbes

Hobbes wrote:

Bushes quote "Whatever we have done is legal".

But wasn't it the Americans themselves that helped to determine that this isn't a valid response? If its within the Law, it doesn't mean its automatically acceptable. Weren't the majority of the crimes that Saddam did, legal under Iraq law? I doubt he received much of a defense from that argument..;)

Thread split.
All the off topic posts have been moved to a new thread here

bonkey

Hobbes wrote:

Bushes quote "Whatever we have done is legal".

The word to be focussed on there being "we". Who, exactly, is he saying didn't break the law? Who, by omission, may therefore have also been involved and may have broken the law.

Or, indeed, who may have been involved and in obeyence of their local laws but would have been acting illegally had they been subject to the restrictions of US law.

Perhaps the answer is no-one. I doubt anyone will ask such pointed questions of the Administration, though, and even were they to do so I would doubt they'd get anything like a straight answer.

Furthermore, The Bush Administration have already established on more than one occasion that what they believed to be perfectly legal was - in fact - not so. Even if one is a supporter of the administration, believes they are honourable men, etc. it is still no sufficient grounds to argue that such trust means they - or anyone so trusted - can be exempted from proper oversight for legal compliance when there is any doubt...especially when previous such examinations have demonstrated fallability in this regard.

ISAW

bonkey wrote:

The word to be focussed on there being "we". Who, exactly, is he saying didn't break the law? Who, by omission, may therefore have also been involved and may have broken the law.

It is not for the President to decide whether something is legal or not. That is the function of courts. Bush saying he hasnt done anything illegal is, despite double negatives, a phrase of no weight in law. The irony of circumstances also strikes me. Most og the Gitmo detainees would also claim thay have not done anything illegal but it took several years for the courts to decide whether their detention was legal or not.

Or, indeed, who may have been involved and in obeyence of their local laws but would have been acting illegally had they been subject to the restrictions of US law.

This has yet to be determined. They have already been pronounced either outside civilian law or in breach of it so Bush has no option but to shift to treating them under military law. In which case they get POW rights visitation food parcels etc. and possibly a claim for mistreatment by denial of such. See he cant claim they are now NOT POW's if the supreme court has already declared that if they are not then they must be brought to trial. Such a trial would outdo OJ Simpsons.

Furthermore, The Bush Administration have already established on more than one occasion that what they believed to be perfectly legal was - in fact - not so.

again it isnt for them to establish. the COURTS decided that!

Even if one is a supporter of the administration, believes they are honourable men, etc. it is still no sufficient grounds to argue that such trust means they - or anyone so trusted - can be exempted from proper oversight for legal compliance when there is any doubt...especially when previous such examinations have demonstrated fallability in this regard.

Indeed I believe the US supported nuremburg trial came to such conclusions. they also suggested that the Germans had passed bad laws and so outside forces were entitled to censure German law. However today Bush says that states in the US are soverign and entitled to respect and oputsiders cant interefere with their laws. at the same time he wants to pass federal laws banning abortion in al these soverine states. How can he have it both ways.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5347564.stm

Bush is on the ropes on this one.His own people are against him.
He may block that bill but the sand has only untill the next presidential election to run out.
Plus he needs congress to be co operative for most of his policies to be implimented smoothly... píssing them off is not a good thing to do.

sovtek

ISAW wrote:

However today Bush says that states in the US are soverign and entitled to respect and oputsiders cant interefere with their laws. at the same time he wants to pass federal laws banning abortion in al these soverine states. How can he have it both ways.

State laws have to be in harmony with the Constitution, however, and the Constitution states that all treaties the US enters into are then "the law of the land" ie US law.
Bush doesn't have a leg to stand on here. The recent SC ruling actually opens him up to impeachment and a war crimes trail..which he would be subject to the penalty he's seen so many to.

bonkey

ISAW wrote:

How can he have it both ways.

Dude! He's The Decider.

He can have it both ways by Deciding "I want to have it both ways".

Whatever he does is legal because he Decides "I want this to be legal".

Haven't you been keeping up with the fantasies he decides are reality?

Speaking of his fantasy world and that of his "advisors" , you would want to get a load of his press conference now on Cnn...

Basically he's ignoring the questions as usual and answering them with what sounds like a pre prepared mono log.

He was asked for instance what would he feel as com in chief if some 3rd country decided to interpret the geneva convention in their own robust way when interogating US pow's...after all thats what he wants congress to approve...

"You can bring in any hypothetical you like..." was his response " but the bottom line is this programme must go ahead..."

Any time he was challenged,he said no follow-ups... He's not taking into account,he's píssing off the news people even more than usual just befre congressional elections.

What a buffoon.

sovtek

Tristrame wrote:

Any time he was challenged,he said no follow-ups... He's not taking into account,he's píssing off the news people even more than usual just befre congressional elections.

What a buffoon.

What matters is if he makes their employers happy.