If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Yahoo)   Washington Post reports the CIA runs secret terrorism prisons in other countries   (news.yahoo.com) divider line 746
    More: Obvious  
•       •       •

8848 clicks; posted to Main » on 02 Nov 2005 at 1:53 PM (9 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



746 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Last | Show all
 
2005-11-02 02:59:38 PM  
fatassbastard: Lowering yourself to the level of your enemy means you have already sacrificed what you intended to protect.

we are not flying plane loads of innocent people into a sky scraper full of more innocent people, or blowing up night clubs, we are sending a small number of people away to probably be tortured for information.
 
2005-11-02 02:59:42 PM  
Reading through the comments on this thread it is easy to see why America is so disliked in the world. The people condoning these detention centers are the reason why I'm continually defending Americans when I go out, reminding people that American foreign policy is not very popular in America. But there's enough idiots there to make us all look bad, justifying secret camps where men with no name get taken to, and where we're all supposed to trust that they're Very Bad Persons and breaking the rules here and there will keep us safe. Wake the f*ck up. Your patriotism is being used against the very things that make America great. The rest of the world sees it, half of the USA sees it, but you guys just keep bringing us all down with you. Thanks a million.
 
2005-11-02 02:59:52 PM  
2005-11-02 02:56:34 PM fatassbastard

Lowering yourself to the level of your enemy means you have already sacrificed what you intended to protect.


Really? So if I torture someone into telling me where they've planted a bomb, not only will I die but everyone that would have died from that bomb's explosion will die anyway, as a result of said torture? Please explain.
 
2005-11-02 03:00:05 PM  
Everyone try this:

1) Rent the movie "Red Dawn"
2) Pretend the Russians are Americans
3) Pretend Patrick Swayze is at an Iraqi high school
4) Pick a side to root for
5) Enjoy the movie!

This activity brought to you by "Relativism for Dummies"
 
2005-11-02 03:00:29 PM  


Where do you think Jeff Gannon is working now?
He's in Saudi Arabia working the pyramid room.
 
2005-11-02 03:00:38 PM  
This is just fantastic.

Whatever moral high ground you had after 9/11 has just broken open like a South Asian earthquake zone.
 
2005-11-02 03:00:55 PM  
BrotherTheodore: It's not about who's better, it's about who wins.


So, bit by bit, we throw away the Constitution and become a modern version of the Bad Guys in WWII. Is that how we "win"?
 
2005-11-02 03:01:06 PM  
fatassbastard,

Lowering yourself to the level of your enemy means you have already sacrificed what you intended to protect.

Bears repeating.


I think you're missing the big picture...

"No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country.
He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country."
......General George Patton


Bears remembering.
 
2005-11-02 03:01:07 PM  
Headso


These people are not just random arabs, they are people that have been watched and are known to be in these terrorist groups.


Some of them, yes. But most of them are not. Look it up yourself and learn.

And really, do you believe this is only a temporary thing? We're only torturing terrorists? and only until the war is over? Is that what you believe?

Because when exactly is this war going to end? And how do we define "terrorist"? Is it only Al Queda? Only Muslim extremists? Or can we change the definition over time? This is not a pointless exercise in defining terms. Every action we take establishes precedent and makes it that much easier to take things to the next level.

We're all going to be surprised at who are labelled the next "terrorists".
 
2005-11-02 03:01:34 PM  
2Wolves: Only if they fark us first.

Shipud: I think you're missunderstanding me. When I said foreign citizens not on US soil, I meant citizens of foreign countries not on US soil. Our constitution does not apply to citizens of foreign countries so long as they are not on US soil.
 
2005-11-02 03:01:45 PM  
Nordolio

I will godwin the thread because anybody who thinks torture as policy is OK by them is no better than a Nazi sympathizer. Period.


If torture is the policy then why were the guards at Abu-Ghraib tried and convicted?

It starts as acts of war, enemy combatants. It was just Al Queda and the Taliban. Then we started doing it with Iraqis. Now its anyone Arab that the administration wants to hold. Ingorant farking nationalists that don't care about what we're doing won't care until it is too late. Too late will be when precedent establishes that we can do this against non-arabs, american citizens, and for non-terrorism related causes.

Here we go.

Will anybody give a shiat once its an american citizen shipped away to a gulag as part of the war on drugs? how about intellectual property violations?,

Just wait till they start coming for the first born child, then will come the forced conversion to Christianity, the dead rising from the grave, human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together. Oh yes I can see it all now.

Some people just cannot see past the moment, and we'll ALL have to live with the long-term ramifications. America has becoming the biggest threat the world has seen in a very long time, and the road to hell is being paved with good intentions, mis-management, and a need to win a never-ending war.
Not in my farking name. Wake UP!


Why don't you guys be honest and say PAY ATTENTION TO ME instead of Wake Up!?
 
2005-11-02 03:01:58 PM  
I love tomatoes.

That quote could easily be attributed to Saddam Hussein or a host of other mademen in history.
 
2005-11-02 03:02:04 PM  
LessthanZero
Gitmo and these camps (if they exist) are contrary to the American idea that a person who is held in prison has the right to a trial, the right to examine evidence against him, and the right to defend himself.

I'm too lazy to go research the issue, but I'm pretty sure that the only people who can avail themselves of those rights are citizens or residents of the U.S. Courts have held thus far that non-citizens detained outside the U.S. cannot avail themselves of the panopoly of due process, habeas corpus and other Constitutional rights. Padilla dealt with this, but I seem to recall that there was other precedent out there as well.
 
2005-11-02 03:02:07 PM  
MrNiX:

They voted for the war based on the intelligence reports. The intelligence reports were filtered to only provide information that would lead to the conclusions that the Administration wanted.

So it's your belief that all intelligence flows THROUGH the White House to the Intelligence Committee?
 
2005-11-02 03:02:23 PM  
TehBRB:

Hmmm, have we stumbled on some one's racist bigotry fueling his anti conservative rhetoric?

Rhetoric?

I have nothing against conservatives. I have a problem with people like you that are seething with rage that you direct against a stereotype in your own mind. I worry that your kind may tend to snap rather easily.
 
2005-11-02 03:02:33 PM  
9/11, we had it coming.
 
2005-11-02 03:02:44 PM  
Bill_Wick's_Friend
i have given two specific examples of men tortured into confessing criminal terrorist activities who were entirely without blame. i can find a couple more if you like.

Can you provide any details of torture providing effective intelligence? Betcha can't.


Man, who would have thought I would get a chance to revisit my Logic 101 class yet again in the same day.

I hate to break it to you pal but anecdotal evidence is never the basis of a strong argument.
 
2005-11-02 03:03:39 PM  
TheGoblinKing

It may pain you to do so, but if you can find a Hannity archive, he's got the actual audio of Clinton himself talking about it at some smallish fundraiser somewhere.

It's pretty damning. He talks about how he begged for so and so to take him and for so and so to keep holding him until we figured out our options. I don't think he knew he was being recorded.

If I had it, I'd post the link...I'll try to dig it up too.


Haven't I already corrected you on this? Hannity, shockingly, took the quote out of context. Here's something for you:

http://mediamatters.org/items/200406220008
On June 21, FOX News Channel co-host Sean Hannity repeated the false claim that former President Bill Clinton refused an offer from Sudan to turn over Osama bin Laden to the United States in 1996, even though the 9-11 Commission found no "reliable evidence to support" the claim that Sudan made such an offer. This false claim originated in a 2002 article by the right-wing news site NewsMax.com that distorted a 2002 statement by Clinton. Lanny J. Davis, former White House special counsel to Clinton, pointed out that Hannity was lying, but Hannity persisted.

From the June 21 edition of FOX News Channel's Hannity & Colmes:

HANNITY: Here's what bothers me. Is Bill Clinton gave a speech and he said "I couldn't take him [Osama bin Laden] for legal reasons, so I tried to get Saudi Arabia to take him but it was too hot a potato." He admitted to the Sudan offer.

DAVIS: No. That's a lie.

HANNITY: He offered it. It's not a lie. I have the tape, Lanny.

DAVIS: It is.

HANNITY: Lanny, I have the tape of the speech.

DAVIS: And I've heard tape. You've played it for me. He never refused, never refused to take Osama bin Laden.

HANNITY: How can he offer -- "I asked Saudi Arabia to take him but it was too hot a potato" -- how can he offer bin Laden to them if he doesn't have him?

The truth is that Clinton never offered Osama bin Laden to Saudi Arabia. Hannity distorted a remark Clinton made in a speech to the Long Island Association's annual luncheon on February 15, 2002, in which Clinton said that he "pleaded with the Saudis" to accept Sudan's offer to hand bin Laden to Saudi Arabia. Sudan never offered bin Laden to the United States. Hannity's mention of "the tape" is a reference to a video of this speech. NewsMax.com obtained a video of the speech in 2002 and began hyping the supposed Clinton "admission" (see transcript and listen to the audio). In fact, Clinton did not "admit" to the Sudan offer in that speech or anywhere else. Here's the relevant portion of Clinton's remarks to the Long Island Association:

CLINTON: So we tried to be quite aggressive with them [Al Qaeda]. We got -- well, Mr. bin Laden used to live in Sudan. He was expelled from Saudi Arabia in 1991, then he went to Sudan. And we'd been hearing that the Sudanese wanted America to start dealing with them again. They released him. At the time, 1996, he had committed no crime against America, so I did not bring him here because we had no basis on which to hold him, though we knew he wanted to commit crimes against America. So I pleaded with the Saudis to take him, 'cause they could have. But they thought it was a hot potato and they didn't and that's how he wound up in Afghanistan.

Furthermore, during his June 20 interview on 60 Minutes with CBS anchor Dan Rather, Clinton categorically denied that such an offer was made: "'There was a story which is factually inaccurate that the Sudanese offered bin Laden to us,' says Mr. Clinton. 'As far as I know, there is not a shred of evidence of that.'"

No one involved in the 1996 negotiations apart from former officials of Sudan -- a country that the U.S. State Department has designated as a state sponsor of terrorism every year since 1993 -- has verified the claim that Sudan offered bin Laden to the United States. In light of this lack of evidence, the 9-11 Commission "Staff Statement No. 5," issued in March, rejected the Sudanese claim:

Former Sudanese officials claim that Sudan offered to expel Bin Ladin to the United States. Clinton administration officials deny ever receiving such an offer. We have not found any reliable evidence to support the Sudanese claim.

Sudan did offer to expel Bin Ladin to Saudi Arabia and asked the Saudis to pardon him. U.S. officials became aware of these secret discussions, certainly by March 1996. The evidence suggests that the Saudi government wanted Bin Ladin expelled from Sudan, but would not agree to pardon him. The Saudis did not want Bin Ladin back in their country at all.

Nonetheless, Hannity picked up the claim in his book, Deliver Us from Evil: Defeating Terrorism, Despotism, and Liberalism (released in February by ReganBooks), and he repeats it regularly on Hannity & Colmes (cf. 12/19/03, 3/23/04, 3/26/04, 4/19/04).


Now, if you repeat that again, knowing what you know now, I'll simply call you a liar. And I'll be correct in doing so.
 
2005-11-02 03:03:53 PM  
Aren't the conservatives touting that the moral reason to invade Iraq was to get rid of dictator that was torturing his own people... yet we go over there and do the same thing?
 
2005-11-02 03:03:59 PM  
 
2005-11-02 03:04:10 PM  
"Without getting into politics and issues regarding torture, being a NYer who worked on Wall Street on 9/11, I'm really not too sympathetic about what happens in these covert prisons. The average, everyday terrorist numbskulls get sent to Abu Ghraib or Gitmo. The high value terrorist mother-farkers with possible actionable intelligence information are interrogated outside of the media's eyes. Yes, without legal rights or representation. Don't ask me to shed a tear for them, and don't ask me to care about the Geneva Convention. Last I checked Al Qaida were not signators."

So basically you're saying, screw human decency, screw the freedoms we hold dear, screw the principles this nation was founded on.

I guess the jokes I should made are "The terrorists have won." or "Why do you hate America?", but unlike most things on fark I don't find this very funny.

What exactly is the point of using a method that does not produce good reliable intelligence and in fact may harm intelligence gathering by wasting resources following bad leads, while also turning the native populate and world opinion against us, other than revenge? Just who do you think you are getting revenge on. I was not in NY at the time of the attacks, but many of my family and friends where there and some are no longer here because of it. My father described falling down onto his knees in grief as he watched the second impact from the sidewalk as he was going to work nearby and witnessed people leaping to their horrible deaths.

Dont you dare use these dead people to justify torturing people because you want petty vengeance and you don't care who the victim of that vengance is! Don't spit on their memory and the founding principles of this great nation because you're pissed and you want to lash out.

We're America god damn it! We're supposed to be better than this!
 
2005-11-02 03:04:13 PM  
9/11, we had it coming.

No we didn't. The dicks in Washington did. I'll wager that nobody in the WTC had much at all to do with forming or executing our invasive foreign policy. Hell, a lot of them weren't even U.S. citizens.
 
2005-11-02 03:04:21 PM  
I think it's ok for this to be going on.

Of course, there's a few costs:

1) We're no longer "the good guys". People must accept that we are a nation of greed and that we'll do what we need to to get what we want. (i.e. no longer plays well with others)

2) With 1), we now have to expect that other countries can attack us if they desire based on us being a threat to global stability.

3) Every citizen is now implicitly responsible for the atrocities committed by our government. So all of you good Christians out there can stand down...you ain't going anywhere good when the game is up.

So hey...just accept that we're evil and let's get on with life. If that's what you all want.
 
2005-11-02 03:04:55 PM  
Rendition. Yep, I've already heard of it. So what am I supposed to do, post a few angry/sad comments that will make me look good on FARK but which won't actually make any difference? Or post a few extreme nationalistic comments that will make me look like an ahole who's trying to pass himself off as patriotic? Or how about neither.

Stupid flame thread.
 
2005-11-02 03:05:34 PM  
Nordolio: Most of them that have been captured by the CIA are not high value targets? I am not arguing the fact that we are torturing enemy soldiers in Iraq or Afganistan I think that is a very wrong.

but when the CIA swoops down and grabs someone it is not just some shmuck.

and when it gets to that "next level" I will be saying this wrong standing right along side you.
 
2005-11-02 03:05:37 PM  
fatassbastard: Lowering yourself to the level of your enemy means you have already sacrificed what you intended to protect.

BigJake: Really? So if I torture someone into telling me where they've planted a bomb, not only will I die but everyone that would have died from that bomb's explosion will die anyway, as a result of said torture? Please explain.


Or better yet, if I torture someone into telling me there's a bomb and then I find out the person lied to stop the torture, not only will I not die, but no one will die because the guy was innocent and lied in order to stop the torture.

A inane example, but your's was too.
 
2005-11-02 03:05:45 PM  
Hang On Voltaire

They busted the Abu Ghraib guards because it went public. The actions in AG were well known before the pictures got out but nobody seemed to be investigating. It wasn't until scandal broke that the shiat hit the fan.

If not for those pictures, Lynndie England would be getting medals instead of prison time.
 
2005-11-02 03:06:40 PM  
"we are not flying plane loads of innocent people into a sky scraper full of more innocent people, or blowing up night clubs, we are sending a small number of people away to probably be tortured for information."

As far as I'm concerned, the magnitude of the act is irrelevant.
 
2005-11-02 03:07:04 PM  
Where in this article does it accuse the US of torture? Just don't want you to get your pink panties in a bunch for no reason.
 
2005-11-02 03:07:09 PM  
Man, who would have thought I would get a chance to revisit my Logic 101 class yet again in the same day.

I hate to break it to you pal but anecdotal evidence is never the basis of a strong argument.


sooooo....other than telling me that my argument is weak, you've got nothin'?

gotcha.

i've got a short list of men tortured who "confessed" to stop the torture. this, to me, indicates that torture doesn't extract actual useful information as much as it extracts any falsehood that the torturer wishes to get the victim to "confess" to.

you've got......? your continued assertion that torture IS effective and that's it. no facts. no back-up. if torture IS such an effective tool for intelligence gathering I would think you'd be able to point out some breakthrough that Syria, Saudi Arabia, Lybia or any number of other brutal regimes have achieved through torture.
 
2005-11-02 03:07:29 PM  
Who says I'm white? Hmmm, have we stumbled on some one's racist bigotry fueling his anti conservative rhetoric?

So you're a staunchly Conservative minority??? Is it simple self-loathing or sheer stupidity???

/dealing in absolutes
 
2005-11-02 03:07:35 PM  
There is no mention of torture. The article simply states that the 30 prisoners can be kept without charges being filed against them. Could be that you hold the high level Al Quida officials until you have enough background information, evidence and testimony to file actual charges against them. this prevents them from planning further attacks.

/just sayin'
 
2005-11-02 03:09:01 PM  
TehBRB

I've personally heard teh soundbite while listening to the Sean Hannity show.

Unfortunately, merely stating that doesn't do much good.

(And I see that LincolnLegolas has posted a rather long rebutal on the soundbite.)
 
2005-11-02 03:09:18 PM  
2wolves,

1. You never answered my question.

I believe I did. I said "That sucks, but that's war and that's the way it is". You'd help the guy as best as you can and that's it. Blame the terrorists that started this shiat, not us.

2. "It's a war" You kill a civilian, as an act of volition, in a war something bad happens to you if you're a member of the U.S. armed forces. It is called murder.

I'll answer you once I understand you. I can't tell if this is a question or a statement or tow statements or what.

3. How many murderers, not soldiers, do you want in YOUR government?

You ready for this? If you insist on calling soldiers murderers if a civilian gets in the way and there is nothing you can do about it, here's my answer: AS MANY AS IT TAKES TO WIN THE DAMN WAR AND STOP THE KILLING ALTOGETHER.

/put that in your bong and smoke it.
 
2005-11-02 03:09:20 PM  
 
2005-11-02 03:09:21 PM  
Situational ethics class level 301 now in session. You must have completed: Fooling Yourself 103, Drinking the Kool-Ade 205, and Well They did it First 208 to attend.

Thank you for being a student at Bob Jones University.
 
2005-11-02 03:09:52 PM  
"Congratulations, America. You're becoming everything that 80's action movies taught me to hate. "

LOL! Now that made me laugh. Thank you sir!
 
2005-11-02 03:10:15 PM  
boobsrgood
Everyone try this:
1) Rent the movie "Red Dawn"
2) Pretend the Russians are Americans
3) Pretend Patrick Swayze is at an Iraqi high school
4) Pick a side to root for
5) Enjoy the movie!
This activity brought to you by "Relativism for Dummies"


I love that movie, except it doesn't fit. American troops are not rounding up huge amounts of Iraqis and throwing them in pens, we are not slaughtering Iraqi civilians to "send a message". Most of the terrorist are from outside of Iraq and not locals. I don't remember the Soviets allowing for the Americans to vote. I am sure there are more inconsistencies, but I cannot remember all of the movie. This activity brought to you by "Analogies for Dummies"
 
2005-11-02 03:10:29 PM  
TehBRB: Brilliant idea to check Hannity.


that fool checks himself. you need to check yourself if you watch that idiot.
 
2005-11-02 03:10:30 PM  
 
2005-11-02 03:11:16 PM  
Most of the terrorist are from outside of Iraq and not locals.

Untrue.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0923/dailyUpdate.html
 
2005-11-02 03:11:44 PM  
But they're effective. Nobody's flown jets into the World Trade Center for over four years now!
 
2005-11-02 03:12:27 PM  
Pxtl

Hang On Voltaire
They busted the Abu Ghraib guards because it went public. The actions in AG were well known before the pictures got out but nobody seemed to be investigating. It wasn't until scandal broke that the shiat hit the fan.
If not for those pictures, Lynndie England would be getting medals instead of prison time.


But I thought it was policy. If it was policy then surely there are written orders from the Pentagon to torture these people.
 
2005-11-02 03:12:33 PM  
Why is American Politics only about which side you are on? It seems that for every single issue that props up the first filter through which information flows is whether the blue or red team is responsible. Is the republican party an extension of your family? Why defend it until the last? Did George Bush save you from drowning or something? So why do we react with emotion instead of critically examining the state of the government?

These people are circumventing international laws and torturing people. How on earth can anyone defend that, let alone defending torture of all things? Oh but these are bad people aren't they? Wait, are they? How would we know? Does the CIA tell anyone, or is it a law unto itself?

I've noticed Americans pride themselves on the notion that if the government no longer served the interests of the people they would overthrow them. Do you think the CIA would torture you if you were involved in the resistance? Imagine a part of the citizenry woke up and realised the government exists as a part of the people and FOR the people, not a bloated over-bearing nightmare, and decided to take it back. Do you think you would be labelled a terrorist and treated the same way?
 
2005-11-02 03:12:52 PM  
Would liberals care so much about the civil rights of terrorists if a democratic president was doing this? It's great how they love to fake caring about human rights, our troops dying, and equal justice, but the fact is that they just want their party re-elected. Where was the democratic outrage after Waco? Ruby ridge? Oh yeah, those weren't PC enough to argue for. And if they do get re-elected, the same crap will continue. Two sides of the same filthy coin.
 
2005-11-02 03:13:06 PM  
selloco: if America loses, the Democrats win

. . . and demented, insults like this is why so many Democrats have developed a knee-jerk reaction to conservatives.
 
2005-11-02 03:13:08 PM  
macedon, I did not need to see that.
 
2005-11-02 03:14:34 PM  
"Where was the democratic outrage after Waco? Ruby ridge? Oh yeah, those weren't PC enough to argue for."

Waco I was too young to remember, Ruby Ridge I've never heard of.
 
2005-11-02 03:15:29 PM  
macedon, .... dude .... don't. I just about craped my pants when I saw that.
 
2005-11-02 03:15:45 PM  
Might makes right.

Dislike someone? Kill them. Murder is a term only suckers use.
 
Displayed 50 of 746 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report