CIA's Secret Prisons >>> Debate the Legality, Morality and al Qaeda Enemies

[Richbee]

CIA holds terror suspects in secret prisons

Debate grows within agency about legality, morality of approach

Updated: 7:57 a.m. ET Nov. 2, 2005

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 Washington Post via MSNBC.com

[themuzicman]

What legal rights does a foreign terrorist have again? (Hint: Almost none)

[Richbee]

What legal rights does a foreign terrorist have again? (Hint: Almost none)

We do respect basic human rights, and personally, I believe that our prisoners are threated better in our prisons than say under the former Taliban or say under Palestinian rule.

I hope we have a special place reserved for Osama bin Laden and his faithful followers.

[Jimmy Higgins]

What legal rights does a foreign terrorist have again? (Hint: Almost none)

"foreign terrorist"? So you know they are "foreign terrorists"? Besides, holding these terrorists hasn't prevented the Madrid, London and Bali attacks. Just what good has come from holding these people secretly?

[themuzicman]

"foreign terrorist"? So you know they are "foreign terrorists"? Besides, holding these terrorists hasn't prevented the Madrid, London and Bali attacks. Just what good has come from holding these people secretly?

You could ask the same thing about the US law enforcement system:

"Banks are still robbed, so why are we putting bank robbers in jail, if it doesn't sotp bank robberies?"

[Blemonds]

"foreign terrorist"? So you know they are "foreign terrorists"? Besides, holding these terrorists hasn't prevented the Madrid, London and Bali attacks. Just what good has come from holding these people secretly?

The fact that the Madrid, London and Bali attacks were not prevented is not evidence that other attacks were not prevented.

[Pilgrim]

the point is that we have no way of knowing if they really are foreign terrorists. One of the criticisms has been that innocent people have been detained for great lengths of time with no recourse what so ever.

Innocent until proven guilty right? That's not an idea that was meant to apply to citizens of the US only, rather it was a universal principle that is applied to our system.

[themuzicman]

the point is that we have no way of knowing if they really are foreign terrorists. One of the criticisms has been that innocent people have been detained for great lengths of time with no recourse what so ever.

Innocent until proven guilty right? That's not an idea that was meant to apply to citizens of the US only, rather it was a universal principle that is applied to our system.

Umm... No, that's a principle of our constitution related to civil matters.

[Pilgrim]

It's a principle of the constitution based on a common sense and logical approach to all circumstance. In other words the principle come from somewhere, it's not just made up.

[geochron]

It's a principle of the constitution based on a common sense and logical approach to all circumstance. In other words the principle come from somewhere, it's not just made up.

The Dream A group of people, faced with oppression by the leading military power of their time, articulate their values.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness

No person shall be [...] deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;

The Reality A citizen of the leading military power of its time, faced with a few terrorists, interprets what they wrote.

"Innocent until proven guilty right? That's not an idea that was meant to apply to citizens of the US only, rather it was a universal principle that is applied to our system."

Umm... No, that's a principle of our constitution related to civil matters.

[themuzicman]

It's a principle of the constitution based on a common sense and logical approach to all circumstance. In other words the principle come from somewhere, it's not just made up.

In a case where we're talking about civil law, sure. But these are enemy combatants. Whole different ballgame.

[Jimmy Higgins]

In a case where we're talking about civil law, sure. But these are enemy combatants. Whole different ballgame.

Yeah, except for the fact that we don't know if these people are "enemy combatants" or whether they are a threat. You keep making an assumption that these people are the threat.

You could ask the same thing about the US law enforcement system:

"Banks are still robbed, so why are we putting bank robbers in jail, if it doesn't sotp bank robberies?"

No, it's not the same thing. We try and convict or acquit people charged with these crimes. We don't lock up people we think are likely to rob someone and hope no one gets robbed later.

The fact that the Madrid, London and Bali attacks were not prevented is not evidence that other attacks were not prevented.

And I'm waiting for evidence that detaining these mystery people has given the US even the slightest bit more security. On it's face, at best it's inconclusive.

[Pilgrim]

In a case where we're talking about civil law, sure. But these are enemy combatants. Whole different ballgame.

The apriori is that they are enemy combatants. That is really in dispute.

[Duder]

What legal rights does a foreign terrorist have again? (Hint: Almost none)

Hello, MuzMan-

How does one qualify to receive the designation foreign terrorist that would reduce one's rights to "almost none"? Presumably, it is your point that a foreign terrorist, as a member of a special catagory, is treated differently than a garden variety bad guy or enemy. Can you give just a brief sketch of the process whereby it is decided to give a person the official designation of "foreign terrorist" that consigns him to receiving special treatment?

Secondly, after having been officially designated a foreign terrorist, what rights do remain in the posession of this individual after his other rights have been revoked?

These questions are crucial. They probe the differences between suspects and convicts, who is empowered to decide which is which, and the philosophical basis for making these decisions. At the heart of American legal thinking is the presumption of innocence - a guiding principle that is intended to prevent atrocious and capricious behavior by agents of the United States of America. Some of the procedures that follow from the presumption of innocence are jury trials, the right to remain silent, the right to council, the rights of equal protection under the law and of due process, and the rights of life, liberty and property. A suspect retains these rights, but he loses some of them if his status officially changes to convict.

Why do we want to prevent the atrocious and capricious treatment of persons by agents of the USA? There are three reasons that occur to me right now. First, I do not want for myself or for my loved ones to be treated atrociously or capriciosly, and for that reason I implicitly extend to all other people the presumption of innocence and all of things that follow from it. Secondly, even if my loved ones and I are in no danger of receiving atrocious and capricious treatment, I extend the presumption of innocence to all other people, even if they are not citizens of the United States, in hopes that other nations will follow the example we set and refrain from treating Americans atrociously or capriciously. Finally, and quite aside from what might happen to me, to my loved ones or to my countrymen, I extend the presumption of innocence and all of these rights simply as a matter of fairness and of basic human compassion.

As to the matter of these secret CIA prisons: they are intended to operate beyond the rule of law. To put it another way, the people who proposed, founded and operate them wish to do something that is illegal. I know that because they are secret. The people who operate them do not want ordinary people to know that they exist or what happens inside of them. Because if ordinary people did know about their existence and about what happens inside of them, the people might demand that these secret CIA prisons stop existing and demand that what happens inside of them should stop happening because it is illegal and because of all the reasons outlined above that discuss why we do not want to treat people atrociously or capriciously.

The issue of these secret CIA prisons might turn out to be the political scandal that will make Watergate look like a minor embarassment.

[themuzicman]

Yeah, except for the fact that we don't know if these people are "enemy combatants" or whether they are a threat. You keep making an assumption that these people are the threat.

And the purpose of investigation and interrogation them is to first determine whether they ARE terrorists or not.

No, it's not the same thing. We try and convict or acquit people charged with these crimes. We don't lock up people we think are likely to rob someone and hope no one gets robbed later.

And were this a civil matter, you'd have a point. But it's not, so you don't.

And I'm waiting for evidence that detaining these mystery people has given the US even the slightest bit more security. On it's face, at best it's inconclusive.

Let's see...


More terrorists running around.... less terrorist srunning around...More terrorists running around.... less terrorist srunning around...More terrorists running around.... less terrorist srunning around...

Which would YOU prefer?

Michael