Support NeoGAF

[Lo-Volt]

Washington (AP) -- Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist says he is more concerned about the leak of information regarding secret CIA detention centers than activity in the prisons themselves.

Frist told reporters Thursday that while he believed illegal activity should not take place at detention centers, he believes the leak itself poses a greater threat to national security and is "not concerned about what goes on" behind the prison walls.

"My concern is with leaks of information that jeopardize your safety and security -- period," Frist said. "That is a legitimate concern."

He noted that the CIA has also called for a federal criminal investigation into the leak of possibly classified information on secret prisons to The Washington Post. A November 2 Post article touched on a number of sensitive national security issues, including the existence of secret CIA detention centers for suspected terrorists in Eastern European democracies. The Bush administration has neither confirmed nor denied that report.

Frist was asked if that meant he was not concerned about investigating what goes on in detention centers.

"I am not concerned about what goes on and I'm not going to comment about the nature of that," Frist replied.

He added that as Senate majority leader he is privy to classified information and discussions about prison activity. "I'm going to make sure that everything that's done is consistent with the Constitution ... and the laws of the United States of America," he said.

Frist and House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Illinois, wrote the leaders of the House and Senate intelligence committees earlier this week calling for a joint congressional investigation into the leak.CNN.

 

[DEO3]

Talk about not seeing the forest from the trees.

 

[Willco]

Secret prisions exist so that they can do illegal things outside of America. Frist just doesn't feel like admitting that, I guess.

 

[Christoff Yurievich]

Come to think of it, I don't care either. hell, why does anyone care about it? don't you know GWB said that we don't torture anyone? based on that alone you should just admit it's not important and just drop it.

 

[xsarien]

Man, I've never seen a party so eager to dig its own grave.

 

[Lo-Volt]

But will the Democrats be good enough as the undertakers?

 

[Dilbert]

This actually raises an interesting issue.

There is potentially a conflict between needing keep classified information secure...and needing to expose those who are breaking the laws of the United States. As much as I respect the need to keep secrets, I am EXTREMELY uncomfortable with the "you have to trust us to monitor the situation" position that Frist is taking -- it's the classic problem of quis custodiet ipsos custodes? (As for Frist in particular, it's especially not credible -- we can't even trust the guy to keep a blind trust.)

What do people think about the best way to strike a balance between these principles?

 

[Diablos]

Chris Matthews said last night that America's approval of Democrats is only 8%. That can't be right, can it? :\

 

[rs7k]

Chris Matthews said last night that America's approval of Democrats is only 8%. That can't be right, can it? :\

That wouldn't make sense with the two gubernatorials they just won.

 

[Diablos]

That wouldn't make sense with the two gubernatorials they just won.

He actually said it while talking to one of them :lol

 

[bob_arctor]

*Sigh* Someone please defend this somehow so I can finally end it all.

 

[Diablos]

*Sigh* Someone please defend this somehow so I can finally end it all.

BILL FRIST IS RITE, LOL AM I RITE?

There you go; fire away!

 

[maynerd]

Is anyone actually surprised?

 

[bob_arctor]

BILL FRIST IS RITE, LOL AM I RITE?

There you go; fire away!

:lol Jerk. Here's some NY Times stuff on this:

The adminstration and its allies in Congress want to suppress this information merely because they don't want a full accounting of how American soldiers and intelligence agents have been turned into torturers, and because the administration wants to go on abusing prisoners.

 

[typhonsentra]

Are you guys really defending the rights of the animals they detail there? We put them in those holes for a reason.

 

[Phoenix]

Are you guys really defending the rights of the animals they detail there? We put them in those holes for a reason.

You mean like the several that were just released after 3 years of captivity, charged with no crime, and found did no wrongdoing?

 

[bob_arctor]

Are you guys really defending the rights of the animals they detail there? We put them in those holes for a reason.

:lol :lol

Headlines in Bahrain this week followed the homecoming of three men held at Guantanamo for nearly four years. "Free at Last!" proclaimed the English-language Gulf News. The three were picked up in Pakistan shortly after the Sept. 11 attacks and were never charged with a crime.

Filthy fuckin' animals!!

 

[ronito]

Are you guys really defending the rights of the animals they detail there? We put them in those holes for a reason.

I care because the America I was raised to believe in was better than this. To paraphrase Senator McCain, we face a deplorable enemy, but it is not about who they are, it's about who we are.

 

[demon]

Are you guys really defending the rights of the animals they detail there? We put them in those holes for a reason.

Considering the points the last few posters made, what reason would that be?

 

[Macam]

I take it there aren't any white, female, brain dead patients in our secret prisons, which may explain his indifference.

 

[videogamer]

This actually raises an interesting issue.

There is potentially a conflict between needing keep classified information secure...and needing to expose those who are breaking the laws of the United States. As much as I respect the need to keep secrets, I am EXTREMELY uncomfortable with the "you have to trust us to monitor the situation" position that Frist is taking -- it's the classic problem of quis custodiet ipsos custodes? (As for Frist in particular, it's especially not credible -- we can't even trust the guy to keep a blind trust.)

What do people think about the best way to strike a balance between these principles?

Here is one that I have since discarded for being way too soft:
What damage can the leak cause? Or what good can the leak cause?

Pentagon papers
The Brown & Williamson papers dropped off at UCSF
Valerie Plame
"CIA secret prisons"

As for how these can be determined as necessary, I looked at health care provider-patient confidentiality rules. The professionals are required to report cases of suspected child abuse. A case where the child may not be able to stand for themselves. Then there is the possibility of the patient harming others in society, like in the case of the pain killer-seeking pilot. Or the elderly patient who insists on driving even though they experience blackouts. BUT, in the case of the health professional, the law is on their side. As result these comparisions remain awkward ethics comparisions.

 

[Incognito]

Chris Matthews said last night that America's approval of Democrats is only 8%. That can't be right, can it? :\

Chris must have reprised his old role of White House stenographer in order to belt out that bullshit.

 

[Shinobi]

This actually raises an interesting issue.

There is potentially a conflict between needing keep classified information secure...and needing to expose those who are breaking the laws of the United States. As much as I respect the need to keep secrets, I am EXTREMELY uncomfortable with the "you have to trust us to monitor the situation" position that Frist is taking -- it's the classic problem of quis custodiet ipsos custodes? (As for Frist in particular, it's especially not credible -- we can't even trust the guy to keep a blind trust.)

What do people think about the best way to strike a balance between these principles?

They've been shoving that sickening rhetoric in people's faces for four years now. National security this, national security that. They basically treat Americans like a bunch of stupid fucking children.

But shit, this is nothing new. Why were the JFK papers sealed for 50 years? National security! It's just hollow bullshit.

Are you guys really defending the rights of the animals they detail there? We put them in those holes for a reason.

If America is going to pontificate about the freedom, justice and liberty that the nation was allegedly built on and on whom it's principles are formed, you can't just summarily dismiss it when dealing with people that come from different nations. And you sure as fuck don't go around holding people for years on end without charge and torturing them on top of it. Otherwise you become no better then the people you're fighting.

 

[GaimeGuy]

"But... we're not torturing people! We're punishing the terrorists!" ~ a quote I read on another message board during the whole Abu Ghraib incident thing.

Some people are just blind.

 

[WedgeX]

This actually raises an interesting issue.

There is potentially a conflict between needing keep classified information secure...and needing to expose those who are breaking the laws of the United States. As much as I respect the need to keep secrets, I am EXTREMELY uncomfortable with the "you have to trust us to monitor the situation" position that Frist is taking -- it's the classic problem of quis custodiet ipsos custodes? (As for Frist in particular, it's especially not credible -- we can't even trust the guy to keep a blind trust.)

What do people think about the best way to strike a balance between these principles?

There's a justification issue. If it's necessary to break the law if it prevents a greater harm from occuring than it would be justified in the eyes of a criminal court.

Or so I've been led to believe.

 

[BorkBork]

The more new reports I read and see, the more I realize that neither party have any qualms about HAVING secret prisons in the first place. That is some seriously disturbing stuff.

 

[Jdw40223]

The more new reports I read and see, the more I realize that neither party have any qualms about HAVING secret prisons in the first place. That is some seriously disturbing stuff.

Filming a beheading is disturbing... suicide bombers are disturbing... bombing hotels in Jordan is disturbing...

Talk about BLIND!! C'mon... when is it ok to blame the cowards (terrorists), until they kill you or a family member?

The secret prision 'talk' was LEAKED. Whether is was torture or not, it was leaked by a "SECRET AGENCY". Senate needs to investigate who leaked it. They like to investigate every other damn thing, even oil execs, but NOT this? haha I dont care who did, repub or dem, it needs to be addressed.

 

[the year 20XX]

Are you guys really defending the rights of the animals they detail there? We put them in those holes for a reason.

1. it's been posted before, but without formal charges we're putting them in there for no reason, and

2. YES. Until they are proven guilty in a court of law, I am defending their rights. And after that, I'll call bullshit if they're mistreated in prison. I believe in the Constitution, and in human rights. Of course, I'm a total kook.

3. That was probably a sarcastic/trolling question in the first place, though, so I shouldn't have answered it.

 

[NLB2]

*Sigh* Someone please defend this somehow so I can finally end it all.

Pretty easy - intell gathered from torturing captured insurgents can lead to the death or capture of more insurgents and prevent american casualties.

Kind of odd that people worry more about the rights of terrorists and insurgents than about the well being of american millitary personel.

 

[demon]

Pretty easy - intell gathered from torturing captured insurgents can lead to the death or capture of more insurgents and prevent american casualties.

Kind of odd that people worry more about the rights of terrorists and insurgents than about the well being of american millitary personel.

That's funny, I thought all real-world evidence and expert opinion points to torture NOT WORKING.

 

[NLB2]

That's funny, I thought all real-world evidence and expert opinion points to torture NOT WORKING.

If that were the case why would they do it?

 

[Hitokage]

Pretty easy - intell gathered from torturing captured insurgents can lead to the death or capture of more insurgents and prevent american casualties.

...or can just as easily lead to the death or capture of american soldiers because the information was faulty as the person being tortured just wanted them to stop.

If that were the case why would they do it?

You know, you can put the "If it didn't work then why did they do it?" line of reasoning to SO many things.

 

[demon]

If that were the case why would they do it?

:lol

Brilliant logic there, my friend.

 

[the year 20XX]

Pretty easy - intell gathered from torturing captured insurgents can lead to the death or capture of more insurgents and prevent american casualties.

Kind of odd that people worry more about the rights of terrorists and insurgents than about the well being of american millitary personel.

Okay, except many of the people captured may not be terrorists or insurgents. What then? Then we're just people who invaded their country, took over their government and started rounding people up.

Also, I think capturing and torturing people is just going to piss off the actual insurgents more.

ALSO also, I worry about the well-being of those American military personnel who are going to come home with torture on their conscience.

(edit: in Lynndie's case, I don't so much worry about her conscience.)

 

[NLB2]

...or can just as easily lead to the death or capture of american soldiers because the information was faulty.

They can also give bad info when they're not tortured.
A much bigger problem would be the one created by pictures like the one above. Once word of torture gets out it makes the enemy less likely to surrender and it also drives people on the edge over it and towards fighting US troops.

 

[NLB2]

Okay, except many of the people captured may not be terrorists or insurgents. What then? Then we're just people who invaded their country, took over their government and started rounding people up.

Also, I think capturing and torturing people is just going to piss off the actual insurgents more.

ALSO also, I worry about the well-being of those American military personnel who are going to come home with torture on their conscience.

Sucks for the innocent. And it also sucks for the torturers who generally would suffer from PTSD.

 

[the year 20XX]

They can also give bad info when they're not tortured.

So might as well torture 'em, right?

 

[the year 20XX]

Sucks for the innocent. And it also sucks for the torturers who generally would suffer from PTSD.

Yeah, it does suck. I'm worried about the well-being of our American military personnel.

 

[B-B-Bomba!]

There is a sizeable disconnect between how we wish the laws of human rights to be applied, and how we wish to be protected (I'm English, btw, to avoid confusion, and to contextualise my right to comment).

Public consenus is that you simply cannot hold people without charge, nor can you torture them, for any reason, ever. State consensus would be that you cannot protect a modern society without doing so.

This seems to me to be a fairly mature argument for reassessing what is meant by, entailed in, and desired from a modern society. This always assumes the horse is preceding the cart.

Plus I think a major reason this is found to be so appalling - beyond the intrinsic value, which is high - is the idea of Big Dishonesty coming from government. Public consensus is coming to realise that, for all that they have never really trusted government, government would sooner collapse than place anything like full trust in the public.

Again, my hope is that the eventual upshot from these encounters will include more trust on both sides. This would be the good result imo. There are many bad alternatives.

 

[Hitokage]

So might as well torture 'em, right?

I say we throw them all into a river. If they float, they're a terrorist. If they sink and drown, they're innocent.

 

[Shinobi]

Kind of odd that people worry more about the rights of terrorists and insurgents than about the well being of american millitary personel.

Hey, the personel's drive armoured Hummers and carry guns...that's more then I've got. They can take care of themselves.

 

[Drozmight]

Oh, well, they are bad people... it's okay to torture them.

Wait, isn't that the same sort of logic every fascist regime on earth has used to justify its taking away the rights of others? Torture? False inprisionment? Protecting America doesn't mean abondoning its ideals and principles simply because "bad" people are aloft, it means upholding them no matter what dangers you face.

Anyone who thinks we should abondon these ideals and principles simply because we're dealing with some complete assholes are the fuehrer's future lemmings.

If I had died fighting for this country I'd be rolling in my fucking grave right now as these suits shit all over it.






Thats my two cents.

 

[Hyoushi]

They can also give bad info when they're not tortured.

Wow :lol

 

[Shinobi]

Oh, well, they are bad people... it's okay to torture them.

Wait, isn't that the same sort of logic every fascist regime on earth has used to justify its taking away the rights of others? Torture? False inprisionment? Protecting America doesn't mean abondoning its ideals and principles simply because "bad" people are aloft, it means upholding them no matter what dangers you face.

Anyone who thinks we should abondon these ideals and principles simply because we're dealing with some complete assholes are the fuehrer's future lemmings.

If I had died fighting for this country I'd be rolling in my fucking grave right now as these suits shit all over it.






Thats my two cents.

Preach.

 

[Lo-Volt]

The US Senate has urged the country's intelligence chief to give it a report on allegations that the CIA ran secret overseas jails for terrorism suspects.

John Negroponte should testify in secret to two Congressional intelligence panels, the Senate voted.

It follows a report, that has not been officially confirmed or denied, that the CIA had jails in Europe and Asia

Senators also voted to bar detainees at Guantanamo Bay from taking legal action in US courts.

However, the provision would need to go through several more steps before becoming law.

If it does become law it will leave without effect a 2004 Supreme Court opinion that the Guantanamo inmates had a right to challenge their detentions.

Senator John Kerry proposed the call for a report into the alleged secret jails.

"I don't have any doubt in the American public's determination to win the war on terror," the former presidential challenger said.

"But I do know that any administration that tries to keep Congress in the dark damages the cause for which we are all fighting."

According to the Washington Post newspaper, centres - known as "black sites" - were set up in the wake of the 11 September attacks on the US in 2001.

About 30 detainees, considered major terrorism suspects, were held by the CIA in the "black sites", the paper said.

Another group of at least 70 detainees have since been handed over to intelligence services in Egypt, Jordan, Morocco, Afghanistan and other countries.

The European Union has said it will examine reports that the CIA set up prisons in unnamed Eastern European states.

A rights group has suggested Romania and Poland might have been involved, but both states have issued denials.

The Washington Post also named Afghanistan and Thailand as hosts of secret jails, which are now said to have closed. Thailand has issued a denial.

The International Committee of the Red Cross has said it wants access to all foreign terror suspects held by the US.
BBC.

 

[Phoenix]

The more new reports I read and see, the more I realize that neither party have any qualms about HAVING secret prisons in the first place. That is some seriously disturbing stuff.

Thing is we've ALWAYS had them for years and years going back through the cold war. These folks aren't really surprised by their existence, just that they've been made public to us.

 

[Phoenix]

I say we throw them all into a river. If they float, they're a terrorist. If they sink and drown, they're innocent.

You forgot that they should be tied to a rock!

 

[APF]

I don't think there's anything wrong with someone suggesting that their major concern is the leaking of this information and that--while illegal things shouldn't be happening in these facilities--there's no reason to think, just because their existence is now known to the public, there is any specific concern (ie not following reports of abuse) about illegal activities allegedly going on in them. I think one can make the "oh come on" argument to connect the two, but that's not really convincing on its own. The problem is that the nature of secret confinement, in conjunction with the obviously broken interrogation policies we're using, makes all detention suspect--at least in my mind, and I assume the mind of most people here. I'd like this sort of secret shit to stay secret though, regardless. I would also like more to have effective oversight of our methods and procedures, etc., and that's the problem.

 

[Incognito]

Israeli torture techniques:

http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/13135450.htm

Robert Baer, a former CIA covert officer who worked in Iraq and elsewhere, said he recently spent time in an Israeli prison, talking with detainees from the radical Palestinian groups Islamic Jihad and Hamas for a British documentary about suicide bombers.

The Israelis, Baer said, have learned that they can gain valuable information by establishing personal relationships with the inmates and gaining their trust.

"They found that torture, abusive tactics, made things overall worse for them politically," Baer said. "The Israelis are friendly with their prisoners. They play cards with them and allow them to contact their families. They are getting in their minds to determine what makes up a suicide bomber."

.... Vincent Cannistraro, a former chief of operations and analysis in the CIA Counterterrorist Center, said detainees would say virtually anything to end their torment.

Baer agreed, citing intelligence reports from Arab security services that yielded useless information. "The Saudis and Egyptians torture people all the time, but I have yet to see anything that helped us on the jihad movement and (Osama bin Laden's deputy Ayman al) Zawahri," he said.

 

[Phoenix]

Israeli torture techniques:

http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/13135450.htm

Indeed, becaus I can tell you with certainty that if you torture me or imprison me wrongly for years and then release me back to the public, your standing in my community will drop significantly. I would be a living testament that you are the one who is an animal and deserve any attack you get.

You can't brutalize people for years and expect things to be okay after the fact. "Well you're free now," just doesn't cut it.