Secret Prisons

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Without due process of law how do you know that people in Guantanamo Bay and other "black hole" prisons are supposed to be there? Again organisations like Amnesty have provided some evidence to suggest that there is at least a question mark over that issue - but as there is no 'normal' legal process how can anyone know - except to simply make the assumption that the military only arrests the guilty? Similarly how can you justify holding someone for 2-4 years, subject them to degrading treatment (which is classed as torture under the same international laws we are waving under the nose of other countries) and then releasing them without charge?

Keeping people indefinitely without trial or charge is something that so-called rogue nations have done. The only difference seems to be that you get a 4-5 star Zagat rated prison instead of a concrete Soviet flop-house with dripping walls and rotting food.

[desert_fox 32]

Verbal masturbation in all its beauty!

Congratulations on finally getting a sentence grammatically and punctuationally correct.

Masturbation you say - were typing with both hands this time?

give erekose a break...I actually did see where he actually took a position on some issue just last week....he put down a definite "maybe".

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I vote for more secret prisions......dont bother me one bit.

FYI...the Bill of Rights only applies to actions brought against ppl here in the US. It doesnt apply in some foreign country. This is the very reason that these people are not brought here, but are kept in foreign lands such as Cuba.

You think we gave jury trials to the Nazis after WWII???

Hence we have International law.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I vote for more secret prisions......dont bother me one bit.

FYI...the Bill of Rights only applies to actions brought against ppl here in the US. It doesnt apply in some foreign country. This is the very reason that these people are not brought here, but are kept in foreign lands such as Cuba.

You think we gave jury trials to the Nazis after WWII???

Then why do we even give a sh*t when someone like a Saddam abuses and tortures his own people? After all, they aren't US citizens and therefore not covered by any rights, right?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

give erekose a break...I actually did see where he actually took a position on some issue just last week....he put down a definite "maybe".

I'd ask you again to point my 'lack of position' on an issue, but I expect I'll be disappointed once again.

You seem to like to throwing in a few cheap jibes before vanishing quietly into the ether, leaving behind the faint whiff of "old fart". In fact why bother to prove anything - you're always right aren't you?

Perhaps you could do me a favor - and get the rope. For your own neck

Edited September 8, 2006 by erekose

[Ban Hammer 13,336]

Then why do we even give a sh*t when someone like a Saddam abuses and tortures his own people? After all, they aren't US citizens and therefore not covered by any rights, right?

you're right, we should not care, since saddam isn't a republican

[desert_fox 32]

I vote for more secret prisions......dont bother me one bit.

FYI...the Bill of Rights only applies to actions brought against ppl here in the US. It doesnt apply in some foreign country. This is the very reason that these people are not brought here, but are kept in foreign lands such as Cuba.

You think we gave jury trials to the Nazis after WWII???

Then why do we even give a sh*t when someone like a Saddam abuses and tortures his own people? After all, they aren't US citizens and therefore not covered by any rights, right?

I dont even understand your comment. I do believe that he is being tried IAW the laws of IRAQ....what kind of rights they offer???...I have no idea.

I vote for more secret prisions......dont bother me one bit.

FYI...the Bill of Rights only applies to actions brought against ppl here in the US. It doesnt apply in some foreign country. This is the very reason that these people are not brought here, but are kept in foreign lands such as Cuba.

You think we gave jury trials to the Nazis after WWII???

Hence we have International law.

for those countries that subscribe......otherwise we go by the Geneva Convention.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

for those countries that subscribe......otherwise we go by the Geneva Convention.

Or we look for ways for it (Geneva Convention) not to apply

[desert_fox 32]

for those countries that subscribe......otherwise we go by the Geneva Convention.

Or we look for ways for it (Geneva Convention) not to apply

I do believe that the Govt has always maintained that any prisioner were treated IAW the protections offered to the Geneva accords as to Enemy Combatants....and not as prisioners of war since they represent no govt nor fight in uniform, etc.

[Marc and Olga 0]

Then why do we even give a sh*t when someone like a Saddam abuses and tortures his own people? After all, they aren't US citizens and therefore not covered by any rights, right?

you're right, we should not care, since saddam isn't a republican

The REAL reason for the war on Iraq?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I vote for more secret prisions......dont bother me one bit.

FYI...the Bill of Rights only applies to actions brought against ppl here in the US. It doesnt apply in some foreign country. This is the very reason that these people are not brought here, but are kept in foreign lands such as Cuba.

You think we gave jury trials to the Nazis after WWII???

Then why do we even give a sh*t when someone like a Saddam abuses and tortures his own people? After all, they aren't US citizens and therefore not covered by any rights, right?

I dont even understand your comment. I do believe that he is being tried IAW the laws of IRAQ....what kind of rights they offer???...I have no idea.

Didn't we take out Saddam (or at least one of the rotating reasons given) was because he was an evil tyrant who abused and tortured his own people as opposed to him ever laying a hand on us Bill of Rights protected US Citizens, yes?

[mmmbop1976 1]

Also, and sorry to be repetitive, to pretend that only a "few bad apples" are torturing people overlooks the fact that they have been given the license to do so from the White House. The president can only say there is not torture because his definition of torture departs from international (and up to 2002 American law).

The prosecutions yoou discuss are of people at the lower end of the command chain, anyone not on the ground in the areas of combat has not been investigated let alone prosecuted.

what is your evidence that they were given license from the White House? pure conjecture on your part, because that's what you want to believe is true.

Can't see the forest in spite of the trees, yes? That many incidences occuring indicates that somebody in a position of authority is condoning torture. To suggest these are just rogue personnel acting out suggests we either have a major insubordinate problem in our military or those in authority have no real oversight. Time to stop passing the buck and assign responsability on those who are in positions to make sure it doesn't happen...period.

of the hundreds of thousand of brave military men and woman, cia and fbi agents involved in the war on terror, i would consider your evidence to be a few cases, a very low percentage, and not indicative of torture being sanctioned from higher up. these are isolated cases. and by the way, many of those statements were totally pointless and baseless, i could have made up my own list and had it look just as convincing. like the one about some prisoners being returned to countries that are known to torture. yeah, and so? what happened to them when they were returned? for all we know they were freed. but of course your trying to make the inference that they were tortured, without any evidence to back it up.

and no, we don't have a major insubordination problem in our military, but we do have a few, very small percentage, bad apples, and they are held accountable. the u.s. military is not immune from having bad apples, just as is any society not immune from it.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

for those countries that subscribe......otherwise we go by the Geneva Convention.

Or we look for ways for it (Geneva Convention) not to apply

I do believe that the Govt has always maintained that any prisioner were treated IAW the protections offered to the Geneva accords as to Enemy Combatants....and not as prisioners of war since they represent no govt nor fight in uniform, etc.

You think it's limited like that? This guy, Khaled el-Masri, is a German citizen that the CIA snatched illegally in Macedonia to then fly him to Afghanistan where they tormented him for weeks on in before releasing him w/o charge. His crime? His name is similar to that of one Khaled al-Masri who they were apparently after. Precisely the reason, by the way, why being a "suspected" terrorist just doesn't cut it. Every so often, you gonna grab the wrong guy. Like the hundreds that were held for years w/o charge and then released from Gitmo w/o ever having been charged with any god damn thing. Makes me wonder how we just cut the hundreds of the "worst of the worst" (that's what the axis of evil Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld like call them) lose like that.

Khalid El-Masri

German citizen, Khalid El-Masri.Khalid El-Masri (born June 29, 1963) is a German citizen who was mistakenly detained, flown to Afghanistan, and interrogated by the American CIA for several months as a part of the War on terror, and then released without charge. This erroneous detention was apparently due to a misunderstanding that arose concerning the similarity of the spelling of El-Masri's name with the spelling of suspected terrorist al-Masri.

Yes, it's from wikipedia for it is a nice summary. There's tons of articles on this criminal act of the CIA out there.

[Marc and Olga 0]

Here is an interesting video in which the first part discuss how the Bush administration decided to "stop calling it torture and start calling it pressure and if someone died in custody that is even better!"

and "even torture small children in front of their parents, even sexually".

"bush even claimed having 'executive authority' to ignore ANY federal law he wished."

Time to phone Olga.

enjoy.

[mmmbop1976 1]

Here is an interesting video in which the first part discuss how the Bush administration decided to "stop calling it torture and start calling it pressure and if someone died in custody that is even better!"

and "even torture small children in front of their parents, even sexually".

"bush even claimed having 'executive authority' to ignore ANY federal law he wished."

Time to phone Olga.

enjoy.

is this you micheal moore? nice propaganda film. in this post are you trying to infer that the President of the United States agrees that small children can be tortured, even in front of their parents, even sexually?