| Yara 10.04.2009 09:01 |
The whole thing about interrogation methods and, especially, waterboarding and the efforts by some American authorities to deny its cruelty and what it really is about, that is, torture, is very sad and frustrating. I hope there's really some change in the way the U.S government has been handling many issues. I remember Former Attorney General Alberto Gonzáles, who worked for the Bush administration, expressed quite clearly the desire to revise and "revamp" the Geneva Conventions, and I found it terrifying. Terrorism is a very hard problem to deal with, no doubt, but torturing people, period, whether within the scope of any misguided legal interpretation or not, or arresting them for I don't know how much time without formal charges and a due process of law has only created more problems and added to the brutality of it all - it's ruthlessness done in the name of noble goals. I really hope that policies dealing with terrorism and other hard issues grow more attentive to basic human rights and principles of international law. It's not about finger-pointing countries - Brazil is as disrespectful to basic human rights as a country can be, sadly. Here's an Informative article about a gruesome issue. Here's the link to the article I paste below: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/10/world/10detain.html "C.I.A. to Close Secret Prisons for Terror Suspects : By SCOTT SHANE Published: April 9, 2009 WASHINGTON — The Central Intelligence Agency said Thursday that it would decommission the secret overseas prisons where it subjected Al Qaeda prisoners to brutal interrogation methods, bringing to a symbolic close the most controversial counterterrorism program of the Bush administration. But in a statement to employees, the agency’s director, Leon E. Panetta, said agency officers who worked in the program “should not be investigated, let alone punished” because the Justice Department under President George W. Bush had declared their actions legal. Mr. Panetta and other top Obama administration officials have said they believe that waterboarding, the near-drowning method used in 2002 and 2003 on three prisoners, is torture, which is illegal under American and international law. The International Committee of the Red Cross, which interviewed 14 prisoners, said in a report made public this week that prisoners were also repeatedly slammed into walls, forced to stand for days with their arms handcuffed to the ceiling, confined in small boxes and held in frigid cells. Mr. Panetta said the secret detention facilities were no longer in operation, but he suggested that security and maintenance had been continuing at the sites at the taxpayers’ expense since they were emptied under Mr. Bush in 2006. Terminating security contracts at the sites would save “at least $4 million,” Mr. Panetta said. The C.I.A. has never revealed the location of its so-called black sites overseas, but intelligence officials, aviation records and news reports have placed them in Afghanistan, Thailand, Poland, Romania and Jordan, among other countries. Agency officials have said that fewer than 100 prisoners have been held since the program was created in 2002, and about 30 were subjected to what the C.I.A. called “enhanced” interrogation techniques. Mr. Bush transferred the remaining 14 prisoners to Guantánamo Bay in Cuba in 2006 but ordered some sites maintained for future use; only two Qaeda prisoners are known to have been held for several months since then. In his first week in office, President Obama banned coercive interrogations and ordered the C.I.A. program closed. Mr. Panetta said that the C.I.A. had not detained any terrorism suspects since he took office in February and added that any suspects captured in the future would be quickly turned over to the American military or to a suspect’s home country. Joanne Mariner, the director of the terrorism and counterterrorism program at Human Rights Watch, said the closing of the C.I.A. prisons was “incredibly heartening and important.” But she said that a criminal investigation of the C.I.A. interrogation program was nonetheless necessary, and she expressed concern that Mr. Panetta had not made clear what evidence the C.I.A. would need to detain a suspect. Mr. Panetta’s statement, along with a classified letter about interrogation policy that he sent Thursday to the Senate and House intelligence oversight committees, underscored the new administration’s sharp break with policies that Mr. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney often credited with preventing a repeat of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. By contrast, President Obama and Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. insist that the use of techniques they describe as torture betrayed American values, alienated allies and became a recruiting tool for Al Qaeda. A task force is now studying what interrogation methods should be permitted and how to ensure that prisoners turned over to other countries will not be mistreated. In his statement, Mr. Panetta vowed to continue the “global pursuit” of Al Qaeda and its allies but said interrogators would use traditional methods and not physical force. “C.I.A. officers, whose knowledge of terrorist organizations is second to none, will continue to conduct debriefings using a dialogue style of questioning,” Mr. Panetta wrote. He said C.I.A. officers were required to report abuse, even if it were carried out by a cooperating foreign intelligence service. Mr. Panetta also said the agency would no longer use contractors to conduct interrogations. Former military psychologists working under contract for the C.I.A. helped devise and conduct the previous harsh interrogations, according to former agency officials. Senator Dianne Feinstein, Democrat of California and the chairwoman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, had proposed legislation barring contractors from conducting interrogations, saying the job was too important to outsource. The Senate committee recently began an investigation of the C.I.A. detention and interrogation program, and senior Senate and House members have called for a broader and more public “truth commission” to investigate past counterterrorism programs. Mr. Panetta said that the agency would cooperate with Congressional reviews but said that “fairness and wisdom” should dictate against a criminal investigation or other sanctions. The C.I.A. statement comes at a time of continuing debate inside the Obama administration over which classified documents related to the agency’s interrogation program should be made public. After several delays, the Justice Department now has until April 16 to decide whether to make public legal opinions justifying the C.I.A.’s harsh methods. Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. has argued for the release of the opinions and related documents, but some current and former C.I.A. officials say they believe that wholesale disclosures could harm counterterrorism efforts and hurt morale at the agency." |
| thomasquinn 32989 10.04.2009 11:13 |
It'd be a great move, but I don't trust the CIA with this any more than with anything else. They'll smile at the president, say "sure, we'll stop, and we'll close all our illigit prisons down" and then go right on some place else. The CIA has become, over the years, a very dangerous instrument indeed, much as was feared when its roots were laid with OSS during the Second World War. |
| JoxerTheDeityPirate 10.04.2009 13:35 |
the CIA is like the Cornish: there's one lurking somewhere where you least expect it... |
| thomasquinn 32989 10.04.2009 13:47 |
Was that a confession, Jox? |
| Winter Land Man 10.04.2009 13:54 |
I say torture the terrorists. Strip them down and hurt their pride. Only the terrorists, murderers, and rapists. |
| thomasquinn 32989 10.04.2009 14:26 |
Play The Game wrote: I say torture the terrorists. Strip them down and hurt their pride. Only the terrorists, murderers, and rapists. *Sigh*, another non-thinking barbarian. How do you know who "the terrorists, murderers, and rapists" are in the first place, if you have to use torture to find out? |
| Winter Land Man 10.04.2009 15:14 |
ThomasQuinn wrote:Play The Game wrote: I say torture the terrorists. Strip them down and hurt their pride. Only the terrorists, murderers, and rapists.*Sigh*, another non-thinking barbarian. How do you know who "the terrorists, murderers, and rapists" are in the first place, if you have to use torture to find out? They don't send innocents to prison unless there is a reason to suspect them. I say torture ANY alqueada (sorry about the spelling) member. But as for the CIA, yeah, I like that kind of thing. |
| catqueen 10.04.2009 16:55 |
And after they've been tortured, found innocent and released, they can, with their new-found anger against a society which unjustly tortured them go free to be happy, fulfilled people, upright citizens and supportive neighbours... ? |
| JoxerTheDeityPirate 10.04.2009 19:18 |
catqueen wrote: And after they've been tortured, found innocent and released, they can, with their new-found anger against a society which unjustly tortured them go free to be happy, fulfilled people, upright citizens and supportive neighbours... ?and sue for millions which in the end comes out of the taxpayers pocket.. |
| JoxerTheDeityPirate 10.04.2009 19:19 |
ThomasQuinn wrote: Was that a confession, Jox?well i am trying to grow a field of poppies in my garden... |
| thomasquinn 32989 11.04.2009 06:28 |
JoxerTheDeityPirate wrote:ThomasQuinn wrote: Was that a confession, Jox?well i am trying to grow a field of poppies in my garden... Oh, I didn't know you had the right climate? Best start stocking up on razor-blades then... |
| Poo, again 11.04.2009 07:26 |
Play The Game wrote:ThomasQuinn wrote:They don't send innocents to prison unless there is a reason to suspect them. I say torture ANY alqueada (sorry about the spelling) member. But as for the CIA, yeah, I like that kind of thing.Play The Game wrote: I say torture the terrorists. Strip them down and hurt their pride. Only the terrorists, murderers, and rapists.*Sigh*, another non-thinking barbarian. How do you know who "the terrorists, murderers, and rapists" are in the first place, if you have to use torture to find out? You're a great patriot ( = republican). |
| Winter Land Man 11.04.2009 17:25 |
I'm not a Republican, sir! |
| Mr Mercury 11.04.2009 18:16 |
Play The Game wrote: They don't send innocents to prison unless there is a reason to suspect them. Oh yes they do and have done in the past. And what do you think they would have done If Jean Charles De Menezes had not been killed in that London tube station? You can bet your ass he would have been hauled off to jail and kept there for as long as possible whilst being "interrogated". |
| catqueen 12.04.2009 12:14 |
Ever heard of the Bermingham Six? Six guys arrested, found guilty and sentenced to life in jail for murder of 22 people in Bermingham (England) in 1974 or '75. They were released in the early 1990s, having been found innocent. Evidence had been changed and even at the time there was very little evidence to say that they did it. The verdict was contested at least twice. They were also beaten and very badly treated in jail and despite the fact that they were covered in marks from it, the guards and police involved were all found not guilty. Also that case in England where some couple spent a few years in jail because they allegedly killed their daughter, but then she was found to have died of some extremely rare disease that makes your body produce too much salt. They had been accused of poisening her with salt, I think, and I can't remember how it was found that it was an illness - I think another child in the family had it. The parents were aware of the illness, and had told people about it, but they weren't believed. |
| Winter Land Man 12.04.2009 17:12 |
Mr Mercury wrote:Play The Game wrote: They don't send innocents to prison unless there is a reason to suspect them.Oh yes they do and have done in the past. And what do you think they would have done If Jean Charles De Menezes had not been killed in that London tube station? You can bet your ass he would have been hauled off to jail and kept there for as long as possible whilst being "interrogated". I didn't say they were guilty or innocent, I said "a reason to suspect them" Okay, this is what I mean, If your 12 year old son or daughter was walking home from school and told you some guy tried to get them into their car or house, wouldn't you suspect something? How about your child kept saying the guy does it everyday? Would you want the guy arrested? They probably would arrest him, and that's the way unless they can prove he's innocent. |
| Mr Mercury 12.04.2009 17:38 |
Play The Game wrote:Mr Mercury wrote:I didn't say they were guilty or innocent, I said "a reason to suspect them" Okay, this is what I mean, If your 12 year old son or daughter was walking home from school and told you some guy tried to get them into their car or house, wouldn't you suspect something? How about your child kept saying the guy does it everyday? Would you want the guy arrested? They probably would arrest him, and that's the way unless they can prove he's innocent.Play The Game wrote: They don't send innocents to prison unless there is a reason to suspect them.Oh yes they do and have done in the past. And what do you think they would have done If Jean Charles De Menezes had not been killed in that London tube station? You can bet your ass he would have been hauled off to jail and kept there for as long as possible whilst being "interrogated". a "reason to suspect them" is no basis for jailing someone. Thats like saying I have reason (not proof) to suspect that my next door neighbour is a paedophile therefore I should alert the authorities. They come along and jail the guy only to discover he is completely innocent all along. Get the picture now Jake???? |
| Mr Mercury 12.04.2009 17:39 |
catqueen wrote: Ever heard of the Bermingham Six? Six guys arrested, found guilty and sentenced to life in jail for murder of 22 people in Bermingham (England) in 1974 or '75. They were released in the early 1990s, having been found innocent. Evidence had been changed and even at the time there was very little evidence to say that they did it. The verdict was contested at least twice. They were also beaten and very badly treated in jail and despite the fact that they were covered in marks from it, the guards and police involved were all found not guilty. Also that case in England where some couple spent a few years in jail because they allegedly killed their daughter, but then she was found to have died of some extremely rare disease that makes your body produce too much salt. They had been accused of poisening her with salt, I think, and I can't remember how it was found that it was an illness - I think another child in the family had it. The parents were aware of the illness, and had told people about it, but they weren't believed. You can also add The Guildford 4 and the Maguire 7 to that list. There is many more I am sure.... |