Bush admits to CIA secret prisons

Hobbes

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5321606.stm

Only admitting it now because they have (supposedly) moved all the people who were renditioned to Gitmo. That is supposed to make us feel better? o_O

Frederico

Has anyone seen any of these people, who were captured and tortured in these CIA prisons, actually interviewed on mainstream TV?.. or a news station? I can only seem to find small random columns in newspapers about it maybe.

A Dub in Glasgo

I have seen interviews with the British guys who have been released from Gitmo

It is highly unlikely you will ever get a TV interview with any of the people who have been rendered. Heck, up until this statement, a lot of people were calling it hat foil tin stuff.

Loved the bit in the report that Bush 'denied the use of torture.' lol

Manic Moran

I don't seem to recall the major drama being over the existance of the prisoners, as much as whether or not they stopped at Shannon on the way over, which has not been addressed.

NTM

Hobbes

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

It is highly unlikely you will ever get a TV interview with any of the people who have been rendered. Heck, up until this statement, a lot of people were calling it hat foil tin stuff.

Well the most famous one I know of is the Canadian National who was renditioned from the US to Syria and tourtred.

http://www.maherarar.ca/ (for those that missed it).

MM wrote:

I don't seem to recall the major drama being over the existance of the prisoners, as much as whether or not they stopped at Shannon on the way over, which has not been addressed.

Actually that was the major drama. The US where claiming no rendition flights went through the EU.

Sleipnir

Guys call it what it is, not what the Bush administration calls it.

It's kidnap, not "renditioning" They were taken from there homes or wherever without being arrested by the police force of a legitimate government.
These people were kidnapped, plain and simple.

sovtek

I noticed that he referred to everyone in Gitmo as "turrists".

Frederico

Manic Moran wrote:

I don't seem to recall the major drama being over the existance of the prisoners, as much as whether or not they stopped at Shannon on the way over, which has not been addressed.

NTM

I remember it being quite an issue in the news, and debates as to whether they existed or not, there was even a long post on this boards if someone wants to dig it up. So the US government lied again, no surprise there.

lostexpectation

its wonder what the countries with these sites or helped in the transfer will say anymore now, post it if you see nay info on that

Moriarty

Hobbes wrote:

Bush admits to renditions

No he didn't.

Hobbes wrote:

bush admits the us outsource torture

No he didn't.

It would be nice if you could at least put your political bias aside long enough to not lie and mislead in the opening post of a thread. Otherwise, there's always indymedia.

ircoha

Mod:
Unless the the tags and heading of this post can be verified, I believe they need to be corrected as they are misleading.

Edit: have just noticed that the OP is a mod on the boards, which is not acceptable in my opinion.

I am not pro Bush etc, I am pro accurate reporting of publically verifiable information which in many cases may be lies anyway but at least the the reporting on boards be verifiable.

Edit 2: thanks to mod for changing titles.

Edit 3. May have offended OP with my comments, never my intention to do so so remarks removed.
OP: If I did offend, sorry.

Ok thread title changed to mirror the title in the BBC news report quoted.

Hobbes

Moriarty wrote:

No he didn't.

So they just magically appeared in these countries to be tourtured? Or prehaps they bought thier own tickets to totally different countries so that they could be tourtured?

No he didn't.

Yes he did. What he didn't do was admit he had anything to do with it if anything he denies it.

It would be nice if you could at least put your political bias aside long enough to not lie and mislead

If I am lying or misleading prehaps you could point that out instead of "No he didn't".

oscarBravo

ircoha wrote:

Edit: have just noticed that the OP is a mod on the boards, which is not acceptable in my opinion. I note that the OP is a mod of Islam. Is that a clue?

He's not a mod on this board. End of discussion.

gandalf

BTW the OP is mod of the Islam forum but is in fact not Muslim, anyway what has that got to do with this.

As for the tags I believe they are accurate and the US is outsourcing torture and they have just admitted as much.

Hobbes

It basically all turns down to word games.

I say tourture, Bush says "tough but necessary interrogation methods"

I say rendition, Bush says "it's been necessary to move these individuals to an environment where they can be held secretly, questioned by experts, and when appropriate, prosecuted for terrorist acts"

They are moved into countries where Tourture is used and can then claim "Well they aren't on American Soil so our laws don't apply".

Here is another take on it.
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/09/07/bush_admits_to_cia_jails_top_suspects_are_relocated/

He's not doing this because he cares about human rights, he's doing it because of the elections in November.

sovtek

Hobbes wrote:

It basically all turns down to word games.

I say tourture, Bush says "tough but necessary interrogation methods"

I say rendition, Bush says "it's been necessary to move these individuals to an environment where they can be held secretly, questioned by experts, and when appropriate, prosecuted for terrorist acts"

They are moved into countries where Tourture is used and can then claim "Well they aren't on American Soil so our laws don't apply".

I believe it's also illegal (Geneva Convention) to move POW's to another country in the first place.

Moriarty

Hobbes, did Bush at any point say 'We admit we carry out rendition' or 'We admit that the US outsources torture'? No, he didn't. So you're both misleading and lying in the original post.

gandalf wrote:

As for the tags I believe they are accurate and the US is outsourcing torture and they have just admitted as much.

You believe. You can believe the moon is made of cheese for all I care. If you lied and misrepresented the facts to make people believe that the moon was infact indisputably made of cheese, I'd also have a problem with that.

Lies, propaganda and misinformation are wrong, no matter what side they come from.

The Saint

sovtek wrote:

I believe it's also illegal (Geneva Convention) to move POW's to another country in the first place.

But luckily you can just redefine them as enemy combatants to circumvent international law as you please therefore giving them no legal status so you can do anything you want to them. There is bugger all anyone else can do about it given the position of power that the US is in.

Hobbes

Moriarty wrote:

Hobbes, did Bush at any point say 'We admit we carry out rendition' or 'We admit that the US outsources torture'? No, he didn't. So you're both misleading and lying in the original post.

I am not misreading anything. He said he did not authorise torture, however his has said they are using thier own interegation techniques. Of course his defination of torture and the rest of the worlds is very different.

Prehaps you can fill us in exactly in what way transporting a prisoner from thier own country to a non-US country in secret helps. If thats the case why not just move them to Gitmo and be done with it?

Also I suggest you read up the reports of people who have been released in such instances. There is already a link in the thread to one of them who spent a year in Syria being tourtured and if wasn't for the fact he was Canadian and had family looking for him probably would never of been released so soon.

gandalf

So what would you class "water boarding" as then, an aggressive shower maybe?? What they are doing is wrong and is torture and illegal movement of prisioners, infact it is kidnapping.

If these people do not follow the letter of the law then they are as bad as those they claim to fighting. To justify torture, kidnapping, ignoring the letter of the law to "protect peoples freedoms" is an oxymoron and smacks of hypocrasy of the most distasteful and disgusting kind.

Moriarty

Apparently neither of you get it. You've both being proffering opinion as reported fact. Hobbes has stated things which just aren't true.

Why do you feel the need to lie and distort to get your point across? Why not just let the plain facts speak for themselves instead of editorialising to the point of deceit?

Victor

Moriarty wrote:

You can believe the moon is made of cheese for all I care.

This bit doesn't kill people.

RedPlanet

Should we presume American's would be ok with [insert foreign country here] lift an "enemy combatant" (read: US Marine or BlackWater employee) from America and secretly transported them to another country for "interrogation"?

How about it Manic Moran?

The Saint

RedPlanet wrote:

Should we presume American's would be ok with [insert foreign country here] lift an "enemy combatant" (read: US Marine or BlackWater employee) from America and secretly transported them to another country for "interrogation"?

How about it Manic Moran?

But they wouldn't be 'enemy combatants'.

bonkey

I find it somewhat amusing that you guys are bickering over somthing Hobbes allegedly said in the original post, but which is no longer there.

I would also note that there is a distinction between saying something that is untrue, saying something that may be untrue, and lying. Whether or not Hobbes is correct in what he claims, if he believes he is correct then he cannot be deliberately misleading and thus cannot be lying. He can be wrong (and thats a matter of perspective rather than fact), but unless someone can show that Hobbes believes what he says is incorrect then I would suggest the moderators should be taking a long, hard look at the multiple accusations of lying going on here and asking for them to be retracted rather than worrying about what Hobbes might have said in a post thats no longer part of the thread.

Of course...not being a moderator myself, my opinion on teh matter should be worthless and I should probably be cautioned for offering it...just like everyone else here who's discussing moderation.

Getting back on topic

I disagree with Hobbes assertion that this is being announced now because the people in question have allegedly all been removed to Gitmo. I think instead, its being put out into the open at a very-carefully-timed 4 days before the 5th anniversary of 11/9/2001. The cynic in me would say that the publication of information on the healtcare plight of neglected 911 first-responders is also tied in.

Put simply, this isn't a story Bush wants breaking at a time other than of his choosing. So its out in the open, by his own admission, at a time when the country is about to get caught up in remembering a tragedy and having their anger rekindled at whoever their told to blame.

Bush will. I believe, also step in to "rescue" the neglected first-responders (or at least promise rescue to them) within the next 10 days, showing that he really does have America's best interests at heart.

This being an election year, the unpleasant questions of rendition, torture, etc. will be minimised, and offset as much as possible by a big reminder of why they are allegedly necessary, and plenty of photo-ops to show how Evil those Tourists really are, and how keeping the country safe is far more important than worrying about those few who might suffer so that America doesn't have to.

Subsequent to the refocussing of the public psyche on all of this in the coming week, the Republican Election Machine (no, not Diebold) will swing into full gear, and security and the threat from terrorism will be once again kept centre-stage until such times as the Senate is secured from those Cheeseburger-Eating Surrender Monkey Democrats.

Moriarty

Victor wrote:

This bit doesn't kill people.

Oh right, so it's ok to lie or mislead for the greater good as you see it then.

mmmmm.. hypocrisy. Tasty.

bonkey

RedPlanet wrote:

Should we presume American's would be ok with [insert foreign country here] lift an "enemy combatant" (read: US Marine or BlackWater employee) from America and secretly transported them to another country for "interrogation"?

Or indeed if they were lifted from a third country...say, while on vacation.

I'm guessing its a case of "one law for us (or US), and one for the rest of them"....

which leads nicely to....

...a quick quiz...who wrote the following, and what were they writing about...

Section 1b--Disappearance
"There were reports of disappearances perpetrated by government forces during the year, some of which may have been politically motivated. In nearly all cases, security forces abducted persons and detained them in undisclosed locations for varying lengths of time ranging from weeks to months."

Section 1c--Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment
"The constitution prohibits torture....Nevertheless, there were numerous credible reports that security forces and prison personnel tortured detainees and prisoners."

Section 1d--Arbitrary Arrest or Detention
"In practice there is no legal time limit for incommunicado detention nor any judicial means to determine the legality of detention. In the period immediately following detention or arrest, many detainees were held incommunicado and denied access to lawyers and family members. Security forces often did not inform family members of a prisoner's welfare and location. Authorities often denied visits by family members and legal counsel."

Section 1e--Denial of Fair Public Trial
"The constitution provides for an independent judiciary; the judiciary was under intense pressure to conform to government policies, and the government repeatedly refused to abide by judicial decisions."

Section 1f--Arbitrary Interference with Privacy, Family, Home, or Correspondence
"Security forces monitored the social activities of citizens, entered homes and offices, monitored telephone conversations, and opened mail without court authorization."

Section 3--Government Corruption and Transparency
"Top ruling party officials and businessmen supporting the ruling party received priority in distribution of the country's resources..."

"In practice the government occasionally denied access to information, citing reasons of confidentiality or national security."

Section 4--Governmental Attitude Regarding International and Nongovernmental Investigation of Alleged Violations of Human Rights
"ICRC [International Committee of the Red Cross] access to prison and other detention facilities was restricted..."

Victor

I'm guessing it is U.S. Department of State "Country Report" language (lots of use of stock phrases) ... about Iraq?

Moriarty

Ethiopia.

Hobbes

Quick Google. Report by a US body on Iran.
http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2003/27927.htm

Oh right, so it's ok to lie or mislead for the greater good as you see it then.

You say fortnight, I say two weeks. Which one is a lie?

bonkey

Source is indeed correct. US State Department "Country Report" 2006.

As to who its talking about...no one specific country, actually. Its just a list of things the US notes are unacceptable or disapproves of when other countries get up to them...but which are defended to the hilt as good, democratic, legal, necessary, freedom=protecting practices when they themselves get a piece of the same action.

To give credit where credit is due, I took the material from this blog entry, which caught my eye cause I was looking at the guys book in the bookshop today.

Moriarty

Hobbes wrote:

You say fortnight, I say two weeks. Which one is a lie?

Neither. But that isn't a valid comparison. Bush admiting to CIA secret prisons around the world and Bush (not) admiting to rendition and "outsourcing torture" are two very different things. They aren't two sides of the same coin.

As more of a general point instead of something specific to just this thread, I find it tiresome when people have to resort to creating emotive - often inaccurate to the point of misleading - soundbites while attempting to persuade people of their position. If a position is worthy of support, it doesn't need pimping up with flashy tabloid headlines.

freddyfreeload

From today's Guardian:

"George Bush acknowledged for the first time yesterday the existence of a secret CIA prison network, and said the mastermind of the September 11 2001 terror attacks and other high-value detainees had been transferred to Guantánamo Bay."

Call it transfer from secret CIA prisons to Gitmo, or rendition, detention without trial, internment, kidnapping, whatever: I can't find any basis for it in law.

As for whether the methods used in interogating these and other prisoners are torture or "an alternative set of procedures that are tough, safe, lawful and necessary," you can make your own minds up by reading Amnesty's report on the detention in Afghanistan and Guantánamo Bay of Shafiq Rasul, Asif Iqbal and Rhuhel Ahmed, the recently released British detainees.

Here a some excerpts:

"They kept calling us mother f****rs and I think over the three or four hours
that I was sitting there, I must have been punched, kicked, slapped or struck
with a rifle butt at least 30 or 40 times."

After this tent, Shafiq was taken by the soldiers who were carrying a blanket and clothes (though he had to walk naked) through a maze made out of barbed wire. Even the doors in the maze were made of barbed wire. If he tripped or slipped, which was likely given how exhausted he was, the wire would cut him.

"An American came into the tent and shouted at me telling me I was Al-Qaeda. I said I was not involved in Al-Qaeda and did not support them. At this, he started to punch me violently and then when he knocked me to the floor started to kick me around my back and in my stomach."

"I was taken outside. I was completely naked with a sack on my head and I could hear dogs barking nearby and soldiers shouting “get ‘em boy”. Although I couldn’t see I had a sense that there were a lot of soldiers around. I was taken, still naked with a sack on my head, to another tent for a so called cavity search. I was told to bend over and then I felt something shoved up my anus. I don’t know what it was but it was very painful."

"After three days I was taken to “the Brown building”. I was long shackled
and sat in a chair. I was left in a room and strobe lighting was put on and very loud music. It was a dance version of Eminem played repeatedly again and again. I was left in the room with the strobe lighting and loud music for about an hour before I was taken back to my cell. Nobody questioned me."

"I certainly began to think that junior interrogators were being brought in to “practice” on us because they would repeatedly go over the same ground that had been covered by another interrogator say a week or ten days earlier. They were often junior and confused about our background or the circumstances that had led to us arriving in Guantanamo".

ff

oscarBravo

Moriarty wrote:

If a position is worthy of support, it doesn't need pimping up with flashy tabloid headlines.

It also doesn't warrant accusations of lying, which - as bonkey has pointed out - are unfounded and against the charter.

bonkey banned for three minutes for moderating after he was supposed to have retired.

Hobbes

Moriarty wrote:

They aren't two sides of the same coin.

*Shrug* Heres a defination for you.

Rendition is the practice of clandestine capture and extradition of individual suspects outside the country in which they were caught. Suspects are moved to third countries for the purposes of detention, interrogation, and, it is alleged, torture.

Strange, that sounds exactly like transferring prisoners to secret CIA prisons in other countries. Prehaps we should rewrite what the term rendition means?

As for torture. Bush himself says "tough but necessary interrogation methods". What is that exactly? A stern talking to? No tea and crumpets if they don't answer the questions?

I'll leave it to you to define that one, I've already read the reports of those who have been in "tough but necessary" interrogrations in these camps.

[edit] Actually Moriarty is right. This isn't rendition. I take it all back. The correct term is "Extraordinary rendition".

Hobbes

Heres a few you can go read up on that got extraordinary Rendition.

Mamdouh Habib - Australian/Egyptian duel nationality. Detained in pakistan. Sent to Egypt then Gitmo. Tortured and later released without any charge. Austraila had to pay an insane amount of cash to bring him home because the US refused to. Total time detained: 4 years.

Ibn al-Shaykh al-Lib - Claimed AQ and his interrogation reports are the basis that the Iraq war was started on. Later the belief is he fabricated it to stop the interrogations.

Mohammad Al-Zery - Taken from Sweden to Egypt. Tourtured. Released without charge. Total 2 years.

Ahmed Agiza - Taken from Sweden to Egypt. Currently charged with 25 years.

Abu Omar - Kidnapped by the CIA from Italy while an italian investigation was going on to capture him and his people working with him. Deported to Egypt. Currently all CIA involved are wanted in Italy on charges.

Khaled el-Masri - Kuwait born, German nationality. Taken while on holiday and sent to Afganistan. Tortured for five months and then released without charge or any details as to why he was taken in the first place. Dumped in Albaina and had to make his own way back to Germany. Sometime later the CIA operative in charge claimed he was picked up "on a hunch".

Laid Saidi - Algerian. Abducted in Tanzania and taken to Afghanistan. Held for 1 year + 4 months and then released without charge. Was taken because his phone conversation that was being tapped was mistranslated.

Maher Arar - Link back in the thread for that one.

Saddiq Ahmad Turkistani - Freed from Taliban prison by US forces. Was in jail for attempting to kill OBL. Was then transported to a jail in Afganistan and then to Gitmo where he spent 4 years. Released without any charges.

Moriarty

I love the presumption that I'm a card carrying neo-con with diametrically opposing views to you because I dared to possibly deviate slightly from the party line.

I'm well aware of what has been and is going on. Thanks for your interest though.

Hobbes

Moriarty wrote:

I love the presumption that I'm a card carrying neo-con with diametrically opposing views to you because I dared to possibly deviate slightly from the party line.

Your presumption. Not mine. I don't recall saying any of that.

You call me a liar I point out why I am not. All I am saying is a rose by any other name is still a rose.

If you think otherwise prehaps something a bit more other then "Liar" or "Hes calling me names". I'll even agree to read it.

Mick86

Sleipnir wrote:

Guys call it what it is, not what the Bush administration calls it.

It's kidnap, not "renditioning" They were taken from there homes or wherever without being arrested by the police force of a legitimate government.
These people were kidnapped, plain and simple.

Have any of them been beheaded and their deaths broadcast on CNN?

Seth Brundle

Mick86 wrote:

Have any of them been beheaded and their deaths broadcast on CNN?

It would be very unusual for a western station to show any direct killing (bombing from afar excepted)

As for showing stuff on TV - C4 did a good series about a year ago
www.channel4.com/news/microsites/T/torture/index.html

Frederico

Mick86 wrote:

Have any of them been beheaded and their deaths broadcast on CNN?

Comparing us to them?

At least we don't behead them and show their deaths on TV.. is that what you are saying?

RedPlanet

Mick86 wrote:

Have any of them been beheaded and their deaths broadcast on CNN?

um, yeah....
Because...wait i think i got it:

Because Kidnapping someone, tormenting them for a few weeks before brutally killing them is worse than kidnapping them, secretly transporting them, torturing them then imprisoning them indefinately.

So civilised.

ISAW

Originally Posted by Sleipnir
Guys call it what it is, not what the Bush administration calls it.

It's kidnap, not "renditioning" They were taken from there homes or wherever without being arrested by the police force of a legitimate government.
These people were kidnapped, plain and simple.

Mick86 wrote:

Have any of them been beheaded and their deaths broadcast on CNN?

Oh so the definition of kidnap now includes beheading and broadcasting on CNN does it? Look the european versiuon of CNN international shows things that the US CNN light wont show. the exact same coverage can be "slanted" by adding or changing the titling scrolling on the screen.

also US TV is loathe to show dead american soldiers. A nipple at the superbowl became a natinal issue for Gods sake!

So your "what aboutery" slant that "The US is kidnapping but others are doing worse" just doesn't gel! Two wrongs do not make a right and it is not for the civilised state to copy the methods of terrorists and barbarians!

Tha Gopher

Moriarty wrote:

Apparently neither of you get it. You've both being proffering opinion as reported fact. Hobbes has stated things which just aren't true.

Stop the press, Hobbes has lied?

If you think thats a lie check out the Traveller threads from last Christmas. Pork pies for everybody......


Admittedtly Im sure mistakes must have been made and innocent people framed. Whilst Im not huge pro Bush (and I utterly completely despise Blair) the US is not in the business of kidnapping innocent muslims for no good reason. If they were, you wouldnt of heard of these mens stories via sympathetic websites, we would have learned their names by triumphant "we got `em" reports on Fox News.

Hobbes

Tha Gopher wrote:

Stop the press, Hobbes has lied?

If you think I am lying kindly post why (with facts rather then opinion) or STFU. And give it a rest with the stupid traveller thread. Seems to be your response to everything.

the US is not in the business of kidnapping innocent muslims for no good reason.

Go read up on why some of them where arrested. For some examples, "CIA mistranslating phone conversation", "A hunch", "Similar sounding name".

They are being detained on little to no evidence of any such crime.

oscarBravo

Tha Gopher wrote:

If you think thats a lie check out the Traveller threads from last Christmas. Pork pies for everybody......

I'm not sure what your personal issue with Hobbes is, but it has no place on this board. If you drag an argument from another board in here again you will be banned.

Hobbes, you know where the "report post" button is.

ISAW

Tha Gopher wrote:

the US is not in the business of kidnapping innocent muslims for no good reason. If they were, you wouldnt of heard of these mens stories via sympathetic websites, we would have learned their names by triumphant "we got `em" reports on Fox News.

Actually we got both! But your analysis is not good enough! It is just not acceptable to say you believe if something is going wrong then we will find out about it. Isnt it ab bit hypocritical to demand the Gardai, politicians, the GAA etc. all have systems to expose abuse but then not have similar systems elsewhere?

as regards the Us not intervening and only doing it for a "just cause"
http://www.zmag.org/crisescurevts/interventions.htm

Iraq has gone through this type of "democratisation" before. In the 1920's for example. that was the French and Brits but as you can see from Above the US also have a record of "democratisation". It just isnt good enough to say "wait and see". We were told that about WMD. We waited. WE didnt see any WMD.

Hobbes

Interview of Bush, the reporter trying to bring him up on waterboarding.

http://onegoodmove.org/1gm/1gmarchive/2006/09/cover_your_ass.html

Summary: Bush claims that the CIA were not torturing people, they were "using techniques within the law". When asked about Waterboarding he totally blanks the question.

As we know waterboarding is being used and Bush saying "Legal and within the law".

So the other question he blanks is that if this is within in the law then why did they have to send these people off to secret prisons.

Bushes quote "Whatever we have done is legal".

Hobbes

Hobbes wrote:

Bushes quote "Whatever we have done is legal".

But wasn't it the Americans themselves that helped to determine that this isn't a valid response? If its within the Law, it doesn't mean its automatically acceptable. Weren't the majority of the crimes that Saddam did, legal under Iraq law? I doubt he received much of a defense from that argument..;)

Thread split.
All the off topic posts have been moved to a new thread here