Yemeni describes CIA secret jails Help me to understand the reasoning 30 days held?

[Clipperjay]

A Yemeni man has described being held for nearly three years in secret CIA prisons, or "black sites", around the world and accused the US of torture.

Source:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7292974.stm

I just don't understand the reasoning of such black sites after 30 days held then the man is let go?
Even the cruellest sick killers will have access to legal representation and fair trial.
So don't bull me about security risk.
With rendition flights to the states UK is not entirely blameless either!
What scares me is if there is no judicial process in place who monitors these activities?
The problem I have is the right to democratic freedoms and the argument is well these terrorists’ have no rights or freedoms? But then they let them go after 30 days of torture dam I think I would admit to anything they wanted me to after subjected to white noise and sleep deprivations!
Sorry why? Just give them Pethanol “truth drugs” I’m sure that’s more humane if you can call it that!    
Very disturbed the contiutional rights and freedoms America has fought so hard to achive over the decades, just to run secret ops for no logical reasonsing than "lets make sure" when will we see white reverts going to places like these?
I'm sure we discussed tourture as a power trip rather than information extraction?

[Clipperjay]

17 views and no coments I guess I just made this one up then?
Amazing!

[Maturin]

I'm having trouble understanding your wording. What are you referring to about 30 days. Nowhere in that article does it say he was held for 30 days. 28 months, ugh.

[Clipperjay]

Ok the link was good though? Many thanks for pointing that out to me its more damming than I thought?

[Intuit]

Well, what do you want us to say ?  He was obviously fed, housed and clothed.  They didn't mention anything about him sleeping in his own urine and defication.   I mean, he looks guilty; they caught him near or on a plane.  Once they got what info they could from him, they just released him to follow him home to his terrorist buddies.  Same idea behind releasing captured baby rabbits.  /TROLL

[VorLonUK]

I did post a thread on here about a UK government apology, after it was realised that the US had used British Airports for refueling whilst on a Rendition Run.

What amazes me, is there is so much publicity about this now and yet this US administration is still likely using draconian measures, which i personally don't think helps the so called "war on terror", if anything it "paints" the US in a thugish light.

In July 2007, Mr Bush issued an executive order which banned "cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment" of terrorist suspects by the CIA, but not its operation of secret facilities. The agency has since declined to say whether it still uses them.

This is why I personally like Hilary, because she has said she will open up dialogue to all and sundry and I believe that is the better way to brooch terrorism and angst around the world.
If you look at Iraq as a "yardstick" then the diplomatic route bears that out.

[Reflex]

I think everyone on this forum knows my position.  This flies in the face of US beliefs about constitutional rights.  Just as I stated about guns in another thread, we believe that the right to a fair and speedy trial is self-evident, not a right simply granted by the state.  As a result, the arguments about who's soil someone is being held on are facetious at best, after all the soil one is on is irrelevant if the state is not the one that grants the rights.

[VorLonUK]

I think everyone on this forum knows my position.  This flies in the face of US beliefs about constitutional rights.  Just as I stated about guns in another thread, we believe that the right to a fair and speedy trial is self-evident, not a right simply granted by the state.  As a result, the arguments about who's soil someone is being held on are facetious at best, after all the soil one is on is irrelevant if the state is not the one that grants the rights.

I suppose what is the most self-evident givaway, is these "Interogations" are held away from the US mainland. If a country prides itself on it's laws and fairness, then why would you want to do that? - it does send a very negative one, rather than a fair and just one. ie "you may attack us , but we will never stoop to your level...."

[Clipperjay]

Well, what do you want us to say ?  He was obviously fed, housed and clothed.  They didn't mention anything about him sleeping in his own urine and defication.   I mean, he looks guilty; they caught him near or on a plane.  Once they got what info they could from him, they just released him to follow him home to his terrorist buddies.  Same idea behind releasing captured baby rabbits.  /TROLL

Dam thats the first time I've been insulted by you intuit a TROLL thanks!

I don't know debating something as simple as this!

[ScutMonkey]

Well, what do you want us to say ?  He was obviously fed, housed and clothed.  They didn't mention anything about him sleeping in his own urine and defication.   I mean, he looks guilty; they caught him near or on a plane.  Once they got what info they could from him, they just released him to follow him home to his terrorist buddies.  Same idea behind releasing captured baby rabbits.  /TROLL

Dam thats the first time I've been insulted by you intuit a TROLL thanks!

I don't know debating something as simple as this!

His post is pure sarcasm.  He agrees with you.  I think something gets lost in the translation.

[VorLonUK]

Well, what do you want us to say ?  He was obviously fed, housed and clothed.  They didn't mention anything about him sleeping in his own urine and defication.   I mean, he looks guilty; they caught him near or on a plane.  Once they got what info they could from him, they just released him to follow him home to his terrorist buddies.  Same idea behind releasing captured baby rabbits.  /TROLL

Dam thats the first time I've been insulted by you intuit a TROLL thanks!

I don't know debating something as simple as this!

His post is pure sarcasm.  He agrees with you.  I think something gets lost in the translation.

It's the green Intuit has used that is the real giveaway  

[Reflex]

I think everyone on this forum knows my position.  This flies in the face of US beliefs about constitutional rights.  Just as I stated about guns in another thread, we believe that the right to a fair and speedy trial is self-evident, not a right simply granted by the state.  As a result, the arguments about who's soil someone is being held on are facetious at best, after all the soil one is on is irrelevant if the state is not the one that grants the rights.

I suppose what is the most self-evident givaway, is these "Interogations" are held away from the US mainland. If a country prides itself on it's laws and fairness, then why would you want to do that? - it does send a very negative one, rather than a fair and just one. ie "you may attack us , but we will never stoop to your level...."

We are on the same page.  I absolutely believe that the torture, lack of fair trials, renditions, etc are violations of US law, the constitition and are punishable criminal actions.  You won't see me ever coming down on the side of the administration in this affair.

[VorLonUK]

I think everyone on this forum knows my position.  This flies in the face of US beliefs about constitutional rights.  Just as I stated about guns in another thread, we believe that the right to a fair and speedy trial is self-evident, not a right simply granted by the state.  As a result, the arguments about who's soil someone is being held on are facetious at best, after all the soil one is on is irrelevant if the state is not the one that grants the rights.

I suppose what is the most self-evident givaway, is these "Interogations" are held away from the US mainland. If a country prides itself on it's laws and fairness, then why would you want to do that? - it does send a very negative one, rather than a fair and just one. ie "you may attack us , but we will never stoop to your level...."

We are on the same page.  I absolutely believe that the torture, lack of fair trials, renditions, etc are violations of US law, the constitition and are punishable criminal actions.  You won't see me ever coming down on the side of the administration in this affair.

Would you say this is more of a Bush thing, or something a different or a former president would do in these times?  

To clarify, I get the clear impression that much of the US political spectrum see Bush as a president who has crossed the line on more than one issue and to that end he is something of a presidential maverick. Would that be a fair assumption?

[fall-apart]

Compared to who?  Reagan (Iran-Contra)?  Nixon (Watergate)?  Clinton (lying to the grand jury)?

[Virtuous1]

Compared to who?  Reagan (Iran-Contra)?  Nixon (Watergate)?  Clinton (lying to the grand jury)?

Yeah, I think it really depends on which politician you are talking about, but I'd like to think the majority of them are against such a thing.

[VorLonUK]

I said "former president" - that implies former presidents ie any

[Reflex]

Well, Clinton started many of these policies, for instance the illegal detentions in Gitmo was his policy with HIV infected Hatian refugees.  That said, Bush has taken it to a new level, or at the least one not seen since the LBJ/Nixon years...

[Clipperjay]

Well, what do you want us to say ?  He was obviously fed, housed and clothed.  They didn't mention anything about him sleeping in his own urine and defication.   I mean, he looks guilty; they caught him near or on a plane.  Once they got what info they could from him, they just released him to follow him home to his terrorist buddies.  Same idea behind releasing captured baby rabbits.  /TROLL

Dam thats the first time I've been insulted by you intuit a TROLL thanks!

I don't know debating something as simple as this!

His post is pure sarcasm.  He agrees with you.  I think something gets lost in the translation.

It's the green Intuit has used that is the real giveaway  

No intuit called me a troll thats what I'm slapping his hands for! But yes I know his tacts by now. TROLL...........!

I'm still do not understanding the absolution from Bush over this why does the public just ignore such crimes even Blair had to quit due to questions of war crimes???

[Reflex]

The public dosen't ignore such crimes.  He lost control of congress in 06 when this stuff started coming out and the Republicans are likely to lose the presidency as well.  In other words, if the government won't act on the issue, the voters are taking it into their own hands with the tool we have available, namely the vote.

[Clipperjay]

The public dosen't ignore such crimes.  He lost control of congress in 06 when this stuff started coming out and the Republicans are likely to lose the presidency as well.  In other words, if the government won't act on the issue, the voters are taking it into their own hands with the tool we have available, namely the vote.

But Reflex this means that that long chain of congress must have known what was going on and lets be honest Bush & Blair made a lot of money from the war on terrorism.
Americans elected him another term didn't they? Even though this stories were evident way back when, even proof today is sketchy but we accept the way this is run? Who will say that the next presidency will not act in the same way? It's like a breach it must get resolved via long chains of command, but Bush is just a link in that chain so Congress must answer questions for the breaches not being addressed;

1) Why was this not highlighted sooner?
2) Plausible deniability is no good as it’s there job surely?
3) Blair and Bush will end up just making more money?
4) The ironic term over throwing dictatorships and reasons of invading other countries for those democratic reasons really is affecting the effectiveness of American integrity and policy with other countries?

[Reflex]

Bush was re-elected in 2004.  The story broke about the CIA, renditions and illegal wiretapping near the end of 2005, a full year after Bush's re-election.  Since then his ratings have been in the toilet.  Part of the reason Bush's popularity dropped so drastically was due to this leaking into the press, and it cost the Republicans control of congress.  The reason much of this is of questionable legality is because Bush never informed or asked permission from congress for it, so no, they did not know what was going on.

1) It was not highlighted sooner because the New York Times aceded to the Bush administration's request that they stay quiet on it for national security reasons.  The NYT knew about it in 2004 and did not report it.  I am angry about this, btw, I feel they abrogated thier responsibility to the people as it would likely have prevented Bush's re-election had we known during the campaign.

2) Don't know what your asking here.
3) Bush so far as anyone is aware has not made any personal money on the war on terror.  Bush's VP, Dick Cheney, used to be a executive at Halliburton, which has made a lot of money on war contracts, however Cheney divested himself of his shares of the company so he has not profited personally from the war(of course there is always the chance of rewards after his term is up although it will likely be heavily scrutinized).
4) Not sure what the question is here.

[ScutMonkey]

Would you say this is more of a Bush thing, or something a different or a former president would do in these times?  

To clarify, I get the clear impression that much of the US political spectrum see Bush as a president who has crossed the line on more than one issue and to that end he is something of a presidential maverick. Would that be a fair assumption?

No, not exactly.  Renditions have been going on for around 50 years according to some sources.  It's somewhat difficult to find out historical information on "Extraordinary Renditions" for obvious reasons, but:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraordinary_rendition

The procedure was developed by CIA officials in the mid-1990s who were trying to track down and dismantle militant Islamic organizations in the Middle East, particularly Al Qaeda.

In this they're discussing Renditions of Mid Eastern terrorist suspects specifically.  There are other instances of Cold War Renditions as well, apparently.  After 9/11 there has been a very sharp spike in it's usage, however.  Whether or not the escalation was necessary is up for debate - which I'm sure history will oblige.  The Reps will cite the fact that there have been no follow up attacks on our soil since 9/11.  Dems will say you can't prove a negative and claim you've stopped something that's never happened because you can't prove how it all would have unfolded.  It's dicey and if any of the current candidates stop these activities and then we're attacked again, Bush will be vindicated for his actions by a large number of Americans - fairly or unfairly.

Also, it's come to light that the waterboarding - which is so much in the news - was discussed with Democratic leaders in Congress and they gave their approval after the briefings.  I haven't read anything about whether they were briefed over Renditions or not, but this leads some conservatives to complain that Dems are playing both sides of the fence on this issue since their leadership knew about them all along.  I will say this, however.  I can't really get too upset with the three known cases where waterboarding was used.  It was used for less than five minutes combined on three suspects.  One of which was the killer of Daniel Pearl and another was the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks.  I understand the philosophical and moral implications of waterboarding if it is torture (and assuming these are the only cases - I'm not completely naive), but in practical terms these people just do not generate any sympathy from me.  A few minutes feeling like you're drowning is more than fair punishment for killing 3k people on 9/11.  Same goes for murdering Pearl.  As much as I loath Nancy Pelosi, I'm reserving judgment on condemning her for it at this point.

Anyway, I believe Obama's come out and criticized Renditions, but I can't be 100% sure.  However, the scenario which you feel so much heartburn over where he would go into another country to capture a terrorist is order to bring him to justice is a small step from a Rendition to keep "the US safe."  McCain has also come out and said that he wouldn't rule out using waterboarding as a tactic in a "ticking timebomb" scenario, although he's limited his support to that use only as have all the candidates.

So no, I wouldn't say that Bush is further out on a ledge than past Presidents considering the extraordinary circumstances of 9/11.

[Clipperjay]

Bush was re-elected in 2004.  The story broke about the CIA, renditions and illegal wiretapping near the end of 2005, a full year after Bush's re-election.  Since then his ratings have been in the toilet.  Part of the reason Bush's popularity dropped so drastically was due to this leaking into the press, and it cost the Republicans control of congress.  The reason much of this is of questionable legality is because Bush never informed or asked permission from congress for it, so no, they did not know what was going on.

1) It was not highlighted sooner because the New York Times aceded to the Bush administration's request that they stay quiet on it for national security reasons.  The NYT knew about it in 2004 and did not report it.  I am angry about this, btw, I feel they abrogated thier responsibility to the people as it would likely have prevented Bush's re-election had we known during the campaign.

2) Don't know what your asking here.
3) Bush so far as anyone is aware has not made any personal money on the war on terror.  Bush's VP, Dick Cheney, used to be a executive at Halliburton, which has made a lot of money on war contracts, however Cheney divested himself of his shares of the company so he has not profited personally from the war(of course there is always the chance of rewards after his term is up although it will likely be heavily scrutinized).
4) Not sure what the question is here.

1) It was not highlighted sooner because the New York Times aceded to the Bush administration's request that they stay quiet on it for national security reasons.  The NYT knew about it in 2004 and did not report it.  I am angry about this, btw, I feel they abrogated thier responsibility to the people as it would likely have prevented Bush's re-election had we known during the campaign.
 
That does not makes sense NYT knowing something that was happening and not reporting credabillity is called about the press over something as important as this?
2) Don't know what your asking here.
What your saying here is congress did not know about these ops and I would have thought they would have done something about this after they had the evidence agianst these ops?  

3) Bush so far as anyone is aware has not made any personal money on the war on terror.  Bush's VP, Dick Cheney, used to be a executive at Halliburton, which has made a lot of money on war contracts, however Cheney divested himself of his shares of the company so he has not profited personally from the war(of course there is always the chance of rewards after his term is up although it will likely be heavily scrutinized).
4) Not sure what the question is here.
What I'm saying Bush has damaged America in a big way(international politics) here and he still sits as president why does noone call for no confidence they did that with clinton over a BJ?

[fall-apart]

What I'm saying Bush has damaged America in a big way(international politics) here and he still sits as president why does noone call for no confidence they did that with clinton over a BJ?

Because you'd have to prove he'd done something illegal, like lie to a grand jury (fr'instance).

[Clipperjay]

What I'm saying Bush has damaged America in a big way(international politics) here and he still sits as president why does noone call for no confidence they did that with clinton over a BJ?

Because you'd have to prove he'd done something illegal, like lie to a grand jury (fr'instance).

But there are prisons that exist around the world that house these so called war prisoners?
So what you are saying is a BJ is easier to bring to light in front of congress than war crimes that are run secretly and that the public & media are aware of, but Congress choose to do nothing about it?
Sounds like the congress runs the show under Bush? so a grand jury can only be called upon via congress or is it public enquiries?