NationStates Jolt Archive

Denied a civilian lawyer to cover questionable torture tactics by the CIA.

Does this guy not get to say that any evidence produced against him was the result of severe torture?

U.S. fights detainee access to attorney (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061104/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/terrorism_detainees)

WASHINGTON - A suspected terrorist who spent years in a secret CIA prison should not be allowed to speak to a civilian attorney, the Bush administration argues, because he could reveal the agency's closely guarded interrogation techniques.

Human rights groups have questioned the CIA's methods for questioning suspects, especially following the passage of a bill last month that authorized the use of harsh — but undefined — interrogation tactics.

In recently filed court documents, the Justice Department said those methods, along with the locations of the CIA's network of prisons, are among the nation's most sensitive secrets. Prisoners who spent time in those prisons should not be allowed to disclose that information, even to a lawyer, the government said.

he could reveal the agency's closely guarded interrogation techniques.

red hot poker 2.0?

closely guarded interrogation techniques.

Yeah well the administration sez it doesn't torture anybody so why should they be a-feared of a lil' transparency? Unless they've got something to hide, that is. Wonder what that might be - hmmm, you don't suppose their "closely guarded interrogation techniques" involve - torture, now do you?

:rolleyes:

Heaven forbid.

Impeach him!

That's an absolute breach of law, right there.

See, the smart thing to do would have been to let him speak with a lawyer who signed a non-disclosure agreement.

Impeach him!

That's an absolute breach of law, right there.

Are you sure? I thought the MCA gave Bush the right to do whatver he wants, whenever he wants, to whoever he wants, for whatever reason suits him, with no need to explain himself to anybody, at all.

Well, more or less anyway.

Are you sure? I thought the MCA gave Bush the right to do whatver he wants, whenever he wants, to whoever he wants, for whatever reason suits him, with no need to explain himself to anybody, at all.

Well, more or less anyway.
The general public shouldn't stand for that.

The general public shouldn't stand for that.
Apparently Congress thinks that the general public is of no concern to them, when they passed Bush's Torture Act?

Denied a civilian lawyer to cover questionable torture tactics by the CIA.

Does this guy not get to say that any evidence produced against him was the result of severe torture?

U.S. fights detainee access to attorney (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061104/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/terrorism_detainees)

If you have ever been the recipient of incoming fire, you might be in a better position to evaluate the methods used to prevent it from happening again.

If you have ever counted the number of troops or aircraft that did not return from a mission you might be in a better position to evaluate the methods used to prevent it from happening again.

If you have ever served in a war, you might be in a better position to evaluate the methods used to prevent it from happening again.

If you have ever lost a loved one in a war you might be in a better position to evaluate the methods used to prevent it from happening again.

That is all I have to say on this subject.

G'day.

Are you sure? I thought the MCA gave the President the right to do whatver he wants, whenever he wants, to whoever he wants, for whatever reason suits him, with no need to explain himself to anybody, at all.

Well, more or less anyway.

Corrected.

If you have ever been the recipient of incoming fire, you might be in a better position to evaluate the methods used to prevent it from happening again.

If you have ever counted the number of troops or aircraft that did not return from a mission you might be in a better position to evaluate the methods used to prevent it from happening again.

If you have ever served in a war, you might be in a better position to evaluate the methods used to prevent it from happening again.

If you have ever lost a loved one in a war you might be in a better position to evaluate the methods used to prevent it from happening again.

That is all I have to say on this subject.

G'day.

Fighting for Democracy, one Torture at a Time!

Would You Like To Know More?

If you have ever been the recipient of incoming fire, you might be in a better position to evaluate the methods used to prevent it from happening again.

If you have ever counted the number of troops or aircraft that did not return from a mission you might be in a better position to evaluate the methods used to prevent it from happening again.

If you have ever served in a war, you might be in a better position to evaluate the methods used to prevent it from happening again.

If you have ever lost a loved one in a war you might be in a better position to evaluate the methods used to prevent it from happening again.

That is all I have to say on this subject.

G'day.

Yay! According to you I am in a better position to evaluate the methods used to prevent those things from happening than president Bush is :D Woot!

And I say it's unacceptable to torture. There.
That is all I have to say on this subject. :)

And I say it's unacceptable to torture. There.
That is all I have to say on this subject. :)

*gives you a big cookie*

Corrected.

Now there's a certain wry wit I don't often see coming from you, Celtlund. Good on ye.

If you have ever been the recipient of incoming fire, you might be in a better position to evaluate the methods used to prevent it from happening again.

If you have ever counted the number of troops or aircraft that did not return from a mission you might be in a better position to evaluate the methods used to prevent it from happening again.

If you have ever served in a war, you might be in a better position to evaluate the methods used to prevent it from happening again.

If you have ever lost a loved one in a war you might be in a better position to evaluate the methods used to prevent it from happening again.

That is all I have to say on this subject.

G'day.

And yet your point fails because torture is the most INNEFECTIVE method possible. So you're defending an ineffective method. Thus allowing EVERYTHING you just described in your little spurious appeal to emotion there.

Further, secret trials do not need to be leaked to the media. And there are ways to prevent leakage. If even I know that, you, that claim to be from the medium, should.

I love it when they're this easy.

Amendment VI:

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

'Nuff said. *nod*

'Nuff said. *nod*

No it's not. That's because nobody is really doing anything to follow that kind of process anymore.

No it's not. That's because nobody is really doing anything to follow that kind of process anymore.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

:)

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

:)
Now that you have comfortably disturbed me, are you suggesting that this means that it is time to "throw off such Government"? :D

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

:)

Nitpicky time. You see, that is from the Declaration of Independence, which was written largely as a propaganda tool. It was never intended to be put forth as law.

Thus, it is not *technically* supposed to be used as grounds for revolution of the government, using Constitutional law breaking as a justification.

That said, I think we should go the Jeffersonian route. I hereby advocate a good ol' revolution every twenty years to keep the government in line.

Now that you have comfortably disturbed me, are you suggesting that this means that it is time to "throw off such Government"? :D

Well, as it said, "Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed."

We might still be tolerating these evils due to our comfort with the system. Still, I see nothing wrong with reminding the government where the power really lies; with it's people.

Nitpicky time. You see, that is from the Declaration of Independence, which was written largely as a propaganda tool. It was never intended to be put forth as law.

Thus, it is not *technically* supposed to be used as grounds for revolution of the government, using Constitutional law breaking as a justification.

That said, I think we should go the Jeffersonian route. I hereby advocate a good ol' revolution every twenty years to keep the government in line.

True, that the Right to Revolution is not inthe Constitution, However;

Amendment IX:

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

:)

True, that the Right to Revolution is not inthe Constitution, However;

Amendment IX:

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

:)

Ah, indeed. However, this amendment is often the most ignored by people. Which makes me sad. Very sad.

Ah, indeed. However, this amendment is often the most ignored by people. Which makes me sad. Very sad.

It's a fun one. :)

It's a fun one. :)

It's tied with the 10th for my 2nd favorite amendment. The 2nd isnt far behind, though.

It's a fun one. :)

I've noticed lately you have the smiley after everyone one of your posts. I assume this is because of your twins. In which case, here is how it's going to turn out over the course of the next few months.

10 months ago: :fluffle:
Now: :)
A little later: :mad:
A little later: :(
A little later: :headbang:
A little later: :upyours:
You three months from now, when someobody complains and says you don't have it that bad: :mp5:

As you can see, pure bliss to murderous rampage all in the course of three months.

And yes, that is a fun little amendment.

It's tied with the 10th for my 2nd favorite amendment. The 2nd isnt far behind, though.

Ah, the right to bear arms. A great one.

http://www.xbox.com/en-US/games/backwardcompatibilitygameslist.htm

Ah, the right to bear arms. A great one.


Indeed. If not for that, I would not be able to go out to the woods and kill things.

Of course, the 1st is always the 1st in my "Great Booke of things TSI likes".


http://www.xbox.com/en-US/games/backwardcompatibilitygameslist.htm

And WTF is this?

I've noticed lately you have the smiley after everyone one of your posts. I assume this is because of your twins. In which case, here is how it's going to turn out over the course of the next few months.

10 months ago: :fluffle:
Now: :)
A little later: :mad:
A little later: :(
A little later: :headbang:
A little later: :upyours:
You three months from now, when someobody complains and says you don't have it that bad: :mp5:

As you can see, pure bliss to murderous rampage all in the course of three months.

And yes, that is a fun little amendment.

http://www.clicksmilies.com/s0105/aetsch/cheeky-smiley-004.gif

Indeed. If not for that, I would not be able to go out to the woods and kill things.

Of course, the 1st is always the 1st in my "Great Booke of things TSI likes".

Holy shnikeys, you're TSI from Gabbly. I had no idea who you were. :/

And killing things is what we Midwesterners, the greatest land of all America, are good at.


And WTF is this?

A right bear arm. :D Get it. It's funny.

Holy shnikeys, you're TSI from Gabbly. I had no idea who you were. :/

And killing things is what we Midwesterners, the greatest land of all America, are good at.


Indeed, I am TSI from Gabbly. Hence the acronym. And yes, the Midwest is the greatest land in all the world, and we are quite good at shooting things.


A right bear arm. :D Get it. It's funny.

Ummm...I see a list of X-box games.

*looks around*

No right bear arms here!