Is it OK for the CIA to have secret prisons?

[Soundsurfr]

Putting aside the question of whether or not the CIA actually is maintaining secret prisons in foreign countries, I'd like to ask the opinions of TWebbers on this subject.

Do you think it would be ok for our government to operate secret prisons in other countries and not inform Congress or the American people?

What do think would be the purpose of doing it?

Is it necessary, and if so, why?

[Pilgrim]

They should not have such prisons. The purposes of such prisons would clearly be to circumvent bad public opinion, the law, or both. And I don't think they are necessary.

[Duder]

Putting aside the question of whether or not the CIA actually is maintaining secret prisons in foreign countries,...

Hello, Soundsurfr -

It isn't necessary to set that question aside as too contoversial. I think everyone grants that the secret prisons do exist (or did exist as of November 2).

The government requests that the exact locations of these secret prisons (the existence of which it declines to confirm) not be disclosed in the media.

The Washington Post is not publishing the names of the Eastern European countries involved in the covert program, at the request of senior U.S. officials. They argued that the disclosure might disrupt counterterrorism efforts in those countries and elsewhere and could make them targets of possible terrorist retaliation.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...110101644.html

Furthermore, Sen. Trent Lott confirmed that the Washington Post's 11/2 article about the secret prisons accurately reflects the substance of Dick Cheney's briefing to Republican senators on the previous day.

(Trent Lott) told CNN that the leak to the Post likely came from Republican senators. Lott said much of the information in the story was discussed at a meeting of Republican senators and Vice President Dick Cheney on Nov. 1, the day before it was published.

http://www.freep.com/news/nw/cia9e_20051109.htm

Yesterday, in responce to European Union concerns about the secret prisons, US State Department spokesman Sean McCormack explained that the secret prisons (which may or may not exist) are necessary in this new, unprecedented kind of war.

"All of these questions, concerning allegations of over-flights and secret detainee sites for those who may have engaged, or intended to engage in terrorist activities, all take place within the context of fighting a war against terrorism," he said. "As I said yesterday, this is a different kind of war. This is a war in which countries, European, American and others around the world, employ all their aspects of national power in order to fight a shadowy enemy."

http://www.voanews.com/english/2005-11-30-voa78.cfm

So I don't think we need to ask these questions in a hypothetical or abstract way. The CIA is (or was as of 11/2) maintaining secret prisons in Eastern Europe for interrogating enemy figures.

_______________

I'd like to ask the opinions of TWebbers on this subject.

Do you think it would be ok for our government to operate secret prisons in other countries and not inform Congress or the American people?

The Bush administration did inform Congress - Republican members of Congress, anyway - at Cheney's 11/1 secret meeting on the Hill. That's how the story about the secret prisons leaked to the press. What I find interesting is that only GOP lawmakers were briefed. Apparently, only Republicans need to know.

What do (you) think would be the purpose of doing it?

Recall why Cheney called the meeting with the GOP senators. He didn't want the McCain anti-torture bill passed. Under current law it would be illegal to torture prisoners in the United States. The McCain bill would make it illegal for agents of the United States to torture people anywhere, and Cheney told the GOP senators that these overseas torture sites were needed for the war effort - for which reason the Senate should not pass the McCain bill (they did pass it, overwhelmingly).

Obviously, the purpose of having secret prisons in Eastern Europe is to circumvent US law and do elsewhere what is illegal to do here. Torture is also illegal in those countries where the CIA prisons are (Poland and Romania) and in the whole European Union, but that is not the United States' problem - it is the host nation's problem.

The host nations are in big trouble with the EU - which is investigating and considering sanctions against the host nations.

Is it necessary, and if so, why?

It would be hard for anyone to say they are necessary. Necessary means that it cannot be any other way - that there is no choice in the matter. And of course, having secret torture sites is optional, not necessary.

A better question is "is it advantageous?" I don't know. It would depend on the quality of the information thus obtained, balanced against the harm done to the detainees and the damage done to the American reputation. My feeling is that in the long run the harm done by these secret prisons will far outweigh any benefit. But then, I am not privy to what information may have been gleaned in this way.


.

[Cowthulu]

But if they informed congress and the American people they wouldn't be "secret" anymore. Sorry, couldn't resist.

[CatholicSage]

They sure as heck better have secret prisons. If we don't know about them, the enemy doesn't either.

Edit: most likely, anyway.

[patteeu]

The Bush administration did inform Congress - Republican members of Congress, anyway - at Cheney's 11/1 secret meeting on the Hill. That's how the story about the secret prisons leaked to the press. What I find interesting is that only GOP lawmakers were briefed. Apparently, only Republicans need to know.

This is conjecture on your part. Even if we stipulate that Cheney did brief a meeting consisting only of Republican Senators, we don't know whether any Democrat Senators have been briefed at some other time. I'd be willing to bet that the ranking members of the Senate Intelligence committee were aware of these prisons, but we will probably never know for sure and I certainly don't have any proof.

As far as the OP question is concerned, my answer is that yes, it is OK. IMO, it wouldn't be OK for US citizens to be taken to these prisons and it wouldn't be OK for foreign soldiers who are protected by the Geneva Convention to be taken to these prisons, but for enemy combatants taken outside the US, I think it's fine. I do think that designated members of the Intelligence Committees ought to be aware of them though.

[James Peter]

I don't think it is acceptable, it is a human rights violation and if the US does not uphold human rights then it cannot condemn others who do not. It is simply hypocritical to hold people without charge and without trial and then to condemn others for doing likewise. Similarly there is the problem that a lack of oversight inevitably leads to other abuses.

I can understand the need not to disclose where somebody is held for security reasons but that doesn't mean that you need to not even reveal that you are holding the person. Keep where you're keeping the prisoner highly classified but allow Red Cross inspections and the fact that somebody is being held outside US soil should not mean they can be treated any differently than if there were held on US soil. Give them a fair (although not public is fine) trial and then hold them securely. Don't just take somebody and throw them into some dark hellhole for the rest of eternity...

[Soundsurfr]

As far as the OP question is concerned, my answer is that yes, it is OK. IMO, it wouldn't be OK for US citizens to be taken to these prisons and it wouldn't be OK for foreign soldiers who are protected by the Geneva Convention to be taken to these prisons, but for enemy combatants taken outside the US, I think it's fine. I do think that designated members of the Intelligence Committees ought to be aware of them though.

So then, similar to our other discussion on torture, can I assume that you would also consider it "ok" (that is, not a war crime) for an enemy country to hold undisclosed US detainees whom they designate as "enemy combatants" in secret prisons in undisclosed locations outside of their own national borders?

[Soundsurfr]

I don't think it is acceptable, it is a human rights violation and if the US does not uphold human rights then it cannot condemn others who do not. It is simply hypocritical to hold people without charge and without trial and then to condemn others for doing likewise. Similarly there is the problem that a lack of oversight inevitably leads to other abuses.

I can understand the need not to disclose where somebody is held for security reasons but that doesn't mean that you need to not even reveal that you are holding the person. Keep where you're keeping the prisoner highly classified but allow Red Cross inspections and the fact that somebody is being held outside US soil should not mean they can be treated any differently than if there were held on US soil. Give them a fair (although not public is fine) trial and then hold them securely. Don't just take somebody and throw them into some dark hellhole for the rest of eternity...

[Jimmy Higgins]

As far as the OP question is concerned, my answer is that yes, it is OK. IMO, it wouldn't be OK for US citizens to be taken to these prisons...

Nice cover... it's alright as long as you don't have to go in one. So much for liberty and justice for all... I guess it's just for Americans. In the US, we give mass murderers justice.

[patteeu]

So then, similar to our other discussion on torture, can I assume that you would also consider it "ok" (that is, not a war crime) for an enemy country to hold undisclosed US detainees whom they designate as "enemy combatants" in secret prisons in undisclosed locations outside of their own national borders?

It's not OK by me for enemy countries to hold US detainees whom they designate "enemy combatants" under any conditions. They should do so at their own risk. FWIW, I don't believe in war crimes. I believe, practically speaking, that the victors in a war define the "war crimes."

[Warcraft3]

Putting aside the question of whether or not the CIA actually is maintaining secret prisons in foreign countries, I'd like to ask the opinions of TWebbers on this subject.

Do you think it would be ok for our government to operate secret prisons in other countries and not inform Congress or the American people?

Its only okay if there is lots and lots of torture going on in the secret prisons....otherwise it is not ok.

[patteeu]

Nice cover... it's alright as long as you don't have to go in one. So much for liberty and justice for all... I guess it's just for Americans. In the US, we give mass murderers justice.

Huh? I think we (the people of the US) should do everything we can to maintain as much of a libertarian society within our borders as possible. I see extending all the rights of citizenship to our external (i.e. non-citizen) adversaries as counterproductive to this goal. I'd rather distinguish between the two groups than curtail freedoms on everyone equally.

While I recognize that our rights are theoretically "inalienable," I also recognize that they can be taken away by the strong arm of the law. I'd rather take away the rights of those who don't even share our beliefs (wrt these rights) than waiting until they have to be taken away from all of us for the sake of national survival.

[Jimmy Higgins]

Huh? I think we (the people of the US) should do everything we can to maintain as much of a libertarian society within our borders as possible. I see extending all the rights of citizenship to our external (i.e. non-citizen) adversaries as counterproductive to this goal. I'd rather distinguish between the two groups than curtail freedoms on everyone equally.

While I recognize that our rights are theoretically "inalienable," I also recognize that they can be taken away by the strong arm of the law. I'd rather take away the rights of those who don't even share our beliefs (wrt these rights) than waiting until they have to be taken away from all of us for the sake of national survival.

So Liberty and Justice for All should read Liberty and Justice for Americans and qualified foreigners?

There are people that have killed ruthlessly in this country and we've given them the justice they deserved, even though they had differing beliefs than most Americans. Why should we do otherwise with people we don't even know are a threat?

[patteeu]

So Liberty and Justice for All should read Liberty and Justice for Americans and qualified foreigners?

There are people that have killed ruthlessly in this country and we've given them the justice they deserved, even though they had differing beliefs than most Americans. Why should we do otherwise with people we don't even know are a threat?

Yep, that's right. Why shouldn't we?