BBC NEWS | Americas | US blocks ICRC access to suspects _ I’m guessing there are other reasons rather than “torture” for hiding people. They may have Bin Laden for all we know. But the irony here is that now we are like Saddam Hussein who kept denying the WMD accusations, but nobody believed him. Funny stuff when it comes to not being believed.
The bigger question is who are we hiding, and why?
The US has admitted for the first time that it has not given the Red Cross access to all detainees in its custody.
The state department’s top legal adviser, John Bellinger, made the admission but gave no details about where such prisoners were held.
Correspondents say the revelation is only likely to increase suspicion that the CIA has been operating secret prisons out of international oversight.
The issue has dogged Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice’s tour to Europe.
Who or what are you hiding in your home, and why?
Is it because:
1) It is unlawful?
2) It is nobody’s business?
3) It is something others will attack you for because they don’t understand?
4) It is something you simply want to keep private?
No matter which way you look at it, people hide things because others either will attack you for it or try to snatch it from you.
Why not let a ruling body inside your home? Afraid they might find that stash of marijuana? That statutory-rape seventeen year-old in your bed? Your journal with written entries of death threats? Your collection of illegally-copied copyright material? The digital tele-photos of your neighbor’s wife undressing? The off-the-books business your running out of your home?
The law is out to get you. We live in a world with mob-mentality. Sure, sometimes people hide egregious things and should be “smoked out of their holes” (Jeffrey Daumer, for example). The laws were written for the very, very few who fuck it up for everybody else.
It could be that the government is hiding something that they shouldn’t. But it could also be that they are hiding something that people are not ready for. It really matters what their intentions are.
Are your intentions to drug seven year-olds and rape them? Or are your intentions simply to relax with a joint for yourself and friends? The fork at the road is the “joint”. You have it so it means you are going to pick it up. Then what? Are you going down the righteous path or the pathological one? Either way, you have that “fork” hidden in your possesion. It is illegal no matter what you say. And the law is stern: break it and you will pay.
To hide or not to hide is the answer. The question is: do you deserve to be punished for your intentions?
There are any number of legitimate reasons why one would keep certain al queda captures secret. If an al queda member “goes missing” they aren’t sure if he deserted his post, was killed in action or what. This uncertainty thrust upon the enemy buys us more time for interrogation, and helps ensure surprise in our next countermeasure. The enemy doesn’t need to be given ” a list” of everyone we have in custody. The more “in the dark” they are about their war footing the better. The only reason some are concerned about Geneva conv rules is a misunderstanding of when it applies. Terrorists, don’t wear military uniforms, and they attack civilians without regard to common decency. During WWII any combatant caught in civilian clothes was shot on the spot. To afford terrorists the same rights as “uniformed soldiers in a conventional war” defies hundreds of years of rules of engagement.
Anyone who seriously believes the American government is secretly torturing these terrorists obviously, believes we are no better at heart than the keepers of Soviet gulags or Nazi death camps, and if that is there opinion, then they are not living in reality. They are delusional.
>>Anyone who seriously believes the American government is secretly
>>torturing these terrorists
Hey, folks believed that Saddam had WMDs, that Iraq was responsible for 9/11, that they were buying yellowcake uranium from Niger, and that Junior Bush was fit to be president of the United States. Gosh and golly, there’s no limit to what some folks will swallow.
If there was ever a lead-cinch refutation of “intelligent” design, here it is.
folks believed that Saddam had WMDs, that Iraq was responsible for 9/11, that they were buying yellowcake uranium from Niger, and that Junior Bush was fit to be president
Yes(check the Duelfer report), possibly(An Iranian agent told the CIA in June about it), they intended it according to the former PM of Niger, and yes(even if you’re talking about Jeb, but not if you mean George P)
The fact that no WMD were found when we entered Iraq doesn’t mean the intelligence was wrong. nor does it mean the President lied. It means that the endless missions to the UN trying to garner “support” for doing something about Saddam’s failure to abide by his agreements, gave him ample time to move his arsenal to Syria. Numerous satellite photos showed convoys crossing into Syria in the months prior to our invasion. Intercepted radio communications detailed much about the hiding and removal of the weapons. The fact the war buildup gave him ample time to get them out of the country was the “real” failure and that can be laid squarely at the feet of those who demanded we “legitimize” our every move by getting the security council to give us its blessing. Give me a break.
It warms the cockles of your heart seeing that Liberals haven’t exclusive access to black helicopters.
AB CD, you crack me up. Just like Pavlov’s dogs, hmm? Everything is so predictable, except the breathtaking insinuation that Iraq was responsible for 9/11. What “agent” might you be speaking of? The one the US rendered to Egypt for torture, and who made up all kinds of cock and bull stories so that they’d stop beating him and shocking his genitalia (http://tinyurl.com/df827)?? HAW! Great program, that extreme rendition. Hey, it got Dumbya his war, right?
gave him ample time to move his arsenal to Syria. Numerous satellite photos showed convoys crossing into Syria in the months prior to our invasion. Intercepted radio communications detailed much about the hiding and removal of the weapons.
Then why haven’t we gone after them?
Are they any less dangerous to the world in Syria than they were in Iraq??
The enemy doesn’t need to be given ” a list” of everyone we have in custody. The more “in the dark” they are about their war footing the better.
They don’t ned to be given a list, because they are smart enough to assume that anyone which they have lost contact with has been compromised. That is the whole point of using a “cell” structure for their organisations – the inevitable compromise is limited.
Their survival requires them to be paranoid. I doubt they sit around thinking “I wonder why he hasn’t contacted me, per our pre-arrainged schedule?” 😉
>>Yes [Iraq did have WMDs] (check the Duelfer report
OK. Against my better judgement, I DID check the Duelfer report.
“In fact, the long-awaited report, authored by Charles Duelfer, who advises the director of central intelligence on Iraqi weapons, says Iraq’s WMD program was essentially destroyed in 1991 and Saddam ended Iraq’s nuclear program after the 1991 Gulf War.”
Woops. 🙂 That didn’t work out so well fer ya, now did it?
Don’t read the commentary on the report, read the report itself. They found uranium, chemical weapons, and concluded that attemps of procuring more weapons were ongoing. It is not a ‘slam dunk’, but they did find a number of items.
The agent that I am speaking of is not Libi lying to the Egyptians, but rather an Iranian who was never a prisoner volunteered the information of a major attack coming around 9/11 but the CIA basically ignored it. The information came from Iraqi sources.
After Clinton’s 1998 bombing, Iraq sent a delegation to meet with Bin Laden, after which he issued a statement supporting Iraq. Clinton’s terrorism czar vetoed a decision to run a spy mission over Afghanistan because he was worried that Osama would ‘boogie to Baghdad’. You seem to think Bush lied despite other countries’ intelligence agencies reaching the same conclusions about weapons. It’s not a ridiculous conclusion because Bush had a motive to lie. So why is it ridiculous to conclude that Saddam would be interested in attacking America after the US kicked him out of Kuwait, put economic sanctions on the country, wouldn’t let him get weapons, ran periodic bombing campaigns, occupied his country, protected the Kurds, and tried to assassinate him by attacking his palaces? We suspect he tried to kill George Bush. We know Terry Nichols flew to the Phillippines and possibly met Iraqi nationals there. TWA 800 crashed on Iraqi independence day. Also, Mohammed Atta was spotted in Prague meeting with Iraqis, and this has not been debunked as is claimed elsewhere, as the main witness was an intelligence agent, and not an ordinary bystander, and there is no known counterevidence in the timeline.
ABCD
Relax. First, stop listening to Rush Lambaugh, O’Rielly, Mary Matlin, Ann Coulture, Hannity, and ALL the others apologists for dubya. They know nothing of what they speak and have this tendency to either make things up or invent things. They also have this annoying habit of repeating a lie so many times they now have proof it is true.
The United Nations Inspectors searched Iraq from 1992 to 1998 looking for WMDs. What they found was destroyed. They continued this until they could find nothing and started looking in places the Iraqi Government considered private, such as the Presidential Palaces, other private living spaces, and Government offices. The reason the UN Inspectors wanted into these Iraqi private places was so the imbedded CIA agents could gather information on Saddam and Iraqi intentions. When Saddam’s complaints to the UN Security Council were dismissed by the US and UK, he kicked the Inspectors out. It was at this time that Scott Ritter, one of the lead Inspectors, said that all the WMDs had been destroyed.
Oh, I forgot that because that might not be in the same tone as dubya’s theory then there must be something wrong with it. But you can’t ignore it like the right wing conspirators do.
Then there was the bit about the UN Inspectors going back into Iraq in early 2002. When they didn’t include any CIA agents and hadn’t found any smoking guns then Bush ordered them out so he could start bombing the shit out of the country. Before his lies were exposed.
That Prague meeting was laid to rest by the 9/11 Commission which totally debunked it. So was any other meetings between Iraq and Al Quaida. Saddam and Al Quaida were at opposite poles and had no common ground. Both feared the other for what their philosophies would do to their worlds.
Terry Nichols and Iraqis? Get real. Nichols was a White Power Supremist and would not associate with the very people that he believed were out to destroy America. Though I notice that you did couch it with MAY HAVE MET.
Yup. Sure sounds like manufactured accusations to me. There were no WMDs in Iraq since 1992. Oh, and the ones that had been there? It was Ronald Regan’s later Secretary of Defense, Dick Cheney who GAVE Saddam poison gas for use against those hated Iranians. The American military wanted to check out the efficiencies of the gas stock pile, which they were banned from doing through UN treaties.
TWA 800 ? An assassination attempt against Bush? What have your sources been smoking?
Kent
In order to be “legitimate”, it must be within the bounds of the law. American law provides that NO ONE may be arbitrarily detained and must be afforded access to a lawyer and have that detention reviewed by an independent tribunal. Legitimate does not include holding a person from another country without notifying that country. Legitimate does not include drugging a prisoner and flying them to another country without judicial oversight. Legitimate does not include torture to extract confessions or information. Legitimate does not include participating with others to illegally hold and torture.
International treaties prohibit the conduct the Bush administration has exhibited. In fact, the administration’s conduct has lowered the U.S. to the same level as those they condemn.
Saddam was engaged in his own attempts at procurement and production by 1992, but having most of his weapons supplied by the US doesn’t mean anything other than that the US has more responsibility for taking him out, like the French in Angola or Haiti. I remember Scott Ritter resigning in protest because he couldn’t do his job, and only later did he say that Saddam couldn’t have WMD. At that time he was on Saddam’s payroll, and saw a prison filled with children in decrepit conditions and didn’t tell anyone in an attempt to prevent war(he said this in TIME). I still find his latter claims credible as WMD was primarily chemical weapons and perhaps has a short shelf life. Like I said, what’s been found is not a ‘slam dunk,’ but the Iraq Survey Group, reached different conclusions as shown in the Duelfer Report. The 9/11 Commission didn’t truly debunk an Atta meeting, as their timeline of his known locations can’t disprove it, and the witness to which they gave little reliabilty was a Czech intelligence agent who should have been credit with better ability(to recognize/remember faces). If ‘Saddam and Al Quaida were at opposite poles and had no common ground.’ then why did Bin Laden issue a statement of support after the 1998 bombings, and why did Richard Clarke fear Bin Laden would ‘boogie to Baghdad’? Those are his words, not mine. I don’t remember all the details about Oklahoma City, but it is known that Nichols flew to the Phillippines. Also, weapons were recently discovered in his old house, based on information that came from a Mafia guy. I seem to remember some sort of Muslim connection there as well. There was an assassination attempt against the former president in Kuwait. That led to Clinton’s first attack against Saddam.
Feel free to research TWA 800 yourself. It came down on Iraqi Liberation Day. Ever wonder what notes it was Sandy Berger stole from the National Archives, and then cut up with scissors(by his own admission in court)? Might it have been notes about a possible plot to use planes as weapons, discussed after the TWA attack? Dick Morris has called it a terrorist attack, and John Kerry has twice called it a bombing on TV(which the hosts never noticed.) Kerry may very well have been behind a Boston Globe 9/11 report on plane security and Gore’s involvement in watering down the recommendations. A week later Gore said he wasn’t running in 2004. A strong hint is if Kerry tries to do something like this to Hillary.
Not sure why you think I listen to Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, O’Reilly, and Mary Matalin(when did she get a show?). I don’t know that any of them have ever even talked about any of these things. I doubt Rush Limbaugh had read the Duelfer report. Hannity is more likely to read my post and put it on the air than the other way around.
Gore said he wasn’t running again in early 2002
Gore was teaching in Tennessee when 9/11 happened. What influence could he have used to water down a report by a Boston newspaper?
I still have no idea what TWA 800 is all about.
Neither you nor I know which notes Sandy Berger took. Even the court didn’t know. Your conjecture baffles me.
What would Kerry do to Clinton?
ABCD, stop listening to Limbaugh and FOX news. They don’t know what they are talking about either.
>>Not sure why you think I listen to Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, O’Reilly,
>>and Mary Matalin(when did she get a show?). I don’t know that any of
>>them have ever even talked about any of these things.
Uhhh, because you know what they (Hannity, Rush Limbaught, Loofah O’Reilly, and Mary Matalin) DO talk about ?
Also, you score about 99.9% on the Ditto Head Litmus Test?
I didn’t say Gore influenced the Globe report, but rather Kerry may have influenced the Globe to report a story after 9/11 about security upgrades for airports. This issue happened when Gore was VP and the airlines got watered down security requirements, with the usual ‘coincidental’ campaign contriibutions. If Kerry’s use of the word ‘bombing’ on TV twice is not a coincidence, nor the appearance of this article in the Globe, and he knows more, then he may use it to drive Hillary out as well. Nonresponse by Bill Clinton to a terrorist attack(TWA800), and covering up the existence of the terrorism would be sufficient to drag HIllary down, as well as reason for Sandy Berger to go to extra lengths to steal evidence from the National Archives.
You mention Rush Limbaugh and Fox News and others. I’m curious how many of you were not just opposed to the war, but denying the existence of WMDs in Iraq prior to the war? Bill O’Reilly had at least one guest that did that with some strong evidence.
You are right. I was in that 12% that opposed the war with Iraq. And for two reasons. First, a weak one, because of my distrust for Bush. The second was more involved.
Bush said that Saddam had WMD. Yet after six years the Inspectors had run out of sites to inspect and wanted to look inside Saddam’s palaces. When, in January Saddam offered to once again allow the inspectors into the country, Bush said no. The UN Inspectors went anyway, authorized in a broker deal and after a few weeks had not come up with anything, including all the sites suggested by the U.S. When Bush went before Congress, he asked for authorization to go to war AS AN OPTION in case the inspections failed to find the WMDs or Saddam failed to turn them over. Bush didn’t even try to discover the truth, instead he ordered the UN Inspectors out of the country so he could invade it. So I was not convinced that the reasons put forth by Bush were the truthful reasons for invading Iraq and seeing tens of thousands of Iraqis killed.
I have never been to Iraq and therefore do and never have had any first hand knowledge of Saddam’s possession of WMDs. I do know there were reports about Dick Cheney, as, I believe, Under Secretary of Defense, going to Iraq after Saddam invaded Iran, to give him some chemical weapons. The US was a signatory to a treaty banning the use of chemical weapons, but Iraq was not. The top US military leaders wanted to check the efficiency of the stockpiles the US had on hand.
Again, you use conjecture to say Kerry might use something against Clinton. I still am unaware of what you are talking about. What does a story in the Boston Globe, Sandy Berger removing copies of documents, Terry Nichols in the Philippines, and TWA 800 have to do with the American Government illegally kidnapping people, torturing them, assisting other countries to use torture, holding persons without charge for years incommunicado with their governments, and doing all this on foreign soil?