CIA had People Raped with Broken Bottles

Super Sidious

keving wrote: »

Somehow I think your opinion would change if YOUR family was tortured :mad:

So you would let another 9/11 happen because you believe that everyone the CIA torture are innocent... If Jack Bauer has taught me anything it gets results!

wudangclan

flynner13 wrote: »

If Jack Bauer has taught me anything it gets results!

please say thats a joke?

Super Sidious

My name is URL wrote: »

Then why not do it on US soil, and carry it out with US hands?

Why do they need to do it in a way that exempts them from any liability, and without any representation for the suspects?

It's nefarious if nothing else, and underhanded for a 1st world nation such as America

Thats what Guantanamo bay was? It was on American soil... maybe not in the middle of New York... but deemed american soil...

And I dont think anyone would of had a problem the day after 9/11 with a detention camp like it... but 7 years down the line its been closed... again my argument is if it saves lives... then why not!

Torturing someone to save thousands of lives...

Super Sidious

wudangclan wrote: »

please say thats a joke?

Obviously... but Its just an example of the torture that goes on... yes its TV but alot of it is taken from real life...

Feeding people painful drugs to release information... Non lethal torture!

GBay used to make prisoners listen to Enya 24/7... hardly the worst torture in the world!

sharky86

But there is really sh*t all we can do about it when ya think about it.....

hooradiation

flynner13 wrote: »

Yea thats exactly what I meant... they tortured them after they died...

Or maybe they torture people to extract information so as to foil a terroist plot?

Somehow I think your opinion would change if your mother/father were visiting/working in the twin towers when 9/11 happened.

Ask yourself this... would you rather see 100 people, (who have been targeted as possible terrorists or people with information... innocent or not) tortured to save 10,000 lives?

Torture is horrible, yes... but I bet alot more people who were guilty were tortured then innocent.

If it saves lives of innocent people, when theres no other option... then yes torture should be used!

everything you've written there is wrong.

Protip kid - torture does not produce any kind of reliable, actionable data.

Stop watching so much television, it'll rot your brain.

My name is URL

flynner13 wrote: »

Thats what Guantanamo bay was? It was on American soil... maybe not in the middle of New York... but deemed american soil...

And I dont think anyone would of had a problem the day after 9/11 with a detention camp like it... but 7 years down the line its been closed... again my argument is if it saves lives... then why not!

Torturing someone to save thousands of lives...

Guantanamo is only a holding area, it's not even in the US!

Rendition is the transport of POW's to other jurisdictions where brutal interrogation is allowed.

Whatever the case may be about allowing the US to use torture is moot tbh

the fact is that they used it in a way that meant that they cannot be held responsible for it, via proxy

Anyone apprehended by a legitimate force should be treated in a way that international human rights laws dictate, and in a way that doesn't subvert those laws

My name is URL

sharky86 wrote: »

But there is really sh*t all we can do about it when ya think about it.....

'We' is a very relative term in regards to issues like this.

If enough people were openly and vocally against it, it would pressurize governments and agencies into rethinking their tactics, imo

Piste

Probably wildly off topic, but if someone was extradited from one country to another with a more lax judicial system where they could be freely tortured, if they somehow escaped and made it back to their country, could their home country charge the people who carried out the extraordinary rendition with kidnapping?

Obviously politics enters into it and no country would openly challenge the CIA like that, but could it be done?

geeky

My name is URL wrote: »

How come Nazi officers are still perused and punished to this day for war crimes committed 60 years ago while stuff like this is been done by the US today?!

Because the U.S. hasn't been comprehensively defeated in a war.

mal1

I read Craig Murray's book and frankly i believe he's full of sh1t. A player who will sell his own grandmother for a little attention.

VinnyTGM

I'd say this is a very small proportion of problem's America have to answer for.

OutlawPete

My name is URL wrote: »

'
If enough people were openly and vocally against it, it would pressurize governments and agencies into rethinking their tactics, imo

The media control the world in many ways now. They have more power now than they ever had over world decisions but only so far as 'the world's a stage' and the media can control that 'stage'.

The CIA however are not on a 'stage' and so the media (the people's only true voice) have little power over them.

The media can only have power over something that fears losing face and as they don't have a 'face' they will remain untouchable and so ultimatly immune from public pressure in my view.

Overheal

My name is URL wrote: »

[more]

wtf

How come Nazi officers are still perused and punished to this day for war crimes committed 60 years ago while stuff like this is been done by the US today?!

I really dont think I heard you liken Guantanamo to a Concentration camp. Granted, its a POW camp. But Auschwitz? Are you being serious?

My name is URL

Piste wrote: »

Probably wildly off topic, but if someone was extradited from one country to another with a more lax judicial system where they could be freely tortured, if they somehow escaped and made it back to their country, could their home country charge the people who carried out the extraordinary rendition with kidnapping?

Obviously politics enters into it and no country would openly challenge the CIA like that, but could it be done?

I'd like to know the answer to that too. I'm sure some have tried to bring charges against the US, but to what avail?

Overheal wrote: »

I really dont think I heard you liken Guantanamo to a Concentration camp. Granted, its a POW camp. But Auschwitz? Are you being serious?

You're getting hung up on the Nazi part of the OP, I shouldn't really have used it to draw similarities between the 2 tbh, but essentially they are comparable.

Overheal

Luna Greasy Rust wrote: »

It's unfortunate, we actually need these pieces of crap to make our lives more comfortable...

Can you clarify this comment, please?

Overheal.

My name is URL wrote: »

You're getting hung up on the Nazi part of the OP, I shouldn't really have used it to draw similarities between the 2 tbh, but essentially they are comparable.

Auschwitz

Guantanamo

Feel free to draw. Im only American, I have trouble understanding these things.

espinolman

Gummy Panda wrote: »

Because the Nazis loss the war

But did they lose it ! :rolleyes:

Sofaspud

espinolman wrote: »

But did they lose it ! :rolleyes:

Yes.

hopalong85

Overheal wrote: »

I really dont think I heard you liken Guantanamo to a Concentration camp. Granted, its a POW camp. But Auschwitz? Are you being serious?

POW camp?! Hahahahahahahaha. Bahahahahahahhahahahahahaha. POW camp! Oh, chuckle chuckle.

TheZohanS

hopalong85 wrote: »

POW camp?! Hahahahahahahaha. Bahahahahahahhahahahahahaha. POW camp! Oh, chuckle chuckle.

enniscorthy?

My name is URL

Overheal wrote: »

Auschwitz

Guantanamo

Feel free to draw. Im only American, I have trouble understanding these things.

I never mentioned either of those places though

It's you that's trying to piece together something in my post which doesn't exist =(

wes

Overheal wrote: »

Auschwitz

Guantanamo

Feel free to draw. Im only American, I have trouble understanding these things.

The British first used concentration camps during the 2nd Boer war, and a argument could be made that Guantanamo resembles those.

As for Auschwitz, personally I think the term extermination camp is far more accurate, as the main purpose of it and other such camps, was the extermination of Jews, Roma, and other groups considered undesirable by the Nazi's.

bigeasyeah

Smashing story.

hopalong85

TheZohan wrote: »

enniscorthy?

Place in Wexford I think? Could be Wicklow. Not sure, nor do I care tbh!

OutlawPete

hopalong85 wrote: »

Place in Wexford I think? Could be Wicklow. Not sure, nor do I care tbh!

Not care? Top spot, you should read this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enniscorthy

mise_me_fein

It's not as bad as cutting people's heads off I suppose.

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

Overheal wrote: »

Can you clarify this comment, please?

Overheal.
Auschwitz

Guantanamo

Feel free to draw. Im only American, I have trouble understanding these things.

In my comment, who do you think I am referring to? Taking into account the OP and the heading of the post... :rolleyes:

The CIA, and that scumbag organisation that sees themselves as "the modern crusade against islam" blackwater, or whatever it is called, they are scum of the earth and need to be destroyed.

Paranoia killed the cat... or something like that.

As for it being a POW camp... wow... you didn't just say that.

It is closer to any concentration camp than any pow camp. Simple... It does not follow the rules layed out in the Genova convention.

It's not a POW camp. They actually changed the LAW to get away with this, redefined the word torture to get away with that also. These prisoners were paid for, they are only suspects and as they are "suspected terrorists" they do not have to agree with the Genova convention, which is SICK... If this was legit, why not have these prisoners held in america? Cuba? WTF?

Most of these people are innocent, but what do they care? The people in gitmo bay, the ones who operate it, are brainwashed into thinking that islam and muslims are evil and want to eradicate the west and our values, which is ultimate bull****...

Overheal

Hey now, Im not defending Gitmo. Im just not putting it next to a Concentration camp.

You can read through my most recent discussion about Guantanamo in US Politics (thread here (And I put a final dig into that topic during another thread here)). I recall being extremely enthused about its pending closure.

Again, Im just here explaining why these detainees are simply (edit: NOT) being dumped in US State Prisons.

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

Overheal wrote: »

Hey now, Im not defending Gitmo. Im just not putting it next to a Concentration camp.

You can read through my most recent discussion about Guantanamo in US Politics (thread here (And I put a final dig into that topic during another thread here)). I recall being extremely enthused about its pending closure.

Again, Im just here explaining why these detainees are simply (edit: NOT) being dumped in US State Prisons.

Well you could just copy and paste your comments form the other threads, because I couldn't be arsed wading through the tones of tripe in those threads, just to find out why they can't be, as you say so elagantly, "DUMPED", in US State Prisons...

It is very close to a concentration camp. There are no POW's there, they do not have the rights of a POW.

For your information, and everyone elses. I am not a racist, and I have no idea where the fcuk anyone can pick up on that from what I posted...

Overheal

I sent a PM re: that.

As for the thread it was 6 months ago and really doesnt handle the matter of Where they go too well iirc. The thread was mostly about the legality of the torture (definitely, definitely illegal).

No we havenet really had that discussion on-fora as much but the developing situation in the past 2-3 months is we are going to miss the closure timeline due to complications in finding places to send these detainees.

From my own PoV its all very confusing. What I do know is the States dont want them because the people in those states are up in arms. Then to each country/state their own. So for housing detainees, its an issue.

The other thing which is more confusing to me is why we dont simply let more of these detainees go: many of them (easilly most of them) are innocent, and have been tortured. Its abhorrent. I feel like I've discussed that at length before but cant remember if we ever drew any conclusions. You're probably right: there is a lot the public doesnt know about. District 9 anyone? There are reasons we dont know about that the CIA/whoever is running that place wants to keep those people detained one way or the other. I am hard pressed to think of logical reasons, other than as political bargaining chips.

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

Overheal wrote: »

I sent a PM re: that.

As for the thread it was 6 months ago and really doesnt handle the matter of Where they go too well iirc. The thread was mostly about the legality of the torture (definitely, definitely illegal).

No we havenet really had that discussion on-fora as much but the developing situation in the past 2-3 months is we are going to miss the closure timeline due to complications in finding places to send these detainees.

From my own PoV its all very confusing. What I do know is the States dont want them because the people in those states are up in arms. Then to each country/state their own. So for housing detainees, its an issue.

The other thing which is more confusing to me is why we dont simply let more of these detainees go: many of them (easilly most of them) are innocent, and have been tortured. Its abhorrent. I feel like I've discussed that at length before but cant remember if we ever drew any conclusions. You're probably right: there is a lot the public doesnt know about. District 9 anyone? There are reasons we dont know about that the CIA/whoever is running that place wants to keep those people detained one way or the other. I am hard pressed to think of logical reasons, other than as political bargaining chips.

I think most of them have not got a fair (proper) trial. So they cannot just be let go, as they may actually be terrorists. They cannot go home because they may be killed, or actually taken into the terrorist groups. This does happen, innocents return home to join terrorist groups... If I got a broken bottle stuck up my arse, you can be guaranteed that I will pick up a weapon and retaliate.

A lot of countries do not want to take these detainees too... I think it is just sickening. These are PEOPLE, who had lives before they were abducted. They had families and friends, and are now going to be DUMPED in some kip like Ireland, where they will be subject to all types of hell. From what I can see, these peoples' lives are over... It's really horrible.

Also, are they going to be allowed to work? Will they live off the state? What's going to happen exactly?

Overheal

Good questions.

The ones determined to be the lowest threat would probably be given Parole status or where possible sent home. I think a few have made it back to their home countries. Admittedly, not very many.

Worst offenders we can only wonder.

Ones that do make it into the State Prison system will probably carry out prolonged sentences under various levels of security based on their crimes/rulings. Low security prisons are actually fairly accomodating; and those ammenities are on offer to prisoners who follow the rules. At work we sell Hardwood Floors (and carpet etc.) but most of the stuff that has been deemed Hand Scraped is more likely than not a product that was sent through a prison for real hand-scraping before being sent back to the factory for final pre-finish. For prisoners that behave they can hold down jobs and earn a wage. Not sure if they can spend that money while in prison, but many do save for when they leave or send it to family members. This also does a good deal to combat instituationalism. The biggest problem there being that former prisoners often lack the skills to make it in the real world and shortly thereafter return to a life of crime.

For most of these prisoners, they have definitely lost the last 5, maybe even 10 years of their lives. For some though, they may make it out and live productive lives. If you figure a teen terrorist getting sent to guantanamo then leaves Michigan State prison a 20/30-something rehab theres at least a fair chance he might not return to violence/terrorism etc. - I guess thats a bit silver-lining ish but..

He definitely will not be the same person after all this gitmo **** goes down and done with. But for some of these guys I like to think the life they lost turns out to be a good riddance.

elshambo

Overheal wrote: »

Good questions.

The ones determined to be the lowest threat would probably be given Parole status or where possible sent home. I think a few have made it back to their home countries. Admittedly, not very many.

Worst offenders we can only wonder.

Ones that do make it into the State Prison system will probably carry out prolonged sentences under various levels of security based on their crimes/rulings. Low security prisons are actually fairly accomodating; and those ammenities are on offer to prisoners who follow the rules. At work we sell Hardwood Floors (and carpet etc.) but most of the stuff that has been deemed Hand Scraped is more likely than not a product that was sent through a prison for real hand-scraping before being sent back to the factory for final pre-finish. For prisoners that behave they can hold down jobs and earn a wage. Not sure if they can spend that money while in prison, but many do save for when they leave or send it to family members. This also does a good deal to combat instituationalism. The biggest problem there being that former prisoners often lack the skills to make it in the real world and shortly thereafter return to a life of crime.

For most of these prisoners, they have definitely lost the last 5, maybe even 10 years of their lives. For some though, they may make it out and live productive lives. If you figure a teen terrorist getting sent to guantanamo then leaves Michigan State prison a 20/30-something rehab theres at least a fair chance he might not return to violence/terrorism etc. - I guess thats a bit silver-lining ish but..

He definitely will not be the same person after all this gitmo **** goes down and done with. But for some of these guys I like to think the life they lost turns out to be a good riddance.

what about the countless innocent ones held due to false confessions/ being pointed out by strangers for money?

keep in mind you responses will be read by Irish people who remember what happened to Irish people in British police cells/prisons in the 70's/80's/90's (btw im 1/2 English, so am not some anti English nut)


None of them could go to US prisons because none of them are/were considered prisoners when taken

You could get in a lot of trouble in the states for calling the POW's as they are getting no POW rights due to not being classed as POW's in America (earlier post)

According to the US goverment GBay is/was not US land so they were not prisoners (new goverment may have softened the wording/actions)


your general answers in this thread are so full of fail is not funny!

:mad:(not coming back to this)

Captain Furball

BURN AMERICAN

Agent Smith

Its all overheal's fault in fairness...

Nodin

Captain Furball wrote: »

BURN AMERICAN

Worry not. Soon Allah shall strike them down and their cookie jars shall contain naught but dust.

Sleipnir

While Guantanamo is not the same as Auschwitz obviously, the Nazi's never claimed to be upholding democracy while;

• kidnapping people and illegally moving them to other States.
• Holding people without arrest.
• Imprisoning them without arrest or charge.
• Imprisoning people indefinitely without charge.
• Holding courts where the defendant has no legal representation.
• Defining those held as "enemy combatants" instead of POW's even thoug many of them were members of the opposing force of an invasion. Thus, denying them any rights under the Geneva convention.
• Torturing and abusing those they held.

Democracy for all?

Oh, and let's not forget that in the case of Nicaragua V. United States of America, the International Court of Justice stated

that the U.S. encouraged human rights violations by the Contras by the manual entitled Psychological Operations in Guerrilla Warfare. However, this did not make such acts attributable to the U.S.

I.e. they made someone else do their dirty work.

RonMexico

Jaysus for a minute there I thought the thread read - "CIE Had People Raped With Broken Bottles":eek:

wes

mise_me_fein wrote: »

It's not as bad as cutting people's heads off I suppose.

I reckon being boiled to death is a hell of a lot more painful and prolonged than being decapitated.

stackerman

Sleipnir wrote: »

While Guantanamo is not the same as Auschwitz obviously, the Nazi's never claimed to be upholding democracy while;

• kidnapping people and illegally moving them to other States.
• Holding people without arrest.
• Imprisoning them without arrest or charge.
• Imprisoning people indefinitely without charge.
• Holding courts where the defendant has no legal representation.
• Defining those held as "enemy combatants" instead of POW's even thoug many of them were members of the opposing force of an invasion. Thus, denying them any rights under the Geneva convention.
• Torturing and abusing those they held.

Democracy for all?

Thats the whole point and I cant see how any of you could justify this ?!

They put themselves up there as bringing democracy to the world, you just cant do that from the gutter. You cant preach one thing and do another, even a bloody child knows that ffs

dsmythy

Obama. Change... Or maybe not...

Either way the biggest superpower of the world is always going to try retain it's place at the top of the food chain and thus be hated. It's always been the case.

If America floundered then i guess China would take up the role. Rape with broken bottles may end up being the least of people's concerns then, who knows.

Does anyone think if America removed all it's forces from all over the world and promised never to leave it's borders again the world will truely be a more peaceful place? Really?

Nodin

dsmythy wrote: »

Does anyone think if America removed all it's forces from all over the world and promised never to leave it's borders again the world will truely be a more peaceful place? Really?

I don't think you get the point. The fact is that they quite frequently act in a way that directly contravenes, contradicts and ass-rapes what they preach. That deserves criticism. We all know that the Russians, PRC and various others are quite nasty when the mood takes them - the same applies to the Americans. Usually, they do it by proxy (latin American in the 1970's and 80's) but recently the mask has slipped somewhat. Their bases are not the problem, events like Iraq, Vietnam, Iran (in the 1950's), Chile and the like are.

Sleipnir

dsmythy wrote: »

Does anyone think if America removed all it's forces from all over the world and promised never to leave it's borders again the world will truely be a more peaceful place? Really?

No I don't think anyone here has suggested that? Should we just up with American crimes against humanity because it might be the lesser of two evils? Turn a blind eye? Better the devil you know?

Overheal

elshambo wrote: »

what about the countless innocent ones held due to false confessions/ being pointed out by strangers for money?

keep in mind you responses will be read by Irish people who remember what happened to Irish people in British police cells/prisons in the 70's/80's/90's (btw im 1/2 English, so am not some anti English nut)


None of them could go to US prisons because none of them are/were considered prisoners when taken

You could get in a lot of trouble in the states for calling the POW's as they are getting no POW rights due to not being classed as POW's in America (earlier post)

According to the US goverment GBay is/was not US land so they were not prisoners (new goverment may have softened the wording/actions)


your general answers in this thread are so full of fail is not funny!

:mad:(not coming back to this)

like i said before i dont think innocent ones can or will be detained forever.

i dont claim my posts to be fact, these are observations based on my view of the situation. To call them 'Full of Fail' is a tad pointless.

Overheal

dsmythy wrote:

Does anyone think if America removed all it's forces from all over the world and promised never to leave it's borders again the world will truely be a more peaceful place? Really?

I doubt it. If the US left tomorrow, the power vacuum would probably be inescapably violent. thats a question best asked in politics or military fora. Personally though I find the question childish.

nacho libre

keving wrote: »

Thats the whole point and I cant see how any of you could justify this ?!

They put themselves up there as bringing democracy to the world, you just cant do that from the gutter. You cant preach one thing and do another, even a bloody child knows that ffs

hmm.. it's interesting you mention a child because a child-like defense seems to be used by those, who first seek to deny that such things happen- this first defense requires collective amnesia of America's foreign policy stretching back over the decades - when this tactic is no longer viable they move on to the aforementioned childish mitigation of wrongdoing by pointing the finger at someone else. We are told about how worse the world would be if China and Russia were overlords. This is somehow meant to lessen the gravity of the crimes permitted by the CIA. It's akin to the child in the play ground trying to bury their own bad behaviour by pointing the finger of blame at someone else.

sharky86

My name is URL wrote: »

'We' is a very relative term in regards to issues like this.

If enough people were openly and vocally against it, it would pressurize governments and agencies into rethinking their tactics, imo

Doubtful.... Guantanamo Bay still open aint it... we can't stop it

dsmythy

Nodin wrote: »

I don't think you get the point. The fact is that they quite frequently act in a way that directly contravenes, contradicts and ass-rapes what they preach. That deserves criticism. We all know that the Russians, PRC and various others are quite nasty when the mood takes them - the same applies to the Americans. Usually, they do it by proxy (latin American in the 1970's and 80's) but recently the mask has slipped somewhat. Their bases are not the problem, events like Iraq, Vietnam, Iran (in the 1950's), Chile and the like are.

I was asking the question towards people on the thread who were saying that if America wasn't so interfering in others affairs the the world would be a better place. Obviously if they do bad things for no good reason then they should be called on it. But sometimes to deal with certain threats it takes more than goodwill to all mankind to achieve it. Although broken bottling men in some country on the off chance they may have info doesn't come under the necessary evil requirements. It comes into rather disgusting territory.

Sleipnir wrote: »

No I don't think anyone here has suggested that? Should we just up with American crimes against humanity because it might be the lesser of two evils? Turn a blind eye? Better the devil you know?

Maybe so. The world is not fair. Never was, probably never will be. It would be nice to be nice for sure. Play by the rules. I'm not sure you'll reap much in the way of rewards though.

Overheal wrote: »

I doubt it. If the US left tomorrow, the power vacuum would probably be inescapably violent. thats a question best asked in politics or military fora. Personally though I find the question childish.

I don't think it's childish at all. It's a legitimate question. If they pull away from the world and just look after themselves lots of people will get what they want. The big bad United States no longer interfering in other people's business. They won't have people's backs anymore. Israel, South Korea, Japan, Ukraine etc. will have to find weaker best buddies to make up for it. The world would be less stable.

Overheal

I meant to say the notion was childish to expect/want america to retreat across his borders and that somehow this would better the world. Possibly, but not without much bloodshed and power struggle. Israel is wiped off the map/conquered, Korea would be whole again, and probably not in a great way, and Russia would probably use it as an excuse to be the new world police: first stop, Georgia.

Absolutely though to get back on topic something is wrong with the CIA and to be perfectly honest I think its the whole Christian Right thing. They dont see torturing these people as wrong or evil because of God this and God that. Their biggest beef against the Soviets? Godlessness, i wouldve thought. Though the Communism thing did well as a 'Primary' concern.

marco murphy

Overheal wrote: »

I meant to say the notion was childish to expect/want america to retreat across his borders and that somehow this would better the world. Possibly, but not without much bloodshed and power struggle. Israel is wiped off the map/conquered, Korea would be whole again, and probably not in a great way, and Russia would probably use it as an excuse to be the new world police: first stop, Georgia.

Absolutely though to get back on topic something is wrong with the CIA and to be perfectly honest I think its the whole Christian Right thing. They dont see torturing these people as wrong or evil because of God this and God that. Their biggest beef against the Soviets? Godlessness, i wouldve thought. Though the Communism thing did well as a 'Primary' concern.

America and their lackeys will fall

And it will be cause for celebration