Clarification/Follow-up by kindj on 01/05/05 9:37 am:
Excondude:
And never would I think you were a rumormonger. It's simply that this is a potentially HUGE issue, and deserves a good looking into. I just need to know where to start, that's all.
I'll do some looking, as well. If this is true as written, then I am somewhat uncomfortable with it.
DK
Clarification/Follow-up by excon on 01/05/05 9:41 am:
Hi kindj:
Found it: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A41475-2005Jan1.html?sub=new
I don't know how to post a link exactly, and you might have to register with them to read the article.
excon
Clarification/Follow-up by VisionsInBlue on 01/05/05 10:04 am:
Thing is, even if the papers reported it, it doesn't necessarily make it true.
I firmly believe that members of the so called liberal media are the worst liars ever.
If anyone is gonna destroy this country, it's gonna be them.
Clarification/Follow-up by excon on 01/05/05 10:17 am:
And, you can continue to believe it, too.
Ain't this a great country, or what?
excon
Clarification/Follow-up by excon on 01/05/05 10:56 am:
Hello again tom:
To quote more from the article:
"The whole idea has become a corruption of renditions," said one CIA officer who has been involved in the practice. "It's not rendering to justice, it's kidnapping."
"Renditions are the most effective way to hold people," said Rohan Gunaratna, author of "Inside al Qaeda: Global Network of Terror." "The threat of sending someone to one of these countries is very important. In Europe, the custodial interrogations have yielded almost nothing" because they do not use the threat of sending detainees to a country where they are likely to be tortured.
Kidnapping, torture, no trials??? I gotta tell you, tom. The whole thing sickens me. Call me crazy. But, this is not the America I signed up for.
excon
Clarification/Follow-up by tomder55 on 01/05/05 11:56 am:
I will answer when I find another source that doesn't use this article as it's sole source of reference.(so far I've read about 20 of them and none provide any other collaborative details .) I am somewhat concerned about it also but given the nature of the author and the publication I will not make conclusions yet .
Clarification/Follow-up by ETWolverine on 01/05/05 12:00 pm:
Excon,
>>>Basic human rights are fundamental to democracy - to EVERYONE.<<<
But the terrorists reject democracy. They can't realisticly fight against democracy, and then demand democratic rights.
Elliot
Clarification/Follow-up by excon on 01/05/05 12:01 pm:
Hello tom:
I think confirmation is wise. It is the Washington Post - not the Washington Times, and they tend to be rather liberal. After all, they did report how Nixon brought himself down. (Although, Elliot and VIB would say that “the liberal press” brought him down, as though Nixon were innocent.
However, the Post it is NOT the National Enquirer. Plus, the author, (whom I don't know) sites sources from the CIA, the Pentagon, the White House, the State Dept., and many others.
Plus, given what I know about this administration's feelings towards those detained, it's hard not to believe.
As an American, I hope you find proof that it's not.
excon
Clarification/Follow-up by excon on 01/05/05 12:12 pm:
Elliot, Elliot, Elliot:
THEY are not demanding rights. It is WE who should be demanding rights for them.
That is the American way. I'm sorry you don't get it.
excon
Clarification/Follow-up by ETWolverine on 01/05/05 12:18 pm:
Excon,
>>>THEY are not demanding rights. <<<
Yes. The terrorists tend to be honest about what they believe in, and human rights isn't part of it.
>>>It is WE who should be demanding rights for them.<<<
Why? Do I look suicidal to you? Do I seem like the type of person who deliberately empowers my enemies? Do I sound like a liberal?
Elliot
Clarification/Follow-up by tomder55 on 01/05/05 12:51 pm:
you mean the Washington Compost .
This is all precursory to the upcoming Gonzales hearings where the real sparks will fly . Initially I do not have a problem with making alternative plans for the Gitmo facility . I do not even mind if it re: sparks a national debate on the issue.It is a needed debate .
This seems to be a pecular role reversal here . The folks who view things in moral certitude have positioned themselves (and I guess I can be included in this group )to defend grey areas ;and the relativists have suddenly become moral absolutists .
Clarification/Follow-up by excon on 01/05/05 1:06 pm:
Hello again tom:
It is kinda funny how that happened. I think that should be talked about. Then there are some who just keep lock stepping and can't see the conundrum.
Interestingly, I also plant myself firmly in the camp of the moral absolutists. I absolutely defend the Constitution, even when it's not popular to do so. Call me liberal (I don't mind), but I think it applies to everybody we have in custody.
I suppose I could accuse you of relativism, but I'm better than that.
Ok, ok, dudes. That's tongue in cheek. Chill!
excon
Clarification/Follow-up by ETWolverine on 01/05/05 1:59 pm:
Tom,
Good point.
But I don't see this as a 'grey area'. It seems pretty cut-and-dry to me: the terrorists are not protected by either the Geneva Conventions or the US Constitution. They are the enemy.
Setting them free is not a viable option. Empowering them with additional rights is not a viable option. Holding them until the end of the war (or longer if they are deemed to be an ongoing threat) is an option that I can live with, both morally and from a military operations standpoint.
The only other viable option is to execute them... which is fine from a military point of view, but not so fine from a moral one. Keeping them prisoner is the best choice possible, both for the prisoners and for us.
So I don't really see the 'grey area'. As a confirmed "moral absolutist", this is the best moral option. Best for us as the targets of terrorism, and best for the prisoners.
Elliot
Clarification/Follow-up by kindj on 01/05/05 2:14 pm:
Tom,
>>Terrorists are legally the same as the pirates of the 19th century who were routinely hunted down and hanged as enemies of humanity.<<
Now I'm not a lawyer or a historian, but didn't the pirates have a country of origin that they could be deported to for punishment?
Clarification/Follow-up by Itsdb on 01/05/05 2:23 pm:
After reading all the followups, allow me to 'civilly' add more of the report...
"The new prison, dubbed Camp 6, would allow inmates more comfort and freedom than they have now, and would be designed for prisoners the government believes have no more intelligence to share, the officials said. It would be modeled on a U.S. prison and would allow socializing among inmates."
And let me add what the lone democrat quoted said...
"The details about the system may need to remain secret," Harman said. At the least, she said, detainees should be registered so that their treatment can be tracked and monitored within the government. "This is complicated. We don't want to set up a bureaucracy that ends up making it impossible to protect sources and informants who operate within the groups we want to penetrate."
It sounds to me like the plan, at least for this prison is to furnish more freedom and comfort for the detained, and the lone democrat cited admits the situation is 'complicated'.
And that's my point, it's complicated. I'm sure the CIA has fairly good knowledge of what these guys do, even if they can't prove it in court, so do we detain them 'indefinitely' (which shouldn't be interpreted as 'life sentence without being charged'), or do we turn them loose to wreak more destruction? If I were charged with protecting our citizenry you'd have to work pretty hard to convince me that releasing a suspected (for good reason) terrorist was the moral thing to do.
Steve
Clarification/Follow-up by ETWolverine on 01/05/05 3:52 pm:
Kindj,
Pirates, historically speaking, were generally punished by the commanding officer of the ship that captured them... usually without trial. The punishment was usually death.
And no, pirates were generally not deported back to their 'home' countries, for several reasons.
First of all, most pirates had no citizenship anywhere.
Secondly, pirates that DID have connections to specific countries were usually "sponsored" or protected by people high up in those countries governments. In those days, "legitimate" businessmen and political leaders would bankroll "privateers" (another word for pirates) who would pillage and plunder and murder. They would bring the booty back to their "legitimate" benefactor, who would arrange for its disposal through a "legitimate" fence that he did other business with. The benefactor would then take a cut of the profits, and pay the difference to to the pirates. And unless there was specific evidence against this high-class businessman or politician, they were pretty much untouchable by the law. If caught, they would claim they were "duped into handling stolen goods, and look how much they gave back to the community in the form of charity", etc. The law couldn't touch them, and they had enough influence to get their "privateers" cut free if they were jailed. If you deported a pirate, there was a better than even chance that the same pirate would end up on another pirate ship somewhere else, doing the same thing he had been doing before... raping, murdering and stealing. After the first few times the legitimate navies found the same pirates again and again on different ships, they eventually stopped deporting them and just started shooting them and throwing the bodies overboard. As they should have.
So no, historically speaking, pirates were NOT generally deported back to their countries of origin.
Elliot
Clarification/Follow-up by Yiddishkeit on 01/05/05 7:24 pm:
Excon-
Oops! My reply was meant to be a clarification to help answer Kindj's pirate question. First I've heard of the prison "Camp 6." I really don't know the situation to give my view, but it sounds like an interesting subject.
Bobby
Clarification/Follow-up by tomder55 on 01/07/05 1:02 pm:
Men can only be civilized while other men, inevitably less civilized, are there to guard and feed them." George Orwell
