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.

Irvine511

Blue Crack Supplier
Joined
Dec 4, 2003
Messages
34,519
Location
the West Coast
[q]CIA Holds Terror Suspects in Secret Prisons
Debate Is Growing Within Agency About Legality and Morality of Overseas System Set Up After 9/11

By Dana Priest
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, November 2, 2005; Page A01

The CIA has been hiding and interrogating some of its most important al Qaeda captives at a Soviet-era compound in Eastern Europe, according to U.S. and foreign officials familiar with the arrangement.

The secret facility is part of a covert prison system set up by the CIA nearly four years ago that at various times has included sites in eight countries, including Thailand, Afghanistan and several democracies in Eastern Europe, as well as a small center at the Guantanamo Bay prison in Cuba, according to current and former intelligence officials and diplomats from three continents.

The hidden global internment network is a central element in the CIA's unconventional war on terrorism. It depends on the cooperation of foreign intelligence services, and on keeping even basic information about the system secret from the public, foreign officials and nearly all members of Congress charged with overseeing the CIA's covert actions.

The existence and locations of the facilities -- referred to as "black sites" in classified White House, CIA, Justice Department and congressional documents -- are known to only a handful of officials in the United States and, usually, only to the president and a few top intelligence officers in each host country.

The CIA and the White House, citing national security concerns and the value of the program, have dissuaded Congress from demanding that the agency answer questions in open testimony about the conditions under which captives are held. Virtually nothing is known about who is kept in the facilities, what interrogation methods are employed with them, or how decisions are made about whether they should be detained or for how long.

While the Defense Department has produced volumes of public reports and testimony about its detention practices and rules after the abuse scandals at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison and at Guantanamo Bay, the CIA has not even acknowledged the existence of its black sites. To do so, say officials familiar with the program, could open the U.S. government to legal challenges, particularly in foreign courts, and increase the risk of political condemnation at home and abroad.

But the revelations of widespread prisoner abuse in Afghanistan and Iraq by the U.S. military -- which operates under published rules and transparent oversight of Congress -- have increased concern among lawmakers, foreign governments and human rights groups about the opaque CIA system. Those concerns escalated last month, when Vice President Cheney and CIA Director Porter J. Goss asked Congress to exempt CIA employees from legislation already endorsed by 90 senators that would bar cruel and degrading treatment of any prisoner in U.S. custody.

Although the CIA will not acknowledge details of its system, intelligence officials defend the agency's approach, arguing that the successful defense of the country requires that the agency be empowered to hold and interrogate suspected terrorists for as long as necessary and without restrictions imposed by the U.S. legal system or even by the military tribunals established for prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/01/AR2005110101644.html?sub=AR

[/q]
 
Jesus God. And Cheney wants this to be 100% legal to do.

Can this Administration skull-fuck the country a little more?

"How long? Oh Lord, how long? -HST
 
There are some things we don't need to know about in the interest of national security. Call Black Ops unjust or immoral or whatever you want, I feel it's necessary in today's world.
 
randhail said:
There are some things we don't need to know about in the interest of national security. Call Black Ops unjust or immoral or whatever you want, I feel it's necessary in today's world.


sorry, but fuck that.

i refuse to become the enemy in order to beat the enemy.

what on earth are we fighting for if not a way of life that must be better than that of the real terrorists -- not the Iraqi army but the members of Al-Qaeda and jihadists across the globe who decapitate christian schoolgirls in Indonesia and leave their heads on the steps of a church.

we all need to know about this so we can kick those out of office who would torture in our name.
 
Irvine511 said:

sorry, but fuck that.

:up:

Someone in my family is always saying "there are things we just don't need to know" and I just cannot fathom that viewpoint when we are talking about TORTURING other human beings.
 
randhail said:
There are some things we don't need to know about in the interest of national security. Call Black Ops unjust or immoral or whatever you want, I feel it's necessary in today's world.

Enjoying the koolaid?


Well we know the propaganda is working on some.:|
 
What is your alternative?

We can all say "Torture is bad - we should not be a part of it". (I know, if one doesn't condemn it strongly enough, one must be a koolaid drinking, propaganda believing, GWB supporting, torture loving right winger - let's avoid that part of the argument).

But you are still faced with problem of Al-Qaeda and jihadists across the globe.

Any proven alternatives you are willing to suggest?
 
nbcrusader said:
What is your alternative?

We can all say "Torture is bad - we should not be a part of it". (I know, if one doesn't condemn it strongly enough, one must be a koolaid drinking, propaganda believing, GWB supporting, torture loving right winger - let's avoid that part of the argument).

But you are still faced with problem of Al-Qaeda and jihadists across the globe.

Any proven alternatives you are willing to suggest?



i am for the vigorous prosecution of the "war on terror" as i understood it in late 2001 -- through increased intelligence work (you know, we don't fire people from the CIA who are fluent in Arabic because they're gay), cooperation with other countries, and aggressive "marketing" strategy to improve the image of the US in the Muslim world, encouraging the education of women in the Muslim world, and sane steps towards removing the power of the reprehensible dictatorships that we've propped up merely because they were anti-Soviet in the past through judicious political pressure, the threat of military force and the weaning of our economy off of wastefully, polluting fossile fuels.

now, torture, in and of itself, represents an evil that we simply must not engage in. it gives you bad intelligence, it makes our soldiers less safe, and it undermines what we are supposed to be about in the most profoundly ideological way possible.

who are we to enforce international law if we cannot even uphold some of the most basic tenets of international law that came from the Geneva Convention? why, when faced with what is a new kind of soldier in the form of an Al-Qaeda figher who must necessarily be distinguished from a German or Japanese soldier in WW2, can we not come up with a new category of captured fighter who does have some rights instead of letting them exist in a calculated, intentional legal netherworld where no rules but the ones Bush/Cheney see fit apply? why was there intentional obfuscation of the guidelines for handling detainees that allow the top brass -- specifically, Rumsfeld -- to be absolved of the abhorrent behavior of troops at Abu Ghraib that enabled them to blame them on a woman who some have described as a "retarded midget."
 
Jesus never sunk to the level of Satan when faced with him.

If good will prevail then it must not stoop to the level of evil. It's just that simple.

Plus torture has never been a proven method. How many concede to preasure and lie in order to save themselves from pain or even their life?
 
Irvine511 said:
now, torture, in and of itself, represents an evil that we simply must not engage in. it gives you bad intelligence, it makes our soldiers less safe, and it undermines what we are supposed to be about in the most profoundly ideological way possible.

If this were really true, all governments would have abandoned the practice generations ago.

There is no simple answer for this issue. Unfortunately, the people who are targeted do not understand or respond to the same motivators that you or I do. We want to promote the moral high ground because we respond to the moral high ground. A very small fraction of the population (here and abroad) do not respond the way we would expect in a civilized society.

Without a background in military intelligence gathering, we can either rely on the experts, or gain sufficient knowledge to provide a working alternative to achieve the same goal.
 
nbcrusader said:


If this were really true, all governments would have abandoned the practice generations ago.

There is no simple answer for this issue. Unfortunately, the people who are targeted do not understand or respond to the same motivators that you or I do. We want to promote the moral high ground because we respond to the moral high ground. A very small fraction of the population (here and abroad) do not respond the way we would expect in a civilized society.

Without a background in military intelligence gathering, we can either rely on the experts, or gain sufficient knowledge to provide a working alternative to achieve the same goal.


my understanding is that governments don't torture for information; they torture to instill fear in the citizenry in order to increase their authoritarian power.

i think there is a simple answer: we abide by the Geneva Conventions. we are fighting this war to preserve, and hopefully promote, our way of life and in order to make other countries democratic -- i hear all this lofty talk about how it's racist to think that Arabs can't live democracy; isn't it equally racist to assume that Arabs won't respond to a country representing a way of life that promots a moral high ground? aren't fundamental teachings of Islam extremely moral? aren't we better served by demonstrating the nihilism of the Iraqi insurgency and the jihadists of Al-Quaeda and Jemaah Islamiyah through comparing their atrocities with our good works, deeds, and treatment of prisoners? isn't using relgion as an interrogation tool a way to flame the (i hope) false perception that this really is a crucade of Judaeo-Christianity vs. Islam?
 
nbcrusader said:


If this were really true, all governments would have abandoned the practice generations ago.


Please. First of all their is still the fact that some just really get off on bringing pain to their enemy. We're a vengeful spieces.

Secondly, the intelligence is often tainted but it can't be proven either way.

"I'm not a terrorist", but "we have a confession", yeah but "I was being tortured", "sorry we have your signed confession, now you die." :|
 
BonoVoxSupastar said:


Please. First of all their is still the fact that some just really get off on bringing pain to their enemy. We're a vengeful spieces.

Secondly, the intelligence is often tainted but it can't be proven either way.

"I'm not a terrorist", but "we have a confession", yeah but "I was being tortured", "sorry we have your signed confession, now you die." :|

Please read the context of my post. Irvine proposed reasons that torture did not work - reasons, if true, would resolve this issue a long time ago.

I realize that there are sick bastards who enjoy inflicting pain. The War in Iraq ended one regime that used torture for societal intimidation (and fun when you think of Saddam's sons).

I'm sure the US has documentation of the successful use of torture on US POWs by the North Vietnamese.
 
nbcrusader said:


Please read the context of my post. Irvine proposed reasons that torture did not work - reasons, if true, would resolve this issue a long time ago.

I realize that there are sick bastards who enjoy inflicting pain. The War in Iraq ended one regime that used torture for societal intimidation (and fun when you think of Saddam's sons).

I'm sure the US has documentation of the successful use of torture on US POWs by the North Vietnamese.



but the issue is resolved; no modern nation has a policy of torturing detainees. it's barbaric. you know, like the North Vietnamese.

are you suggesting we adopt the methods of people that 10s of thousands of Americans died trying to defeat? do we really need to become the enemy in order to defeat the enemy? is torture necessary to win this war?

since torture is rejected by all modern democracies, i think the burden of proof is on you -- both that torture works, and that it is needed in this particular war.
 
nbcrusader said:


Please read the context of my post. Irvine proposed reasons that torture did not work - reasons, if true, would resolve this issue a long time ago.

I realize that there are sick bastards who enjoy inflicting pain. The War in Iraq ended one regime that used torture for societal intimidation (and fun when you think of Saddam's sons).

I'm sure the US has documentation of the successful use of torture on US POWs by the North Vietnamese.

Yes I read the context and that's exactly what I'm talking about.

The intelligence gained by torture, is almost impossible to prove. I'm sure the US does have documentation, but it holds as much truth as a confession given under the fear of death.
 
BonoVoxSupastar said:


Um if you can't prove it, then it's not "intelligence", therefore tainted.

We, ordinary folks sitting behind our PCs will never prove it. But military experts will have a better idea of the value and accuracy of the intelligence obtained.
 
Having read a book this summer by an interrogator at Guantanamo....

Torture does not work....according to him....
 
nbcrusader said:


We, ordinary folks sitting behind our PCs will never prove it. But military experts will have a better idea of the value and accuracy of the intelligence obtained.



are you assuming that said "military experts" are in agreement as to the efficacy of torture?

even if it were effective, which i don't think it is, and i get this from people who do work for the CIA (... sometimes i love pulling out the DC card), does that mean that it's the right thing to do?
 
Irvine511 said:

even if it were effective, which i don't think it is, and i get this from people who do work for the CIA (... sometimes i love pulling out the DC card), does that mean that it's the right thing to do?

That's the big question? Do we want to become a nation where this is acceptable for our government to do?

I know it is probably going on already, but do we want Congress to pass a law that says, "Hey, it's okay for the CIA. It's okay because we're fighting terrorists."

Like Irvine said, do we really need to become the enemy in order to defeat the enemy?

It's stomach turning.
 
Irvine511 said:
are you assuming that said "military experts" are in agreement as to the efficacy of torture?

I'm sure there is plenty of discussion at their level. But they get to work with far more information than we do.
 
Dreadsox said:
Having read a book this summer by an interrogator at Guantanamo....

Torture does not work....according to him....


i believe I heard him interviewed

also, I heard someone with experience with a lot of interrogation
he found that establishing rapport was most effective for gaining intelligence
 
deep said:
well he claims to have "that special relationship"

and that he has "been called" for a special purpose

Many Christians acknowledge a relationship and calling - but that would be a topic for a different thread.
 
deep said:



i believe I heard him interviewed

also, I heard someone with experience with a lot of interrogation
he found that establishing rapport was most effective for gaining intelligence

Similar to Stockholm Syndrome.
 
nbcrusader said:


I'm sure there is plenty of discussion at their level. But they get to work with far more information than we do.

all this blind trust ??

and I see it by many Admin. supporters
I do not mean to single you out.

I suppose the flip side is
all this skepticism?

i guess with more transparency the skeptics would have less to bitch about
 
nbcrusader said:


Many Christians acknowledge a relationship and calling - but that would be a topic for a different thread.

a lot of presidents have, indeed


but this guy has put it on front street
it is unseemly
 
Would it be acceptable to threaten these types with pork products?

I wonder how many if any of these leaks are calculated, it occured with the FBI, they create the impression that they are willing to torture so that when captured any suspect will not just be silent safe in the complete knowledge that they are under no threat of harm whatsoever, that element of doubt may be a very powerful tool.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom