Torturer-in-Chief: Secret Prisons in Eastern Europe!

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
nbcrusader said:
If we place a value on obtaining information about future bad acts, then I think it would be better to outline the limits of the practices employed to obtain this information than to drive it back to the "black ops" hole from which it came.
Absolutely. But what should those limits be, and who should be in a position to have a say in deciding them? What should be the permitted scope, what should be the permitted scale, and what due process for detainees ought to be required?

The whole reason I cited Black Ops to begin with is because I took the implication of the first reference to them in this thread (not mine) to be a dismissal of the legitimacy of any and all criticisms of present policy by insinuating that, since coercive techniques have played *a* role in past undercover operations, therefore anyone who takes a position opposing them in present circumstances is too naive to be capable of formulating a legitimate criticism. I reject this line of thinking totally. I might add that I have family who have served in Special Forces (which I'm very proud of) who share both this rejection and my objection to the Administration's carte blanche approach.
 
Irvine511 said:




i'm sorry, but you really did miss the whole point of that film. it really is about how wrong Colonel Jessup was to order a Code Red.

remember the end of the film when, you know, Jack Nicholson is arrested? seems like the message was pretty obvious:

[q]Downey: What did we do wrong? We did nothing wrong.

Dawson: Yeah, we did. We were supposed to fight for the people who couldn't fight for themselves. We were supposed to fight for Willie. [/q]

I am a Jessup fan. Most people who have served know how you can be fucked by someone who does not toe the line. Jessup, at the core is 100% correct that the soldier was a detriment to the unit.

The way Jessup dealt with it was wrong....I am not certain I have had the experience of a Code Red ordered by a high ranking officer. That was what I found unbelievable. Most Code Red's I have witnessed were done by soldiers at the platoon level...it was there way of dealing with soldiers who repeatedly cause problems.

and while I agree with you all about the WRONGNESS of the Code Red handed down in the movie.......

Jessup's basic premise is correct in that we ask our soldiers to put themselves in situations that are not normal. We ask them to do this so that we can sleep at night, safe and sound, and not have to worry.
 
Dreadsox said:
Jessup's basic premise is correct in that we ask our soldiers to put themselves in situations that are not normal. We ask them to do this so that we can sleep at night, safe and sound, and not have to worry.



which is why Santiago should have been transferred off the base.
 
For a sidenote the Israelis have effectively fought terror without going down the road of state sanctioned torture, the courts have made it very clear. I think that for a blueprint on fighting Islamist terror groups the world could learn a lot from Israel.
 
Irvine511 said:




which is why Santiago should have been transferred off the base.

Just out of curiosity....

Is there a reason you cut out where I say he handled it wrong?
 
A_Wanderer said:
For a sidenote the Israelis have effectively fought terror without going down the road of state sanctioned torture

Not state sanctioned. But I don´t want to know what the Mossad did... however, apparently we agree on that.
 
Ok, INSANE busy weekend but I will try to stop back in so as not to leave folks hanging....

Meanwhile you all leave me with an image in my head of Harry Ried screaming "I WANT THE TRUTH" and Frist shouting back "YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!" :laugh:
 
By DEB RIECHMANN
Associated Press Writer

PANAMA CITY, Panama

President Bush on Monday vigorously defended U.S. interrogation of suspected terrorists after the public disclosure of secret CIA prisoner camps in eastern European countries. "We do not torture," he declared.

"There's an enemy that lurks and plots and plans and wants to hurt America again," Bush said. "So you bet we will aggressively pursue them but we will do so under the law."

Over White House opposition, the Senate has passed legislation banning torture. With Vice President Dick Cheney as the point man, the administration is seeking an exemption for the CIA. It was recently disclosed that the agency maintains a network of prisons in eastern Europe and Asia, where it holds terrorist suspects.

The European Union is investigating the reports, which have not been confirmed by the White House.

"Our country is at war and our government has the obligation to protect the American people," Bush said. "Any activity we conduct is within the law. We do not torture."
 
nbcrusader said:
OK, I guess that settles it.


if that were the case, why is he threatening to veto a law that would simply codify what Bush alleges is already the current policy -- the McCain Amendment?

if the US doesn't torture, how, then, do we account for the hundreds and hundreds of documented cases of abuse and torture by U.S. troops?

why, then, the need for the Gonzales memos that dramatically expanded the lee-way given to the military to abuse detainees in order to get intelligence?

the president appears to be defining torture in such a way that no other reasonable person, aside from Cheney, would agree.

what does Bush say to servicemen and women who have come forward, such as Ian Fishback (who's thread was ignored on FYM), and spoken about the commonplace of torture in US prisons both in Iraq and across the world?

i would imagine that Bush is genuinely uninformed on the topic (wouldn't be the first time), or he is lying to us. again.
 
This is one of the agents Cheney's trying to protect - disgusting

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article10904.htm
Deadly Interrogation

Can the C.I.A. legally kill a prisoner?

By JANE MAYER

11/07/05 "New Yorker" -- -- At the end of a secluded cul-de-sac, in a fast-growing Virginia suburb favored by employees of the Central Intelligence Agency, is a handsome replica of an old-fashioned farmhouse, with a white-railed front porch. The large back yard has a swimming pool, which, on a recent October afternoon, was neatly covered. In the driveway were two cars, a late-model truck, and an all-terrain vehicle. The sole discordant note was struck by a faded American flag on the porch; instead of fluttering in the autumn breeze, it was folded on a heap of old Christmas ornaments.

The house belongs to Mark Swanner, a forty-six-year-old C.I.A. officer who has performed interrogations and polygraph tests for the agency, which has employed him at least since the nineteen-nineties. (He is not a covert operative.) Two years ago, at Abu Ghraib prison, outside Baghdad, an Iraqi prisoner in Swanner’s custody, Manadel al-Jamadi, died during an interrogation. His head had been covered with a plastic bag, and he was shackled in a crucifixion-like pose that inhibited his ability to breathe; according to forensic pathologists who have examined the case, he asphyxiated. In a subsequent internal investigation, United States government authorities classified Jamadi’s death as a “homicide,” meaning that it resulted from unnatural causes. Swanner has not been charged with a crime and continues to work for the agency.

After September 11th, the Justice Department fashioned secret legal guidelines that appear to indemnify C.I.A. officials who perform aggressive, even violent interrogations outside the United States. Techniques such as waterboarding—the near-drowning of a suspect—have been implicitly authorized by an Administration that feels that such methods may be necessary to win the war on terrorism. (In 2001, Vice-President Dick Cheney, in an interview on “Meet the Press,” said that the government might have to go to “the dark side” in handling terrorist suspects, adding, “It’s going to be vital for us to use any means at our disposal.”) The harsh treatment of Jamadi and other prisoners in C.I.A. custody, however, has inspired an emotional debate in Washington, raising questions about what limits should be placed on agency officials who interrogate foreign terrorist suspects outside U.S. territory.

This fall, in response to the exposure of widespread prisoner abuse at American detention facilities abroad—among them Abu Ghraib; Guantánamo Bay, in Cuba; and Bagram Air Base, in Afghanistan—John McCain, the Republican senator from Arizona, introduced a bill in Congress that would require Americans holding prisoners abroad to follow the same standards of humane treatment required at home by the U.S. Constitution. Prisoners must not be brutalized, the bill states, regardless of their “nationality or physical location.” On October 5th, in a rebuke to President Bush, who strongly opposed McCain’s proposal, the Senate voted 90–9 in favor of it.

Senior Administration officials have led a fierce, and increasingly visible, fight to protect the C.I.A.’s classified interrogation protocol. Late last month, Cheney and Porter Goss, the C.I.A. director, had an unusual forty-five-minute private meeting on Capitol Hill with Senator McCain, who was tortured as a P.O.W. during the Vietnam War. They argued that the C.I.A. sometimes needs the “flexibility” to treat detainees in the war on terrorism in “cruel, inhuman, and degrading” ways. Cheney sought to add an exemption to McCain’s bill, permitting brutal methods when “such operations are vital to the protection of the United States or its citizens from terrorist attack.” A Washington Post editorial decried Cheney’s visit, calling him the “Vice-President for Torture.” In the coming weeks, a conference committee of the House and the Senate will decide whether McCain’s proposal becomes law; three of the nine senators who voted against the measure are on the committee.

The outcome of this wider political debate may play a role in determining the fate of Swanner, whose name has not been publicly disclosed before, and who declined several requests to be interviewed. Passage of the McCain legislation by both Houses of Congress would mean that there is strong political opposition to the abusive treatment of prisoners, and would put increased pressure on the Justice Department to prosecute interrogators like Swanner—who could conceivably be charged with assault, negligent manslaughter, or torture. Swanner’s lawyer, Nina Ginsberg, declined to discuss his case on the record. But he has been under investigation by the Justice Department for more than a year.

Manadel al-Jamadi was captured by Navy SEALs at 2 a.m. on November 4, 2003, after a violent struggle at his house, outside Baghdad. Jamadi savagely fought one of the SEALs before being subdued in his kitchen; during the altercation, his stove fell on them. The C.I.A. had identified him as a “high-value” target, because he had allegedly supplied the explosives used in several atrocities perpetrated by insurgents, including the bombing of the Baghdad headquarters of the International Committee of the Red Cross, in October, 2003. After being removed from his house, Jamadi was manhandled by several of the SEALs, who gave him a black eye and a cut on his face; he was then transferred to C.I.A. custody, for interrogation at Abu Ghraib. According to witnesses, Jamadi was walking and speaking when he arrived at the prison. He was taken to a shower room for interrogation. Some forty-five minutes later, he was dead.

For most of the time that Jamadi was being interrogated at Abu Ghraib, there were only two people in the room with him. One was an Arabic-speaking translator for the C.I.A. working on a private contract, who has been identified in military-court papers only as “Clint C.” He was given immunity against criminal prosecution in exchange for his coöperation. The other person was Mark Swanner.
...
 
not to worry!

the Republican Congressional leadership is on the case, and they won't let the people who leaked the report (!?!?!?!?!?!) go unpunished?

how dare the WP expose how our nation is torturing prisoners!

punish the journalists! jail the leakers! make it safe for the CIA and the military to torutre as they see fit without the annoying eyes of a vigilant press!

[q]GOP LEADERS TO LAUNCH NEW 'LEAK' PROBE; INFO TO WASH POST 'DAMAGED NATIONAL SECURITY'
Tue Nov 08 2005 11:36:31 ET

Sources tell Drudge that early this afternoon House Speaker Hastert and Senate Majority Leader Frist will announce a bicameral investigation into the leak of classified information to the WASHINGTON POST regarding the “black sites” where high value al Qaeda terrorists are being held and interrogated.

MORE

Said one Hill source: “Talk about a leak that damaged national security! How will we ever get our allies to cooperate if they fear that their people will be targeted by al Qaeda.”

According to sources, the WASHINGTON POST story by Dana Priest (Wednesday November 2), revealed highly classified information that has already done significant damage to US efforts in the War on Terror.

Developing...

http://www.drudgereport.com/flash2l.htm

[/q]
 
The letter from rawstory - Whistleblower Protection :censored:

November 8, 2005

Honorable Peter Hoekstra
Chairman
Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence
United States House of Representatives
Washington, D.C. 20515


Honorable Pat Roberts
Chairman
Select Committee on Intelligence
United States Senate
Washington, D.C. 20515


Dear Chairman Hoekstra and Chairman Roberts:

We request that you immediately initiate a joint investigation into the possible release of classified information to the media alleging that the United States government may be detaining and interrogating terrorists at undisclosed locations abroad. As you know, if accurate, such an egregious disclosure could have long-term and far-reaching damaging and dangerous consequences, and will imperil our efforts to protect the American people and our homeland from terrorist attacks.

The purpose of your investigation will be to determine the following: was the information provided to the media classified and accurate?; who leaked this information and under what authority?; and, what is the actual and potential damage done to the national security of the United States and our partners in the Global War on Terror? We will consider other changes to this mandate based on your recommendations.

Any information that you obtain on this matter that may implicate possible violations of law should be referred to the Department of Justice for appropriate action.

We expect that you will move expeditiously to complete this inquiry and that you will provide us with periodic updates. We are hopeful that you will be able to accomplish this task in a bipartisan manner given general agreement that intelligence matters should not be politicized. Either way, however, your inquiry shall proceed.

The leaking of classified information by employees of the United States government appears to have increased in recent years, establishing a dangerous trend that, if not addressed swiftly and firmly, likely will worsen. The unauthorized release of classified information is serious and threatens our nation's security. It also puts the lives of many Americans and the security of our nation at risk.

Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter.

Sincerely,

William H. Frist, M.D.

Majority Leader

U.S. Senate


J. Dennis Hastert
Speaker
U.S. House of Representatives
 
Whistle blowers need protection from those that are corrupt, immoral,

Be it lying about phony evidence for war

or exposing torture


when a President lies and says "We do not torture"

the American people deserve to know he is a liar!

Cheney, Frist and these guys would love to imprison and torture John McCain again for standing against their heinous actions.
 
Scarletwine said:
The letter from rawstory - Whistleblower Protection :censored:

November 8, 2005

Honorable Peter Hoekstra
Chairman
Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence
United States House of Representatives
Washington, D.C. 20515


Honorable Pat Roberts
Chairman
Select Committee on Intelligence
United States Senate
Washington, D.C. 20515


Dear Chairman Hoekstra and Chairman Roberts:

We request that you immediately initiate a joint investigation into the possible release of classified information to the media alleging that the United States government may be detaining and interrogating terrorists at undisclosed locations abroad. As you know, if accurate, such an egregious disclosure could have long-term and far-reaching damaging and dangerous consequences, and will imperil our efforts to protect the American people and our homeland from terrorist attacks.

...

Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter.

Sincerely,

William H. Frist, M.D.

Majority Leader

U.S. Senate


J. Dennis Hastert
Speaker
U.S. House of Representatives


Uh, the leak may have been of GOP's own making. This from thinkprogress.org:

"But today, in an off-camera meeting with reporters, Sen. Trent Lott (R-MS) revealed that the leak likely came from a Senator or Senate staffer who attended a GOP-only meeting with Vice President Dick Cheney last week, where the detention centers were discussed. CNN’s Ed Henry has the full report:"
 
why the fuss?

fair%20and%20balanced.jpg
 
this was on Anderson Cooper last night..

How far is too far when questioning suspected terrorists? That's the question tonight. President Bush said this week the U.S. doesn't torture. He said that categorically point-blank, but there are plenty of recent documented cases where American personnel may have done just that.

CNN's Tom Foreman has this shocking look at what really happened in one case when Navy SEALs and the CIA handled a terror suspect.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

TOM FOREMAN, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): In the chaos of war, the story of the "Iceman" is not surprisingly murky, he was, after all, in the CIA's custody. But from documents, court testimony, and the reporting of the Associated Press, we know this.

Manadel al-Jamadi was captured by Navy SEALs, beaten and taken to prison. The CIA interrogated him, and an hour later, he was dead. His body wound up on ice and American soldiers posed with him.

Seth Hettena of the Associated Press has covered Jamadi's story extensively.

SETH HETTENA, ASSOCIATED PRESS: This was a joint CIA-Special Forces mission.

FOREMAN: The latest issue of The New Yorker backs up Hettena's reporting, that the suspected insurgent leader was grabbed at his home near Baghdad two years ago in a violent fight in the middle of the night. During a military trial over the arrest, the Navy SEALs involved said they kicked and punched Jamadi while he was hooded and handcuffed. Then at a military compound, Hettena says questioning began.

HETTENA: One of the SEALs said that CIA personnel were putting their forearm into Jamadi's chest and pressing really hard up against it.

FOREMAN: Court testimony said that Jamadi, naked from the waist down, was then taken to Abu Ghraib Prison for more questions.

HETTENA: And a chain was attached to his handcuffs to bars in the window above him.

FOREMAN: Hettena says the testimony shows Jamadi could stand, but if he fell, his arms would be wrenched upward behind him, and that's where they were when guards were called 45 minutes later.

HETTENA: He's not responsive. They take off his hood and they realize he's dead, and they put him down on the ground and blood  starts coming out of his mouth and that's basically how al-Jamadi died.

FOREMAN: The military autopsy says Jamadi died of blunt force injuries complicated by restricted breathing from broken ribs and the hood.

DR. STEVEN MILES, CENTER FOR BIOETHICS: It's absolutely crystal clear that he was tortured to death.

FOREMAN: Dr. Steven Miles, with the Center for Bioethics, did not see the body but has reviewed many of the documents in the case, including the autopsy. He says the position of Jamadi's arms would have also caused deadly pressure on his chest.

MILES: Fundamentally what he died of was of suffocating as he hung suspended with his arms behind him.

FOREMAN (on camera): So far, there's been no announcement from the CIA about anyone being held accountable, but the investigations continue into the odd final hours of the "Iceman."

Tom Foreman, CNN, Washington.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

COOPER: Well, there were more accusations against the CIA today. A New York Times article highlighted a classified report issued last year by the CIA's own inspector general which raises concerns the agency's interrogation procedures may violate parts of an international torture ban. The report though does not conclude the CIA uses torture.
 
http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/news/20051110/a_torture10.art.htm

"Murtha says that to win over public opinion in Iraq, the United States must dispel any notion it is engaging in torture. In his letter to House colleagues, he says the absence of a clear policy against torture “endangers U.S. servicemembers who might be captured.”

McCain, who was tortured by his North Vietnamese captors, argues that abuse does not elicit useful information because “under torture, a detainee will tell his interrogator anything to make the pain stop.”

He rejects a compromise proposed by Cheney to excuse the CIA from his proposed ban. “There can be no exemptions,” he said.

McCain's strategy is to attach the amendment to bills that will be hard for his colleagues or Bush to reject. He tacked it onto a Pentagon spending bill that contains all military funding, including for the war in Iraq. He also attached it to a bill that authorizes Pentagon programs for next year. “We will win sooner or later,” he said. “I will not quit.”
 
Bush is threatening to veto the bill because of McCain's amendment. Let me get this straight: Bush is against torture but is also against an amendment that will "ban cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment of any person in U.S. custody, regardless of location or nationality."

Oh, this president is too complex for me.

http://aolsvc.news.aol.com/news/article.adp?id=20051110072509990023

Also, I hope that amendment has something against the outsourcing ("rendering") of torture and not just be about "in U.S. custody."
 
Last edited:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/11/10/frist.secretprisons.ap/index.html


Frist told reporters Thursday that while he believed illegal activity should not take place at detention centers, he believes the leak itself poses a greater threat to national security and is "not concerned about what goes on" behind the prison walls.

"My concern is with leaks of information that jeopardize your safety and security -- period," Frist said. "That is a legitimate concern."


Frist was asked if that meant he was not concerned about investigating what goes on in detention centers.

"I am not concerned about what goes on and I'm not going to comment about the nature of that," Frist replied.
 
Frist should investigate himself

what a jackass


the Prez has said these prisons do not exist


so it is just a bogus story like libby and cheney got miller to run in the NY times?


now Frist, with top secret clearance, confirms the story, (and that is a crime, too) by his remarks.
 
At least some Repubs have it right...from yesterday's WaPo:

Rep. Christopher Shays (R-Conn.) said investigating the source of the prison article would be acceptable, as long as Congress also investigates the secret prisons themselves.

"If you want to investigate everything and not be selective, that would make sense," he said.

Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) said: "Talk about not seeing the forest for the trees. The real story is those jails."

More generally, Republicans suggested it is unwise to pick a fight with the media over an issue that exposes so many political vulnerabilities for their party.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/08/AR2005110800764_pf.html
 
lots of discussion is now focusing on what techniques are considered torture, and which are merely coercive. one such technique that is now undergoing such scrutinty, and VP Cheney desperately wishes to keep this one available for at least the CIA to use, is what is known as waterboarding. it's use is being passionately defended by the Wall Street Journal (who resort to the oft-heard response to *any* sort of criticism in Iraq, "yeah, well, at least it's better than Hussein," as if SH is some sort of gold standard), and some say that this is what they used on Khalid Sheik Mohammad. it is still legal, and rumored to be practiced regularly at GitMo, and, one would assume, at all these secret detention centers in Eastern Europe.

what is it? well, it depends:

[q]This specific water torture, often called the "water cure," admits of several variants:

(a) pumping: filling a stomach with water causes the organs to distend, a sensation compared often with having your organs set on fire from the inside. This was the Tormenta de Toca favored by the Inquisition. The French in Algeria called in the tube or tuyau after the hose they forced into the mouth to fill the organs.

(b) choking - as in sticking a head in a barrel. It is a form of near asphyxiation but it also produces the same burning sensation through all the water a prisoner involuntarily ingests. This is the example illustrated in the Battle of Algiers movie, a technique called the sauccisson or the submarine in Latin America. Prisoners describe their chests swelling to the size of barrels at which point a guard would stomp on the stomach forcing the water to move in the opposite direction.

(c) choking - as in attaching a person to a board and dipping the board into water. This was my understanding of what waterboarding was from the initial reports. The use of a board was stylistically most closely associated with the work of a Nazi political interrogator by the name of Ludwig Ramdor who worked at Ravensbruck camp. Ramdor was tried before the British Military Court Martial at Hamburg (May 1946 to March 1947) on charges for subjecting women to this torture, subjecting another woman to drugs for interrogation, and subjecting a third to starvation and high pressure showers. He was found guilty and executed by the Allies in 1947.

(d) choking - as in forcing someone to lie down, tying them down, then putting a cloth over the mouth, and then choking the prisoner by soaking the cloth. This also forces ingestion of water. It was invented by the Dutch in the East Indies in the 16th century, as a form of torture for English traders. More recently it was common in the American south, especially in police stations, in the 1920s, as documented in the famous Wickersham Report of the American Bar Association (The Report on Lawlessness in Law Enforcement, 1931), compiling instances of police torture throughout the United States.

Perhaps the main thing to remember here is that all these techniques leave few marks; they're clean tortures and so people who are unfamiliar with them are in genuine doubt as to whether there is much pain. In the absence of a bloody wound, who is to say how much pain there was?

http://academic.reed.edu/poli_sci/rejali.html

[/q]
 
I think this section answers the false ticking Nuke theory.

Time - McCain
Those who argue the necessity of some abuses raise an important dilemma as their most compelling rationale: the ticking-time-bomb scenario. What do we do if we capture a terrorist who we have sound reasons to believe possesses specific knowledge of an imminent terrorist attack?

In such an urgent and rare instance, an interrogator might well try extreme measures to extract information that could save lives. Should he do so, and thereby save an American city or prevent another 9/11, authorities and the public would surely take this into account when judging his actions and recognize the extremely dire situation which he confronted. But I don't believe this scenario requires us to write into law an exception to our treaty and moral obligations that would permit cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment. To carve out legal exemptions to this basic principle of human rights risks opening the door to abuse as a matter of course, rather than a standard violated truly in extremis. It is far better to embrace a standard that might be violated in extraordinary circumstances than to lower our standards to accommodate a remote contingency, confusing personnel in the field and sending precisely the wrong message abroad about America's purposes and practices.
 
Back
Top Bottom