NationStates Jolt Archive

I nearly fell over eating my dinner tonight when this (http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2006/09/06/bush-prisons.html) came on the news:

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bush acknowledges secret CIA prisons for terror suspects
Last Updated Wed, 06 Sep 2006 16:03:22 EDT
CBC News

U.S. President George W. Bush has acknowledged for the first time that suspects accused of terrorism have been detained abroad in secret CIA prisons.

http://www.cbc.ca/gfx/images/news/photos/2006/09/06/bush-george-cp-10681535.jpg

U.S. President George Bush outlines his strategy to bring legal action against terrorism suspects imprisoned at the American naval base at Guantanamo Bay during a speech at the White House on Wednesday.

The official admission on Wednesday confirmed rumours and media reports that have stirred controversy for months, both in the United States and in countries accused of hosting the facilities.

Bush defended the secret prisons, saying the detainees had provided vital information that prevented further attacks in the years after al-Qaeda militants killed about 3,000 people in the United States on Sept. 11, 2001.

"The most important source of information on where the terrorists are hiding and what they are planning is the terrorists themselves," Bush said in a White House speech.

"It has been necessary to move these individuals to an environment where they can be held in secret, questioned by experts and, when appropriate, prosecuted for terrorist acts."

The president said the suspects, who have all been transferred to the U.S. naval prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, include:

* Khalid Sheik Mohammed, believed to be the No. 3 al-Qaeda leader before he was captured in Pakistan in 2003.
* Ramzi Binalshibh, accused of training to be one of the Sept. 11 militants who hijacked four planes.
* Abu Zubaydah, who was believed to be a link between al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden and many of the group's cells before he was captured in Pakistan in March 2002.

Media reports began surfacing in November 2005 that said the U.S. spy agency had been running a covert prison system that has been run for nearly four years in at least eight countries, including several democracies in Eastern Europe as well as Thailand and Afghanistan. The secret detention system was said to have been conceived in the first months after the Sept. 11 attacks.

The reports ignited great controversy in many countries, with the European Union warning its members that such prisons would be viewed as violations of the European Convention on Human Rights and various EU treaties.

On Wednesday, Bush defended the covert system, saying the security of the United States depended on its ability to learn what suspected terrorists know.

He described the detainees as dangerous men with "unparalleled knowledge" of militant networks and plans for new attacks.

Bush said the Central Intelligence Agency employed "alternative" procedures to extract information from the suspects. The president insisted those techniques complied with U.S. laws, the constitution and international treaty obligations.

He refused to describe the methods of interrogation used by CIA agents, saying it would give terrorists a tool to learn how to resist such questioning.

Bush said the procedures were "tough and safe and lawful and necessary."

The president also alleged that without the secret prisons, al-Qaeda would have succeeded in launching another attack against the Americans.

Although he said he couldn't provide details, Bush said some of the alleged plots included attacks in the United States "probably using airplanes."

He said another plot involved attacks on buildings in his country.

The suspects also provided information on al-Qaeda's efforts to obtain biological weapons, he said.

Bush said he was acknowledging the program now because the CIA and military have finished questioning the suspects and are ready to prosecute them in military tribunals.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

I have to admit, this floored me. I just knew I had to come on NSG to see what the overall response was going to be from NSers planetwide. But though I looked all throughout General, it seems no-one's yet brought this up.

Now why's that?

*scratches chin thoughtfully at screen*

Because it isn't a surprise?

... SCORE! This is SOOOooo going to be my current event. *kisses screen*

*sigh*

Welcome to 1984.

Because it isn't a surprise?

I would have to agree with this. Although I hadn't seen the story yet...

The only surprise is the President admitting to it. I would have expected attempts to keep it secret for much longer.

Hah.

*sigh*

Welcome to 1984.

Hush now, Big Brother Bush doesn't like that kind of talk.

...Maybe there's something to that thread about NSG getting smaller (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=498690), after all...

Is no-one surprised by today's open admission? Nobody at all?

What gives? This is insane.

The only surprise is the President admitting to it. I would have expected attempts to keep it secret for much longer.

As would I. As you say the admission is surprising - and that's my point. This is very surprising, and I'd wondered what others thought of this turn of events.

What do you make of it, Grape-eaters?

I would have to agree with this. Although I hadn't seen the story yet...

The only surprise is the President admitting to it. I would have expected attempts to keep it secret for much longer.

Hah.

Nah; not much of a surprise. I remember awhile back some claims about them existing. He probably has attempted to keep them secret.

As would I. As you say the admission is surprising - and that's my point. This is very surprising, and I'd wondered what others thought of this turn of events.

What do you make of it, Grape-eaters?

Don't forget we Americans have about a 5 minute attention span. He mentioned it because most people are either hunkered down waiting for his term to run out, watching the midterm election crap, talking about the croc man and even now there are more reports that the first responders to 9/11 are starting to have all sorts of medical problems now.

Don't expect much of an outcry. It's kind of hard to impeach a President when his party controls the two houses and has considerable clout on the SCOTUS.

The repubs aren't going to make much noise because they are starting to get scared by the prospect of loosing the house. There is a growing "toss the rascals out" mentality growing. Driven largely by Iraq and the belief the economy is not going well for them.

A less surprising detail is how he used the announcement to try and urge Congress to endorse his Islamaphobic Star Chamber instead of admitting that the Supreme Court (that selected his Presidency, now isn't that liberal judicial activism at its finest?) nailed him overstepping his bounds.

Another less surprising detail is how he brought relatives of WTC victims to his little spin doctoring session to try and chant "Operator! 9-11! 9-11! Terrorists! Terrorists! Freedom! Freedom!" over and over. And yet showing flag-draped coffins coming home for burial is unacceptable scavenging?

Last surprise is how the Busheviks aren't jumping on this thread to defend Dear Leader's bass ackwards position par for the course.

There is a growing "toss the rascals out" mentality growing. Driven largely by Iraq and the belief the economy is not going well for them.

It's a pity that this wouldn't help add some push to driving that mentality to a logical conclusion, then. This is definitely something I'd be seetheing about if it had been my duly-elected leader, I must say.

Don't forget we Americans have about a 5 minute attention span. He mentioned it because most people are either hunkered down waiting for his term to run out, watching the midterm election crap, talking about the croc man and even now there are more reports that the first responders to 9/11 are starting to have all sorts of medical problems now.

Don't expect much of an outcry. It's kind of hard to impeach a President when his party controls the two houses and has considerable clout on the SCOTUS.

The repubs aren't going to make much noise because they are starting to get scared by the prospect of loosing the house. There is a growing "toss the rascals out" mentality growing. Driven largely by Iraq and the belief the economy is not going well for them.

Hey, Look! Lindsay Lohan is eating pizza! Pizza must be the next hot thing!!

...Maybe there's something to that thread about NSG getting smaller (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=498690), after all...

Is no-one surprised by today's open admission? Nobody at all?

What gives? This is insane.

Not at all.

Once upon a time I stubbornly refused to believe that the CIA had secret prisons, but the evidence has worn my opinion quite thin. I've been at the point where I'd believe it, although the issue wasn't an active focus of mine.

This is part of why I'm a strong supporter of a potential McCain run in 2008. He for one knows the problems of secret detention and torture, and in my view he's the one most likely to end this practices, short of Ralph Nader that is.

As would I. As you say the admission is surprising - and that's my point. This is very surprising, and I'd wondered what others thought of this turn of events.

What do you make of it, Grape-eaters?

Well, I think that all of the rumours regarding these places that have already been going around, the amount of power the presidents party weilds, the current mindset of the American people as a whole (that anything is good if it is supposed to stop terrorism), and the relatively short amount of time left in Bush's presidency were all factors in his decision to make the announcement. Really, Bush has little to be afraid of in terms of (at least domestic) reprecussions, and even were he to think that this might cause an impeachment or what-have-you, the small amount of time before bush MUST be out of office probably made it seem he had little to lose.


EDIT:P Or I'm completely wrong on all counts. Which is probably the actual truth. But who gives a damn? Speculation is the best!
Or, his advisors told him to...and he doesn't care why...if you want to take that view.

Another idea may be that some news agency got ahold of a positive proof of these places, and possibly the locations, and is sitting on the story (much like the NY Times did with the wiretapping story, if I recall correctly) and Bush got wind of it, and is saying this to at least help prevent some of the backlash that would be directed at him for failure to talk about these earlier.

If he openly admits to that, I don't believe I really want to know what he's keeping secret... :(

... SCORE! This is SOOOooo going to be my current event. *kisses screen*

Holy crap! You have to do current events for World History class too?

Hey, Look! Lindsay Lohan is eating pizza! Pizza must be the next hot thing!!

Hey it's Mel Gibson! Get me a drink buddy!

It's a slow repeat of the destruction of a President that was witnessed in '67 and '68 with Lyndon Johnson. Bush, for all my pious hopes as a classical conservative back in 2000, has wound up a mess. Not a disaster mind you, a mess, I feel like he's not done anything in a coherent planned fashion.

Holy crap! You have to do current events for World History class too?

I think every tenth grader in AMerica does.

And probably some other grades as well.

It's a slow repeat of the destruction of a President that was witnessed in '67 and '68 with Lyndon Johnson. Bush, for all my pious hopes as a classical conservative back in 2000, has wound up a mess. Not a disaster mind you, a mess, I feel like he's not done anything in a coherent planned fashion.

He still has a few years in office to hit "DISASTER".

And we saw stuff like this coming just by looking at his business management track record. Anyone who re-elected him only to lament it has nobody to blame but themselves for the shotgun splatter that used to be their own feet.

I think every tenth grader in AMerica does.

And probably some other grades as well.

Nah, I don't think it's in the whole U.S.

Maybe just California.

He still has a few years in office to hit "DISASTER".

And we saw stuff like this coming just by looking at his business management track record. Anyone who re-elected him only to lament it has nobody to blame but themselves for the shotgun splatter that used to be their own feet.

As a newly minted 18 year old at the time, I call naivite, and would like to apologize. Of course, me and a hundred thousand of my bretheren here in Ohio would have had to change their votes to have had any impact.

Hey it's Mel Gibson! Get me a drink buddy!

Have a beer! Why are we drinking?! Hey, look! Michael Jackson is weird!

Nah; not much of a surprise. I remember awhile back some claims about them existing. He probably has attempted to keep them secret.

i am no bush fan,nor clintoon for that matter.....i actually dislike all pol's actually(though i suppose there is a need for them?)

i was not suprised 1 iota,period

partially suprised he admitted to it(probably HAD to,do i smell a leak or some type of deal)

mostly i suppose i am suprised people are suprised!

this sort of thing has been going on forever,from time immemorial.

i think all governments,throughout history have used the clandestine services of their respective country's to snatch and interrogate,hold people they think /thought they could extract info from.

i am sure many kgb and cia,brits,french etc. agents dissappeared throughout the cold war,should this "new enemy" be exempt?

do the enemies of the west not snatch soldiers to extract info...and then kill them when done.

i am not condoning it,but simply pointing out a fact of life which should be pretty obvious to anyone,as it has gone on for years.

why should now be any different then before..because we are more advanced?our enemies are more humane ?

it's simply the way things are done when country's/society's/cultures are at odds with eachother.....neither right nor wrong...just the way it is done...and probably always will be.

cynical...yeppers,reality..pretty much forever.:fluffle:

Nah, I don't think it's in the whole U.S.

Maybe just California.



Yeah. Probably you are correct. I wouldn't know, I haven't been schooled outside my home state.

This was just a political move seeing how Republicans are worried that they'll loose control over the House and Senate.

This was just a political move seeing how Republicans are worried that they'll loose control over the House and Senate.

The stuff I have been hearing and reading suggested the house was the biggest threat. They will probably keep the Senate.

But hey at least they will probably keep Arny! :p

They need to be shot or sent to a very small, crowded jail for life.

After being impeached. Go Dems and left-wing third parties...and maybe right-wings also help split the 'pubs.

The stuff I have been hearing and reading suggested the house was the biggest threat. They will probably keep the Senate.

But hey at least they will probably keep Arny! :p

Yeah, that's a fair analysis.

The Dems need to win six Senate seats to take the Senate, and that's exactly how many vulnerable Republican seats there are.

The House is where the Republicans are threatened, and this is for various reasons.

I hate it when the cynical side of me is right. The only part of this story I didn't expect was a plain admission by Bush, the rest is fairly consistent with his policies.

Although, I thought he had wringed all of the political mileage out of 9/11 and Osama as he could over five years of using it as justification for just about every move he makes. Maybe he's thinking that the anniversary will bring a more emotional repsonse to throwing 9/11 around.

If he openly admits to that, I don't believe I really want to know what he's keeping secret... :(
It's just more of the "terraterraterra9/119/119/11" crap he's ramping up for the November elections. All they have left is scaring the voters, and reminding them of terrorists is their only chance of doing that. Besides, he--or Cheney/Rove--probably figures that if they lose either house of congress this year, there are going to be investigations out the ass, and I'll bet Bush doesn't want to try to figure out if he can pardon himself before he leaves office.

It's just more of the "terraterraterra9/119/119/11" crap he's ramping up for the November elections. All they have left is scaring the voters, and reminding them of terrorists is their only chance of doing that. Besides, he--or Cheney/Rove--probably figures that if they lose either house of congress this year, there are going to be investigations out the ass, and I'll bet Bush doesn't want to try to figure out if he can pardon himself before he leaves office.
I know :( Maybe it's simply that I still have hope that one of these fine days somebody's gonna wake up and go "Damn, what happened? Let's not be stupid anymore!" And I want to see Bush sign his own Presidential pardon. Believe that might be a first-timer!

An oldie, but a goodie (from May 2003):

http://www.workingforchange.com/webgraphics/wfc/TMW05-21-03.gif

I guess it's the last panel that encapsulates it best for me.

C'mon ya'll, what do you have against our fearless leader. The man has done the following to protect not just The Confed-, I mean, United States of America, but the entire world. Lets review the following:

1. He fights terrorists and protects us from them.
2. He reads books to little children.
3. He passed the Patriot Act which definatly doesn't violate any one of our amendments.
4. He lets us own assault rifles to protect us from terrorists.
5. He lets us watch Fox News which is fair and balanced and lets us know the real truth and not what those damn hippies tell us.
6. He sent our soldiers to Iraq because the Iraqis hate freedom and freedom is the best thing the world right next to oil, and Saddam was going to shoot Nuclular missiles at us so we went there and we found them.
7. He went to Yale which means he's smart.
8. He assures us that everything is all right, and he makes it all right.
9. He's real good at public speaking.
10. He makes sure that he spends lots of time going on Vacation so he doesn't become stressed out and does a good job at what he does.
11. He's steers the course.
12. He knows, like the rest of us, that global warming is good because if polar ice caps had their choice, they would freeze the world and we would all die.
13. He makes sure we can all drive our Suburbons, Escalades, and Tahos because we definatly aren't the biggest god damned consumer whores in the whole world.
14. He has the best cabinet in the world.
15. He's a war hero. Or something...

15. He's a war hero. Or something...


lol..my kid is more of a hero then bush or most of his cabinet...colin powell excluded.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v488/derek45/funny/ajr.gif

He's admitting it now in order to increase the likelihood that he and others in his administration will avoid accountability/prosecution/repurcussions.

Bush defended the covert system, saying the security of the United States depended on its ability to learn what suspected terrorists know.
Bush said some of the alleged plots included attacks in the United States "probably using airplanes.
Aha, knew enough details to know for certain these attacks would have occured, and how to stop these attacks referred to, but not enough to know for certain if they involved planes...the most bemusing aspect is people will still continue to pretend that this guy isnt obviously a delluded meglomaniac with dellusions of grandeur and an inability to differentiate between slyness, luck & a knack for manipulation, and true vision.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v488/derek45/funny/vht92r.jpg

Someone tell me why prisons need to be secret if they're being lawful?

Someone tell me why prisons need to be secret if they're being lawful?

For the same reason that the interrogation techniques cannot be divulged even though they are perfectly lawful too. :p

"Utter Bullshit" says anyone with an any sense at all.

Hmm, scary. Who is this guy asking for advice about winning international "Hearts and minds". I suspect that most if not all developed nations have secret prisons, or at least a way to detain people on the sly when they need to. If nothing else, embassies have basements. And despite being generally fairly liberal, I guess I can see the need, in extremis. But Bush seems to blithely ride roughshod over world opinion and common good manners, and if anyone questions him, *pop* "9/11 therefore I am a dictator who can do what he likes". Which every time he does, secures a few more young hotheads with a manipulative local Mullah to cross the line from flag burning (which I consider a valid, if extreme form of peaceful protest), into actually trying to hurt people. 9/11 was proper bad, and fair play go after the actual terrorists etc, but I think the idea of it was not so much to hurt people as to get a big international response from Bush. Before then, the Middle East was broadly chilling out relative to previous years, but the whole situation is now crackers again. Oh dear.
Oh, and I don't think Iran would be a problem now except for the Bush overkill response. They had not long before started vague democracy, and got a liberal in a position of power, e3ducating women and stuff, a good start at least. Then this all kicks off and the Extremists pull the power back for themselves - only cos the people got annoyed with Bush.
Anyway, I hope something magic happens and they all stop killing each other soon.

Ah the "leader of the free world" has secret prisons and thinks torture is justified. Americans and irony - go together like a horse and cheese.

Americans and irony - go together like a horse and cheese.

Or, as it's better-known amongst those in the know, a Double Whopper with cheese.

Or, as it's better-known amongst those in the know, a Double Whopper with cheese.

But was is it called in Europe? :)

But was is it called in Europe? :)

Doppel Whopper mit Kaese?

But was is it called in Europe? :)

A royale with cheese

A royale with cheese

Wrong, that's McDonald's Quarter Pounder with Cheese!

The Whopper is burger king, I didn't go in there.

And bush also says that Alternative Interigation methods doesn't come under the definition of torture. This man is nuts. I wouldn't be so worried except that has a fairly powerful job!:(

Wrong, that's McDonald's Quarter Pounder with Cheese!

Never been into a burger restuarant so my ignorance is not that surprising.

And bush also says that Alternative Interigation methods doesn't come under the definition of torture. This man is nuts.

This man is a walking lie, reactively telling itself at every turn, every waking moment. There's not one word that springs forth from his mouth that isn't somehow twisted, distorted or - an outright falsehood. And I guess that's just par for the course these days down America-way.

You might as well have have elected an effing mobster as POTUS.

He refused to describe the methods of interrogation used by CIA agents, saying it would give terrorists a tool to learn how to resist such questioning.

Bush said the procedures were "tough and safe and lawful and necessary."[/QUOTE]

In a pig's eye. -.-

He refused to describe the methods of interrogation used by CIA agents, saying it would give terrorists a tool to learn how to resist such questioning.

Bush said the procedures were "tough and safe and lawful and necessary."

In a pig's eye. -.-

I would rather a terrorist, Al-Qaeda member, etc., be tortured than to have a single innocent person die because essential information was withheld. Obviously they are guilty -- I feel no compunction for them. If they have information that can lead to saving a life, it is vital to extract that information, whatever the cost. I'm surprised that he didn't admit to it before.

Begoner21;11652396']I would rather a terrorist, Al-Qaeda member, etc., be tortured than to have a single innocent person die because essential information was withheld. Obviously they are guilty -- I feel no compunction for them. If they have information that can lead to saving a life, it is vital to extract that information, whatever the cost. I'm surprised that he didn't admit to it before.

A person should be presumed innocent unless they are proven guilty.

A person should be presumed innocent unless they are proven guilty.

Yes, they should be tried before a military tribunal or whatnot. They were not apprehended in the US and thus should not be given a trial by their "peers."

Begoner21;11652396'] Obviously they are guilty -- .

mmm, yes. because so far, everyone we have 'interrogated' and held for years have been guilty terrorists. Not a single innocent man has been wrongfully imprisoned so far. *snort*

To me, the confinement and torture of a single innocent man negates the legitimacy of the entire program.

((P.S.: I'm at a rest stop and I risked a laptop suppository for this. :p ))

To me, the confinement and torture of a single innocent man negates the legitimacy of the entire program.

Here is my scale of the "wrongness" of a particular action, with no particular scale:

Torturing of a terrorist: 0.01
Killing of an innocent civilian: 85
Torturing of an innocent civilian: 900

I do think that as long as someone is declared guilty beyond all reasonable doubt and the information he/she is potentially withholding, that justifies the "wrongness" done to that person in torturing them, and then we should go ahead with torturing them. However, it should be on a case-by-case basis depending on how likely they are to be innocent.

Begoner21;11652396']I would rather a terrorist, Al-Qaeda member, etc., be tortured than to have a single innocent person die because essential information was withheld. Obviously they are guilty -- I feel no compunction for them. If they have information that can lead to saving a life, it is vital to extract that information, whatever the cost. I'm surprised that he didn't admit to it before.

I'll prefer taking my own chances, thanks - I don't want anybody tortured on my behalf in order to provide me greater security I honestly don't want or need and never asked for in the first place. I'll leave that nonsense to the mentally deranged and those who profit mightily from their seemingly endless fear.

See, I have always understood that at any moment, I could cease to exist. Whether by atomic annihilation, as was the expectation in my youth, by acts of terror, as is now the current sky-is-falling scenario, or by a bad influenza bug, or even keeling over due to natural causes - who knows for sure? Death will come to us all, each and every pair of eyes reading this bit of typed text - *urrrrrghh!* dead. Someday. Now I could have hid under my bed, built a bomb shelter, or live in total abject fear of what boogeymen lurk in the bushes outside my front door each and every day of my life but -

that's just fucking insane, isn't it? It is - it is insane. Why would I ever - ever - want to help facilitate the madness of King George?

To paraphrase Jim Osterberg, "Gimme danger".

I'm at a rest stop and I risked a laptop suppository for this.

Truly above and beyond, LG. Though I suspect there's more to it than you're letting on...

I'll prefer taking my own chances, thanks

So would I. However, I cannot make that decision for anybody else -- just myself. I would rather torture a terrorist and save a life than let the terrorist go and let somebody else die. I don't want to be responsible for somebody else's death because I was too squemish to allow the torture of terrorists. Can you live with the blood of innocent civilians on your hands?

Begoner21;11652462']So would I. However, I cannot make that decision for anybody else -- just myself. I would rather torture a terrorist and save a life than let the terrorist go and let somebody else die. I don't want to be responsible for somebody else's death because I was too squemish to allow the torture of terrorists. Can you live with the blood of innocent civilians on your hands?

We all take our chances every time we cross the street. People are very cosseted indeed if they don't realize the dangers they face (and take those dangers in stride). You seem full of self-recrimination for things (that haven't happened) that have nothing to do with you. Why are you laying your establishment guilt-trip (or trying to, anyway) on me?

I will never have anyone's blood on my hands. And neither will you. Stop kidding yourself.

I will never have anyone's blood on my hands. And neither will you. Stop kidding yourself.

On the contrary. If a terror attack transpires which could have been avoided if not for the inability of the US government to use all means to extract information from those who knew of the terror plot, and you were complicit in helping void those powers of government, then you will be partially responsible for those who died in the terrorist attack. And so will everybody else who voted against that legislation. You may not realize that it is your fault; hell, you might not even care. But that doesn't change the fact that because you were unwilling to allow a guilty terrorist to be tortured abroad, innocent people died at home. I can't, in good faith, allow that.

15. He's a war hero. Or something...


lol..my kid is more of a hero then bush or most of his cabinet...colin powell excluded.



aj, I never thought I'd agree with you on anything, but you are most absolutely right. Have you heard from him, BTW? Is he ok?

that's just fucking insane, isn't it? It is - it is insane. Why would I ever - ever - want to help facilitate the madness of King George?

To paraphrase Jim Osterberg, "Gimme danger".


I can't answer the question of sanity but I do believe that Bush wants to be a King rather then a President, unforunately I don't think he is alone. I have noticed alot of politians that seem to consider themselves royalty instead of what they are meant to be ... Government Representatives that are supposedly fairly elected into whatever office they hold and represent the majority of the American people. I blame the media for it in part, after all they did name the Kennedy that was killed in his private plane ... a member of American Royalty. I hate to be the bearer of bad news to these people, but there shouldn't be any such thing ... there isn't any such thing as far as I am concerned. After all isn't that one of the main reasons we left England because of Royals rules.
There is very little that I agree with George W. Bush about. I voted against him in both elections for all the good it did. The second election I don't think my vote was even counted because I voted absentee, after all some of us have to work for a living. I don't agree with the way he has handled most things but I am sure of one thing. Terrorist willingness to kill civilians of any nationality is totally unacceptable.

Begoner21;11652539']On the contrary. If a terror attack transpires which could have been avoided if not for the inability of the US government to use all means to extract information from those who knew of the terror plot, and you were complicit in helping void those powers of government, then you will be partially responsible for those who died in the terrorist attack. And so will everybody else who voted against that legislation. You may not realize that it is your fault; hell, you might not even care. But that doesn't change the fact that because you were unwilling to allow a guilty terrorist to be tortured abroad, innocent people died at home. I can't, in good faith, allow that.
Guilt-tripping people into giving up their rights?

That is why you fail.

Begoner21;11652539']On the contrary. If a terror attack transpires which could have been avoided if not for the inability of the US government to use all means to extract information from those who knew of the terror plot, and you were complicit in helping void those powers of government, then you will be partially responsible for those who died in the terrorist attack. And so will everybody else who voted against that legislation. You may not realize that it is your fault; hell, you might not even care. But that doesn't change the fact that because you were unwilling to allow a guilty terrorist to be tortured abroad, innocent people died at home. I can't, in good faith, allow that.
So far as I can tell your reasoning amounts to "if you are against something that could prevent deaths, you are responsible for any deaths that result from said thing".

I take it you cant in good concious not protest very strongly against the continued failure to ban all motor vehicles...:rolleyes:

Begoner21;11652462']So would I. However, I cannot make that decision for anybody else -- just myself. I would rather torture a terrorist and save a life than let the terrorist go and let somebody else die. I don't want to be responsible for somebody else's death because I was too squemish to allow the torture of terrorists. Can you live with the blood of innocent civilians on your hands?

The citizens of any country that uses torture already have blood on their hands. You do not defeat terrorism by being more of a scumbag than the bastards you are trying to defeat.

they are two sort of history,the official one,the liying one that is,
Then the secret one where the true causes of events lies,
and by all means they are no secrets,only what we want to believe in.....
I think secret prisons always existed,and i don't see why we should be surprised,they're is nothing democratic in ¨
POWER¨ ,elected democraticly or not.

Begoner21;11652539']On the contrary. If a terror attack transpires which could have been avoided if not for the inability of the US government to use all means to extract information from those who knew of the terror plot, and you were complicit in helping void those powers of government, then you will be partially responsible for those who died in the terrorist attack. And so will everybody else who voted against that legislation. You may not realize that it is your fault; hell, you might not even care. But that doesn't change the fact that because you were unwilling to allow a guilty terrorist to be tortured abroad, innocent people died at home. I can't, in good faith, allow that.

Congrats on giving away our civil rights for the illusion of safety.

Congrats on giving away our civil rights for the illusion of safety.

Hmm. Illusion, you say.

Apparently, the interrogations revealed a 2003 plot and made it not happen.

Is that an illusion?

And we're talking about the civil rights of foreigners captured abroad, not US citizens here captured here in the US.

Hmm. Illusion, you say.

Apparently, the interrogations revealed a 2003 plot and made it not happen.

Is that an illusion?

And we're talking about the civil rights of foreigners captured abroad, not US citizens here captured here in the US.

Nice how we can try to justify our actions. That because they are not Americans it makes them less worthy of standard rights. Arrogance such as this is something that should be fought against.

If they hate freedom, how is Americans being stripped of theirs supposed to preserve and spread freedom?

If they hate freedom, how is Americans being stripped of theirs supposed to preserve and spread freedom?

We're stripping foreigners of their freedom, not Americans.

While that's not preserving and spreading freedom for everyone, it is preserving it for Americans.

Oh surprise, secret CIA prisons! And some people here though the USA was above all that.

We're stripping foreigners of their freedom, not Americans.

While that's not preserving and spreading freedom for everyone, it is preserving it for Americans.

And Iraqis right? We are in Iraq to give their people freedom correct?

And Iraqis right? We are in Iraq to give their people freedom correct?

Eventually.

And Iraqis right? We are in Iraq to give their people freedom correct?

Eventually.

Right,

First we lock 'em up and torture 'em until they agree that Saddam was bad
:D

Right,

First we lock 'em up and torture 'em until they agree that Saddam was bad
:D

Actually, most of the Shias and all of the Kurds already agree that Saddam was bad.

Convincing the former Baathists that once held power and had everything (and are now in a minority without much power) that Saddam was bad is different.

Actually, most of the Shias and all of the Kurds already agree that Saddam was bad.

Convincing the former Baathists that once held power and had everything (and are now in a minority without much power) that Saddam was bad is different.

The problem might be that these Kurds and Shi'ites that had it bad under Saddam, may well be starting to believe they have it worse under US control...

The problem might be that these Kurds and Shi'ites that had it bad under Saddam, may well be starting to believe they have it worse under US control...

The Kurds are evidently happy. Shias are unhappy that the Sunnis still have any power at all, and that Sunni insurgents are running insurgent death squads to kill Shias in the night.

If we left now, the Shias could probably kill off the remaining Sunnis and that would be the end of that.

Eventually.

Yeah, it is not as if giving the Iraqis freedom is exactly what the entire point of the Iraq misadventure was all about now was it?

The Kurds are evidently happy.
Really now? Last I'd heard, they were trying to keep as detached from Baghdad as possible and were beginning to worry about the quickly growing influx of Arab Iraqis moving up north to escape the violence.

If we left now, the Shias could probably kill off the remaining Sunnis and that would be the end of that.

Iraq is not an island. There are other nations with interests around it and Iraq is currently the main point of conflict in the Shia/Sunni split. Iran, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan- they all might try and fill any power vacuum in Iraq.

And we're talking about the civil rights of foreigners captured abroad, not US citizens here captured here in the US.

I don't see as how one is any more or less deserving of rights than the other.

I nearly fell over eating my dinner tonight when this (http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2006/09/06/bush-prisons.html) came on the news:

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bush acknowledges secret CIA prisons for terror suspects
Last Updated Wed, 06 Sep 2006 16:03:22 EDT
CBC News

U.S. President George W. Bush has acknowledged for the first time that suspects accused of terrorism have been detained abroad in secret CIA prisons.

http://www.cbc.ca/gfx/images/news/photos/2006/09/06/bush-george-cp-10681535.jpg

U.S. President George Bush outlines his strategy to bring legal action against terrorism suspects imprisoned at the American naval base at Guantanamo Bay during a speech at the White House on Wednesday.

The official admission on Wednesday confirmed rumours and media reports that have stirred controversy for months, both in the United States and in countries accused of hosting the facilities.

Bush defended the secret prisons, saying the detainees had provided vital information that prevented further attacks in the years after al-Qaeda militants killed about 3,000 people in the United States on Sept. 11, 2001.

"The most important source of information on where the terrorists are hiding and what they are planning is the terrorists themselves," Bush said in a White House speech.

"It has been necessary to move these individuals to an environment where they can be held in secret, questioned by experts and, when appropriate, prosecuted for terrorist acts."

*snip for length*

I have to admit, this floored me. I just knew I had to come on NSG to see what the overall response was going to be from NSers planetwide. But though I looked all throughout General, it seems no-one's yet brought this up.

Now why's that?

*scratches chin thoughtfully at screen*
The only way I could ever win a marathon would be by cheating. I know this, and thus I choose not to try to earn my living by winning marathons.

Bush has now admitted that the only way he can run things is by breaking the law. He's essentially saying that he can't win unless he cheats. I'd say he's just informed us, in his own words, of precisely why he should not be employed as our president. We should, instead, hire somebody who is capable of winning without cheating.

We're stripping foreigners of their freedom, not Americans.

While that's not preserving and spreading freedom for everyone, it is preserving it for Americans.

With an attitude like that, it’s no wonder that the rest of the world detests, if not outright hates, America…

The only way I could ever win a marathon would be by cheating. I know this, and thus I choose not to try to earn my living by winning marathons.

Bush has now admitted that the only way he can run things is by breaking the law. He's essentially saying that he can't win unless he cheats. I'd say he's just informed us, in his own words, of precisely why he should not be employed as our president. We should, instead, hire somebody who is capable of winning without cheating.

The saddest part is that he's cheating and he's still not winning. He's an incompetent cheat.

So?

So far as I can tell your reasoning amounts to "if you are against something that could prevent deaths, you are responsible for any deaths that result from said thing".

I didn't mean that you were wholly responsible for the result, but that you were partially responsible for the result. It's like being on a jury and sentencing the defendant to jail -- are you solely responsible? Of course not. But does some of the responsibility lie with you? Of course. Applied on the scale of the entire US, that's what you get.

I take it you cant in good concious not protest very strongly against the continued failure to ban all motor vehicles...:rolleyes:

Motor vehicles are a necessary "evil." To be an economically viable state, you need some way to transport people back and forth, not to mention the recreational value of being able to go somewhere out of biking distance. There are pros and cons of motor vehicles. In the case of cars, the pros do indeed outweigh the cons -- the US would be much the worse for the wear of cars were outlawed. However, the US would benefit hugely if innocent people were saved. There is no comparison, really.

Guilt-tripping people into giving up their rights? That is why you fail.

Guilt-tripping? Maybe we should legalize killing somebody instead of "guilt-tripping" people into giving up their right to kill, no? If there is some sort of guilt associated with an action, that most likely means that the action is wrong. Yes, allowing an innocent person to die because you want to comfort a terrorist is just plain wrong. And no, I do not want anyone to give up their rights -- in fact, I want to protect their most fundamental right, their right to life. No failure.

Apparently, the interrogations revealed a 2003 plot and made it not happen.
Because if the Government-controlled intelligence services say it's true, that makes it automatically the truth, with no recourse to any kind of investigation, aye?
And we're talking about the civil rights of foreigners captured abroad, not US citizens here captured here in the US.
Yes, because the US and its citizens are better than everyone else.

This is why I dislike a great many US citizens. You are not superior in any way, shape or form to any other group of people. Do not make the pretense that you are.

So?

So? So it's encumbent upon Americans to speak up on matters of competence, if not of depraved indifference and law-breaking, especially where Fearless Leader is involved.

For some reason, my mind turns to Lou Reed, who sang:

This is no time for celebration
This is no time for shaking hands
This is no time for backslapping
This is no time for marching bands

This is no time for optimism
This is no time for endless thought
This is no time for my country right or wrong
Remember what that brought?

(Refrain)
There is no time
There is no time
There is no time
There is no time

This is no time for congratulations
This is no time to turn your back
This is no time for circumlocution
This is no time for learned speech

This is no time to count your blessings
this is no time for private gain
This is no time to put up or shut up
It won't no time to come back this way again

(Refrain)

This is no time to swallow anger
This is no time to ignore hate
This is no time to be acting frivolous
Because the time is getting late

This is no time for private vendettas
This is no time to not know who you are
Self-knowledge is a dangerous thing
The freedom of who you are

This is no time to ignore warnings
This is no time to clear the plate
Let's not be sorry after the fact
And let the past become our fate

(Refrain)

This is no time to turn away and drink
Or smoke some vials of crack
This is a time to gather force -
And take dead aim and attack

This is no time for celebration
This is no time for saluting flags
This is no time for inner searchings
Because the future is at hand

This is no time for phony rhetoric
This is no time for political speech
This is a time for action
Because the future's within reach

This is the time
this is the time
This is the time
because there is no time

(Refrain)

Just so.