NationStates Jolt Archive

oh joy! so not only do we have a network of secret torture, rape, and murder camps, but we are actually using ones set up by stalin and the bolshies. well, you might as well go with the well-tested product, i guess. and they were probably available at crazy discount prices too.



http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05306/599159.stm
CIA detention sites divulged

Eastern Europe compound one of secret sites in 8 nations hiding terrorism captives

Wednesday, November 02, 2005
By Dana Priest, The Washington Post

The CIA has been hiding and interrogating some of its most important al-Qaida terror network captives at a Soviet-era compound in Eastern Europe, according to U.S. and foreign officials familiar with the arrangement.

The secret facility is part of a covert prison system set up by the CIA nearly four years ago that at various times has included sites in eight countries, including Thailand, Afghanistan and several Eastern Europe democracies as well as a small center at the Guantanamo Bay prison in Cuba, according to current and former intelligence officials and diplomats from three continents.

The hidden global internment network is a central element in the CIA's unconventional war on terrorism. It depends on cooperation of foreign intelligence services and keeping even basic information about the system secret from the public, foreign officials and nearly all members of Congress charged with overseeing CIA covert actions.

The existence and locations of the facilities -- referred to as "black sites" in classified White House, CIA, Justice Department and congressional documents -- are known to only a handful of U.S. officials and, usually, only to the president and a few top intelligence officers in each host country.

The CIA and White House, citing national security concerns and the program's value, have dissuaded Congress from demanding that the agency answer questions in open testimony about conditions under which captives are held. Virtually nothing is known about who is kept in the facilities, what interrogation methods are used with them or how decisions are made about whether they should be detained or for how long.

While the Defense Department has produced volumes of public reports and testimony about its detention practices and rules after abuse scandals at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison and Guantanamo Bay, the CIA has not even acknowledged the existence of its black sites. To do so, say officials familiar with the program, could open the U.S. government to legal challenges, particularly in foreign courts, and increase the risk of political condemnation at home and abroad.

But the revelations of widespread prisoner abuse in Afghanistan and Iraq by the U.S. military -- which operates under published rules and transparent oversight of Congress -- have increased concern among lawmakers, foreign governments and rights groups about the opaque CIA system. Those concerns escalated last month, when Vice President Dick Cheney and CIA Director Porter Goss asked Congress to exempt CIA employees from legislation endorsed by 90 senators to bar cruel and degrading treatment of any prisoner in U.S. custody.

Although the CIA will not acknowledge details of its system, intelligence officials defend the agency approach, arguing that the successful defense of the country requires that the agency be empowered to hold and interrogate suspected terrorists for as long as necessary and without restrictions imposed by the U.S. legal system or even by the military tribunals established for prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay.

The Washington Post is not publishing the names of the Eastern European countries involved in the covert program, at the request of senior U.S. officials. They argued that the disclosure might disrupt counterterrorism efforts in those countries and elsewhere and could make them targets of possible terrorist retaliation.

It is illegal for the government to hold prisoners in such isolation in secret prisons in the United States, which is why the CIA placed them overseas, according to several former and current intelligence officials and other U.S. government officials.

You know, I would expect some honest outrage from the American audience, but instead all we're going to see are attacks on the source, and then arguments that those humans don't have the same rights as the humans protected by all the various laws and constitutions...

Not surprising in the least.

You know, I would expect some honest outrage from the American audience,
There will be.
but instead all we're going to see are attacks on the source
It's the Washington Post, apparently. Not much of an argument there.
and then arguments that those humans don't have the same rights as the humans protected by all the various laws and constitutions...
It depends. If they are POWS or accused, they have quite a few rights.
I imagine this covers 99.9% (never, ever say 100%) of them.

If they have been convicted of conspiracy to blow shit up (my I'm technical tonight), its a different story. Since the US doesn't try most terror suspects, this is unlikely.

You know, I would expect some honest outrage from the American audience, but instead all we're going to see are attacks on the source, and then arguments that those humans don't have the same rights as the humans protected by all the various laws and constitutions...

you see, in america we hold these truths to be self evident: that all people are created equal and can equally be disappeared to soviet torture camps at the whim of our rulers, that rights are for pussies, and that rape and murder are equivalent to blowing off steam or 'harmless' fraternity pranks when not specifically and explicitly rejected by dear leader.

You know, I would expect some honest outrage from the American audience, but instead all we're going to see are attacks on the source, and then arguments that those humans don't have the same rights as the humans protected by all the various laws and constitutions...
I'm not gonna attack the source. It's probably all true. But your right about the whole "those humans don't have the same rights as......" thing. But not because of the reasoning you stated. They don't have the same rights as me because I've never blown up civilians, I've never cut someones head off, I've never murdered schoolteachers, I've never gassed civilians, I've never talked a young boy into blowing himself up, I've never beaten my wife for showing her hair in public, etc. etc. etc. So NO, they don't have the same rights as me. Fuck them. They are the enemy.

...So NO, they don't have the same rights as me. Fuck them. They are the enemy.
My powers of premonition are infallible (although my powers of spelling may not be...)

As far as I know, none of these people have been tried in court, and thus none of these people is actually guilty of any of those things.
"Innocent until Proven Guilty" is one of those principles I meant - tell me why it doesn't matter in this case.

Yeah well, I consider the Washington Post to be only slightly more creditable a source than the National Enquirer. Is anyone else besides them running this (and puhleeze don't say the New York Times) besides that newspaper?

Yeah well, I consider the Washington Post to be only slightly more creditable a source than the National Enquirer. Is anyone else besides them running this (and puhleeze don't say the New York Times) besides that newspaper?
Any media independent of Republican ties that you do consider credible?

I'm not gonna attack the source. It's probably all true. But your right about the whole "those humans don't have the same rights as......" thing. But not because of the reasoning you stated. They don't have the same rights as me because I've never blown up civilians, I've never cut someones head off, I've never murdered schoolteachers, I've never gassed civilians, I've never talked a young boy into blowing himself up, I've never beaten my wife for showing her hair in public, etc. etc. etc. So NO, they don't have the same rights as me. Fuck them. They are the enemy.

You don't know that.

Many (most?) of the people in question have never had a chance to defend themselves against the allegations made against them.

Yeah, some of them may be guilty as sin. But it has not been proven. And I'd be willing to bet that a good number of the people detained in such conditions are innocent, and are only being detained because some Afghan warlord decided that they were a little too uppity come shakedown time.

If these people are as guilty as the government alleges, then the government should put them on trial for attacking Americans/consipiring to attack Americans/*insert charge here.* The fact that they have not been tried indicates to me that the government does not have enough evidence to charge them with a crime.

Or it could just indicate üb3r American hubris.

Or both.

I say these things as an American, by the way.

My powers of premonition are infallible (although my powers of spelling may not be...)

As far as I know, none of these people have been tried in court, and thus none of these people is actually guilty of any of those things.
"Innocent until Proven Guilty" is one of those principles I meant - tell me why it doesn't matter in this case.
It doesn't matter because the guy I voted for says so. And thats good enough for me, because thats why I voted for him. Fuck it. The terrorists don't feel the need to justify themselves, why should I? And before you say "because then you'll be as bad as them", let me state for the record that I have never cut off the head of an unarmed man while he screamed in horror for help.

Did you see any of those tapes? You should. The day I saw the Nick Berg tape, I cried. And then I decided that whoever was gonna go after those sick motherfuckers the hardest gets my vote from now on!

It doesn't matter because the guy I voted for says so. And thats good enough for me, because thats why I voted for him. Fuck it. The terrorists don't feel the need to justify themselves, why should I? And before you say "because then you'll be as bad as them", let me state for the record that I have never cut off the head of an unarmed man while he screamed in horror for help.

Did you see any of those tapes? You should. The day I saw the Nick Berg tape, I cried. And then I decided that whoever was gonna go after those sick motherfuckers the hardest gets my vote from now on!

And what if "the guy you voted for" betrayed you? It wouldn't be the first time in human history...

Any media independent of Republican ties that you do consider credible?

Anything that does not scream liberalism from every page would be nice. Some objectivity would be even better.

The fact that they have not been tried indicates to me that the government does not have enough evidence to charge them with a crime.

Or it could just indicate üb3r American hubris.


Or they could be trying to extract information from them about the next plot to kill us without having to deal with a scumbag lawyer, maybe?

It doesn't matter because the guy I voted for says so. And thats good enough for me, because thats why I voted for him. Fuck it.
Is that what America is these days?

The terrorists don't feel the need to justify themselves, why should I? And before you say "because then you'll be as bad as them", let me state for the record that I have never cut off the head of an unarmed man while he screamed in horror for help.
Neither did they...Zarqawi is most likely the person who did that, and he's not anywhere near getting caught.

Did you see any of those tapes?
Yes. And various other tapes of the disgusting things both sides do to each other, one worse than the next.

You should. The day I saw the Nick Berg tape, I cried. And then I decided that whoever was gonna go after those sick motherfuckers the hardest gets my vote from now on!
Mmmmhhh, who said that old-fashioned revenge and barbarism has ended with the enlightenment?

They are not POW's (as they don't wear uniforms, don't follow the rules of war, don't have an indentifable chain of command, and don't serve the recognised government of a nation state), nor are they simply criminals who are silly enough to get nicked.

The title illegal combatant is accurate.

They don't need to be charged as they are combatants captured in wartime on the battlefield.

Or they could be trying to extract information from them about the next plot to kill us without having to deal with a scumbag lawyer, maybe?

Yeah, and information extracted under torture is 100% reliable:rolleyes:

What makes you think that the people in question won't make random stuff up to avoid the next torture device? What makes you think they would have any information at all, especially if they are innocent and in custody only because they refused to assent to their local warlord's demand for shakedown money?

You only addressed half my original post.

And what if "the guy you voted for" betrayed you? It wouldn't be the first time in human history...
He hasn't betrayed ME yet.

They don't have the same rights as me because I've never blown up civilians, I've never cut someones head off, I've never murdered schoolteachers, I've never gassed civilians, I've never talked a young boy into blowing himself up, I've never beaten my wife for showing her hair in public, etc. etc. etc.

but suppose somebody in power came to think you have. that's all the 'evidence' they need to have you disappeared to some torture camp, where they will beat, strangle, and rape you until you confess to all that and more. or until you die. whichever, really.

You only addressed half my original post.
Are you talking about how they might be innocent? Like the 500 people we just let out of Gitmo the other day? It's not like we are gonna assasinate them all when were done with them, guilty or innocent.

They are not POW's (as they don't wear uniforms, don't follow the rules of war, don't have an indentifable chain of command, and don't serve the recognised government of a nation state), nor are they simply criminals who are silly enough to get nicked.

The title illegal combatant is accurate.

They don't need to be charged as they are combatants captured in wartime on the battlefield.

wait, you know who is being held in our secret soviet-era torture camps (that we just now found out about) and the circumstances in which all of them came to be under our control? shit, i didn't realize that we had someone with that sort of clearance posting here.

but suppose somebody in power came to think you have. that's all the 'evidence' they need to have you disappeared to some torture camp, where they will beat, strangle, and rape you until you confess to all that and more. or until you die. whichever, really.
Won't happen to me, I voted for Bush, and in case you didn't notice, he has all the guns pointed at the terrorists.

Did you see any of those tapes? You should. The day I saw the Nick Berg tape, I cried. And then I decided that whoever was gonna go after those sick motherfuckers the hardest gets my vote from now on!

I agree with Sick Nightmares to a point. This is not a game. We are not playing nice with a bunch of folks like us who have a basic intact concept of humanity. Terrorists have forfeited any right they once had to basic human dignity or rights by their heinous acts. Whatever treatment they get they probably deserved. That being said, we probably should not descend to their level either. Tempting though that might be.

My wife had a comment that I had thought was utterly priceless, regarding any one of the terrorists that executed Nick Berg, should we ever apprehend any one of them. We should not execute them. Instead we should do the following after a proper trial and conviction has taken place......

1) Give Ahmed a sex change operation, complete with the best American silicon breast implants money can buy.
2) Return him to his terrorist buddies, sans veil, unarmed.

This will also have the added benefit of insuring that Ahmed will never be able to go to Muslim heaven, because she/he is not in the original form that Allah knew him by at birth.

The real fun happens after those sadistic subhumans hear Ahmed blubber his tale of woe.

Poetic, isn't it?

Won't happen to me, I voted for Bush

...

jeebus

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05306/599159.stm


Yes because the "post-gazette.com" is a thoroughly reliable and highly credible source of information...

Seriously people... so long as it's left-wing in sense, you guys lap it up like it's God's piss. Honestly.

When the Nazis got the 'Final Solution' going, every freakin' person in Europe knew what was going on in those camps. I find it a HUGE STRETCH to say that there could be anything even remotely similar in our world today that everyone wouldn't be COMPLETELY AWARE of!

He hasn't betrayed ME yet.

[posts consolidated]

Are you talking about how they might be innocent? Like the 500 people we just let out of Gitmo the other day? It's not like we are gonna assasinate them all when were done with them, guilty or innocent.

1. I personally would think that being lied to amounts to a betrayal. I therefore believe Bush betrayed the American people in making half the "arguments" that he did for his war against terrorism.

(The phrase "war on terror" drives me insane because I think we've declared war on scary movies or something. But I digress.)

2. Now what of the other God-knows how many people still in custody? Not only in Guantanamo Bay, but the ones that we've "extradited" to yummy places like Syria? Why don't we just put them on trial and get our international relations nightmare over with?

Did you ever think that we're hated not because of our "freedoms," but because we seek to deny that freedom from others? Look no further than our support for the Saudi Royal Family, rulers of the most oppressive dictatorship in the Middle East...

Yes because the "post-gazette.com" is a thoroughly reliable and highly credible source of information...

Seriously people... so long as it's left-wing in sense, you guys lap it up like it's God's piss. Honestly.

When the Nazis got the 'Final Solution' going, every freakin' person in Europe knew what was going on in those camps. I find it a HUGE STRETCH to say that there could be anything even remotely similar in our world today that everyone wouldn't be COMPLETELY AWARE of!

*laughs maniacally*

Why do I even try anymore?

I'm not gonna attack the source. It's probably all true. But your right about the whole "those humans don't have the same rights as......" thing. But not because of the reasoning you stated. They don't have the same rights as me because I've never blown up civilians, I've never cut someones head off, I've never murdered schoolteachers, I've never gassed civilians, I've never talked a young boy into blowing himself up, I've never beaten my wife for showing her hair in public, etc. etc. etc. So NO, they don't have the same rights as me. Fuck them. They are the enemy.
Your argument assumes their guilty and humanity has abandoned all sense of nobility.

Why do I even try anymore?

Wait, you were trying to prove something with that post of yours?

humanity has abandoned all sense of nobility.

I hate to give you the reality check but...

heh

Wait, you were trying to prove something with that post of yours?

i hate discussions like this. i can't tell the trolls from the troglodytes.

Wait, you were trying to prove something with that post of yours?

I'd have thought that was obvious. He is saying that the Post-Gazette is not an objective source. Perhaps he would know that better than you. In our country, individual newspapers have a political philosophy in most cases, be it left, or right wing in nature. This one, quoting the Washington Post is obviously so far to the left, it is in the freaking ditch.

It doesn't matter because the guy I voted for says so. And thats good enough for me, because thats why I voted for him.

Yes. That's right. Don't think. Don't look. Don't speak. Don't investigate. Independent thought is traitorous. Freedom to think is communist. Glory to the Sovie...uh...American Empire!

Congratulations drone #258756. You have been assimilated ;)

Besides, did you conveniently forget the cases of people who were detained, shipped to countries for torture, and come out only to turn out completely innocent? Oh, it's alright because the man you voted for thinks he might be guilty and only turned out to be you know, wrong?

No need to justify that. No sirree. The Soviet Union didn't need to justify disappearing people either. They called them wreckers and spies. Same difference, just swap the labels.

Wait, you were trying to prove something with that post of yours?

Ouch.

Yeah, I was. The dubious credibility of the source namely. That and that these forums are such a hotbed for left-wingers that anything that seems even remotely disestablishment (read: anti-Republican) is praised without any sort of verification. I love it how it's more than ok to jump on the various "I hate x" bandwagons (where x = President Bush; the United States, various religions and so on).

That of course wouldn't mean much around here though, would it?

I agree with Sick Nightmares to a point. This is not a game. We are not playing nice with a bunch of folks like us who have a basic intact concept of humanity. Terrorists have forfeited any right they once had to basic human dignity or rights by their heinous acts. Whatever treatment they get they probably deserved. That being said, we probably should not descend to their level either. Tempting though that might be.

My wife had a comment that I had thought was utterly priceless, regarding any one of the terrorists that executed Nick Berg, should we ever apprehend any one of them. We should not execute them. Instead we should do the following after a proper trial and conviction has taken place......

1) Give Ahmed a sex change operation, complete with the best American silicon breast implants money can buy.
2) Return him to his terrorist buddies, sans veil, unarmed.

This will also have the added benefit of insuring that Ahmed will never be able to go to Muslim heaven, because she/he is not in the original form that Allah knew him by at birth.

The real fun happens after those sadistic subhumans hear Ahmed blubber his tale of woe.

Poetic, isn't it?

Should have quoted Sick Nightmares too. meh

The problem occurs when the government can simply call you a "terrorist" and disappear you.

Which has (allegedly) happened in Afghanistan.

Let's say you're a rural Afghan farmer who doesn't particularly hate anybody. The Taliban is overthrown, but you still have the failed harvest (Afghanistan is in drought right now) to worry about, and now local warlords have seized power while US troops tend to stay in major cities.

Your local warlord comes to your house and demands shakedown money. Of course, you're worried that you won't harvest enough food to last through the year, and you don't have any money because you spent it all on seed. The warlord is angry at this and points a gun to your head.

Warlord basically kidnaps you and takes you into town, where he tells the Americans that you are a terrorist. Of course you protest, but the troops aren't judges, and don't really seem to care. The warlord collects his bounty, while your ass gets hauled off to some random location, and you're never seen again.

You never get to tell your story because you're arbitrarily classified as an "enemy combatant."

Where is the justice in this?:headbang:

--How an innocent person can be detained in the current system, and we'd never know it, because he would never get a chance to assert his innocence.

I'd have thought that was obvious. He is saying that the Post-Gazette is not an objective source. Perhaps he would know that better than you.

it's funny though, because i just used it to avoid the washington post's registration (because the old crimethinc trick no longer works there).

i hate discussions like this. i can't tell the trolls from the troglodytes.

Opposing view to that of your own = troll?


Riiight. Ok.

When the Nazis got the 'Final Solution' going, every freakin' person in Europe knew what was going on in those camps. I find it a HUGE STRETCH to say that there could be anything even remotely similar in our world today that everyone wouldn't be COMPLETELY AWARE of!

Not really. According to history, most non-targetted people who even lived near the camps weren't really aware that of the extent of things. They just knew something was being done.

And besides, nobody knew about what the camps were all about prior to their capture by allied forces. Except for the ones running them of course. I dare you to find evidence to the contrary.

It is easy to hide things if you control the media. Ridiculously easy if you make sure said things happen out of sight of the common people. Generate a few lies or denials, and everything is just fine.

Opposing view to that of your own = troll?

no. that'd be the troglodytes. see, you can't tell them apart either.

Should have quoted Sick Nightmares too. meh

The problem occurs when the government can simply call you a "terrorist" and disappear you.

Which has (allegedly) happened in Afghanistan.

Let's say you're a rural Afghan farmer who doesn't particularly hate anybody. The Taliban is overthrown, but you still have the failed harvest (Afghanistan is in drought right now) to worry about, and now local warlords have seized power while US troops tend to stay in major cities.

Your local warlord comes to your house and demands shakedown money. Of course, you're worried that you won't harvest enough food to last through the year, and you don't have any money because you spent it all on seed. The warlord is angry at this and points a gun to your head.

Warlord basically kidnaps you and takes you into town, where he tells the Americans that you are a terrorist. Of course you protest, but the troops aren't judges, and don't really seem to care. The warlord collects his bounty, while your ass gets hauled off to some random location, and you're never seen again.

You never get to tell your story because you're arbitrarily classified as an "enemy combatant."

Where is the justice in this?:headbang:

--How an innocent person can be detained in the current system, and we'd never know it, because he would never get a chance to assert his innocence.

The operative words in my post that you seemed to have missed was the part of "after a proper trial and conviction". Taking some nondescript warlord's word that the guy is a terrorist is not sufficient in and of itself.

Proof, my man. Proof.

They are not POW's (as they don't wear uniforms, don't follow the rules of war, don't have an indentifable chain of command, and don't serve the recognised government of a nation state), nor are they simply criminals who are silly enough to get nicked.

The title illegal combatant is accurate.

They don't need to be charged as they are combatants captured in wartime on the battlefield.
You just described French Resistence fighters, yet we held the Nazis to the Geneva Convention for their treatment.

The operative word in my post that you seemed to have missed was the part of "after a proper trial and conviction". Taking some nondescript warlord's word that the guy is a terrorist is not sufficient in and of itself.

Proof, my man. Proof.

Yeah, I edited the post in question to say I should have quoted Sick Nightmares instead. Sorry for the misquote, but I'll agree that upon conviction in an impartial court, they should be sentenced to life and the key thrown away.

Wow, people, you should invest in a few good sarcasm detectors...

Its easiest to punish thoroughly when you are a victim slightly.

Not really. According to history, most non-targetted people who even lived near the camps weren't really aware that of the extent of things. They just knew something was being done.

And besides, nobody knew about what the camps were all about prior to their capture by allied forces. Except for the ones running them of course. I dare you to find evidence to the contrary.

Actually, not true at all... many Polish residents living around Auschwitz-Birkenau were well aware of what was going on. The stench of the decaying bodies prior to the use of cremotoriums was more than a give away. I don't have a source you can view immediately per se, but I have this documentary you might be interested in. Many residents (whom lived through the occupation) from around Auschwitz-Birkenau are interviewed and they all say the same thing...

http://www.abc.net.au/tv/guide/netw/200511/programs/ZY7751A006D3112005T212500.htm

I had thought awhile back just to quit posting to anything and keep my opinions to myself. However, I had thought that the forum would be a better and more healthier place if there were other opinions listed besides those of the far left on occasion. Even though they seem at times to be the only ones who do post. By and large, this forum is a hotbed of the far left. That being said, don't be shy about putting your opinions forth. They certainly are not.

I had thought awhile back just to quit posting to anything and keep my opinions to myself. However, I had thought that the forum would be a better and more healthier place if there were other opinions listed besides those of the far left on occasion. Even though they seem at times to be the only ones who do post. By and large, this forum is a hotbed of the far left. That being said, don't be shy about putting your opinions forth. They certainly are not.

I thought the same way - holding back my opinions and such; most of the time, it's difficult to get a word in edgeways here because the booming of leftist artillery is deafening.

I reckon I should stick around though, at least for the sake of carrying on debate.

Edit: Filibuster schmilibuster :P

I had thought awhile back just to quit posting to anything and keep my opinions to myself. However, I had thought that the forum would be a better and more healthier place if there were other opinions listed besides those of the far left on occasion. Even though they seem at times to be the only ones who do post. By and large, this forum is a hotbed of the far left. That being said, don't be shy about putting your opinions forth. They certainly are not.
Isn't it funny though? I have the exact opposite impression. This place is overwhelmingly ultra-rightwing in my opinion. If this place mirrored my country's public opinion, I'd seek political asylum.

This thread alone is so filled with anti-human rightwing bile that I've refrained from posting altogether - which I'll stick with after this little post. It's too hard for me to respond to the poison here without accusing people of being completely insane.

Actually, not true at all... many Polish residents living around Auschwitz-Birkenau were well aware of what was going on. The stench of the decaying bodies prior to the use of cremotoriums was more than a give away. I don't have a source you can view immediately per se, but I have this documentary you might be interested in. Many residents (whom lived through the occupation) from around Auschwitz-Birkenau are interviewed and they all say the same thing...


This is hardly the same as your claim of "everyone in Europe" now isn't it? It just happens to be that the ones who experienced it knew about it. Would anybody living in Berlin, Britain, Rome, Paris or any other major city in Europe have known about it? Not likely.

From your statements, the only ones who knew were those that were confronted about it on a daily basis. Which could have been limited to 0 if incinerators had been deployed in the beginning.

Ergo, it is easy to hide massive atrocities. You merely have to keep the ones uninvolved distant and seperate from them.

Did any of the torture appologist scum ever explain why Amnesty International would lie about this in the first place?

Did any of the torture appologist scum ever explain why Amnesty International would lie about this in the first place?

Just throwing this out and all... but you know, if they were serious, they wouldn't be contacting sub-par, ambiguous news websites with such startling revelations, would they?[/sarcasm]

I thought the same way - holding back my opinions and such; most of the time, it's difficult to get a word in edgeways here because the booming of leftist artillery is deafening.

I reckon I should stick around though, at least for the sake of carrying on debate.

Edit: Filibuster schmilibuster :P

Victim complex for the win

Isn't it funny though? I have the exact opposite impression. This place is overwhelmingly ultra-rightwing in my opinion. If this place mirrored my country's public opinion, I'd seek political asylum.

This thread alone is so filled with anti-human rightwing bile that I've refrained from posting altogether - which I'll stick with after this little post. It's too hard for me to respond to the poison here without accusing people of being completely insane.

Guess that depends on what day or thread you drop in. Doesn't seem that way today, though, does it? :) I just don't believe in mollycoddling terrorists after one has bitten my hand off at the wrist. Obviously you do.

Victim complex for the win

I wasn't going for that but hey, thanks for putting a nice positive spin on things :rolleyes:

Did any of the torture appologist scum ever explain why Amnesty International would lie about this in the first place?

Just one "p" in apologist. I note that you did spell Amnesty International's name correctly, though. That figures.

Myotisinia - Proud to be torture appologist scum. :rolleyes:

I think Randy Newman said it best in "Political Science".

No one likes us-I don't know why
We may not be perfect, but heaven knows we try
But all around, even our old friends put us down
Let's drop the big one and see what happens

We give them money-but are they grateful?
No, they're spiteful and they're hateful
They don't respect us-so let's surprise them
We'll drop the big one and pulverize them

Asia's crowded and Europe's too old
Africa is far too hot
And Canada's too cold
And South America stole our name
Let's drop the big one
There'll be no one left to blame us

We'll save Australia
Don't wanna hurt no kangaroo
We'll build an All American amusement park there
They got surfin', too

Boom goes London and boom Paree
More room for you and more room for me
And every city the whole world round
Will just be another American town
Oh, how peaceful it will be
We'll set everybody free
You'll wear a Japanese kimono
And there'll be Italian shoes for me

They all hate us anyhow
So let's drop the big one now
Let's drop the big one now

um... first, it's Amnesty International. Those guys are a bunch of morons. They write letters to dictators saying, "Please stop being a dictator."........... Okay, 'nough said.

Actually, I'm sorry to say this, but the constitution does NOT apply to terrorists even if they are from other countries and not POWs. My AP Government teacher (who is a left wing scumbag and throws her 'objective' opinion into everything. Oh, all of my friends at school are die-hard liberals so it's not that I hate leftists. It's just that she's a scumbag because she's a teacher, not a politician, and shouldn't be feeding us leftist material so blatantly...) happens to think that the constitution applies to terrorists. Well, we got into an argument (as per the rules of class. Myself and my Gov. Teacher must argue at least once per class) over whether it did or not and yadda yadda we gave it up because I'm a big Hobbsian Facist Communist scumbag (read here puts the group over the individual) and she's a Lockian Socialist (read here individual over group).

So, when the next presentation came up about Nuclear Proliferation (we were giving presentation on different topics) I happened to ask this question, which was a statement really, "Don't you think that terrorists, because the constitution definately applies to foreigners who are not U.S. citizens, that under the 2nd Amendment, because terrorist organzations are defiantely militias protecting their freedoms and the United States Constitution applies to non-normalized foreigners, that we should allow them to have nuclear weapons?"

After I asked the question of the speaker she replied hotly, "You know that the constitution doesn't apply to them..."

I think she missed the irony...

Anyways, my whole point is that they're not US Citizens. It would be one thing if they were, then I would be right in bed with the foaming from the mouth Liberals over fair treatment and habeus corpus etc ad infinitum or even if they were Iranian Soldiers, I would be pissed off. But they're not.N.O.T. And Geneva doesn't apply to them either. I don't see a country named "Al Qaeda", do you?

And by the way. Sorry, but I feel the same way about the French Resistance. They're terrorists also. Maybe they only target military targets but they're still terrorists.

Oh, and the difference between the French Resistance and the Iraqi Terrorists is that the F.R. actually gave a shit whether they killed their own citizens or not. The Iraqi Terrorists don't.



p.s. no cruel and unusual punishment is big big BULLSHIT. It ain't punishment unless it is cruel and god-damned unusual. No more prisons! Public Flogging all the way!

This is hardly the same as your claim of "everyone in Europe" now isn't it? It just happens to be that the ones who experienced it knew about it. Would anybody living in Berlin, Britain, Rome, Paris or any other major city in Europe have known about it? Not likely.

From your statements, the only ones who knew were those that were confronted about it on a daily basis. Which could have been limited to 0 if incinerators had been deployed in the beginning.

Ergo, it is easy to hide massive atrocities. You merely have to keep the ones uninvolved distant and seperate from them.

If you watch the documentry as I suggested, I think you'll find otherwise.

Polish political prisoners escaped the main compound dressed as SS guards in mid-1942 (could have been '43) and they went straight to the Brits; who had been 'bartering Jews for German prisoners' in a bid to attempt to drive for a speedy end to the war.

There are more than several declassified manuscripts on that documentary and floating around archives that show both the United States and the U.K. were well aware that something was going down in those concentration camps - complete with the testimonies of actual prisoners, even before D-Day, they had an accurate picture of what was going on. There were even calls to bomb concentration camps and end the horror quickly; those calls were turned down, in favour of eliminating 'targets of opporunity'.

So you see, there's nothing of this scale that the world will be blind to, sorry, that just doesn't sit at all right with me. The fact is, we KNEW what was going on in those concentration camps and we did NOTHING.

This goes exactly the same for these alleged camps, we'd know something about them if they were indeed as serious as the claims.

If you watch the documentry as I suggested, I think you'll find otherwise.

Polish political prisoners escaped the main compound dressed as SS guards in mid-1942 (could have been '43) and they went straight to the Brits; who had been 'bartering Jews for German prisoners' in a bid to attempt to drive for a speedy end to the war.

There are more than several declassified manuscripts on that documentary and floating around archives that show both the United States and the U.K. were well aware that something was going down in those concentration camps - complete with the testimonies of actual prisoners, even before D-Day, they had an accurate picture of what was going on. There were even calls to bomb concentration camps and end the horror quickly; those calls were turned down, in favour of eliminating 'targets of opporunity'.

So you see, there's nothing of this scale that the world will be blind to, sorry, that just doesn't sit at all right with me. The fact is, we KNEW what was going on in those concentration camps and we did NOTHING.

This goes exactly the same for these alleged camps, we'd know something about them if they were indeed as serious as the claims.

What were we going to do? Blow up the camps? Oh great. Let's just put them out of their misery by bombing them, killing them all instead of maybe having the chance to save one or two of them.

This is 1943-1945. We didn't have B-2 Bombers that can cross the globe. Our longest flying bombers could barely get to Berlin from England! And they were huge four-winged 30,000+ feet in the air with really bad scope bombers. It's called carpet bombing. We couldn't even hit the concentration camps with real tactical bombers until at least Bulge, ie read winter of 1944... when we were about to start liberating the camps.

Damn... Thanks for the 20/20 hindsight.

If you watch the documentry as I suggested, I think you'll find otherwise.

Not possible in current area of residence.


So you see, there's nothing of this scale that the world will be blind to, sorry, that just doesn't sit at all right with me. The fact is, we KNEW what was going on in those concentration camps and we did NOTHING.

Correction. The administration of the time, and most likely a select few of them, knew what was going on. The average citizen didn't. The mass media certainly didn't either. Not until after the camps were captured.


This goes exactly the same for these alleged camps, we'd know something about them if they were indeed as serious as the claims.

Certainly. If they exist as alleged, it is certain that parts of the US administration would know about it, as well as the participant states, because, well, they participated in it didn't they? But the average citizen? NGOs? Hardly.

There is a difference between someone knowing about something because they are involved or became involved, and said knowledge becoming widespread.

They are not POW's (as they don't wear uniforms, don't follow the rules of war, don't have an indentifable chain of command, and don't serve the recognised government of a nation state), nor are they simply criminals who are silly enough to get nicked.

The title illegal combatant is accurate.

They don't need to be charged as they are combatants captured in wartime on the battlefield.You just described French Resistence fighters, yet we held the Nazis to the Geneva Convention for their treatment.

This is a good point.

Also, I don't see how we can claim to be the champions of freedom and rights when we're pulling this kind of shit. "Practice what you preach," is a phrase that I think applies here.

In any case, presuming everyone detained to be guilty is not the American way. I thought my country was supposed to go by "innocent until proven guilty." I see people on this thread saying what amounts to "I'm ok with torture because they're guilty and they deserve it." Who says they're guilty? A lot probably are, but a lot probably aren't. To assume they all are is to contradict one of the fundamental principles of our legal system, a principle that's there for a reason. Saying that they don't deserve a trial because of their crimes is ridiculous, since a trial is how we determine if a person actually committed a crime.

You just described French Resistence fighters, yet we held the Nazis to the Geneva Convention for their treatment.

Although I am knowledgable of Germans being tried for committing crimes against French civilians, I've never heard of a case of Germans being punished for fighting the resistance, who were between a few weeks before D-Day, and the liberation, bona fide French soliders (FFI, French Forces of the Interior)

This is a good point.

Also, I don't see how we can claim to be the champions of freedom and rights when we're pulling this kind of shit. "Practice what you preach," is a phrase that I think applies here.

In any case, presuming everyone detained to be guilty is not the American way. I thought my country was supposed to go by "innocent until proven guilty." I see people on this thread saying what amounts to "I'm ok with torture because they're guilty and they deserve it." Who says they're guilty? A lot probably are, but a lot probably aren't. To assume they all are is to contradict one of the fundamental principles of our legal system, a principle that's there for a reason. Saying that they don't deserve a trial because of their crimes is ridiculous, since a trial is how we determine if a person actually committed a crime.

It is not a good point. It is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of what war is, and what laws apply. US domestic civilian law doesn't apply to terrorists captured on battlefields outside the United States. There is no obligation to try them, they can be legally held until the end of hostilities because they are combatants captured in wartime on a battlefield.

It is not a good point. It is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of what war is, and what laws apply. US domestic civilian law doesn't apply to terrorists captured on battlefields outside the United States. There is no obligation to try them, they can be legally held until the end of hostilities because they are combatants captured in wartime on a battlefield.

But herein lies the rub. A fair number of the people being actually held were not caught with weapons in their hands per se. Some were arrested in airports without charge and taken to holding facilities where they had no rights. Others were merely presented to American forces by Afghan warlords with only their word to go on.

Both cases did not give the accused any right to defend themselves.

If memory serves, the US has done something similar before, rounding up every single person of Japanese descent in their borders and placing them in internment camps during the 2nd World War with no more justification than their nation of origin.

Only this time, it is more indiscriminate, and apparently much worse.

I was referring to Rotovia's point as good, not my own.

It may be legal to hold them until the end of hostilities, but if we held the Germans accountable for treatment of French Resistance fighters according to POW laws, it's pretty hypocritical not to apply the same standards to ourselves.

If memory serves, the US has done something similar before, rounding up every single person of Japanese descent in their borders and placing them in internment camps during the 2nd World War with no more justification than their nation of origin.

That's not similar because there was no indication that they were associated with military action against the United States.

A similar situation would be British authorities handing Italian POW's over to Australia.

But herein lies the rub. A fair number of the people being actually held were not caught with weapons in their hands per se. Some were arrested in airports without charge and taken to holding facilities where they had no rights.

Have you any evidence that this is the case?

To the people who are arguing about the French Resistance, perhaps a case from a few years back would be of interest. An aged member of the resistance managed to push through and get a memorial made for a few German soldiers that were murdered by his fellow resistance fighters after they had surrendered.

It may be legal to hold them until the end of hostilities, but if we held the Germans accountable for treatment of French Resistance fighters according to POW laws, it's pretty hypocritical not to apply the same standards to ourselves.

Firstly, you've not provided a scrap of evidence that Germans were punished for merely fighting against the resistance (other crimes were)

Secondly, many resistance fighters could be considered POW's, especially after the Allied invasion. De Gaulle formed the FFI, they wore uniforms (armbands, which is minimum). The question of whether or not they fought for a legitimate recognised government is uncertain, certainly the Allies recognised the Free French as the legitimate government with De Gaulle as its leader.

That's not similar because there was no indication that they were associated with military action against the United States.

A similar situation would be British authorities handing Italian POW's over to Australia.

And there is no indication that some of the people arrested and detained without trial were associated with military action against the United States. The only link they could have had was a name that was put on a watch list for no real reason beyond paranoia.


Have you any evidence that this is the case?

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?050214fa_fact6

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0208-13.htm

This one could possibly for the links, but still no charges pressed and no rights given.

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

Reading more on the arguments put up by the current administration, it is quite clear that they believe anyone can be detained and subjected to rendition i.e. outsourced torture if their name is put on a watch list. What criteria is used to put those names in, is not disclosed.

And this might explain why they are still held without charge.

“It’s a big problem,” Jamie Gorelick, a former deputy attorney general and a member of the 9/11 Commission, says. “In criminal justice, you either prosecute the suspects or let them go. But if you’ve treated them in ways that won’t allow you to prosecute them you’re in this no man’s land. What do you do with these people?”

Innocent or not, they cannot be let go. Not to embarrass the nation with court cases or otherwise expose "critical procedures" as the CIA is apt to put it.

what i want to know is which eastern european countries are playing host to secret u.s. torture camps. it seems to me that the european community has some sort of rules against that kind of bullshit.

anyone else think the reason they aren't saying is because the government of that country is likely to be removed from power by angry citizens when they find out? i mean, not only have old soviet facilities been reopened as secret torture camps, but by the fucking americans no less.

what i want to know is which eastern european countries are playing host to secret u.s. torture camps. it seems to me that the european community has some sort of rules against that kind of bullshit.

anyone else think the reason they aren't saying is because the government of that country is likely to be removed from power by angry citizens when they find out? i mean, not only have old soviet facilities been reopened as secret torture camps, but by the fucking americans no less.I dunno. I've been getting the feeling that now that a lot of the Eastern European countries made it into the EU, they no longer feel obliged to Europe and only kiss American ass. But this is just a feeling I've been getting.

I dunno. I've been getting the feeling that now that a lot of the Eastern European countries made it into the EU, they no longer feel obliged to Europe and only kiss American ass. But this is just a feeling I've been getting.
Talking about Poland then?

This topic brings up my usual thoughts on this issue, which I see as two sides of a coin:

Yes, this is a civilised, supposedly democratic country we're talking about. So yes, it does seem morally and legally wrong, even hideous at times, that these people are being detained without rights, being abused and so forth without the chance to even defend themselves. That goes against everything the US and its democracy are supposed to stand for. Its irreprehensible.

However, and I know this is a controversial point, it is my belief that sometimes....these things are neccessary. Hell, I don't like them, believe me. They are disgusting, immoral and evil. Yet, we are living in a reality here people. Sometimes the military has to use these sorts of things to fight terrorism; terrorists have very few rules and little morality, and by playing by democratic, moral rules, we cannot always win. Yes, you all make valid points by saying that torture never really works, and that many of the people in the camps are innocent, I don't doubt that, and thats unforgivable. But how many plots, how many 9/11's, how many Madrids, or god forbid something worse, have been averted by these places? The answer is, we'll never know; the media very rarely trumpets failed plots.

Of course, thats both sides of the coin. It's a slippery slope indeed, and one that I don't like seeing at all, especially after reading 1984. Oh, and one more thing. Don't be so naive as to think its only the Americans who are doing this sort of thing. I'll bet you all anything that every major Western nation, as well as others like Israel, have places like this. They just haven't been found out.

Talking about Poland then?Not only. It's a bit of a trend it seems, though Poland seems to be championing it.

However, and I know this is a controversial point, it is my belief that sometimes....these things are neccessary. Hell, I don't like them, believe me. They are disgusting, immoral and evil. Yet, we are living in a reality here people. Sometimes the military has to use these sorts of things to fight terrorism; terrorists have very few rules and little morality, and by playing by democratic, moral rules, we cannot always win. Yes, you all make valid points by saying that torture never really works, and that many of the people in the camps are innocent, I don't doubt that, and thats unforgivable. But how many plots, how many 9/11's, how many Madrids, or god forbid something worse, have been averted by these places? The answer is, we'll never know; the media very rarely trumpets failed plots.

Of course, thats both sides of the coin. It's a slippery slope indeed, and one that I don't like seeing at all, especially after reading 1984. Oh, and one more thing. Don't be so naive as to think its only the Americans who are doing this sort of thing. I'll bet you all anything that every major Western nation, as well as others like Israel, have places like this. They just haven't been found out.

To your latter point, absolutely. Let's not turn this into an American bashing session, because any "free" society has people doing the things that we'd all rather not know about.

However, that in itself is kind of the point. In Britain's case, we had years of IRA violence to contend with due to political machinations in the 18th,19th and 20th centuries. The US finds itself in trouble with South America and the Arab world. In South America's case (Nicaragua especially)it meddled in the very ways that it is now condemning Iran for. France? North Africa will always be a stain on their liberal credibility. I agree with you that some outrages will have been prevented, but what we will also never know is how many have been caused?

I think Randy Newman said it best in "Political Science"...
I think you concentrate too much on the obvious part of the song, and you don't see the deep irony in it. If you do, you didn't talk about it.
We'll save Australia
Don't wanna hurt no kangaroo
We'll build an All American amusement park there
They got surfin', too

Boom goes London and boom Paree
More room for you and more room for me
And every city the whole world round
Will just be another American town
Oh, how peaceful it will be
We'll set everybody free
You'll wear a Japanese kimono
And there'll be Italian shoes for me
Get it?
He's deliberately answering his own question - the guy was a thinker, and not a right-wing one.

This is insane.... :confused:

People are more interested in debating the plus sides of torture or the dress of the French Resistance, or the the 'liberal' qualities of Amensy International in this thread more then the important question.

Its like a big fucking elephant sitting the in the corner, yet no ones talking about it.....

The leader of the free world, the place that espouses freedom, morals and values, the uncle the rest of the world looks to in following his footsteps in what to do..... has fucking secret torture camps dotted about the globe

And thats ok with you people?!?!!

You know, I would expect some honest outrage from the American audience, but instead all we're going to see are attacks on the source, and then arguments that those humans don't have the same rights as the humans protected by all the various laws and constitutions...
The only "outrage" I feel is that which I have at a formerly highly credible organization which has apparently been hijacked by people who hate me. :mad:

The leader of the free world, the place that espouses freedom, morals and values, the uncle the rest of the world looks to in following his footsteps in what to do..... has fucking secret torture camps dotted about the globe
PROVE IT!

Um, it never says the words "rape, secret torture, and murder camps" in the article. If those things ARE going on, then I say we put all those who organized those camps in front of firing squads and send the terrorists to other places. But it doesn't say so.

And thats ok with you people?!?!!
Surprised?
I'm really impressed with how my premonition worked out this time...not only did we have pretty much no one expressing a sincere and unqualified outrage at this (and if we did it was quickly drowned out) - but we've even had people attacking the source!

PROVE IT!

Well there's a little place off down in Cuba for a start.... and that ickle jail in Baghdad.... and... Masar- al -Sharif in Afghanistan....

Isn't a smoking gun all thats needed these days... ;)

Well, colour me unsurprised. "The US are not the good guys™ anymore." Lather, rinse, repeat. The disappointment gets so much lesser when you stop expecting them to stick to their own principles, like "innocent until proven guilty," "habeas corpus," "due process," "human rights." Those sorts of things.

You know, I would expect some honest outrage from the American audience, but instead all we're going to see are attacks on the source, and then arguments that those humans don't have the same rights as the humans protected by all the various laws and constitutions...
That would be hard. "Washinton Post, who are they?"

Surprised?
I'm really impressed with how my premonition worked out this time...not only did we have pretty much no one expressing a sincere and unqualified outrage at this (and if we did it was quickly drowned out) - but we've even had people attacking the source!

I actually am a little! You did a good job predicting it by the way.:)

I hope this is not giving Fuhrer John Howard of Australia anymore funny ideas.

If y'all had read my post on the last page, I did actually express dismay at the camps existing as part of my argument. And must this be only about the US? Come on people, the US isn't the only one with these camps. I also doubt they're American-only. I expect other countries use them all the time.

Here's the link to the Washington Post by the way, the article really exists.

It needs email registration though, and I'm not going to bother.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/Search?keywords=CIA%20Eastern%20Europe

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/11/02/cia.report.ap/
And now CNN is running the story too.

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/topstory2/3432434
The Houstin Chronicle has a long article.

But Fox News so far doesn't have a piece I don't think.

Why is it that anyone who doesn't toe the liberal line to the letter suddenly becomes a nazi? Whatever happened to the concept of "loyal opposition?" I honestly get so frakking SICK of hearing that "if you don't support _______________ [ fill in the blank with virtually anything political you like ], then you're a frakking Nazi!"

If y'all had read my post on the last page, I did actually express dismay at the camps existing as part of my argument. And must this be only about the US? Come on people, the US isn't the only one with these camps. I also doubt they're American-only. I expect other countries use them all the time.

Australia's using Nauru for hold illegal immigrants, but I guess it could used for other purposes.

Why is it that anyone who doesn't toe the liberal line to the letter suddenly becomes a nazi? Whatever happened to the concept of "loyal opposition?" I honestly get so frakking SICK of hearing that "if you don't support _______________ [ fill in the blank with virtually anything political you like ], then you're a frakking Nazi!"

...:confused: ...

Was that directed at anyone in particular Eut? Or just a broad sweeping generalisation....?

Edit: I love Americans.. anything not as Right as them.. is automatically 'liberal' :p

...:confused: ...

Was that directed at anyone in particular Eut? Or just a broad sweeping generalisation....?

Edit: I love Americans.. anything not as Right as them.. is automatically 'liberal' :p

Heh, yeah that always makes me giggle, too, seeing as liberal = right-wing, but, hey, they always have to be different. You just need to be careful to realise that liberal = left-wing in their speak. Don't get me started on what passes as left-wing over there... :rolleyes:

I like this bit from the Houston Chronicle by the way (is that left- or right-wing...seeing how it is from Texas and all)
...While the Defense Department has produced volumes of public reports and testimony about its detention practices and rules after the abuse scandals at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison and at Guantanamo Bay, the CIA has not even acknowledged the existence of its black sites. To do so, say officials familiar with the program, could open the U.S. government to legal challenges, particularly in foreign courts, and increase the risk of political condemnation at home and abroad.

But the revelations of widespread prisoner abuse in Afghanistan and Iraq by the U.S. military — which operates under published rules and transparent oversight of Congress — have increased concern among lawmakers, foreign governments and human rights groups about the opaque CIA system. Those concerns escalated last month, when Vice President Dick Cheney and CIA Director Porter Goss asked Congress to exempt CIA employees from legislation already endorsed by 90 senators that would bar cruel and degrading treatment of any prisoner in U.S. custody.

Although the CIA will not acknowledge details of its system, intelligence officials defend the agency's approach, arguing that the successful defense of the country requires that the agency be empowered to hold and interrogate suspected terrorists for as long as necessary and without restrictions imposed by the U.S. legal system or even by the military tribunals established for prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay...

"...Look at these three words written larger than the rest with a special pride never written before or since. Tall words saying, "We the People..." That which you call E Plebnista was not written for the chiefs or the kings or the warriors or the rich or the powerful but for all the people. Down the centuries, you have slurred the meaning of the words, "We the People of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity do ordain and establish this Constitution..." These words and the words that follow were not written only for the Yangs, but for the Kohms as well..."
"For the Kohms?"
"They must apply to everyone or they mean nothing! Do you understand?"
-Kirk and Cloud William, "Yangs" and "Kohms," descendants of yankees and communists on an alternate Earth, rediscover the essence of lost ideology.
ST: TOS "The Omega Glory"
Taken from: Quotable Star Trek, Jill Sherwin

I like this bit from the Houston Chronicle by the way (is that left- or right-wing...seeing how it is from Texas and all)

Houston is a pretty big city (1.9 million inhabitants, IIRC). That tends to mean "left-wing," I've gathered.

It doesn't matter because the guy I voted for says so

Then you voted for the end of American democracy. The founding fathers would be so proud of you.

Won't happen to me, I voted for Bush, and in case you didn't notice, he has all the guns pointed at the terrorists.


The Bush Administration has already gone after American citizens as "possible terrorists". People who did nothing more than question the War on Terror. Have you agreed with everything Bush has ever said? If not, how do you know they won't decide you might be a terrorist?

They don't have the same rights as me because I've never blown up civilians, I've never cut someones head off, I've never murdered schoolteachers, I've never gassed civilians, I've never talked a young boy into blowing himself up, I've never beaten my wife for showing her hair in public, etc. etc. etc.

And neither have 95+% of them...

The Bush Administration has already gone after American citizens as "possible terrorists". People who did nothing more than question the War on Terror. Have you agreed with everything Bush has ever said? If not, how do you know they won't decide you might be a terrorist?
You mean like that 12 year old girl (or was it 14?) who got kicked out of the country for suspected ties to terrorists?

You mean like that 12 year old girl (or was it 14?) who got kicked out of the country for suspected ties to terrorists?


Exactly.

Originally Posted by Ben Franklin

"Those who would sacrifice freedom for security deserve neither freedom nor security"

Um, it never says the words "rape, secret torture, and murder camps" in the article. If those things ARE going on, then I say we put all those who organized those camps in front of firing squads and send the terrorists to other places. But it doesn't say so.

we know (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051025/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/detainee_abuse) that those (http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1001218842) things (http://peacework.blogspot.com/uploaded_images/Abu%20Ghraib%20Torture-715244.jpg) are going on at the other camps we've got, ones that aren't even secret and are nominally under congressional oversite. these ones are run by the fucking cia, who have never ever shown themselves to be trustworthy or to care much for human rights. also, the article states:

"Although the CIA will not acknowledge details of its system, intelligence officials defend the agency approach, arguing that the successful defense of the country requires that the agency be empowered to hold and interrogate suspected terrorists for as long as necessary and without restrictions imposed by the U.S. legal system or even by the military tribunals established for prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay."

they're worried that the military tribunals and their sham (http://www.guardian.co.uk/guantanamo/story/0,13743,1098618,00.html) trials (http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200508/s1426797.htm) and non-existent protections for the accused wouldn't tolerate what they want to do. that scares the fucking crap out of me, and it should do the same to you.

also, as the article notes, the republican hierarchy freaked out about the mccain anti-torture amendment, threatened to veto it, and demanded exemptions for, among others, overseas cia agents. which struck me as particularly scary since the amendment was pretty much toothless (change the army manual, and you can make pretty much anything fine under it).

they are clearly doing things that they know to be both illegal and horrific. that's why they need secret camps outside of the jurisdiction of even the most complient military tribunal. that's why they demand that there be no limits put on the techniques they use. that's why they won't tell us where these camps are and how many people are held in them.

Anything that does not scream liberalism from every page would be nice. Some objectivity would be even better.

Would it be possible for a right leaning American to provide a working definition of "liberalism"? It seems to get applied to everything from the slightly left of centre (or in the case of Republicans, to John Kerry who was quite a way right of centre) to out and out anarcho-syndicalists (in some cases in a way that applies the former and the latter are synonymns).
How did this situation come about?

Why is it that anyone who doesn't toe the liberal line to the letter suddenly becomes a nazi? Whatever happened to the concept of "loyal opposition?" I honestly get so frakking SICK of hearing that "if you don't support _______________ [ fill in the blank with virtually anything political you like ], then you're a frakking Nazi!"

yeah! why can't people just shut up and be happy that the u.s. government is running secret torture and murder camps in undisclosed countries for people it 'disappears'? and why must people call those that are happy about such things nazis? i mean, it's not like they're personally running secret torture and murder camps in undisclosed countries for people who have been 'disappeared' or anything. they aren't necessarily nazis. just 'good germans' and 'little eichmanns'.

I think you concentrate too much on the obvious part of the song, and you don't see the deep irony in it. If you do, you didn't talk about it.

Get it?
He's deliberately answering his own question - the guy was a thinker, and not a right-wing one.

Really? I thought he was serious. LOL. Actually, I had thought it was so blatantly obvious that it did not need restating. I felt he had his tongue planted so firmly in cheek, that he was risking a serious sprain.

I, was playing devils advocate. Get it?

Why is it that anyone who doesn't toe the liberal line to the letter suddenly becomes a nazi? Whatever happened to the concept of "loyal opposition?" I honestly get so frakking SICK of hearing that "if you don't support _______________ [ fill in the blank with virtually anything political you like ], then you're a frakking Nazi!"


Why is it that everyone who doesn't toe the conservative line to the letter suddenlt becomes a "commie"? Whatever happened to the concept of "loyal opposition"? I honestly get so frakking SICK of hearing that "if you don't support _______________ [fill in the blank with virtually anything political you like], then you're a frakking commie!"

Would it be possible for a right leaning American to provide a working definition of "liberalism"? It seems to get applied to everything from the slightly left of centre (or in the case of Republicans, to John Kerry who was quite a way right of centre) to out and out anarcho-syndicalists (in some cases in a way that applies the former and the latter are synonymns).
How did this situation come about?

Sure can. Though that would be merely my own opinion, and subjective. And will do so as long as you can cook up a working model of what is conservatism without any of the pejorative terms and invective.

I'll treat the subject honestly as long as you can. Your move.

Sure can. Though that would be merely my own opinion, and subjective. And will do so as long as you can cook up a working model of what is conservatism without any of the pejorative terms and invective.

I'll treat the subject honestly as long as you can. Your move.
A fair point, actually. I apologise for calling you a Republican.

1. I personally would think that being lied to amounts to a betrayal. I therefore believe Bush betrayed the American people in making half the "arguments" that he did for his war against terrorism.

Give me a break. I hate Bush as much as the next guy, but not because he's a liar. Keep in mind any man you put in office is going to be a liar regardless of political party. That's one of the most integral parts of the president's job. I doubt you'll find an honest man who really, honestly cares deeply about the welfare of the people they reign over in this entire world. That's just how politics are. You might as well feel betrayed by every American president to ever serve, because guarenteed they lied to you some time along their term (in a major way too, though we may not know about it).

(The phrase "war on terror" drives me insane because I think we've declared war on scary movies or something. But I digress.)

2. Now what of the other God-knows how many people still in custody? Not only in Guantanamo Bay, but the ones that we've "extradited" to yummy places like Syria? Why don't we just put them on trial and get our international relations nightmare over with?

Did you ever think that we're hated not because of our "freedoms," but because we seek to deny that freedom from others? Look no further than our support for the Saudi Royal Family, rulers of the most oppressive dictatorship in the Middle East...

Great...I don't really give a shit. You think they throw men in jail for picking daisies and playing in the sandbox? Fuck no. If they're in jail or being interrogated or they're held in custody, it's because they're suspected of something...and if they're suspected, it's for good reason. You think they just take Joe Shmoe and throw him behind bars for the hell of it? No! They suspect him of blowing up a building...why do they suspect him? Probably because they have evidence linking him to the bombing! And at any rate none of us really know what's going on in these black sites anyways...half of the people here are just making assumptions, which is fine except there's no justification for them. The CIA could be doing ANYTHING over there...how this news source even knows they keep prisoners there seems a little suspicious to me. Do you guys really believe the CIA's holding and interrogating thousands of innocent men?

You think they throw men in jail for picking daisies and playing in the sandbox? Yes. ...


You think they just take Joe Shmoe and throw him behind bars for the hell of it? Yes

And at any rate none of us really know what's going on in these black sites anyways...half of the people here are just making assumptions, which is fine except there's no justification for them. Justification? Abu Ghraib, Mazar-e-Sharif, G'anamo Bay.... smoking gun... general CIA history...


The CIA could be doing ANYTHING over there..Isn't that kinda the fucking point?

Do you guys really believe the CIA's holding and interrogating thousands of innocent men?Yes.

^

A fair point, actually. I apologise for calling you a Republican.

Why apologize for complimenting me? :rolleyes:

I, was playing devils advocate. Get it?
I do now...:p

Anyways, I think in a few days this will be the next scandal to hit the White House, because Terror or no Terror, most Americans would probably agree that keeping secret camps in the dark places of the world outside any sort of law is probably not the American way to do things.

Eut. I sigged your quote for a reason. Looks like you need a reminder.

You guys fucking scare me. Knowing there's more than one person like Sick Nightmares and Whispering Legs out there... Makes sleeping a lot harder.

Look around you. 'terrorist' 'jew' the words are different, the meaning is the same. When we trust our leadership blindly we lose our path and fall off the cliff.

True tyranny rarely comes in broad daylight with a sword. It comes in the night, in the mind, until it was always so and you do not see it for what it is.

What you can see, you can fight. When you do not see, you will never realise what happened.

and if they're suspected, it's for good reason.

is this an empirical claim or a religious one?

Eut. I sigged your quote for a reason. Looks like you need a reminder.

You guys fucking scare me. Knowing there's more than one person like Sick Nightmares and Whispering Legs out there... Makes sleeping a lot harder.

Look around you. 'terrorist' 'jew' the words are different, the meaning is the same. When we trust our leadership blindly we lose our path and fall off the cliff.

True tyranny rarely comes in broad daylight with a sword. It comes in the night, in the mind, until it was always so and you do not see it for what it is.

What you can see, you can fight. When you do not see, you will never realise what happened.


*applauds*

All I can tell you is that not all of us in the USA think like that. We get branded as traitors for it, but some of us think that even that's worth it to attempt to shine a little light on this.

Eut. I sigged your quote for a reason. Looks like you need a reminder.

You guys fucking scare me. Knowing there's more than one person like Sick Nightmares and Whispering Legs out there... Makes sleeping a lot harder.

Look around you. 'terrorist' 'jew' the words are different, the meaning is the same. When we trust our leadership blindly we lose our path and fall off the cliff.

True tyranny rarely comes in broad daylight with a sword. It comes in the night, in the mind, until it was always so and you do not see it for what it is.

What you can see, you can fight. When you do not see, you will never realise what happened.
Thanks for saying this. It sickens me to see how Americans have slipped -- no, jumped right off the highboard of civilization headfirst into the empty pool of paranoid barbarism. They're ready to suck up to anyone -- no matter how crooked -- who acts like a bigger bully than the one they're afraid of. Ready to plunge the world into violence, abuse and war because they're afraid of what might happen some day. Making whores out of themselves for "safety." Talking tough while they hide behind the military-industrial complex. But when you call them on their rhetoric, then they start splitting every hair they can find to claim that their outrageous suggestions really are okay and civilized and not illegal or racist or cowardly. God forbid they just admit they are the fear-ridden warmongers that they must be to support such horrendous policies and that there really is no difference between them and the terrorists.

I grew up in an America where the people didn't need strong leaders because they governed themselves; they didn't need to be kept safe by anyone else because they didn't fear their enemies; they believed the law was the greatest social weapon; and since they were better than their enemies, they would never lower themselves to using their enemies' tactics.

I don't know what's running my country nowadays, but I'm not proud of it (as evidence by this rant).

*applauds*

All I can tell you is that not all of us in the USA think like that. We get branded as traitors for it, but some of us think that even that's worth it to attempt to shine a little light on this.
Wow, I'm a hell of a lot angrier than you. But I was born angry in general, so maybe we're at the same level in reality. :)

Now finally Fox has a piece too...not one of outrage, but one of "The Prez sez its all right folks!"

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,174358,00.html

Give me a break. I hate Bush as much as the next guy, but not because he's a liar. Keep in mind any man you put in office is going to be a liar regardless of political party. That's one of the most integral parts of the president's job. I doubt you'll find an honest man who really, honestly cares deeply about the welfare of the people they reign over in this entire world. That's just how politics are. You might as well feel betrayed by every American president to ever serve, because guarenteed they lied to you some time along their term (in a major way too, though we may not know about it).


Yeah, I hate politicians in general, not just Republicans. How dare we citizens have ideas about how our elected officials should act? Oh, the uppityness!


Great...I don't really give a shit. You think they throw men in jail for picking daisies and playing in the sandbox? Fuck no. If they're in jail or being interrogated or they're held in custody, it's because they're suspected of something...and if they're suspected, it's for good reason. You think they just take Joe Shmoe and throw him behind bars for the hell of it? No! They suspect him of blowing up a building...why do they suspect him? Probably because they have evidence linking him to the bombing! And at any rate none of us really know what's going on in these black sites anyways...half of the people here are just making assumptions, which is fine except there's no justification for them. The CIA could be doing ANYTHING over there...how this news source even knows they keep prisoners there seems a little suspicious to me. Do you guys really believe the CIA's holding and interrogating thousands of innocent men?

Yeah, I really believe the CIA is holding and detaining at least a few hundred innocents. I'm sick of the "America can do no wrong argument." Perhaps you need to learn about those parts of American history where the government didn't particularly care about guilt or innocence in its treatment of people, such as the mass detainment of Japanese during WWII and its nineteenth-century conduct regarding Native Americans. My personal suspicion is that roughly half of those being detained are guilty and the other half were just yanked off the street in Afghanistan because they failed to pay the proper protection money to their local cheftain.

Apparently, you missed this post (http://www.forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9869964&postcount=36).

Hate to dig this all the way up from page 1, but I just can't help it...

It doesn't matter because the guy I voted for says so. And thats good enough for me, because thats why I voted for him.

You voted for him to undermine the basic principles of your own justice system?

Some people just scare the hell out of me...

Fuck it. The terrorists don't feel the need to justify themselves, why should I? And before you say "because then you'll be as bad as them", let me state for the record that I have never cut off the head of an unarmed man while he screamed in horror for help.

Did you see any of those tapes? You should. The day I saw the Nick Berg tape, I cried. And then I decided that whoever was gonna go after those sick motherfuckers the hardest gets my vote from now on!

How difficult is it to grasp the importance of having the trial to determine whether these even ARE the "sick motherfuckers" in question BEFORE you imprison and torture them? Leaving aside the issue of the justifiability of the use of torture in the first place...

I imagine if any of the framers of the US constitution were ever introduced to your statement and informed it came from a future citizen of the nation they were attempting to build they would be violently ill.

Eut. I sigged your quote for a reason. Looks like you need a reminder.

You guys fucking scare me. Knowing there's more than one person like Sick Nightmares and Whispering Legs out there... Makes sleeping a lot harder.

Look around you. 'terrorist' 'jew' the words are different, the meaning is the same. When we trust our leadership blindly we lose our path and fall off the cliff.

True tyranny rarely comes in broad daylight with a sword. It comes in the night, in the mind, until it was always so and you do not see it for what it is.

What you can see, you can fight. When you do not see, you will never realise what happened.

Thanks for saying this. It sickens me to see how Americans have slipped -- no, jumped right off the highboard of civilization headfirst into the empty pool of paranoid barbarism. They're ready to suck up to anyone -- no matter how crooked -- who acts like a bigger bully than the one they're afraid of. Ready to plunge the world into violence, abuse and war because they're afraid of what might happen some day. Making whores out of themselves for "safety." Talking tough while they hide behind the military-industrial complex. But when you call them on their rhetoric, then they start splitting every hair they can find to claim that their outrageous suggestions really are okay and civilized and not illegal or racist or cowardly. God forbid they just admit they are the fear-ridden warmongers that they must be to support such horrendous policies and that there really is no difference between them and the terrorists.

I grew up in an America where the people didn't need strong leaders because they governed themselves; they didn't need to be kept safe by anyone else because they didn't fear their enemies; they believed the law was the greatest social weapon; and since they were better than their enemies, they would never lower themselves to using their enemies' tactics.

I don't know what's running my country nowadays, but I'm not proud of it (as evidence by this rant).

*this American starts distributing cookies:) *

just be glad that this is a bump and not the secret police knocking down your door to drag you off to a u.s. run soviet-era torture camp

Sick, reprehensible, disgusting, and flat-out shameful. I hope those responsible are duly chastised.

Sick, reprehensible, disgusting, and flat-out shameful. I hope those responsible are duly chastised.
The CIA Leadership and Dick Cheney, who wants to exclude the CIA from the normal anti-torture rules applicable to the army etc?

You can hardly call the existence of these "black sites" an isolated incident, can you?

Where is Fitzgerald with the indictments about this? This is more of a security leak than something about a non-clandestine agent like Valerie the Nepotist. These reporters should be arrested and put on trial.

Where is Fitzgerald with the indictments about this? This is more of a security leak than something about a non-clandestine agent like Valerie the Nepotist. These reporters should be arrested and put on trial.


Yeah! Let's throw them in our new gulag! They'll love the irony. :rolleyes:

you see, in america we hold these truths to be self evident: that all people are created equal and can equally be disappeared to soviet torture camps at the whim of our rulers, that rights are for pussies, and that rape and murder are equivalent to blowing off steam or 'harmless' fraternity pranks when not specifically and explicitly rejected by dear leader.
First off, I am greatly amused by the use of the north korean president's title for the US. Come to think of it, they did both get their power from daddy.

Also remember that in the US (to quote Animal Farm) some are created more equal than others.

Now I say "Bring us more Punishment" for those evil terrorists, because I really do think this topic has the potential to grow into a full.on scandal, or at least should have.

because I really do think this topic has the potential to grow into a full.on scandal, or at least should have.

i find it utterly disturbing that it isn't yet. i find it utterly horrific that we have reached a point where a significant number of people are willing to look the other way (let alone be cheerleaders for) torture and murder camps - secret or otherwise, in saddam's rape rooms or former soviet gulag facilities.

it seems to me that in a just world the people behind this shit would have already been hanging from the roof of a gas station.

i find it utterly disturbing that it isn't yet. i find it utterly horrific that we have reached a point where a significant number of people are willing to look the other way (let alone be cheerleaders for) torture and murder camps - secret or otherwise, in saddam's rape rooms or former soviet gulag facilities.

Disturbing? Hardly. History is quite littered with examples of people believing that anything that they would normally disagree with, being completely justifiable with appropriate social and media pressure. I am certain that with the appropriate tweaks, people could be brought about to thinking the reopening of the following to their original purposes to be quite acceptable.

Auschwitz II (Auschwitz-Birkenau)
Belzec
Chelmno
Majdanek
Sobibór
Treblinka

The only difference is exactly which section of the demographic is taken, although given some views shown here, it may become indiscriminate. After all, certain people on this board have already quite expressed their views that are eerily similar in concept to that used to construct the listed places. A soundbite here, a poster there, a speech if needed, and the sheep will cheer on the sheapard.

Lest we never forget? We have already forgotten.


it seems to me that in a just world the people behind this shit would have already been hanging from the roof of a gas station.

The world is quite the harsh place unfortunately, and it is sad that it turns out that only the most brutal arrive at the top.

Disturbing? Hardly. History is quite littered with examples of people believing that anything that they would normally disagree with, being completely justifiable with appropriate social and media pressure. I am certain that with the appropriate tweaks, people could be brought about to thinking the reopening of the following to their original purposes to be quite acceptable.

Auschwitz II (Auschwitz-Birkenau)
Belzec
Chelmno
Majdanek
Sobibór
Treblinka

The only difference is exactly which section of the demographic is taken, although given some views shown here, it may become indiscriminate. After all, certain people on this board have already quite expressed their views that are eerily similar in concept to that used to construct the listed places. A soundbite here, a poster there, a speech if needed, and the sheep will cheer on the sheapard.

Lest we never forget? We have already forgotten.

that's no reason to give up being horrified and disturbed by it. i've given up being shocked or even mildly surprised by any of this shit. but i refuse to surrender my sense of outrage and horror.

that's no reason to give up being horrified and disturbed by it. i've given up being shocked or even mildly surprised by any of this shit. but i refuse to surrender my sense of outrage and horror.
You should read Hannah Arendt's 1963 book Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil, which was based on the trial of Adolph Eichmann in Jerusalem. Arendt's thesis was that people who carry out unspeakable crimes, like Eichmann, a top administrator in the machinery of the Nazi death camps, may not be crazy fanatics at all, but rather ordinary individuals who simply accept the premises of their state and participate in any ongoing enterprise with the energy of good bureaucrats.

Now I say "Bring us more Punishment" for those evil terrorists, because I really do think this topic has the potential to grow into a full.on scandal, or at least should have.

Agreed, it'll be a scandal if this doesn't become a scandal.

Agreed, it'll be a scandal if this doesn't become a scandal.

Well, let's consider the following.

The idea that someone "outed" a CIA agent was considered grounds for a grand jury investigation.

Sound OK so far?

Now, we have a newspaper (not Judith Miller though) outing an entire network of secret prisons - so secret, in fact, that few officials know about it in its entirety.

Sounds like time for a grand jury investigation to me - to see who leaked it - and fry their asses.

Let's be consistent, even if we're not fair.

You should read Hannah Arendt's 1963 book Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil, which was based on the trial of Adolph Eichmann in Jerusalem. Arendt's thesis was that people who carry out unspeakable crimes, like Eichmann, a top administrator in the machinery of the Nazi death camps, may not be crazy fanatics at all, but rather ordinary individuals who simply accept the premises of their state and participate in any ongoing enterprise with the energy of good bureaucrats.

Yup. And don't forget the Milgram Experiment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment).

Well, let's consider the following.

The idea that someone "outed" a CIA agent was considered grounds for a grand jury investigation.

Sound OK so far?

Now, we have a newspaper (not Judith Miller though) outing an entire network of secret prisons - so secret, in fact, that few officials know about it in its entirety.

Sounds like time for a grand jury investigation to me - to see who leaked it - and fry their asses.

Let's be consistent, even if we're not fair.

while i happen to think that all cia agents should be 'outed' on general principle, it seems to me that their might be a relevant distinction to be made between somebody leaking the existence of some secret project/program because the thing itself is a horrific injustice and ought be immediately abolished, and outing the identity of a person as part of a government smear campaign against yet a different person because that person pointed out that the government was lying.

while i happen to think that all cia agents should be 'outed' on general principle, it seems to me that their might be a relevant distinction to be made between somebody leaking the existence of some secret project/program because the thing itself is a horrific injustice and ought be immediately abolished, and outing the identity of a person as part of a government smear campaign against yet a different person because that person pointed out that the government was lying.

The law does not allow such a distinction, although you may bring it up as a statement of mitigation when you are sentenced.

that's no reason to give up being horrified and disturbed by it. i've given up being shocked or even mildly surprised by any of this shit. but i refuse to surrender my sense of outrage and horror.
Exactly. What's that saying about how "all it takes for evil to prevail is for good people to say nothing"? (something like that.)

The law does not allow such a distinction, although you may bring it up as a statement of mitigation when you are sentenced.

the law itself may not, but i can see judges finding it to be relevant enough to write such a distinction into case law - if they haven't already.

the law itself may not, but i can see judges finding it to be relevant enough to write such a distinction into case law - if they haven't already.

What planet do you live on? It never happens.

What planet do you live on? It never happens.

well it would obviously depend on the judges in question, but i think a very reasonable case could be made that vioalting the law was necessary to stop an even greater crime in this particular instance. that sort of justification is already written into our legal history in terms of either 'defense of others' or general 'necessity'. i don't know about the case law in this particular sort of thing, but were i a judge i would find it relevant enough to at least consider it as mitigating against guilt.

(damn, looks like i won't be getting that open seat on the supreme court now)

well it would obviously depend on the judges in question, but i think a very reasonable case could be made that vioalting the law was necessary to stop an even greater crime in this particular instance. that sort of justification is already written into our legal history in terms of either 'defense of others' or general 'necessity'. i don't know about the case law in this particular sort of thing, but were i a judge i would find it relevant enough to at least consider it as mitigating against guilt.

(damn, looks like i won't be getting that open seat on the supreme court now)
Besides, the crime was leaking information about a CIA agent. As far as we know, The Washington Post and AI have no such sources. They may have done a good old-fashioned investigation and found out about those sites.

Disturbing? Hardly. History is quite littered with examples of people believing that anything that they would normally disagree with, being completely justifiable with appropriate social and media pressure. I am certain that with the appropriate tweaks, people could be brought about to thinking the reopening of the following to their original purposes to be quite acceptable.

Auschwitz II (Auschwitz-Birkenau)
Belzec
Chelmno
Majdanek
Sobibór
Treblinka

The only difference is exactly which section of the demographic is taken, although given some views shown here, it may become indiscriminate. After all, certain people on this board have already quite expressed their views that are eerily similar in concept to that used to construct the listed places. A soundbite here, a poster there, a speech if needed, and the sheep will cheer on the sheapard.

Lest we never forget? We have already forgotten.



The world is quite the harsh place unfortunately, and it is sad that it turns out that only the most brutal arrive at the top.


I sadly agree. You forgot to add Manzanar to the list, though.

Well, let's consider the following.

The idea that someone "outed" a CIA agent was considered grounds for a grand jury investigation.

Sound OK so far?

Now, we have a newspaper (not Judith Miller though) outing an entire network of secret prisons - so secret, in fact, that few officials know about it in its entirety.

Sounds like time for a grand jury investigation to me - to see who leaked it - and fry their asses.

Let's be consistent, even if we're not fair.


I have a better idea. Let's find out who was responsible for these prisons and fry their asses.

Hyperbole sure has won the day in this discussion. I haven't read much beyond Amnesty's charges, but there are a few good reasons to have secret prisons. One of the best reasons is to keep the bad guys from knowing who you have captured. Another good reason is to keep the bad guys in places that are hard to access. Fewer attempts at extortion, fewer attempts at jailbreaks. Aren't those realistic reasons for keeping some locations secret?

I don't put a lot of stock into the torture angle. I've never known anyone involved in intelligence that thought information gained by torture was worth much.

I suspect what is really driving this expose are a few disgruntled CIA agents that would rather be out spying than guarding prisoners. They ought to be hauled in front of a grand jury and thoroughly probed.

One of the best reasons is to keep the bad guys from knowing who you have captured. Another good reason is to keep the bad guys in places that are hard to access. Fewer attempts at extortion, fewer attempts at jailbreaks. Aren't those realistic reasons for keeping some locations secret?
I don't really think so. Everyone knows where Gitmo is, but to my knowledge no serious extortion or jailbreak attempt was made.

The difference is that Gitmo is operated by the US Military, and thus bound to the various rules the Pentagon handed out.
These black sites are operated by the CIA (the same CIA that does "rendition", so obviously they think there is some merit in mistreating prisoners), and therefore not bound to the Pentagon's rules.
Why would they keep them secret if not to stop people in the US from asking questions? If most Americans knew about these camps, wouldn't there be people asking about the treatment of the detainees?

This is all very fishy at best.

I haven't read much beyond Amnesty's charges

perhaps you should read the article at the front of this thread. ai's only relation to this matter is that they called it with the gulag comment months ago. amnesty didn't find out that we are using actual gulag facilities now.

There so secret even the coutries they are in dont know about them .:rolleyes:

There so secret even the coutries they are in dont know about them .:rolleyes:
Obviously they are secret locations, what do you expect - it's cooperation between the secret services.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,11069-1855381,00.html
..But Frantisek Bublan, the Czech Interior Minister, said last night that the US had approached his Government a month ago about holding suspects on Czech territory, but Prague had refused.

Human rights groups point at Poland and Romania as two eastern European countries that have taken in America’s “ghost detainees”. They also claimed that the US was running out of countries willing to host its terror suspects.

The secret facilities depend on the co-operation of foreign intelligence services, and on their existence being kept completely secret from all but a tiny handful of top officials.

Tom Malinowski, the director of Human Rights Watch, told The Times that his investigators had tracked CIA aircraft transferring detainees from Afghanistan to airfields in Eastern Europe that are closed to the public and press, including two in Poland and Romania.

Mr Malinowski said that Human Rights Watch was “90 per cent certain” the CIA used Szymany airport in Poland.

“This is an obscure, rural airport which is very close to a Polish intelligence facility,” Mr Malinowski said...

There so secret even the coutries they are in dont know about them .:rolleyes:

You know, you should really read up a bit more. If the intelligence agency in the host country is approached and agrees to it, that means that said country knows about it and the higher ups are willing to go along with it. Duh.

I have a better idea. Let's find out who was responsible for these prisons and fry their asses.

You may recall the flurry of intelligence-related changes in the laws post-911.

I would bet that the CIA's ass is already wrapped in silk and satin on this one. You probably couldn't touch them.

People who leak top secrets, on the other hand, have only one place to go under the law - prison.

You may recall the flurry of intelligence-related changes in the laws post-911.

I would bet that the CIA's ass is already wrapped in silk and satin on this one. You probably couldn't touch them.

People who leak top secrets, on the other hand, have only one place to go under the law - prison.


Yes, I remember the changes made. That's what allowed things like this to happen. Doesn't your conscience bother you just a little to be saying, in effect, that the perpetrators are ok, but let's stone the whistleblowers? Are you really that comfortable with blind obediance? Are you really alright with things like this occurring, but not with our government being called to account?

Yes, I remember the changes made. That's what allowed things like this to happen. Doesn't your conscience bother you just a little to be saying, in effect, that the perpetrators are ok, but let's stone the whistleblowers? Are you really that comfortable with blind obediance?

If you don't like the laws, why don't you change them?

1. You can't prosecute anyone for something you gave permission for them to do through the legislature - you would have to prosecute everyone in Congress first - and I do recall during those frenzied passing of changes to the law, that the votes were extremely bipartisan - that is, nearly everyone voted YES.

2. You could pass a law now, and stop the practice. But you can't go back and prosecute them for a law you pass now.

It's not a matter of ethics or morals that drive my statements. You are obviously suffering from delusions of morality.

I speak only of the law as it exists, or as it could be changed. Morals are irrelevant in court - you can only prosecute based on the law.

Stop trying to pull morals out of a court - it never happens. Even the men tried at Nuremburg were tried according to laws - mostly violations of the Fourth Hague Convention - not out of any sense of moral outrage.

If you don't like the laws, why don't you change them?

1. You can't prosecute anyone for something you gave permission for them to do through the legislature - you would have to prosecute everyone in Congress first - and I do recall during those frenzied passing of changes to the law, that the votes were extremely bipartisan - that is, nearly everyone voted YES.

2. You could pass a law now, and stop the practice. But you can't go back and prosecute them for a law you pass now.

It's not a matter of ethics or morals that drive my statements. You are obviously suffering from delusions of morality.

I speak only of the law as it exists, or as it could be changed. Morals are irrelevant in court - you can only prosecute based on the law.

Stop trying to pull morals out of a court - it never happens. Even the men tried at Nuremburg were tried according to laws - mostly violations of the Fourth Hague Convention - not out of any sense of moral outrage.


I do actually have morals. All's fair? Not hardly. If another country was doing this, we'd probably be outraged (or at least pretend to be). Do you remember the moral outrage over racial cleansing in Kosovo? You are basically saying that it's alright for this to happen because it's us doing it, so I and anyone else who disagrees should STFU or we're traitors. Tell me, is it treason in your mind to disagree with the President, or just to disagree with you?

I do actually have morals. All's fair? Not hardly. If another country was doing this, we'd probably be outraged (or at least pretend to be). Do you remember the moral outrage over racial cleansing in Kosovo? You are basically saying that it's alright for this to happen because it's us doing it, so I and anyone else who disagrees should STFU or we're traitors. Tell me, is it treason in your mind to disagree with the President, or just to disagree with you?

I think you are deliberately
a) not reading what I wrote, and
b) putting words in my mouth.

I am not telling you to STFU, nor am I calling you a traitor. And there are subjects where I most definitely disagree with the President.

So, I'll use small words this time, so you'll be sure to understand what I am saying.

1. If you want to prosecute someone for a crime, there has to be a US law that defines their action as a crime.
2. You want to prosecute the CIA guys. Because you are morally outraged.
3. The laws were changed after 911 to allow them to do this. So there is no US law to prosecute them with.
4. No crime under the law - no case - no prosecution.
5. You are now really outraged. So you pass a new law, making it illegal.
6. Unfortunately, you can't backdate a law like that. So there is no US law to prosecute them with (although you did get them to stop).
7. Once again, no crime under the law - no case - no prosecution.

Stop trying to say that courts can prosecute people solely on the basis of moral outrage. You must have a law that defines a crime - otherwise you can't prosecute your own shoelaces.

That has nothing to do with traitors, Bush, or what I think of either.

I think you are deliberately
a) not reading what I wrote, and
b) putting words in my mouth.

I am not telling you to STFU, nor am I calling you a traitor. And there are subjects where I most definitely disagree with the President.

So, I'll use small words this time, so you'll be sure to understand what I am saying.

1. If you want to prosecute someone for a crime, there has to be a US law that defines their action as a crime.
2. You want to prosecute the CIA guys. Because you are morally outraged.
3. The laws were changed after 911 to allow them to do this. So there is no US law to prosecute them with.
4. No crime under the law - no case - no prosecution.
5. You are now really outraged. So you pass a new law, making it illegal.
6. Unfortunately, you can't backdate a law like that. So there is no US law to prosecute them with (although you did get them to stop).
7. Once again, no crime under the law - no case - no prosecution.

Stop trying to say that courts can prosecute people solely on the basis of moral outrage. You must have a law that defines a crime - otherwise you can't prosecute your own shoelaces.

That has nothing to do with traitors, Bush, or what I think of either.


Do feel free to stop being so condescending. I understand what you're saying, I simply disagree.

Do feel free to stop being so condescending. I understand what you're saying, I simply disagree.
Sierra's not the only one who thinks this (rather terrifying) way, as this thread shows. They think it's "realpolitik," but even Henry Kissinger, arguably the king of modern realpolitik, doesn't agree with the Bush admin's policies on this. When the man who thought the bombing of Cambodia would be a good idea says you're going too far, brother, you're going too far.

I don't really think so. Everyone knows where Gitmo is, but to my knowledge no serious extortion or jailbreak attempt was made.

The difference is that Gitmo is operated by the US Military, and thus bound to the various rules the Pentagon handed out.
These black sites are operated by the CIA (the same CIA that does "rendition", so obviously they think there is some merit in mistreating prisoners), and therefore not bound to the Pentagon's rules.
Why would they keep them secret if not to stop people in the US from asking questions? If most Americans knew about these camps, wouldn't there be people asking about the treatment of the detainees?

This is all very fishy at best.
The Marine Corp base at Guantanamo Bay is a very special place. It is surrounded by land mines, machine guns and quite a bit of no-man's land. It's also very public, so keeping a particular prisoner there is not going to be a secret for very long.

Let's say we captured Bin Laden. Wouldn't we want to keep his capture a secret for as long as we could? I don't think that would happen at GB.

The Marine Corp base at Guantanamo Bay is a very special place. It is surrounded by land mines, machine guns and quite a bit of no-man's land. It's also very public, so keeping a particular prisoner there is not going to be a secret for very long.

Let's say we captured Bin Laden. Wouldn't we want to keep his capture a secret for as long as we could? I don't think that would happen at GB.

Wake Island, on the other hand, would probably do just fine.

Wake Island, on the other hand, would probably do just fine.
*laughing* No kidding. We could even let him fish off the bridge all night.

You know, you should really read up a bit more. If the intelligence agency in the host country is approached and agrees to it, that means that said country knows about it and the higher ups are willing to go along with it. Duh.

I am not so quick to jump on a story , based on a leaked document and treat it like gospel truth . First if they are " secret " then the person who leaked the info needs to be shot at least once in the back of the head .
Secondly if they are indeed secret and are needed to insure that high profile detainees are not found and attempts made to free them by terrorist , whats the big frigging deal ? Seems like a smart way of going about things . A story in the times is not proof ..its speculation .

I am not so quick to jump on a story , based on a leaked document and treat it like gospel truth.

*snap*

Hear that? Thats the sound of your mouth shutting down on your foot. You first took only one part of the article, that being secret prison camps, and ran with it, claiming that it's existence could not have happened without the knowledge of a host government even though the article did state that they knew.

You attempted to use one part of the story for your own ends and now claim that you are not so quick to jump on it as the truth?

You cannot have your cake and eat it.

Hypocrite.


First if they are " secret " then the person who leaked the info needs to be shot at least once in the back of the head .

Really? I don't remember you ever calling for the person responsible for outing a certain CIA agent to be shot in the back of the head?

Of course, if the US began opening Treblinka and ran it the way its original designers did and it was discovered, you'd probably say it was a good thing too and that the person who discovered it should be shot.

I'm so glad that you've given your nation a blank cheque to do whatever it wants to do.

Oh, and before you even claim that it is merely alleged and has no substance, your opinion quite clearly states your stance. The government can do whatever it wants, commit any number of atrocities. You would be behind it 100%.

For example, would you care to protect the ones responsible for the My Lai Massacre and other atrocities performed by US military units and condoned by the government? You cannot after all, claim that they didn't condone it if the only one who was charged was pardoned.


Secondly if they are indeed secret and are needed to insure that high profile detainees are not found and attempts made to free them by terrorist , whats the big frigging deal ? Seems like a smart way of going about things.

Of course, you quite clearly ignore the fact that there are those who are completely innocent being taken to said camps where they are subjected to a "anything goes" policy of information extraction? Of course you probably think its quite acceptable. So long as it isn't YOU that is being taken to said camps.

But if it was you who did end up in said camp, it would be malicious and cruel of me to say, "what's the big frigging deal?" But I do not think I am malicious and cruel, so I would not say it. Perhaps think it to be a delicious irony, but no more than that.


A story in the times is not proof ..its speculation .

A story that is being circulated by a fair number of news organizations, quite a number of them from various political sides so you cannot claim bias. Perhaps you will deny that the Hurrican Katrina happened next just because it is a story in the news?

I also find the position of "It's not illegal" to describe something there are technically no laws against because it's not something the American public would have allowed (pre-9/11) had it been known to be ludicrous and sickening.

I also find the position of "It's not illegal" to describe something there are technically no laws against because it's not something the American public would have allowed (pre-9/11) had it been known to be ludicrous and sickening.

I guess I'll have to explain my position again, because you still don't understand.

I am passing no moral judgment on the issue.

When I say, "it is not illegal," I am merely stating an obvious fact. I am not saying, "hooray, I love the fact that the CIA is running secret prisons".

But you seem to think I'm saying that, so I'll repeat myself - I am not saying that.

If you don't like the simple fact that it is not illegal for them to be running them (in fact, since the CIA budget is approved by the Senate Intelligence Committee, one might conclude that they know all about the secret prison system - it isn't cheap), then pass a bill to stop it.

Instead of venting your moral outrage into the vacuum of the Internet, write your Congressman.

*laughing* No kidding. We could even let him fish off the bridge all night.

Not sure if they've rebuilt the bridge yet. It burned down in late 2003.

Still, he can enjoy the solitude.

Not sure if they've rebuilt the bridge yet. It burned down in late 2003.

Still, he can enjoy the solitude.
Damn, I spent a lot of quality time with cases of beer and a fishing pole on that bridge. Well maybe a couple of quality nights before we had to fly to Hawaii. The only thing worse than flying drunk is trying to help a pilot that is in even worse shape make it through the next six and a half hours.

I guess I'll have to explain my position again, because you still don't understand.

I am passing no moral judgment on the issue.

When I say, "it is not illegal," I am merely stating an obvious fact. I am not saying, "hooray, I love the fact that the CIA is running secret prisons".

But you seem to think I'm saying that, so I'll repeat myself - I am not saying that.

If you don't like the simple fact that it is not illegal for them to be running them (in fact, since the CIA budget is approved by the Senate Intelligence Committee, one might conclude that they know all about the secret prison system - it isn't cheap), then pass a bill to stop it.

Instead of venting your moral outrage into the vacuum of the Internet, write your Congressman.

I have to say that after reading your posts in other threads, we are ideologically opposed. Bearing that in mind, I must also say you are absolutely correct. Legally, the CIA has done no wrong. Morally, they are no better than the terrorists, but it is painfully obvious that you are not discussing that at all.

From a realpolitik view, (oddly enough, the only people who understand realpolitik are those who use it and those who suffer because of it) I think these camps are idiocy.

The War on Terror can not be won without having the middle eastern communities on our side. These middle eastern communities of which I speak would be those that the terrorists come from. The existence, or even the belief of such an existence, of these camps would push some of the fence sitters into the "let's bomb the USA" camp.

Not to mention what Senator John McCain says,

I have been asked before where did the brave men I was privileged to serve with in Vietnam draw the strength to resist to the best of their ability the cruelties inflicted on them by our enemies. Well, we drew strength from our faith in each other, from our faith in God, and from our faith in our country. Our enemies didn’t adhere to the Geneva Convention. Many of my comrades were subjected to very cruel, very inhumane and degrading treatment, a few of them even unto death. But everyone of us knew, every single one of us knew and took great strength from the belief that we were different from our enemies, that we were better than them, that we, if the roles were reversed, would not disgrace ourselves by committing or countenancing such mistreatment of them. That faith was indispensable not only to our survival, but to our attempts to return home with honor. Many of the men I served with would have preferred death to such dishonor.

The enemies we fight today hold such liberal notions in contempt, as they hold the international conventions that enshrine them such as the Geneva Conventions and the treaty on torture in contempt. I know that. But we’re better than them, and we are the stronger for our faith. And we will prevail. I submit to my colleagues that it is indispensable to our success in this war that our servicemen and women know that in the discharge of their dangerous responsibilities to their country they are never expected to forget that they are Americans, the valiant defenders of a sacred idea of how nations should govern their own affairs and their relations with others – even our enemies.
Those who return to us and those who give their lives for us are entitled to that honor. And those of us who have given them this onerous duty are obliged by our history, and by the sacrifices – the many terrible sacrifices -- that have been made in our defense – we are obliged to make clear to them that they need not risk their or their country’s honor to prevail; that they are always, always – through the violence, chaos and heartache of war, through deprivation and cruelty and loss – they are always, always Americans, and different, better, and stronger than those who would destroy us.

Bolding mine.

I have to say that after reading your posts in other threads, we are ideologically opposed. Bearing that in mind, I must also say you are absolutely correct. Legally, the CIA has done no wrong. Morally, they are no better than the terrorists, but it is painfully obvious that you are not discussing that at all.

Having been shot at before, I find discussions of morality pointless. Those are subjects where people are quite unlikely to agree if on opposing sides already.

I have shot people who shot at me first. The fact that they are dead makes me alive. I could care less if it was morally right or wrong for me to do it.

*snap*

Hear that? Thats the sound of your mouth shutting down on your foot. You first took only one part of the article, that being secret prison camps, and ran with it, claiming that it's existence could not have happened without the knowledge of a host government even though the article did state that they knew.

You attempted to use one part of the story for your own ends and now claim that you are not so quick to jump on it as the truth?

You cannot have your cake and eat it.

Hypocrite.



Really? I don't remember you ever calling for the person responsible for outing a certain CIA agent to be shot in the back of the head?

Of course, if the US began opening Treblinka and ran it the way its original designers did and it was discovered, you'd probably say it was a good thing too and that the person who discovered it should be shot.

I'm so glad that you've given your nation a blank cheque to do whatever it wants to do.

Oh, and before you even claim that it is merely alleged and has no substance, your opinion quite clearly states your stance. The government can do whatever it wants, commit any number of atrocities. You would be behind it 100%.

For example, would you care to protect the ones responsible for the My Lai Massacre and other atrocities performed by US military units and condoned by the government? You cannot after all, claim that they didn't condone it if the only one who was charged was pardoned.



Of course, you quite clearly ignore the fact that there are those who are completely innocent being taken to said camps where they are subjected to a "anything goes" policy of information extraction? Of course you probably think its quite acceptable. So long as it isn't YOU that is being taken to said camps.

But if it was you who did end up in said camp, it would be malicious and cruel of me to say, "what's the big frigging deal?" But I do not think I am malicious and cruel, so I would not say it. Perhaps think it to be a delicious irony, but no more than that.



A story that is being circulated by a fair number of news organizations, quite a number of them from various political sides so you cannot claim bias. Perhaps you will deny that the Hurrican Katrina happened next just because it is a story in the news?

I have been following the story from the beginning . I made NO claims including the ones you have imagined I did . Exactly what crime is being commited by having camps ? Who is in them ? What gets done there ? Your imagination has them doing things ...whats the reality ? Do they exist ? What proof beyond speculation and " reports " is out there ? What exactly is a " camp " ?
And how exactly did you come to all those conclusions ...from the meger amount of words I posted ..:rolleyes: You do have a tendency to try to put words on the screen that have no place there .
Please attempt to justify your response from what I actually typed..not what you think I said .

I have been following the story from the beginning . I made NO claims including the ones you have imagined I did.

Really? Then I suppose I imagined you posting this?


There so secret even the coutries they are in dont know about them .


That tells quite a bit in the first place. You clearly indicate that the camps do not exist because the countries they are do not know about them, but the article itself mentions that the camps are there WITH the knowledge of the local government. You have only taken one part of the argument, hoping that others would not see the fallacy in what you have excluded.

And did I imagine you posting this?


First if they are " secret " then the person who leaked the info needs to be shot at least once in the back of the head .

That in itself speaks volumes about your character. Quite clearly, according to you, the existence of these camps, and what is being alleged to happen there, should not be brought about to the open. But at the same time, during the outing of a certain CIA agent, you were notably absent with your fiery rhetoric.


Exactly what crime is being commited by having camps ? Who is in them ? What gets done there ?

This is what the current investigation that is being initiated intends to find out. But previous cases of extraordinary rendition being used to extract very many individuals and send them for torture abroad do not speak very well of what is going on in these camps.

Precedent is very important in legal proceedings. And a past track record or rap sheet can be quite telling if the situation is similar.


Your imagination has them doing things ...whats the reality ?

Here is the reality of things. But you obviously would rather they didn't exist wouldn't you?

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0208-13.htm
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?050214fa_fact6
http://www.guardian.co.uk/alqaida/story/0,12469,1237650,00.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/afghanistan/story/0,1284,1440836,00.html


Do they exist ? What proof beyond speculation and " reports " is out there ? What exactly is a " camp " ?

Tell me. Do you believe Camp Xray in Guantanamo Bay exists? Maybe you don't. You keep saying things like proof beyond speculation. I could also ask. Do I know that YOU exist? What proof do I have that you are a human being?

You are being quite silly.

And if you think all of this is mere hogwash, why is there an investigation currently being understaken?


And how exactly did you come to all those conclusions ...from the meger amount of words I posted ..:rolleyes: You do have a tendency to try to put words on the screen that have no place there .

Few words can speak volumes. You can defend what you have said, but you cannot deny that you have said them. Or written them in this particular case.


Please attempt to justify your response from what I actually typed..not what you think I said .

I think I quite did so in the first place. Your words and past actions have clearly painted you for what you are and what you believe in.

Let's say we captured Bin Laden. Wouldn't we want to keep his capture a secret for as long as we could? I don't think that would happen at GB.
I'm pretty sure that if the US finally got their hands on him, they would tell everyone on the planet exactly that.
I know what you mean (and I still think the moves to exclude the CIA from the rules for treating prisoners properly should make you suspicious), but at least in Bin Laden's case, I don't think they'll keep that a secret for long.

I'm pretty sure that if the US finally got their hands on him, they would tell everyone on the planet exactly that.
I know what you mean (and I still think the moves to exclude the CIA from the rules for treating prisoners properly should make you suspicious), but at least in Bin Laden's case, I don't think they'll keep that a secret for long.

I suspect they would treat it the same way they did when they caught Saddam. Shout it from the rooftops so to speak. The admin isn't that big on keeping things it can crow about secret.

You know, the sad thing is that while we justify a war in Iraq by claiming human right's protection, etc., we do exactly the same thing ourselves. Do we even care anymore?

You know, the sad thing is that while we justify a war in Iraq by claiming human right's protection, etc., we do exactly the same thing ourselves. Do we even care anymore?

It's a matter of scale, I presume.

Millions of Kurds and Shiites were being oppressed - even those who weren't doing anything at all.

We're trying to oppress only those that act under arms.

And no, I don't care. Technically, you only have to treat someone as a prisoner if you accept their surrender - otherwise, you can just shoot any armed combatant on the spot. I think the mistake we've made is accepting surrender of insurgents.

It's a matter of scale, I presume.

Millions of Kurds and Shiites were being oppressed - even those who weren't doing anything at all.

We're trying to oppress only those that act under arms.

And no, I don't care. Technically, you only have to treat someone as a prisoner if you accept their surrender - otherwise, you can just shoot any armed combatant on the spot. I think the mistake we've made is accepting surrender of insurgents.

The scale isn't the problem, the fact is that we have exactly the same respect for human rights as other rights-abusers around the world - which is to say none. Will we ever become large scale rights abusers: probably not. But what bothers me is that we love to ramble about 'principles', or 'valyes' as our president like to call them, yet when it comes down to it we don't respect those principles at all. If you say one thing and do another, you don't stand for anything.

Again, it's a case of "we can do this, but the rest of you better not dare". By your logic, Sierra, why should any US soldier captured by treated humanely?

Again, it's a case of "we can do this, but the rest of you better not dare". By your logic, Sierra, why should any US soldier captured by treated humanely?

You will notice that they haven't. Even before any of our abuses.

The Taliban and al-Qaeda and the insurgents in Iraq don't take prisoners. And even if we did everything the way the guys in white hats should, they would still kill prisoners.

They would still be enraged with us and they would still attack us.

I'm not saying that they better not dare. I'm saying that we should employ the completely legal option under international law, and stop accepting the surrender of prisoners.

The scale isn't the problem, the fact is that we have exactly the same respect for human rights as other rights-abusers around the world - which is to say none. Will we ever become large scale rights abusers: probably not. But what bothers me is that we love to ramble about 'principles', or 'valyes' as our president like to call them, yet when it comes down to it we don't respect those principles at all. If you say one thing and do another, you don't stand for anything.

When I shot people in combat, I didn't shoot them because I stood for anything at all.

I shot them because they were shooting at me. There is no principle involved for me other than simple survival.