Secret Jails and Torture

[yrwyddfa]

At the this stage it's alleged. I hope that this story is without foundation

[wossname]

Lets start a sweepstake about how long it takes for this to A) descent into religious debate or B) get moved to World Events.

[mendhak]

C) Be blamed on George Bush

[vbcode1980]

It's all George Bush' fault!

[thegreatone]

Pirngles are best served chilled y'know

[vbcode1980]

I think the CIA is to blame for all evil in this world.

[demotivater]

*yawn*

[mendhak]

Demotivater is in league with the evil Bush and his Illuminati agenda.

[demotivater]

All your base are belong to Illuminati

[wossname]

Somebody set up us the bomb!

[Shaggy Hiker]

So, how long DID it take to get moved?

[honeybee]

At the this stage it's alleged. I hope that this story is without foundation

The simple fact that it has not been denied or accepted by the White House or the CIA indicates they do exist. If they didn't exist, the US government or the CIA could clearly reject the allegations, because then they have nothing to lose. Obviously they can't accept the allegations. So the only possibility why they haven't refused the allegations is the prisons do exist. It's not as if the CIA needs to launch an investigation to find out the truth behind it, if it did set the prisons up, it certainly knows about them.

Germany has already acknowledged the secret CIA flights passed through its territory. Spain is investigating them and has asked the US for more details. I have seen at least two people alleging they were transferred from one country to another by the CIA, kept in these secret jails and tortured. Their specific allegations have not been refuted, the US government has only made vague and ambiguous replies about their stated policy.

You can't have smoke without fire.

Sorry, it does seem to be the fault of George Bush

.

[yrwyddfa]

The simple fact that it has not been denied or accepted by the White House or the CIA indicates they do exist. If they didn't exist, the US government or the CIA could clearly reject the allegations, because then they have nothing to lose. Obviously they can't accept the allegations. So the only possibility why they haven't refused the allegations is the prisons do exist

....

You can't have smoke without fire.

.

That is simply anti-American sentiment. The reasoning is flawed and your evidence is non-existence.

And BTW, as any chemist will know, it is often the case that you can have smoke without fire.

[Xanith]

That is simply anti-American sentiment. The reasoning is flawed and your evidence is non-existence.

Ahhh I see you know Honeybee really well. Never have a heard a more accurate description about all of his posts.

X

[yrwyddfa]

Ahhh I see you know Honeybee really well. Never have a heard a more accurate description about all of his posts.

X

What can I say?

I've been accused of the same anti-American sentiment that I accuse HB of now.

I think the difference is that I might actually have a point: I think that HB is full of drivel.

[honeybee]

That is simply anti-American sentiment. The reasoning is flawed and your evidence is non-existence.

Ah, so now you call me anti-American? How about explaining why there has been no direct rejection of the allegations? Why does it take so much time? That's a nice way for some of the members like you to avoid answering some awkward questions: brand the questioner as anti-American. How about trying to answer that question instead of handing out pro-American and anti-American labels around?

The latest news is Redcross doesn't have access to "all" the prisoners taken by the US. They only have access to those who are held by the US on the US soil. Still no statement like "We don't have any secret CIA prisons set up in foreign countries". Ever wondered why it would be so difficult to make that simple statement to deny the allegations?

Or maybe you have some evidence to suggest no secret flights ever passed through the European territory carrying prisoners back and forth? Or that you have evidence there are no secret CIA prisons anywhere in the world? I am sure if you have the proof, your president has it too. I am just wondering what on earth could make him hide that proof, which would clear him and his government of these charges immediately, and instead keep mum and avoid any direct answers. Or maybe nowadays speaking the truth has become anti-American? One never knows in these times

.

[honeybee]

I think that HB is full of drivel.

I am still waiting for a sensible explanation from you about why the US government has not been able to directly answer the allegations of the secret prisons and the secret CIA flights.

Name calling starts when you run out of points for arguments I knew it would happen, which indirectly proves you don't really have any arguments.

.

[yrwyddfa]

One never knows in these times .

Says it all really. We don't know, and idle speculation, although an interesting excerise in intellectualism solves nothing, proves nothing, and ultimately gets us nowhere.

There are no arguments for or against.

If I make a public allegation against you then you may choose to deny, agree, or ignore it. The choice is yours, and I wouldn't necessarily ask you to justify such a decision.

What I wouldn't do is apply inference, and speculation against your decision and derive further accusations of what may indeed be a load of complete tosh.

[yrwyddfa]

I am still waiting for a sensible explanation from you about why the US government has not been able to directly answer the allegations of the secret prisons and the secret CIA flights.

Name calling starts when you run out of points for arguments I knew it would happen, which indirectly proves you don't really have any arguments.

.

oooh. Hands up! You win the game of speculation - Proves that you have a greater imagination than I. Fancy a game of monopoly? Or perhaps Scrabble?

Shame that even the big European leaders have already publicly stated that they were not going to enter into an argument with the only evidence available being newspaper speculation.

But I guess you didn't know that, didn't care about that. Or . . . you know something the rest of the world doesn't.

I wonder if you'd share it?

[yrwyddfa]

I am still waiting for a sensible explanation from you about why the US government has not been able to directly answer the allegations of the secret prisons and the secret CIA flights..

I am still waiting for corroborating evidence showing that these allegations have an ounce of truth in them.

[demotivater]

I'm sure if there was anything amiss, the governments that are "investigating" will let us all know what they've found. I believe Italy has already stated it was no big deal, and that's pretty telling coming from the current Italian goverment.

[DeadEyes]

I'm curious to see what happens with this case.
Summary:
German kidnapped, flown to Afghanistan, abused then dumped in another country. All because he has a name similiar to someone elses.

Edit:
If they don't use torture why were they looking to have the CIA exempt from a recent bill preventing its use.

[moeur]

The simple fact that it has not been denied or accepted by the White House or the CIA indicates they do exist.

From the BBC article above:
"US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said this week the US does not practice or condone torture."

So I guess since the US has said they don't practice torture you feel better?

[Shaggy Hiker]

From the BBC article above:
"US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said this week the US does not practice or condone torture."

So I guess since the US has said they don't practice torture you feel better?

Considering how Alberto Gonzalez defined torture, Rice is correct regardless of what has been done. Torture is effectively whatever anybody chooses to define as torture. The government has one definition, Amnesty International has a different one, you probably have a third, and I probably have a fourth, but I believe, Moeur, that the definition you have is probably closer to the definition that I have than either of those two are to the other two.

[moeur]

I don't define torture as putting panties on a prisoner's head or making him parade around naked in front of females, but many US bashers do since the Abu Ghraib scandal.

I just watched a pretty good German movie last night called "The Ninth Day" (Der Neunte Tag ). Watching this movie brought me back to the reality of what true torture is.

Maybe some New Orleans Residents can watch this movie to remind them that the term "Concentration Camp" has a different meaning than how it is being used by them.

[Shaggy Hiker]

How do you feel about water boarding?

As for the panties and nudity bit, I think that is highly culturally subjective. Considering that I have voluntarily done both, I doubt I would find that particularly offensive. On the other hand, I have no doubt that a person who understood my cultural issues would be able to find similar things that are as offensive to me as the acts you stated would be to a person with different beliefs.

If I remember right, you are christian, but I forget whether you consider yourself devout, or casual. Either way, you certainly know some staunchly devout christians who would have serious problems with being asked to do things that desecrate their religious feelings. Is it torture? Beats me, it only causes psychological harm. I guess it depends on how you define torture.

Brainwashing could be defined as torture by that standard, but I don't know if it is typically considered torture or not. However, one proven brainwashing technique is repeated, frequent rape. That would almost certainly be considered torture. It's a fuzzy line.

[honeybee]

Says it all really. We don't know, and idle speculation, although an interesting excerise in intellectualism solves nothing, proves nothing, and ultimately gets us nowhere.

There are no arguments for or against.

If I make a public allegation against you then you may choose to deny, agree, or ignore it. The choice is yours, and I wouldn't necessarily ask you to justify such a decision.

What I wouldn't do is apply inference, and speculation against your decision and derive further accusations of what may indeed be a load of complete tosh.

I thought you would be able to differentiate between one person making an allegation against another person, and a few countries making an allegation which is possibly a contravention of international law against another country. Alas!

.

[honeybee]

oooh. Hands up! You win the game of speculation - Proves that you have a greater imagination than I. Fancy a game of monopoly? Or perhaps Scrabble?

Shame that even the big European leaders have already publicly stated that they were not going to enter into an argument with the only evidence available being newspaper speculation.

But I guess you didn't know that, didn't care about that. Or . . . you know something the rest of the world doesn't.

I wonder if you'd share it?

How about you reading up the news with people alleging they were illegally transferred from one country to another and tortured by people from CIA, Egypt, Pakistan and whatnot.

By the way one glaring example of such high-handedness by the US is Guantanamo Bay.

.

[yrwyddfa]

I thought you would be able to differentiate between one person making an allegation against another person, and a few countries making an allegation which is possibly a contravention of international law against another country. Alas!
.

What you've completely failed to do is to provide evidence

[Dnereb]

I don't define torture as putting panties on a prisoner's head or making him parade around naked in front of females, but many US bashers do since the Abu Ghraib scandal.

I just watched a pretty good German movie last night called "The Ninth Day" (Der Neunte Tag ). Watching this movie brought me back to the reality of what true torture is.

Maybe some New Orleans Residents can watch this movie to remind them that the term "Concentration Camp" has a different meaning than how it is being used by them.

So A movie can tell you better what torture is, compared to international laws and treatys (very original point of view)
Things like sleep deprivation are torture and in fact you (and I) can die from sleep deprivation sooner then hunger. (and that is a biological fact)
To all the persons denying the american violation of human rights, can you explain why Guantonamo bay prisoners are held outside the U.S. other then to prevent them to be treated within laws and treaty,s signed by the U.S.?

My point of view:
- A Terrorist suspect can be innocent too.
- If torture is done subtle and far away in secret prisons, its still torture.
- Physical persuasion is Torture.
- Transporting Prisoners to country's that have nothing to do with their elaged crime and holding prisoners under the local laws (hence inhumane laws) makes someone quilty of torture as well.
- If you are not willing to imply the same rights to a foreign terrorists suspects as a native terrorist suspects. You shouldn't blame others to be U.S. bashing but yourself to be NonU.S.,-bashing, -paranoid, -fobic, the distinction (and deprivation of human rights) between a U.S. citizens rights and Non U.S. citizens is made by the U.S. government and no-one else.
- Torture was commited in Abu Grahib.
- Torture is commited in Afganistan, people have 'dissappeard' while being controlled by U.S. institutions (interrogated by the U.S. but held by afghani police for example)
- I'm not Against the U.S, nor Americans. I'm against the current policy about non American prisoners of the U.S. I do not want to destroy the U.S. I do not hate Americans. I do think this policy is wrong.

[moeur]

So A movie can tell you better what torture is, compared to international laws and treatys (very original point of view)

Give me a break... did you really miss my point?

Torture was commited in Abu Grahib.

Not by the U.S. it wasn't. Unless you consider panties on the head a form of tourture and then you need to be reminded of what torture really is.

You can call anything you want torture such as sleep deprivation, then yes the U. S. is comitting torture. But the word is ususally reserved for more grevious tactics and the U.S. military is not doing these acts.

The CIA on the otherhand may use some techniques that border on torture in extreme cases. And they should.

[moeur]

Here is a good opinion piece from the Wall Street Journal
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editor...l?id=110007673

[FunkyDexter]

Unless you consider panties on the head a form of tourture and then you need to be reminded of what torture really is.

So where do you stand on attaching electrodes to them and threatening them with dogs? Both of which are documented in the photo's from Abu Graid. Arguably, because the electrodes weren't charged and the dogs weren't released then tactic is moral and any information gained reliable? Sorry, I disagree.

The CIA on the otherhand may use some techniques that border on torture in extreme cases. And they should.

and with this too.

Whether you choose to acknowledge it or not the activities at Abu Graid were morally abhorrent. Even the American government ackonwledged this and put the culprits on trial (the low level culprits at least ). I think most folks, American and otherwise, would stop a loooong way short of trying to justify Abu Graid.

[moeur]

So where do you stand on attaching electrodes to them and threatening them with dogs?

Here is where I stand:

attaching electrodes: not torture, causing severe pain by applying current is torture

threatening with dogs: not torture, allowing dogs to repeatedly bite is torture.

Whether you choose to acknowledge it or not the activities at Abu Graid were morally abhorrent.

I do agree with this opinion because these acts were done for the simple perverted gratification of a few individuals. If, however they were performed as a necessary part of interrogation then I would have to say that war is not pretty and these acts (at the least) are going to be performed by any country who is at war.

[FunkyDexter]

So you set a lower moral threshold for acts your government carries out (or accepts are carried out in it's name) than for acts carried out by it's citizens. Isn't your government meant to be 'of the people' and shouldn't the same rules of moral behaviour therefore apply?

As for the argument of necessity, certainly there is a necessity to combat global terrorism, but do you think that the information gained from such techniques will be reliable enough to be useful in that cause. Personally, I'll tell you I was the uni bomber if I think it's save my manhood from a zapping.

[yrwyddfa]

The evidence is yet to published but the assumption at this point must be he has at least a piece of significant evidence or that he wants to look like a fool in full media glare.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4524864.stm

[moeur]

So you set a lower moral threshold for acts your government carries out (or accepts are carried out in it's name) than for acts carried out by it's citizens. Isn't your government meant to be 'of the people' and shouldn't the same rules of moral behaviour therefore apply?

The difference between what the "government" can do and what an individual acting alone can do have nothing to do with different "moral thresholds".

For instance, a government can capture and imprison individuals suspected of doing wrong, an individual cannot.

A government can print more money when it runs out, individuals go to jail for the same act.

As for the argument of necessity, certainly there is a necessity to combat global terrorism, but do you think that the information gained from such techniques will be reliable enough to be useful in that cause

Any information given by a suspect, whether as the result of torture or not, must be corroborated by another source or it cannot be trusted. Proper interrogation techniques can often successfully work through the layers of cover stories and falsehoods.

[Dnereb]

Here is where I stand:

attaching electrodes: not torture, causing severe pain by applying current is torture

threatening with dogs: not torture, allowing dogs to repeatedly bite is torture.

That is really a sick standerd of torture So Having dogs just bite you once (in the throat) is fine!!!

I doubt it were only those individuals, I even think it's naive to believe that.

And you seem to think mental torture is no torture.
Ask yourself this....If someone stranger points a gun to your head and you do smell gunpowder as well. While he's telling He will shoot you if you don't.....
Is the threat less real because it wasn't loaded? Wouldn't you be afraid?
Don't you know people can be traumatized for life from this kind of experience?

Other Example You are being interogated.....
If you don't tell some secret they will kill your Wife and kids.
Were you tortured? They didn't cause you physical pain. They only killed your family.

[FunkyDexter]

For instance, a government can capture and imprison individuals suspected of doing wrong, an individual cannot.

Not sure about the states but over here we call it a citizens arrest. Of course, you can only detain someone with just cause or risk criminal charges yourself but that (in theory at least) aplies to the police too. Or at least, it has until now though Tony seems to want it changed.

A government can print more money when it runs out, individuals go to jail for the same act.

Only because the citizens of the nation give them that right. And if the government started doing it 'because I'm a little short this month' I suspect the citizenry might want to withdraw that right.

Proper interrogation techniques can often successfully work through the layers of cover stories and falsehoods.

Agreed, though I suspect we differ on our definition of the term: Proper interrogation techniques.

[moeur]

That is really a sick standerd of torture So Having dogs just bite you once (in the throat) is fine!!!

No, any serious physical or mental damage purposely done is not acceptable except in the most extreme of circustances. The recorded cases of dog bites, however, were one time and were accidental.

I doubt it were only those individuals, I even think it's naive to believe that.

You have no evidence to suggest otherwise so to assume otherwise would be out of pure politcal bigotry.

Don't you know people can be traumatized for life from this kind of experience?

I think everyone involved in war is tramatized to one extent or another, but we are talking about adults who are performing some tramatizing acts themselves.

So no, tramatizing a prisoner is not torture.