Redstate

I'm sure a criminal referral is on the way any moment now.

They have to feel forgotten and abandoned before they break. Pain doesn't do it. Abandonment is what gets results. If they know they're in American custody on American soil (sort of), they'll never break. They're not stupid. They know they have Americans like Ted Kennedy and Dick Durbin fighting for them. It gives them hope. First thing that has to go ... is hope.

I don't want them in a Cuban jail.  I want them sent to Sweden where they're given a sex change and then sent to Afghanistan.

Not only is it ill-conceived and unnecessary it is a black eye for America and counter to all this nation is founded on, and our founding fathers fought and died for.

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

-- Ben Franklin

Gitmo is not like Club Med.  

We're not giving up our liberty, we're taking theirs away from them.

If al-Qaeda were to operate within the accepted rules of war (wear a uniform, not target civilians, agree to acceptable treatment of prisoners, etc. and etc.) then we can start discussing how we treat enemy combatants when we capture them.

I have no qualms about regulating how we treat prisoners of war when we bring them to Guantanamo or military prisons in Iraq.  The military doesn't have the training or knowledge or personnel to do anything but house the terrorists until they are tried and convicted or released.

But I also have no qualms about letting the CIA and trained operatives do whatever is necessary to crush the terrorists.  If that means torture, murder, or whatever, so long as the CIA and operatives are approriately trained, so be it.

Franklin and others lived in a slightly more noble time.  Recall that it was Washington who used unconventional tactics against the British.  We were supposd to march into a field, stand and fire against each other until we charged.  War has changed a bit.

I know it was fun to write, but this is the most hilarious bit of hyperbole I believe I've read here with the added irony that you probably meant for it to be taken seriously.

may well be very well worth bearing, given the newfound inclination of the courts to meddle in this stuff.

The political cost we cannot bear is that of intel agencies trying to set policy, play politics, and acting as independent forces in our system of government.  Agency officials who do this should, well, be frog marched off to prison in shackles.

Maybe the former but hardly the latter.

I find it a real stretch to generate outrage over  this. Here we have 100 +/- people, most of whom have committed egregious violations against the norms of civilized behavior, and we are supposed to be upset because they are kept incommunicado?

And how anyone can look at the farce of the Zacharias Moussaoui trial and think that the cause of justice, much less the war effort, would be forward a whit by multiplying that times 100 just leaves me shaken.

I thought he was calling the article and coverage in the Post ill-conceived and unnecessary.  On that I'd agree.

My mistake...

A special prosecutor should be appointed to find out who is the source of the leak of this classified information.  US national security has clearly been damaged as a result.  

Who could be the source?  I have three candidates:  Sens. Rockefeller, Durbin, and Wyden.  They have a history of leaking classified information.  Both openly discussed a classified satellite program that the CIA was working on.  This was a "black program" that the Agency would not even discuss let alone confirm the existence of.  

If we're serious about exposing leakers for national security reasons, shouldn't this leaker be investigated?  As a matter of fact, shouldn't the Senate be shut down every day until the investigation is commenced?  Or is it only improtant to investigate alleged leakes from Republicans?

... is how the h*ll did the Dana Preist and the Washington Post find out about these places? If they are supposed to be secret who talked? How about a Congressional investigation or a special presecutor for the real problem?

The Washington glitterati has been all up in arms about Plamegate but no one seems to be interested in the apparent security sieve that is operating at Langley or Capitol Hill. Silly boy, of course they are not interested. Screw national security as long as the Bush administration gets embarrassed.

On behalf of those who live out here in the real world, not the "reality-based community" mind you --- the real world, the best thing that we could do would be to build a 30 foot high wall along the Beltway and move the government to an abandoned stripmall in Ottumwa Iowa. On the other hand what did the people of Iowa do to deserve that kind of punishment?

After watching the circus inside the Beltway for the last few years all I can say is a pox on all their houses. Is there anyone left inside that asylum that gives a d*mn about their  country? And before someone responds that blowing the lid on these kinds detention facilities is the true patriotism, don't bother.

----------------

...provide those same feelings of aloneness and abandonment at Gitmo?

After reading this, the question that lingers is why those in CIA custody aren't taken to Gitmo.  Why shouldn't thirty of the worst-of-the-worst al Qaeda members be put before a competent military tribunal, and if so judged, be left to rot in a jail cell in Cuba.  The only reason it seems to exist is turf.

If you were a betting man, I would recommend putting money on the fact that with prisoners in secret prisons, you can do whatever you want to them, with pretty much no fear of legal repercussions.

Why did Cheney and Goss try to get "CIA can torture" provisions into the anti-torture legislation (voted yes by 90 senators, even)? Maybe this is the reason.

The reason you establish secret prisons is to circumvent the laws in your own country, which is why they did this.

And I can't believe there aren't more of you RS'ers who are just disgusted. Here's the bottom line: America is better than this.

To quote from Right Wing Nut House:

What is going on here? Since when should a law that bars the deliberate infliction of pain on another human being - again, I don't care if he is a murdering terrorist - exempt people who are beyond the oversight of Congress in the first place? By adhering to policies like this, aren't we in danger of becoming the very thing we are fighting against? At what cost to our souls are we trying to save our lives? Does it matter? Does anyone care?

answer that question? That the CIA was concerned about the prisoners coming under cognizance of US courts.

He should've been classified an illegal combatant, judged by a military tribunal and sent to Gitmo.  Why not do the same for the other 100?

not just the substantive result.  While I have not a whit of sympathy for those that actually have violated the rules of war under Conventions III and IV of the Geneva Conventions.  The issue for me is how some of these detainees have ended up in secret prisons run by the CIA.  Many were handed over by the Northern Alliance, which I think most of my RedState counterparts here would acknowledge had some outside scores to settle beyond going after actual Taliban and terrorists.  I question what process was used to determine how these people ended up there.  If they were adjudged by a competent military tribunal (which included someone of the rank of colonel as required by the conventions) and were then sent there, then so be it.  But if they were sent there without even minimal due process, then that is a major problem.  In addition, if no processs has been given and they are purposely being sequestered from any form of review of their status (including a habeas petition as a review of whether they were Taliban, terrorists, or merely swept up) then the Bush administration is clearly contravening the Supreme Court's determination in Rasul v. Bush that demanded at least some form of review for detainees anywhere that the executive has actual control (regardless of the sovereignty arguments that Gitmo is not part of the U.S. and thus the courts do not have jurisdiction, etc.)  Let me be clear here, I do not believe in full Bill of Rights protections for terrorists, etc., especially given the facts that they have violated the rules of war.  However, they are entitled to at least de minimis review as we cannot provide the executive branch with unfettered authority to violate human rights outside our borders.

What is the gain by doing this? What possible advantage is accrued by 1) announcing to the world who we have in captivity and 2) providing them with a lawyer and 3) providing them with an avenue to appeal their conviction by tribunal to federal courts.

What is wrong with holding these guys incommunicado until hostilities are over?

also with a proven track record of leaking classified info.  Although my guess is that the leaks came from inside the CIA.

I don't think there's any reason not to call this Dana Priest clown a traitor and a liar.  Traitor for intentionally and materially damaging US interests in a time of war, by revealing (what are presumably) facts related to the prosecution of that war, whose revelation would generate aid and comfort to the enemy.

A liar for peppering his/her article with those Known Facts(TM):

• 'revelations of widespread prisoner abuse in Afghanistan and Iraq by the U.S. military'
• 'the abuse scandals at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison and at Guantanamo Bay' [there was no abuse scandal at Gitmo, only a whole bunch of liberal/MSM accusations and carping designed to generate a scandal]

...at Gitmo rested on detainee status, which a military tribunal would take care of.  Remember, Bush pledged that detainees would be treated humanely.  Secret holdings by CIA officers has opened the door to abuse, and we are taking serious political hits for that.  This is one of those equations where I think the cost outweighs the marginal extra information obtained from using inhumane methods.

of the Constitution.  as you wrote, "Franklin and others lived in a slightly more noble time."

I don't think I'm off topic...there is a connection...your either for the original intent of our founding fathers or you're not.

with a single thing you wrote I'd convert to islam today and make things easier on my children.

only serious political hits if some traitor leaks to the press.

want to argue "humane" with me. My definition of humane is the same as the DOJ proffered. So long as they aren't killed or suffer permanent physical impairment I really don't care what happens to them.

care to actually respond to the substantive points of my post for once streiff - your co-editors at least engage in intelligent debate, and yes, that's an ad hominem pot shot against you

It's infuriating to see that CIA would be compromised like that by a bunch of anti-American reporters and other thugs in the media.

as long as its citizens don't know about it?

respond to your substantive points.

Anyone who thinks a non-US citizen, outside the US, can file a habeas petition is too uninformed to argue with.

Someone sent me this quote in a discussion on this topic. I was talking about how tired I was getting with the "America is better than this" & the "lets not sink to there level" arguments  

There is little danger that the Western democracies will lose their way if they choose to inflict pain as one way of preserving order. Paralysis in the face of evil is the greater danger. Some day soon a terrorist will threaten tens of thousands of lives, and torture will be the only way to save them. We had better start thinking about this.

From what I understand, Priest has a pretty good reputation although I too question the Post's judgement in publishing this story.

As far as the source of the leak, I agree that the most likely source is from within the CIA or a former CIA official.  In referring to the leaky 3 Dem senators, I was being ironical.

With a friend about what happens next. Of course we were going to war, the question was who.  The conversation moved to how we protect ourselves and we discussed the natural debate that would happen about the balance between civil liberties/privacy rights and safety.  (Ironically, many conservatives in Congress opposed Clinton's anti-terrorist proposals after the 1st Trade Center and Oklahoma acts).  

The conclusion we reached is that people will demand the safety conditions and would give up rights and that in 50 years we would look back to an enemy defeated but their goals of destroying a free society accomplished.

The slippery slope is tilting and we are willing to deny due process and the rule of law now to the worst human beings...how far will the slope tilt?

that we risk 'becoming them?'

Restrictions on freedoms and our 'way of life' were implemented in wartime in this country, in in Britain, etc.,  and when the wars ended the restrictions ended with them.

Democracy as a syetem imposes great burdens of faith and trust on its citizens and practioners. At some point one has to have some degree of faith that the people protecting us have some degree of honor and integrity. If we can't believe that the military, the police and our elected officials are on our side then we have more to worry about than restricting the freedoms of some terrorists.

no cigar.

having read a Supreme Court case or two...you might move on over to Westlaw and check out Rasul v. Bush, 124 S. Ct. 2686 (2004), which specifically said that aliens held outside the U.S. were entitled to make habeas petitions.  I suspect your beef is not with my substantive points (which are rather well informed) but the six person majority on the Supreme Court.  Try reading current events next time before charging others with being uninformed.

Yes, I'm for the stated original intent of the founders as enumerated in the Constitution, its amendments, and laws passed by Congress since then.    You could possibly throw in some of the Federalist Papers since they tend to explain in greater detail the original intent of the Founders.

But I'm not for taking slective quotes from our Founders and trying to apply them without the foundation of law or the text of the Constitution.

Ben Franklin also said that a penny saved is a penny earned.  Should that be interpreted to require mandatory savings for all Americans?  Budget cuts until we get rid of the deficit?  A declaration that debt is illegal?  No, that would be absurd.

The Commander in Chief, as his powers are enumerated in the Constitution, do not limit his ability to impose the will and might of the Armed Forces of the United States or the Executive Branch on non-uniformed enemy combatants.  No laws of this country, as enumerated by Congress, are being explicitly broken by the treatment of non-uniformed enemy combatants on foreign soil.  No treaties legally adopted by this nation (ratified by the Senate and signed by the President) are being broken by our treatment of non-uniformed enemy combatants.

Our Constitution is silent on this matter, but it grants the power to the Congress to make laws regarding the prosecution of war, hence the Uniform Code of Military Justice.  No laws yet exist on how to treat terrorists in the field in order to prevent further attack or dissuade them from completing their evil missions.

No treaty exists which requires us to treat terrorists with kid gloves, no matter how twistedyou want to read those treaties.  That the UN sycophants, European weenies, or terrorist sympathizers want us to roll over and play dead, or apologize for advocating freedom is not sufficient for us to let these evil men walk free.

And I don't even care where the quote came from, because its still irrelevant.

Terrorism will not ever be defeated by torture. Terrorism feeds off of hate. Hate comes out of torture. Secret CIA prisons just add fuel to the fire, and to what benefit? None that I can see.

one, the Pentagon does not publish their identities.  Two, the courts have upheld that illegal combatants can be held indefinitely at Gitmo.  The last recourse they have is whether the military tribunals are competent.  After that, they rot in Cuba, held incommunicado.

I can't believe you just compared George Washington to torture favorably.

If that won't get a founding father spinning in his grave, what will?

Yeah, war has changed a bit. Torture hasn't, it's been around for hundreds and hundreds of years. Except, civilized nations did away with it. At least, most of them did.

they can challenge their detention with a habeas petition under Rasul v. Bush - the grounds on which they can challenge are still murky, and the Supreme Court has provided for military commission review of their status, but they still have federal courts as an appeals avenue, only after their habeas petition has been denied there can they be held incommunicado

Were we denying due prcess and the rule of law to our own citizens within our borders I would agree that you have a concern.

This article is discussing illegal combatants who refuse to follow the international rules of warfare, deliberately target the civilian population in addition to military targets, and hide within the civilian population and in internationall recognized safe harbors (places of worship and hospitals).

The rules for these people are different and we are fools if we don't recognize that.

We aren't talking about restrictions of our freedom or way of life, we're talking about torture.

Here's a little exercise. Make a list of all the countries/regimes/leaders in history who a) whisked enemies away to secret prisons and b) tortured those  in captivity.

Then add America to that list, since apparently we meet both those qualifications

Now tell me if you think the US belongs there.

At some point one has to have some degree of faith that the people protecting us have some degree of honor and integrity

At some point, you have to question that faith.

informed, they would be the first such post you have made since registering here. But they aren't so we don't have to break out the champagne to celebrate.

The decision you mention clearly sets the fact the men in question were located in Guantanamo as being what gives them access to US courts.

I don't see where I talked about Washington and torture.  I talked about Washington and war tactics (i.e., shooting from the forests instead of marching in line in a field to be shot).  I was indicating that warfare has changed.

I would seriously doubt, however, that any military commander from the 1700s would be all that distressed by the 'torture' tactics that the CIA is using.  Give me evidence of ripping out fingernails, bamboo shoots, electrifying private parts, or some such like that and maybe I'll change my tune.

Waterboarding?  Pork products?  Nudity?  Sensory deprivation?  Disrupting sleep patterns?  They ain't a walk in a park, I'd probably break in a day, but I can live with that on our nation's conscience if it stops the murder of one of our troops, a single civilian, or even a cow in the field.

At some point, you have to question that faith.

The people in whom we place that trust are our fathers and mothers, sons and daughters, brothers and sisters. They are, in fact, us. They are no better or worse than you or me.

Will there be bad eggs? Of course there will, but the main body will believe the things in which the nation as a whole believes. If we cannot trust that we these values are deeply held among us then we have much, much more to worry about that whether or not we are holding some terrorist incommunicado.

Great Britain, internments of IRA prisoners in the 1970s.

There. Done. I'm happy with the result.

Terrorism will not ever be defeated by torture. Terrorism feeds off of hate. Hate comes out of torture.

This is just mindblowing. Using this analogy explain the hijacking of the Achille Lauro, or 9/11 for that matter.

What this actually means "Terrorism feeds off of hate. Hate comes out of torture" yes terrorism feeds off hate but the terrorist's hate coming from torture? I don't agree with. That sounds like the blame America first crowd. That implies that the USA's use of torture created terrorism.

In an unconventional war why would you take any tool (like secret CIA prisons) off the table?

And the fact that you can't see the benefit is precisely the reason we need secret or covert ops.  

From Rasul:

"The question now before us is whether the habeas statute confers a right to judicial review of the legality of Executive detention of aliens in a territory over which the United States exercises plenary and exclusive jurisdiction, but not 'ultimate sovereignty.'"

Later, J. Stevens answers the question thus:

"...this Court held, contrary to Ahrens, that the prisoner's presence within the territorial jurisdiction of the district court is not 'an invariable prerequisite' to the exercise of district court jurisdiction under the federal habeas statute. Rather, because "the writ of habeas corpus does not act upon the prisoner who seeks relief, but upon the person who holds him in what is alleged to be unlawful custody," a district court acts 'within [its] respective jurisdiction' within the meaning of § 2241 as long as 'the custodian can be reached by service of process.'"

Secondly, J. Kennedy's concurrence (the majority was 5 justices, so their opinion would still hold without his vote) tried to make the same distinction you are doing, whether it is Guantanamo or another non-U.S. area.  Problem is, the majority was focused on where the executive exercises "plenary control" which I think a CIA prison qualifies.  Though given Bush's recent control over the CIA (as alleged by other RedStater's) I'll at least acknowledge with a hint of a smile that his plenary control is arguable.

Your war tactics argument makes a better case for strategies employed by insurgants (car bombings, hiding among civilians) than it does torturing enemy combatants in secret prisons.

If you think coerced interrogations is limiting to nudity and pork products, you're being naive. Those procedures aren't going to kill anybody, and there certainly have been deaths of prisoners in US custody.

How much are you willing to live with?

they are like us and subject to the same sorts of poor decision-making and pressures that some legal strictures are required.  In stressful times, rational decision-making and behavior is challenged.

Do I think that individual soldiers, CIA operators etc. who commit questionable acts are ALL venal?  No.  But if they operate under pressure, in a permissive environment, then abuses are bound to occur.  If I recall, this is one of the reasons we actually have a rule of law.  To constrain misdirected passions.

Terrorism is fueled by hate, which I am sure you won't disagree with.

Hate, on the other hand, can come from a lot of different things, INCLUDING torture.

I said adding fuel to the fire, which implies the fire was already burning.

exceptions then I fail to see the advantage of moving them to Guantanamo. It seems to me that the venue of where they are held incommunicado is pretty academic.

for example, that contrary to what the left would have us believe, it was not the press that uncovered and investigated Abu Grahib, it was the US military. And it was precisely because the values we hold are deeply held that the military uncovered, investigated and punished the behavior.

Having grown up surrounded by the military I firmly believe that it would have been reported, investigated and punished whether or not it ever made the newspapers. You may call me Pollyanna if you wish but I continue to have faith that the values of America are alive and well in the people who serve our security.

This belief does not extend to those in the press or, unfortunately, to portions of the US Congress.

at all.

You said clearly that torture leads to hate leads to terrorism. I call BS. I think torture leads to fear leads to keeping your head down. And indeed, the spread of terrorism is due to governments going much too easy on terrorists. My construct is just as valid as yours.

you mean the folks who willingly put the lives of Americans captured in the future at risk by this illegal system, right?

If we were on the verge of fighting the French your argument might, might, make a little bit of sense.

Just for clarification, when was the last time we fought a nation that treated its prisoners according to the Hague and Geneva Conventions?

seriously

what was our motivation in doing so?

This is the worst kind of red herring. There are two kinds of forces who may capture US soldiers in the future:

1. Signatories to the Geneva Convention. These people will no more torture or mistreat US forces than US forces would mistreat or torture them. Both sides know and obey the rules.
   
2. Non-signatories and terrorists such as Al Queda. Certainly in the case of Al Queda et al they have clearly demonstrated on every occasion that they do not acknowledge that rules even exist. If you honestly believe that they would not torture and mistreat captured US troops regardless of how we treat them then I have a bridge over the East River that you may be interested in purchasing.

a non-sequitur, isn't it. Why do we sign any treaty?

So tell me again, the nations we've fought that treated our captured according to the HGC.

or Afghanis or Eastern Europeans, who know that the US will go to extraordinary lengths to find work-arounds to the law when they feel it's in their best intetersts...those signatories of the Convention won't torture us first if they have cause to capture us?

You really don't get it, do you? They won't make a distinction between these groups in the heat of a war, when they want to win...they'll point out that the US violated the convention and that frees them up to do so.

I'll answer your question after you answer mine. Why did we sign that treaty?

That is all.

If we have to torture a million terrorist supporters to death to prevent a single American death, we will have had a good day.

quite conclusively.

They will do what they will do with or without the "justification" that we did or did not do something. Look at all the blatant lies that percolate throughout the Middle East every day. They don't need us to provide them with "justification", they'll just make it up anyway.

The Convention is only as good as the values and intentions of the participants. As I recall Iraq was a signatory and in both Gulf Wars look what they did to captured US and British soldiers. We on the other hand treated their troops in accordance with the Convention. The Convention, like a fence, merely keeps honest people honest.

I'm not arguing for torture, I'm arguing for rational actions that protect your family and mind. Its a long way from being held incommunicado for 5 years and pulling out your fingernails. And I'm arguing against nonsense arguments like your "they will do it because they'll claim we did it."

Why concerns of what is "humane" have even entered into this.  We need to be harsh.

There's a story I like to tell with regard to this.  During the Persian War, Xerxes sent an emissary, along with a translator, to demand the submission of the Athenians.  In response, Thermistocles seized the translator and put him to death for daring to publish Barbarian orders and decress in the Greek language.

That's the sort of spirit we need today, not worrying about the "rights" of our enemies and those who collaborate with them.

Gitmo is free if you have a lucky ticket.

first you write: "These people will no more torture or mistreat US forces than US forces would mistreat or torture them. Both sides know and obey the rules."

the you write: "They will do what they will do with or without the "justification" that we did or did not do something. "

Which is it?

I'm not arguing for torture, I'm arguing for rational actions that protect your family and mind. Its a long way from being held incommunicado for 5 years and pulling out your fingernails.

I get the personal argument. If someone were threatening my family I'd stop at nothing to stop them (full stop). But I expect my government to be a bit more evenhanded about it, especially when they've captured someone and there's no immediate ticking-bomb scenario...we are not above the law. And we're not talking about being held incommunicado for five years, look to the Salt Pit where an innocent taxi driver was beaten and left to freeze to death, and as the article points out, there's no end in sight for those top 30 being held captive. Whether that sounds like a retreat vacation to you or not is hardly the point. It's illegal and we condemn it in others. We only maintain the right to do so if we don't do it ourselves.

The point is not necessarily whether some of these measures are right or wrong, or even effective or useless, but that ultimately Empires fall if they don't adapt.

It takes a lot of wisdom to transform a society in order to survive and adapt. From the French Revolution to the Fall of the USSR, humanity as a whole does not have a good record at doing this smoothly.

When I read the comments above, with the hindsigtht of history, I'm reminded of the proud Major Bellamy on UPSTAIRS DOWNSTAIRS and his powerful certainties about his place in the world, and I see in most of you (not all, thankfully) the Undertakers of America, as his class was the Undertakers of the British Empire.

I don't care if we have to kill everyone in the Islamic world, if it was necessary to prevent a nuclear or biological attack against the United States.

I somehow doubt if I'm the only one who feels that way.

Thus, it's strange notion that we should somehow be morally troubled by the minor "mistreatment" of a few terrorists.

To quote a great man:

"Up to this very date, up to this very moment, none of those who have said that they don't like the methods have told us any other methods we could use which would be effective.  And when you hear them crying that they don't like the methods, ask them when and where they ever exposed a terrorist by their methods."

By tradition, combatants of their type (people who, for one, fight out of uniform) would be summarily executed.  Certianly spies and so on were executed in such a fashion in the Revolution and the Civil War.  Unofficially, the same when on in both World Wars, Korea, and Vietnam.

It's simply the damned media which is preventing the use of such effective tactics now.

the first question, but I have to respond to a non-sequitur (which I've already responded to) before you'll answer a simple history question.

What is it you don't like about the terrorists? That their tactics break the rules of what is fair and unfair? That they don't support Geneva rules?

How about that they would like to see the elimination of a whole country or race or religeon?

You seem to share all those opinions. I'm trying to think up a good word to describe your "lets just kill all the Muslims" idea... how about "disgusting"?

Terrorism is fueled by "hate".  Fine.  Why should we care a whit about their motivations?

I don't care what they believe.  I just want them dead.  I want a lot of them dead.

It's time that we stopped playing by the ACLU's rules and start playing by "Chicago Rules."  for every one of ours they kill, we should kill one hundred of them.

You're arguing that we need not fear retribution for torture because anyone who might capture us in the future will either be likely to torture us already or be party to the Convention (is that a fair assessment?).

The problem with that is we're demonstrating to both those groups that we will torture. The excuse that these captives didn't sign the convention or follow the convention will not be first and foremost in the minds of a future enemy interested in the what a captured American can tell them. They'll assume we'll have some excuse for ignoring the convention and torturing their people, so they why should they hesitate.

In other words, we're setting a new precedent.

If you'll answer why we signed the convention, you'll understand that.

I should have said people who have signed and observe the Convention. In my mind that is an unnecessary distinction but ... Happy now?

But your argument isn't about soldiers and behavior on the battlefield, its about terrorists. As far as I am concerned they have removed themselves from the protections of the "law" and civilized behavior. That is not license for us to apply cruel and inhumane punishment, but I stand by my assertion: if it protects your family or mine, short of outright cruelty or inhumanity, so be it. First because I have faith that, in the vast majority of cases, it will be conducted properly. And faith that in the few cases of aberrant behavior or lawlessness punishment will be meted out.

Show me where in the Geneva convention where these people are covered?  Do you have a problem with the practice of executing insurgents?  The combatants in WWII did it routinely and it was expected.  

TEXTS OF THE CONVENTIONS

Are you falling into the trap of being an apologist for a fascist philosophy?  Your argument seems to want to legitimize insurgencies and terrrorists.

an argument at all. I'm simply asking you to tell us the name of the last opponent we faced who abided by the conventions. You seem either unable of unwilling to do that.

needs no help in being compromised. In my view the CIA has been on the road to increasing incompetence since its inception. And its politicization has merely served to exacerbate the decline.

So, lupin since you see most of us as the Undertakers of America how about offering up your prescription for preservation of the Republic? Maybe we could then either critique your dour viewpoint or be converted to your views.

but let's not let a little thing like the law get in the way of some good ole' summary executions shall we?  See my posts upthread on what the Court has said about this.

"They give up reason and sanity to obtain a little satisfaction, deserving scorn and sarcasm."

- Carlos

others are arguing.

Where does it say that signatories can ignore their pledge based on who they capture?

First because I have faith that, in the vast majority of cases, it will be conducted properly. And faith that in the few cases of aberrant behavior or lawlessness punishment will be meted out.

I tend to believe that as well, but let's back up and look at francisurquhart's comment to get the larger picture here: "If we have to torture a million terrorist supporters to death to prevent a single American death, we will have had a good day. "

We know that an innocent taxi driver in Bagram was captured, beaten, and left to freeze to death. He was no threat to anyone...he merely got caught up in this system.

If we allow our personal feelings to justify torture, we must ask: What about his innocent life? What is his family or country justified in doing to prevent such deaths? Torturing a million of us? Of course not, that was a miscarriage of justice, and not an indication of our overall intentions, but do you think his family cares?

I stand by my assertion: if it protects your family or mine, short of outright cruelty or inhumanity, so be it.

Again, what would the taxi driver's family be justified in doing to ensure his brother, perhaps also a taxi driver who must feed his family, does not meet the same fate?

My point is that the personal level drags in all kinds of irrelvant factors. It's not you fighting the terrorists...it's your government. Your government that signed a treaty not to torture captives because the world decided at one point that the heat of battle warps our better judgement and guidelines like this will help protect our humanity throughout such conflicts. We follow them not for the arguments we can make here and now, but for our future.

I think you've demonstrated you're not going to answer my question. I'm moving on...

Treaties that we sign are contracts between nations and representative parties, not general statements about our action in any and all circumstances.

As a nation, we can only sign treaties with governments or international organizations.  If individuals (like al qaeda) operate outside of the authority of the state in which they operate, they declare themselves no longer bound to the rights, responsibilities, or protections of the state.  The US, and any other signatory to any international treaty, does not have to abide by the strictures of a treaty when dealing with non-signatory illegal combatants.

what's been demonstrated is that central point of your argument falls away when confronted with history.

It's all fine and good to argue in some abstract manner that if we do A (presumably torture but that isn't the topic of the thread, the subject is about holding al-Qaeda prisoners in foreign prisons) then our enemies will feel free to do that to our troops because we did it first.

This is just a silly arguement. Since the inception of the HGC we have fought one nation that made an effort to obey the HGC in regards to our  prisoners of war (Nazi Germany) and another that made an initial attempt to but gave it up (Communist China during their initial intervention in Korean in November 1950).

The sad fact is that we simply aren't going to face in combat any nation that has any intention, whatsoever, of obeying the HGC because those nations that might follow the coventions are our allies.

argue that there a "hole" in the Convention I'm not quite sure how to respond. It is my belief that:

a) The Convention does not apply to Al Queda et al under any circumstances;

b) The Convention is only as good as the intentions of the signatories. Nations that signed the Convention and choose to observe it will. Those that signed and choose not to observe it will also. Our behavior has no bearing on their actions and I think there are more than adequate examples of that throughout the history of "civilized" warfare.

I'm not sure I can fully subscribe to the comments made by francisurquhart but suffice to say that I am prepared to place the lives and safety of your family and mine above all others if necessary; that I have faith that, for the most part, the people acting on our behalf will exercise good judgment in pursing that goal; that in those cases where they do not they will be punished if appropriate.

It is ultimately only personal. The destruction of America is not only about destroying our value system and our government; it is about changing your family and the way you choose to live. Absent the Republic, your freedoms will not mean anything because they will not exist. That is not to say that you or others may find living under Islamic theocracy acceptable but others of us would not. It is not much different than the old "better Red than dead" argument of the Cold War.

... give them a fair trial ... and then shoot them :-)

the Conventions explicitly state that the agreement is only applicable to the contracting parties.

He means someone willing to jeopardize the lives of American troops and civilians by frustrating military objectives aimed at protecting same by hindering the military and intelligence establishment's ability to extract information from imprisoned terrorists, often to advance their career or other personal objectives. "Traitor" might be pushing things a bit far, but it's hardly the case that we should celebrate these determined clowns who are trying to bring the System down from Within.

If you find your career in contradiction with your ideals, one or the other must be sacrificed. Either you compromise on your ideals to the ssumed duties and obligations of your job, or you change jobs to one more amenable to your ideals. Retaining your position in order to sabotage those above, below and beside you seems duplicitous, whatever moral hoop-jumping lets one sleep at night doing it.

as I see it is that there is a segment of our population that sees no end to the "review" process. There is never a sufficiently "final" determination that allows us to write -30- to the matter.

of course is why they are our friends and allies. One is known by the company one keeps.

I'm willing to live with quite a bit.  But, you see, I'd rather be dirty than dead.

I would agree that any citizen in the U.S. captured or arrested or apprehended on U.S. soil has claim to a great deal due process rights, and those should be adhered to.  But I'd also argue  that any 'home-grown' terrorist that gets convicted for anything even resulting in so much as a hangnail for a civilian or a paper cut for our troops should be shot the same day the sentence comes down.  But I'm not that lenient.

But terrorists on foreign soil interfering with our military operations, killing innocent civilians, refusing to abide by the rules of warfare, hiding out in civilian population, beheading their own captives, or whatever other evil things they decide to do in the name of the perversion of their religion (that is, their view of their religion is perverted, not that the religion itself is necessarily perverted)?

I don't care what we do so long as it works.  I'd prefer it not be needless or perverse, but I'm not an expert in figuring out how to get reliable information out of subjects so I'm willing to give the CIA a great deal of latitude.  If it leads to the death of a captive, well, if the circumstances demanded it and it was unavoidable, I'd be okay with it.  Otherwise I don't see why we take captives in the first place, and I'd certainly encourage the Defense Department to have the troops just shoot to kill.  I don't want to house these vermin if we can't get them to talk, I don't want to put our troops in harms way protecting their lives if we can't get useful information out of them.

These scum have willfully taken up arms in an illegal manner against the civilian population.  If we lay by our normal rules of warfare, we'll lose, and our principles, our values won't matter.

But that's me.  YMMV.

Just because the CIA operates in the prison doesn't necessarily make it part of our plenary and exclusive jurisdiction.

As evidenced in the article, we've probably got deals with the nations where these prisons are, and I'm willing to bet that they have plenary powers over the prison, but are willing to let our guys operate there without interference.

"We're not giving up our liberty, we're taking theirs away from them."

... Think about that.   Don't you see anything wrong with that?   Think back to what the Declaration of Independence said about ALL men.  

I simply think that we Americans should be proud of our heritage and take great pains to protect it.  We should be BETTER than the Saddams'a and Castros' and the Putins' of the world.  

I thought that the quote was:

Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering.

Of course he held slavishly to his ideals and look what it got him...

but the Declaration of Independence was written by and for Americans. They can write their own if they want to.

is changing the way you live, like it or not. It dramatically changes the rhetoric we must use to support it...delineating between those humans we'll torture and those we won't.

My personal bent is that this is politically motivated legislation from the bench, but lets speculate without partisanship.  I see one huge speed bump in that who determines unlawful custody?  Are we fighting a war?  Then the military legally detains until hostilities end.  Is it not a war?  Then every lawyer who wants fame and fortune will contend each and every detainee held by the U.S. anywhere is in unlawful custody.  This becomes a political issue in either case.  

A possible resolution exists in a very negative way, but I fear we are headed there.  If it becomes expedient to resolve this political situation, we can go to outsourcing.  I don't think our intelligence would be any better, and there will definitely be torture.  But we won't be complicit.  Lots of our partners in the war on terror do not have the problem with this political issue.

On a separate, but equally interesting question, lets review my originalist stance and the presidents war powers.  What does the Constitution say about declaration of war?  Its pretty clear, must be congress.  But the president has a precedent if a state of war is existing.  But we are at war with a philosophy and some followers of that philosophy, not a state.  Now in the instance of Iraq, we could make a case that we responded to the breach of U.N. resolutions, thus a state of war was existing.  But I am not arguing the war in Iraq here, just the constitutionality of the presidents war powers.  The Supreme Court has refused to address this issue, and has not ruled on this since Lincoln.  Apparently a strict originalist would have to label the wars since WWII as unconstitutional.  Ponderous.

I do not believe our founding fathers fought and died for secret prisons, or to have Americans citizens locked in a brig without trial.  I think they fought and died for the exact opposite.

I myself would rather die in a terrorist attack then have one innocent man rounded up and sent to GITMO (and no, I did not say that ALL men there are innocent).  To me America represents more than a flag and a Lee Greenwood song.   I'm just crazy that way.

Yes, the Declaration said that all men were created equal and that they were endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights--specifically Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

When Al-Qaeda agrees that I, as a Roman Catholic, have the inherent right to my life, my Liberty, and my own definition of the Pursuit of Happiness, I'll agree that we should treat them with dignity and respect.

When Al-Qaeda stops killing innocent civilians, engages in even some semblance of traditional warfare, and agrees to sign a treaty of the accepted rules of warfare with the US or even the UN, then maybe I'll worry about our heritage.

But the Declaration of Independence was focused largely on governmental values, inherent freedoms for the citizenry, indpendence for the colonies.  When Al Qaeda starts moaning about the filibuster, debates without weaponry whether women should be allowed to vote, or seeks to negotiate with the duly-elected government of Afghanistan or Iraq, then I'll worry about our values.

We are better than Saddam, Castro, Putin, Chavez, whoever else in the list of thugs you want to compare us to.  We treat our citizens with more respect, more protections than any other nation.  But our enemies don't merit such hand-wringing.

How many declarations of war have been voted by the Congress in our nation's history? Five. War of 1812, Mexican War, Spanish American War, both World Wars. The first war we fought after the ratification of the Constitution was fought sans Congressional declaration.

So a lot more wars would be unconstitutional than those since World War II.

to read American history. Ponder where the Indians went.

And personally, I think the Founding Fathers wouldn't have an issue at all with how we're treating prisoners other than wondering why we hadn't hanged them already.

you're arguing that because nations we've been at war with followed the convention guidlines to varying degrees based on what we're assuming was a general assumption that we were following them more or less to the letter, that those and other nations, if in conflict with us again, would not take our clearly NOT following them any longer as license to follow them even less than they might have otherwise?

The sad fact is that we simply aren't going to face in combat any nation that has any intention, whatsoever, of obeying the HGC because those nations that might follow the coventions are our allies.

Allies change.

presumes that we are not, in fact, better than the miscreants you cite.

All of this is based on the assumption is that we are doing all sorts of heinous things as a matter of course. There are those of us who do not accept, prima facie, that: a) the purported heinous activities are actually occurring on a routine basis; b) that when violations occur they go unpunished.

Personally, I think there is more than adequate evidence that the vast majority of the "reports" by Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, the UN, ACLU, the press, certain members of Congress, et al, of systemic abuse and misconduct are nonsense to say the least. Then add to that the "reports" from supposed "victims" of our mistreatment circulating in the Middle East and you get a mixture largely made up primarily of rubbish combined with self-serving political propaganda.

First, I doubt any detainees are brought to a competent military tribunal to have their status judged.  That is a mistake.  Second, the CIA detention program is outed.  It's no longer covert, and because of this, it's outlived its utility.  That's why the "unnecessary" in my title.  That is the reality of the situation right now.  The eastern European country (and others) will soon be identified, as will the identities of the detainees.  They might as well be at Gitmo.

but the thought that "we were better" in losing the war isn't going to make my wife any happier when she has to put on a burqa and be driven to the store.

I do wish liberals cared about the innocent Afghans and Iraqis the way they care about terrorists and illegal combatants.

-TS

...and summary execution, except I believe that summary executions are not allowed in the UCMJ.

They most certainly do.

To say that the treatment of prisoners by Japan in WW II was abominable is an understatment. They are now a staunch ally. But post-war Japan is a far, far different nation that the Japan of the 1930s and 40s.

They are our ally in part because they changed.

Empires fall if they don't adapt?  So you are a liberal socialist who thinks the United States is a Empire?  Takes a lot of wisdom to transform a society to survive and adapt?  Wisdom as defined by who?  I contend that western society has already survived and adapted beyond what you are considering.  Capitalism has thrived and flourished under this construction of a Representative Republic.  And that representation is immediately at odds with your simian simile about the undertakers.  You have been watching PBS for a long time, eh?  Have to frame things in terms of class warfare?  Attack us with substance, not innuendo.

My personal opinion is that socialist liberals actually represent anti-wisdom.  Its the destruction of critical thinking by emotional argumentation.  Well, I feel better.

Let's amend the Code.  I see no particular reason not to.

We're fighting monsters.  We need to respond appropriately.

I've long maintained, for example, that we should kidnap the children of al-Qaeda leaders and send them off to be raised as Christian Americans.

I'm saying that we haven't fought anyone who gave a rat's butt for the HGC and therefore whether or not we adhere to them has no bearing whatsoever on how our captured soldiers are treated.

Wasn't the American Revolution an insurgency?

What legal standing should the Colonial American insurgents have had? Are insurgents automatically the moral equivalent of terrorists?

we can fight any conflict by whatever means we deem necessary?

I'm not saying we shouldn't, but I do wonder what you think that will change us into...

toward and away

Yes, in a manner of speaking.

The Declaration of Independence.

No, because the revolutionaries did not indiscriminately murder civilians.  They made moral distinctions between military and civilian targets, unlike the Zarqawis and bin Ladens of the world.

First, it is your assertion that these prisons are illegal, not mine. I have yet to see a convincing argument that they are illegal or even immoral.

Second, it is your assertion that it is changing the way I live, not mine. I don't see any negative impact it has had on my life, liberty or pursuit of happiness. I get up in the morning a free man and I go to bed a night a free man. I have the right to peaceably assemble, to petition my government for a redress of grievances, to practice, or not, my religion as I see fit, to vote, to come and go as I please (except at airports of course.)

The Islamofascists attacked us long before these prisons were established and will continue to attack us whether they exist or not. If the existence of these prisons keeps your family or mine from being blown up shopping at the mall then they are well worth it.

Third it is exactly that, rhetoric, and d*mned little fact. I am not a moral relativist. I do not think that one government, or political system, or moral belief is as good as any other. I believe that western democracy is head and shoulders above any other form or government. I believe that for far too many years we failed to export the only revolution that was ever worth a d*mn, the American Revolution. As I said, I am most certainly not a relativist.

---------------

no it wasn't an insurgency. From the beginning the Continental Army had an identifiable chain of command and wore identifiable uniforms. The idea that most, or even a large number, were irregulars is anti-historical.

The British treated captured Continentals as prisoners of war, sometimes exchanging them if they were officers, more often leaving them in prison hulks. Had the Hague and Geneva Conventions of 1949 been in effect in 1775 the Continental Army would have passed all tests: bearing arms openly, identifiable uniform (often a cockade on the cap, but the HGC allow a uniform to be a mere armband), and responding to a central chain of command: Washington and the Continental Congress.

Insurgents may or may not be the moral equivalent of terrorists. If they use terrorism to further their aims they are. If they don't, they aren't.

But that doesn't help me bolster my 'originalist' position on the presidents war powers.  Maybe the line is clearer if we consider 'acts of war' as perpetrated upon us establishing a 'state of war'.  Then the funding of military activities would constitute congress's 'endorsement' of military activities.  But are we arguing now the definition of war?  My hyper sensitive right wing sycophant mind numbed robot warning panel is blinking 'error'.  I need a origilalist's interpretation of the said Article I section 8, can not seem to find anything good.

I myself would rather die in a terrorist attack then have one innocent man rounded up and sent to GITMO

Nice words. And certainly easy enough to say. Come back after your sister, or mother or son is blown into unrecognizable bits by some terrorist who thinks that you and yours don't have the right to live because you don't practice his religion.

Rhetorical BS.

That is not the fault of the people who set it up. It is the fault of a few people who have decide that their judgment, or political ambition, or whatever is more valid than someone else. And they do not care about the result.

Could it be that the leak of this story came from within the CIA?

Morale is reported to be low, resentment of the WH high.

Where else could it have come from?

First, it is your assertion that these prisons are illegal, not mine. I have yet to see a convincing argument that they are illegal or even immoral.

From WaPo:

It is illegal for the government to hold prisoners in such isolation in secret prisons in the United States, which is why the CIA placed them overseas, according to several former and current intelligence officials and other U.S. government officials. Legal experts and intelligence officials said that the CIA's internment practices also would be considered illegal under the laws of several host countries, where detainees have rights to have a lawyer or to mount a defense against allegations of wrongdoing.

Now maybe you know better than the intelligence officials and other government officials, but reason suggests if they were legal, we'd have them here.

I don't see any negative impact it has had on my life,

Famous last words.

Third it is exactly that, rhetoric, and d*mned little fact.

Really? So you advocated torture before 9/11 then? Good to know who I'm dealing with.

I'll be really clear here: the only reason I give any wiggle room at all to Americans who are not staunchly anti-torture is because of 9/11. Take that traumatizing event out of the equation and any support for treating other human beings that way is totally despicable. You may not believe you're better than a savage, but I believe you are.

of being really clear here

I don't think anyone here, knowing your record, much cares to have your "wiggle room." I'd just as soon not be on the same side in this war as an avowed apologist for the enemy.

And were it not for the fact that Mike has hung out a "no picking on Edward" sign, you wouldn't be posting here at all

Morale is reported to be low, resentment of the WH high.

The cure for low morale and resentment is resignation not treason. Whether they like it or not the CIA is an arm of the government of the United States, not an independent agency of the UN, the ACLU or the DNC.

If there are people at the CIA, or State or DOD who do not like the policy they are free to seek employment elsewhere. The people, the ultimate boss, spoke in two consecutive elections; it is not their place to like or dislike the decision of the electorate.

In this case the proper cure is termination and prosecution.

1. They threaten the future of Western Civilization - particularly in Europe.
   
   
2. They want to kill our people.
   
   
3. They're a distrction from the real long-term threat, namely the Chinese, who we shall also have to destroy some day to assure the long-term supramacy of our civilization.

We will treat prisoners according to the basic values that Americans hold about people, not because the the Convention says we have to.

It won't change us into anything whether it exists or not. We will behave the way we are going to behave with or without the Convention.

Civilized people created the Convention, not the other way around.

that you are an unwanted, disruptive, and non-contributing poster here that can't be banned. Yes, I concede.

I find it interesting throughout this discussion the concept of morality have never surfaced.  Are secret prisons outside the rule of US or international law moral?  I'm not talking about situational morality ("anything we do is moral" or "they are just so darned evil") but absolute morality. If the communists did this (hint: they did) was it moral?  

Morally, how can we justify extralegal detention?  Or am I naive?  Does morality have nothing to do with our country any longer?

Citing the Washington Post for anything is questionable at best. This is their story after all. As an American citizen my opinion is a valid as "unidentified legal experts and intelligence officials"; at least we know who I am and what my politics are, I'm not hiding behind anonymity.

Where did I say I advocated torture pre 9/11 --- or post 9/11 for that matter. I said all of this stuff is rhetoric backed up by d*mned few facts.

Frankly I don't care whether you think I am better than a savage; I know I am. You want savages:  You look at that little sequence and tell me where the savages are.

given that my original comment was to jsteele, and not you. You're free to ignore my "unwanted" comments.

I reject that they're "disruptive" (unless you mean in that they disrupt the echoing all blogs tend to lean toward when opposing viewpoints are discouraged).

As for "non-contributing," I suspect that's in the eye of the beholder.

I most certainly can be banned. I just don't believe I've violated the posting rules and hence do not deserve it.

As I told Mike a while back, I lurk here much more than I comment, and generally read here to learn. When someone suggests that an American objecting to torture is a "taitor" however, my love for my country demands I speak up as long as I'm able to. YMMV.

I'll play for a few minutes

Morally how did we justify the internment of Japanese (and German and Italian) nationals during WW II? Did the fact that we did it really mean anything? Morally how did we justify the firebombing of Dresden and Tokyo when regular high explosive bombs would have had the same military effect? Was it moral? Does it really mean anything?

So you have an interesting philosophical question here but one that is fairly meaningless in the context of fighting a war, an activity that by its very nature is of doubtful morality.

So if you expect some major panty twisting on my part by the notion that we may be guilty of being impolite to some hundred or so terrorists you're going to be disappointed.

even the post suggests they might be staged, my point about savages is that torture will make you one, whether you're on the receiving or giving end of it.

Regarind the Washington Post's opinion versus yours, I'd say, without knowing your legal credentials (which might be considerable, I'll admit, but which remain hidden from me), I'll have to go with WaPo.

Where did I say I advocated torture pre 9/11 --- or post 9/11 for that matter.

I took this statement to suggest you approve:

There are only serious political hits if some traitor leaks to the press.

Otherwise why isn't that person a hero, protecting our nation's values, rather than a traitor?

Whatever it takes to win the war on terror.  Build more if we need to.  Get the information we need to protect America by any means necessary.  The quicker we bring down Al Qaida the safer we'll all be.  

You might like to read a bit of history on the penal system, the one that our founding fathers lived under and supported.  Gitmo is a afternoon tea party in comparison.  And we are talking about American citizens, not foreign nationals.  

At this point, not knowing if you really are crazy, or just emotionally idealistic, I don't want to be overly critical.  But I suspect that you have no grasp of the realities implicit in your statement and are just operating under a cloud of liberal idealism, so I will pass.

Japanese, German and Italian prisoners were held under the Geneva Convention.  Even though the Japanese did not observe the Convention with their prisoners.  We observed the rule of law.  

This time, they follow no rules, we follow no rules.  How does this make us any different than the people we are fighting?

Does the philosophy "the only way to defeat evil is to be evil" govern us?

nice. and when you are locked up in one of these things with no constitutional rights? will you be happy then? perhaps torture is also ok, contrary to john mccain's recent bill?

You are presuming that I support, or at least tolerate, torture. Holding some terrorist, or suspected terrorist, incommunicado is not torture in my opinion.

The Washington Post cited anonymous sources and experts. The only credentials I have are my American citizenship; as I said my opinion is as valid as that of anonymous. Anything that anonymous says, regardless of his/her political persuation, is rubbish. A man who will not stand by his words is quite simply a coward.

If you are going to interpret my remarks to mean  that I supported torture pre-, or post-, 9/11 then at least be so kind as to do so in the context of the post to which I replied:

...Secret holdings by CIA officers has opened the door to abuse, and we are taking serious political hits for that...

The original post was about "secret holdings" not torture.

Otherwise why isn't that person a hero, protecting our nation's values, rather than a traitor?

Just as in the case of WaPo's anonymous the person or persons who leaked the story have assumed to themselves the right to place their moral, or more likly political, values above everyone else. I'm not saying that people can't be right in doing that, but given the frequency with which it occurs inside the Beltway I think it rather less than more likely.

The Japanese,Italians, and Germans I am talking about are US citizens who went to internment camps. The Japanese were treated the most abominably with the forced sale of businesses, etc. So I'm not sure how you get an Geneva Conventions tie in here.

We observed the rule of law? Sure if you discount the summary execution of a few hundred German and Italian prisoners of war a various sites in Italy, the calculated starvation of German prisoners in 1946.

I don't know that "the only way to defeat evil is to be evil" is a very useful construct, but I'd say that I'd be comfortable with us being as "evil" in this war as we were in WW II or the Civil War or the Mexican War or the Indian Wars.

RBMN is right: they need to feel abandoned and hopeless after they are captured.  For too long now, I'm sure a terrorist's fear of capture has been soothed by the protective international spotlight on Gitmo. The complimentary prayer rugs, korans, sanctified dining and Mecca direction finders undoubtedly lessen the anxiety of a jihadi facing potential capture to the point where he may no longer wish to martyr himself.  Now he knows that there are shadowy and less friendly places to which he may be sent.  This is the time to play up the fear of the unknown, not cancel the show. If it freaks out lefties here, imagine what it does to the lurid imaginations of the drug-addled terrorists as they prepare to fight.  

Come to think of it, we can probably close up shop on this and still reap the benefits of it thanks to the rumor mill that is the Arab press. They will be finding secret detention centers under every rock, and the gullible MSM will eagerly chase down every potential "atrocity".  Are we sure that someone is not spoon-feeding this to Dana Priest? ;)

I am grateful for all the times some unknown hero serving in our military or intelligence bureau has extracted a piece of information via interrogation techniques that has safeguarded our homeland or our troops.

my bad, for equating the two:

If you are going to interpret my remarks to mean  that I supported torture pre-, or post-, 9/11 then at least be so kind as to do so in the context of the post

It's difficult for me to assume, knowing what took place at the Salt Pit, that similar abuse is not common in the other prisons, but without proof, I should stick to the issue at hand...secret prisons.

Just as in the case of WaPo's anonymous the person or persons who leaked the story have assumed to themselves the right to place their moral, or more likly political, values above everyone else.

If what the President had signed off on was clearly legal, you might have a point here. But given that it's at best of questionable legality, your point is weakened somewhat by that, wouldn't you agree?

should we expect to locked up in one, I mean other than if we decide to go off and commit armed jihad?

And John McCain of all people should know better. We were Geneva Conventions signatories and North Vietnam signed the Geneva Conventions in 1957. Fat lot of good it did him or any of our other prisoners.

ok, but this seems a little nebulous. who are these organizations? who oversees them? what accountability is in place? the potential for abuse seems large. and abu ghraib has damaged our reputation worldwide, not just in arab states. we are supposed to be the benevolent nation that sets the example for the rest of the world, not seeming to be schemers looking for a way around 'inconvenient' rules and regulations. that is not what America is about.

Its about 120 conficts with no declaration.

first you have to assume that anonymous is telling the truth. Then you have to assume that anonymous did so with the best interests of America The Beautiful foremost in his heart and mind.

I'm not sure that I'm prepared to accept either from anonymous. A man who will not stand by his words can easily say anything without fear of contradiction.

Well, streiff we all know about those  people who have been whisked away in the middle or the night to those re-education camps in Montana, you know the ones run by Halliburton. I don't know any myself mind you, but anonymous said that he knew several.

You take it on faith, based on WaPo's overall reputation, that the "anonymous" is the expert they mean to imply by that and requested anonymity because to do otherwise might compromise their job.

Seriously...the Washington Post is not a blog. It's reasonable to be sceptical of any anonymous source, but given that the adminstration clearly asked them not to name the countries where the prisons are, you might consider that an admission that they exist, no?

that the prisons exist; I hope they do. I do doubt that it is in the best interests of America the Beautiful to advertise it, or to say where they are.

you asserted that it's not a given that anonymous is telling the truth, implying the prisons might not exist, but now say you don't doubt it?

Your point seems to be that no one should question the administration.

That is why he is pushing this so hard.  You can not make a moral stand for the rule of law and advocate democracy (and my definition of a functioning democracy includes some type of legal protection for every person in your custody or under your control) if you don't believe in it and practice it yourself.  Open societies do not have secret prisons.  Open democratic societies that operate under the rule of law do not disappear people and deny them any  legal rights whatsover.  If we are doing this to anyone, even if they never set foot inside the U.S. and they are not U.S. citizens, we can no longer claim to be a society that believes in the rule of law.  How can we spread democracy and the rule of law to the Middle East if we are willing to ignore it here?

And another point.  You are all focusing on the Geneva Conventions and whether they apply to these detainees.  Whether or not Geneva applies, every single detainee in our custody is still protected by the International Convention Against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.  That Convention was advocated by the U.S., ratified by the Senate, codified by the congress and applies to anyone in our custody (and even to those parties we seek to deport--it is why the president is supposed to get assurances that rendered deportees will not be tortured).  

For a Blog that worries so much about the morality of the country and believes that government is not very good at solving problems it is amazing that you are so lacksadasdical about secret prisons with no oversight and willing to trust the government when they say that this is the right thing to do.  Or even that the people kept at these prisons are indeed even the right people.  There are at least two well-documented cases of mistaken identities of persons kidnapped or rendered by the U.S. government who entered this budding Gulag who were later released.  Are we certain that everyone currently there is really guilty of some crime?

I agree.  But what about the day we torture a million innocent muslims to death for nothing?  

All some Afghani who's mad at his neighbor has to do is spread the word he's a terrorist and that's grounds to send them away (honestly, our troops wouldn't be doing there job if they didn't pick him up).  Doesn't the 'i don't know' of an innocent man being water boarded sounds just like the guy who's holding out?

My views on whether or not such prisons exist or ought to exist have nothing to do with my views that anonymous is not to be trusted.

I personally have no problem with these so-called "secret" prisons. I see nothing wrong with the idea or the practice as long as they are not being used inside this country and applied to US citizens.

I see the argument that it's OK for the Washington Post to run this on the front page supported by statements by anonymous as fallacious. It is no longer a secret not because it is or is not a good idea, but because anonymous has taken it upon him/herself to announce their existence. As I thought I made clear, it is both the assumption of some special authority by anonymous to make such a statement combined with the anonymity that bother me.

If the person, or persons, who did this genuinely believes that this was illegal or immoral then they they should have had the courage to come out in the open. Would they be risking their jobs or even their freedom by doing so? Absolutely, but if it is that important they should be prepared to stand behind their actions. But anonymity allows people to say anything they want without fear of contradiction or consequence, regardless of the harm they may cause. They are able to render useless something that may be providing enormous benefit for whatever reason they choose, be that moral or political. Absent the courage to stand behind their words I interpret their reasons to be political.

did you write it yourself?

How is this treason.  Exposing an illegal (or at the very least extralegal) act by the administration is not treason.  By this action the president has usurped the role of the courts if not the congress.  You may complain about activist judges.  What we have here is an activist president.  What is the check on his power?

If he can do this with no oversight then who or what is there to hold him accountable?  Could he order secret executions?

I kept it relatively short.  Stated verifiable facts and raised concerns that I believe are saliant to our continued existence as a democratic nation.  And a hell of a lot more important to the morality of this nation than whether or not Roe v. Wade is overturned or how many first term abortions were performed in this country last year.  

Yet you treat this like it is no big deal.

is acting in his role as Commander in Chief and exercising his duty to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution (and you and me along the way.) While this may not look like war to some (you perhaps) it most assuredly is.

you're getting all righteous about whether a secret prison system should be outed, not whether it's legal or moral.

I personally have no problem with these so-called "secret" prisons. I see nothing wrong with the idea or the practice as long as they are not being used inside this country and applied to US citizens.

That's an astounding statement, you should know. The idea that we, as Americans, should not be subjected to such measures, but that anyone else is fair game for them sets the bar for nationalistic arrogance at an all time high, IMO. But you've piqued my curiosity. What difference does it make, so long as you have no moral qualms about them, whether they are inside the US or not?

According to LGF, the photos in the linked article above are not what they are purported to be.

They are apparently not punishment meted out to an 8 year old for stealing bread. They are rather of a young boy hired to perform this "trick." So we do not have the savagery of government or vigilante "justice"; instead we have the savagery of person or persons who would hire a small child for this combined with the savagery of a group of people standing around watching.

I guess one man's savagery is just another man's savagery.

Just because they are secret is not prima facie evidence that they are illegal or immoral; secret and illegal/immoral have nothing to do with each other.

And I see nothing that bestows upon anonymous the legal, ethical or moral right to disclose them. In contrast, if Bill Smith has conclusive evidence that crimes are being committed and going unpunished then Bill may very well have a moral, and perhaps legal, responsibility to come forward, make his charges and present his evidence. But there is an enormous difference between anonymous leaking their existence and Bill presenting evidence of criminal behavior. Bill is prepared to tell us why he acted and what is going on; anonymous simply tosses his stinkbomb into the room and hides behind the door.

most assuredly not unlimited and it is subject to check by both of the other branches of government.  The argument could even be made that the president doesn't even have any "war powers" to exercise since the Congress has not declared war (and make no mistake about it, the power to declare war unequivocally is granted to the Congress, not the president).

If the president is doing things that are not subject to review by the other two branches of the government (and by definition if he is operating secret prisons in foreign countries without the knowledge of the courts or the congress that is exactly what he is doing) then he is subverting the explicit and implicit purpose of the Constitution.  You might be comfortable with this, but if the president were Bill Clinton or the detainees were White Christian followers of Randy Weaver or David Koresh I bet your attitude would be markedly different.

the power is not unlimited and is most assuredly subject to checks. But those checks are supposed to occur in Congress, not the pages of the Washington Post or because anonymous is in a snit or doesn't like George Bush's politics.

Please let's not rehash the "Congress never declared war" nonsense.

You assume that these secret prisons were not explicitly or implicitly apprroved by the Congress. There are a great many things that get approved that most of us never hear about --- that's why they are called secrets.

I take offense at the assertion that if white Christians were doing these things they would get a pass from me. If the followers of Randy Weaver of David Koresh were running around blowing up trains (London/Madrid), airplanes (NYC/DC), shopping centers (Isreal), schoolchildren (Beslan), nightclubs (Bali) in the name of Christianity my attitude would be the same as it is for the b*astards who are doing these things --- find them and capture or kill them; I want them stopped before they get to my wife and kids, your mother, whomever's sister.

Amerrrica, __-Yeah!

And what a surprise that is.

and then a follow-on career in the national security apparatus, I'm highly suspicious that such acts occur by low-level individuals without supervisory concurrence and/or disregard.

I've seen a great deal of cya activity in my career and this smells similar.  I think that there was probably a permissive environment and/or unclear lines of authority that contributed to the behaviors.

You can be solidly supportive of the military and its mission and still take issue with policy, tactics, strategies and execution.

It's noteworthy that the military, or at lease some individuals in the chain of command threw the yellow flag at these abuses but that doesn't mean that there isn't some chain of command culpability.

I have nothing to say about the media or Congressional behavior.  Frankly, it's not the point.

that Abu Grahib occured in the absence of command permissiveness. I think Gen. Karpinski's removal is ample evidence that there was at least some "lack of attention" to be kind.

When is Fitz going to probe THIS leak?

He should go over the entire CIA, and put every single agent, operative, analyst, and their families through "the question." I think this is good for four, five, six years.

Meanwhile, other agencies can perform real intelligence and Valerie and Joe can answer lots of embarrassing questions of who they told and when they told them (about the secret prisons).

This reminds me of LAWRENCE OF ARABIA, one of my favorite movies.

Lawrence, who was unarguably a great patriot knew how to use and manipulate, or work with, to give it a positive spin, the natives, because he understood them and could move among them like a fish into water.

The British and French colonial masters, on the other hand, full of their arrogance and ignorance, believing in the absolute of their own, greater military power, ignored his advice and made the mess we live with today.

Watching the movie is like watching a tragedy of wasted opportunities in slow motion, very much like reading the news today.

Frankly, I think it is already largely too late and like the Victorians, I suspect we will see the slow crumbling of our Empire within the next decade.

But I'm just saying.

Every country which projects abroad is largely an Empire; France was an Empire until the 1950s even though it was a Republic. In fact, it still is today, though greatly diminished. Ditto with the U.K., etc. So if the word causes you to bristle, forget about it.

There is a clash between two power-centers, ours and that of radical muslims.

The reason for my pessimism is that I see the current policies (including those discussed in this thread) as likely-to-fail, based on analogies with past French and British colonial policies and also American policies in Vietnam.

Now, you may think the analoigies are wrong (and I'm sure there are limits to any analogy) and that the current policies will enable us to win. I don't. On the contrary, I think they are leading us straight to a catastrophe.

But ultimately, neither of us have a crystal ball and time will tell. Pointless to argue about that.

My argument is that, IF I'm right (and I concede I could be wrong of course), THEN the reason why the current policies are a failure is because of ignorance, arrogance, and misplaced idea of what constitutes superiority, in a new conflict that does not follow the rules of the previous conflicts.

If we lose it will be because we do not learn the lessons of history.

because without a clear definition of what constitutes the U.S. empire or power-center or however you want to put it, it's impossible to argue about whether or not it's being lost.

but this isn't a movie. You have apparently given up so there does not appear to be any point in discussing this further.

I, on the other hand, am a glass-is-half-full kind of guy. We are not the British and most certainly we are not the French.

You can either have a clear definition of what you are talking about, ore you are spouting ignorant generalizations.  I extract from your reply the one close to logical point, but its still fuzzy.

"The reason for my pessimism is that I see the current policies (including those discussed in this thread) as likely-to-fail, based on analogies with past French and British colonial policies and also American policies in Vietnam."

Past French and British colonialism is not even close to what we are doing, so thats a non-starter.  If you truly believe this, you are right there with Mr. Moore in the nut-house of propaganda.  Now we get to the oft-quoted liberal mantra of Iraq being just like Vietnam.  Be honest here.  What state is supporting the insurgents?  What 'political' escalation of the fighting has taken place?  What military defeat have we suffered?  It bears no resemblance at all.  Its in the minds of liberals whose glory days were the 60's.  Total BS.  In fact, the one place where we are not very successful in Iraq, regarding policing a large population, we didn't even attempt in Vietnam.  You couldn't be more wrong as a analogy.  

Learning the lessons of history is one thing, living in the past is another.