| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: WoT |
| US=Held Ghost Prisioners Ain't So Bad Afterall - UK |
| 2005-08-01 |
| Interesting how recently attacked countries, like UK, change their tune when threatened. ...A senior officer close to the London investigation said: âWe obviously need to know what threat remains and we are asking all our international allies for help even if the standards of their interrogation methods are not as scrupulous as our own. Needs must, I fear.â Amnesty says that Britain should not be using intelligence obtained from these ghost prisoners. Mike Blakemore, its UK media director, said: âThe UK authorities must do their utmost to prevent any repeat of the July 7 bombings and to bring those responsible to justice, but agreeing to the extraction of information from people held in secret and illegal detention is a step too far. No, the UK should ignore intelligence that could save lives. âIllegal detention is the slippery slope to torture and it is vital that the London bombings investigation does not make use of âtorture evidenceâ. âSince September 11, 2001, we have repeatedly raised our concern with the US authorities that âghost detaineesâ are being held in secret detention centres around the world. These âsecret Guantanamosâ should be opened up and prisoners either properly charged or released.â Human Rights First has compiled a dossier on 24 of these secret centres and reveals how the CIA is operating its own airline to shift terror suspects across the world. President Bush says he doesnât know where these prisoners are being held but insists that lives have been saved, including many in Britain, because of information obtained from al-Qaeda figures in custody.... |
| Posted by:Captain America |
| #13 Spemble - if Hillary were President... she'd be so busy throwing White House fixtures at Bill, she wouldn't be paying attention to matters of security... There'd be gangs of us "right wingers" moving about the country causing all kinds of mischief! {Wink} Geez go away for a couple hours to eat some dinner, and all kinds of poop hits the fan... |
| Posted by: BigEd 2005-08-01 22:50 |
| #12 What a ruse! What was the last US enemy that adhered to the Geneva Conventions in their treatment of US soldiers? Viet Cong? No. Saddam Iraq? No. North Koreans? Nada The suggestion that we must adhere to the Geneva Conventions (even when they do not apply) is a fraud. |
| Posted by: Captain America 2005-08-01 22:40 |
| #11 The good of the many outweighs the good of the few, or the one. |
| Posted by: Unomomp Whomotle2072 2005-08-01 22:23 |
| #10 Don't have any easy answers, and the ones I've heard don't convince me either way. In the end we'll do what we've gotta do, but I don't like the idea that there's no problem or danger with it. Hear! Hear! Even if this is a setup. |
| Posted by: Shipman 2005-08-01 21:41 |
| #9 Better to chuck the terrorists out the back of a C-130 at 33,000 feet once all the information is gotten out of them. Maybe. But I know a couple people who did that sort of thing in Nam and if it was good for the country it sure wasn't good for them. They paid a price inside and still do. Don't have any easy answers, and the ones I've heard don't convince me either way. In the end we'll do what we've gotta do, but I don't like the idea that there's no problem or danger with it. |
| Posted by: Spemble Achrinatus9967 2005-08-01 21:35 |
| #8 I can see your point, and if they are American citizens, I would agree. However, these people are not Americans and even going by the Geneva convention, if we catch them out of uniform and not bearing identification of their affiliation, we can legally hang them from the nearest street lamp if we want to. The biggest bonus from the secret prisons, is that communication in the Middle East isn't great. If a cell leader vanishes in a battle in Bagdad, no one will know. Keeping them off the radar so to speak allows stings to be used to round up more terrorist ilk. Besides, highly visable cells and prisons just attact loony senators and self important liberal loons, crying about "abusing" their civil rights when the terrorists are living better than they ever have and better than most of our own prisoners, who are our countrymen. Better to chuck the terrorists out the back of a C-130 at 33,000 feet once all the information is gotten out of them. |
| Posted by: mmurray821 2005-08-01 21:29 |
| #7 Agreed. The problem comes if they weren't or we aren't sure. Look, before you toss out the troll tag at me, just think carefully about the assumptions being made. IF they were captured on the battlefield without identifying insignia, while engaged in attacks or obvious planning of an attack, no problem. And IF we are very sure they are guilty of plotting mass terror attacks, I agree. I'm just really torn about the grey areas. We quite possibly *did* keep a bunch of people in Gitmo who either gave little info or were scooped up without having any serious terror role. I'm not faulting the authorities - I assume most of the US people involved were doing their best after a deadly attack here at home. But I don't ever assume that they will NEVER make mistakes, that none will EVER be corrupt, malicious, or just cover his ass for some stupid mistake by disappearing someone -- if there is an easy way for them to do it. We have to take some risks with civil liberties if we are gonna protect this country and our society. But I'm not willing to do that lightly, know what I mean? |
| Posted by: Spemble Achrinatus9967 2005-08-01 21:21 |
| #6 To add to Jackal's stuff: IF they were attacking innocent men, women and children and IF they were willing and eager to die to promote and further their sick cause, I would be all for torture and public executions. |
| Posted by: mmurray821 2005-08-01 21:15 |
| #5 Me too. OTOH if they were captured on the streets of Rome, drugged and shipped elsewhere I get a little more nervous. Not saying it's the wrong thing to do, but more nervous. |
| Posted by: Spemble Achrinatus9967 2005-08-01 21:13 |
| #4 SA: Assuming you aren't merely a troll (or trollop) and really want an answer, here goes: If these hypothetical right-wingers were captured on the field of battle fighting the US or its allies and if they were violating the laws of war such that a summary execution is appropriate under international law, then yes, I would support indefinite detainment and eventual execution. |
| Posted by: Jackal 2005-08-01 21:12 |
| #3 Well, for the ones who were captured on the battlefield, if we aren't allowed to use intelligence gathered from them, then we might as well do the summary court and execution right now. That suit you better, Assaninity International? |
| Posted by: Jackal 2005-08-01 21:08 |
| #2 Big Ed - if Hillary were President and she okayed keeping "dangerous right wingers who present a threat to our security" locked up on ghost ships, would you feel the same way? Just asking .... |
| Posted by: Spemble Achrinatus9967 2005-08-01 21:06 |
| #1 Ghost Prisioners Ain't So Bad Afterall Were they ever? The Islamonutz started this. If there are a few held on ships (how about a sub?!?!?!) in the Arctic Ocean or in Death Valley, so? Save some lives - extract information however necessary... |
| Posted by: BigEd 2005-08-01 20:53 |