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

[Reflex]

1) The NYT has done this in the past, they did it with Bill Clinton regarding Monica Lewinsky.  The NYT is not the respected news source over here that they apparantly are in Britain, most people here know they have an agenda.
2) Congress is subdivided into committees, and intelligence is part of the intelligence committee.  That means that most of congress would have been unaware, assuming that Bush even bothered to tell the intelligence committee in the first place.
4) We did not call 'no confidence' on Bill Clinton.  He was impeached, not for a BJ but instead for lying under oath.  That is a fairly serious crime here and it nearly cost him his office.  The Democratic Congress did not take over until the beginning of 07, the time required for an impeachment to go through would run through this year and he would likely be out of office before it concluded.  There is no point, let him finish his term and then investigate the dirty dealings when a Dem has control of the presidency.

[ScutMonkey]

4) We did not call 'no confidence' on Bill Clinton.  He was impeached, not for a BJ but instead for lying under oath.  That is a fairly serious crime here and it nearly cost him his office.  The Democratic Congress did not take over until the beginning of 07, the time required for an impeachment to go through would run through this year and he would likely be out of office before it concluded.  There is no point, let him finish his term and then investigate the dirty dealings when a Dem has control of the presidency.

Because of the revelations that the Dems knew about the waterboarding, I suspect it won't be fully investigated by Congress simply because of the collateral damage.

[Rocky]

To be honest about the situation, I hate Bush, I think he's been a horrible President.  And he has done little to respond to the will of the people.  But I think the news about what the CIA is doing is more of an issue of technological change.  These things arent new, if anything, they are old and routine.  It's just that in the modern age they are tougher to hide.  I also don't think the US is alone in what they are doing.  It is just that what the CIA is doing is a very sharp contrast to the US court system, and that makes it a story.  There are many countries in the world where there every day court systems are horrible atrocities, but they don't get covered at all in the media, and are ignored by the cries of the europeans dissenters.  Also, because of hte size and scope of the US's activities, their efforts are a bigger deal, and rightly so, but I doubt most people have to look beyond their own governments to find something of this nature to complain about and try to fix.

You will notice that I have not made an argument in favor of these tactics. Merely pointing out the hypocritical nature of the dissenters. Everyone looks for someone else to blame, and its easy to blame the US.  But I urge everyone to look at their own and to keep things in perspective.  99.9% of the US's legal actions are legit and are some of the best and fairest in the world.  Not too many countries can say that.  And then ask yourself, what have YOU done to help the situation in the countries where they experience this horrible treatment in 99% of the cases?

[Reflex]

I do not think it is ever hypocritical to dissent against torture and kidnapping, regardless of whether it was done in the past or by other nations.  Basic human rights are paramount.

[VorLonUK]

Merely pointing out the hypocritical nature of the dissenters. Everyone looks for someone else to blame, and its easy to blame the US.

The US is always going to be visible when it's either playing world policeman and/or invading countries. Because of that you can't blame the people around the world who form an opinion based on that.

[Rocky]

I do not think it is ever hypocritical to dissent against torture and kidnapping, regardless of whether it was done in the past or by other nations.  Basic human rights are paramount.

Again you completely missed the point.

[Rocky]

Merely pointing out the hypocritical nature of the dissenters. Everyone looks for someone else to blame, and its easy to blame the US.

The US is always going to be visible when it's either playing world policeman and/or invading countries. Because of that you can't blame the people around the world who form an opinion on that.

Let me know where I blamed anyone or defended the US's actions.  But none of that excuses the hypocriscy of being blind to the rest of the world.

[VorLonUK]

Merely pointing out the hypocritical nature of the dissenters. Everyone looks for someone else to blame, and its easy to blame the US.

The US is always going to be visible when it's either playing world policeman and/or invading countries. Because of that you can't blame the people around the world who form an opinion on that.

Let me know where I blamed anyone or defended the US's actions.  But none of that excuses the hypocriscy of being blind to the rest of the world.

This bit, the word blame is used twice...

Everyone looks for someone else to blame, and its easy to blame the US.

......and I replied as to why people most probably Find"it Easy easy to blame the US"

[Rocky]

Merely pointing out the hypocritical nature of the dissenters. Everyone looks for someone else to blame, and its easy to blame the US.

The US is always going to be visible when it's either playing world policeman and/or invading countries. Because of that you can't blame the people around the world who form an opinion on that.

Let me know where I blamed anyone or defended the US's actions.  But none of that excuses the hypocriscy of being blind to the rest of the world.

This bit, the word blame is used twice...

Everyone looks for someone else to blame, and its easy to blame the US.

......and I replied as to why people most probably Find"it Easy easy to blame the US"

Im still looking for where I blamed anyone?

[VorLonUK]

Merely pointing out the hypocritical nature of the dissenters. Everyone looks for someone else to blame, and its easy to blame the US.

The US is always going to be visible when it's either playing world policeman and/or invading countries. Because of that you can't blame the people around the world who form an opinion on that.

Let me know where I blamed anyone or defended the US's actions.  But none of that excuses the hypocriscy of being blind to the rest of the world.

This bit, the word blame is used twice...

Everyone looks for someone else to blame, and its easy to blame the US.

......and I replied as to why people most probably Find"it Easy easy to blame the US"

Im still looking for where I blamed anyone?

Come on Rocky, don't be so pedantic.

If we are playing at that game, I can say the same too.

Because of that you can’t blame the people around the world who form an opinion on that.

The "you" bit makes it a global statement and doesn't mean You personally Rocky.

[Rocky]

Its amazing to me that whenever a real discussion is tried on here someone will boil it down to trying to point to one word and make sweeping assumptions about what that one word implies.  If you want to talk about what I posted, go ahead, I dont care to get into a definition or semantic fight with you.  That's pointless, stupid and immature.  The issue is very serious, and my point was trying to be too.  Obviously you'd rather continue to go on some unobjective rant against my country, so go ahead.

[VorLonUK]

Its amazing to me that whenever a real discussion is tried on here someone will boil it down to trying to point to one word and make sweeping assumptions about what that one word implies.  If you want to talk about what I posted, go ahead, I dont care to get into a definition or semantic fight with you.  That's pointless, stupid and immature.  The issue is very serious, and my point was trying to be too.  Obviously you'd rather continue to go on some unobjective rant against my country, so go ahead.

I replied to your comments Rocky, with what I thought was a reasonable comment. I appologise if I misread your sentiment to the letter. Perhaps you could have refrained from being pedantic on your subsequent replies and just put me straight

This is the trouble debating on here sometimes, especially when it comes to the US and views held by those who live outside it, opposed to those who live in it. The gap between those views seems to widen all the time Bush is in power.

[Reflex]

I do not think it is ever hypocritical to dissent against torture and kidnapping, regardless of whether it was done in the past or by other nations.  Basic human rights are paramount.

Again you completely missed the point.

Since this seems to be your standard response these days, have you ever considered that perhaps your just not that good at making a point?  If everyone who disagrees with you is simply 'missing your point' then you need to learn to make your point better.

I'll wait for you to clarify the point I apparantly missed.

[Intuit]

I recommend you two get a divorce.  

I divorced TM and never looked back.  

[VorLonUK]

I recommend you two get a divorce.  

I divorced TM and never looked back.  

I didn't know you had divorced TM Intuit. That shotgun wedding you had, wasn't bound to last

[Rocky]

I do not think it is ever hypocritical to dissent against torture and kidnapping, regardless of whether it was done in the past or by other nations.  Basic human rights are paramount.

Again you completely missed the point.

Since this seems to be your standard response these days, have you ever considered that perhaps your just not that good at making a point?  If everyone who disagrees with you is simply 'missing your point' then you need to learn to make your point better.

I'll wait for you to clarify the point I apparantly missed.

Maybe.  But so far, if its just you missing my point, I wont worry about it.  But to answer the substance of your post, which was "Basic human rights are paramount."  I would think it would be impossible to find anyone on this forum that disagrees with you.  I mean does anyone disagree that basic human rights are paramount?  If the answer is no, and it is, why would you assume I posted something to the contrary?  Either you purposely are strawmanning, or you missed the point.  And since strawmanning are against the rules that you yourself wrote, Ill assume you missed it.  What my point was, which was pretty clear as vorlon got it, was that yes the US is the biggest offender, but its hypocritical to ignore the other offenders either purposely or not.

[Rocky]

Its amazing to me that whenever a real discussion is tried on here someone will boil it down to trying to point to one word and make sweeping assumptions about what that one word implies.  If you want to talk about what I posted, go ahead, I dont care to get into a definition or semantic fight with you.  That's pointless, stupid and immature.  The issue is very serious, and my point was trying to be too.  Obviously you'd rather continue to go on some unobjective rant against my country, so go ahead.

I replied to your comments Rocky, with what I thought was a reasonable comment. I appologise if I misread your sentiment to the letter. Perhaps you could have refrained from being pedantic on your subsequent replies and just put me straight

This is the trouble debating on here sometimes, especially when it comes to the US and views held by those who live outside it, opposed to those who live in it. The gap between those views seems to widen all the time Bush is in power.

It annoys me when you post about the US.  You lump everyone together.  There are 300 million residents, and as you have seen the way I feel about this issue and many others are very similar.  Yet you continue to talk about how people in the US are gung ho, they are cowboys.  So I find it a little rude to be lumped into people like that, when in fact we agree very much.  And when I post somethign objective about torture, like yes the US has had some bad moments, its fairly common in other places around the world, and far more frequent, yet they get no attention.  You instead respond like Im some US stereotyped person that you've made up.  But I think youll find Im far from gung ho or cowboy like.

[Caffeine Cemetary]

What's all this shit-talking about cowboys?  I mean, read some Louis L'Amour for god's sake..  Honor, courage, saving the girl..  What's not to like?!  ;-)

[VorLonUK]

Its amazing to me that whenever a real discussion is tried on here someone will boil it down to trying to point to one word and make sweeping assumptions about what that one word implies.  If you want to talk about what I posted, go ahead, I dont care to get into a definition or semantic fight with you.  That's pointless, stupid and immature.  The issue is very serious, and my point was trying to be too.  Obviously you'd rather continue to go on some unobjective rant against my country, so go ahead.

I replied to your comments Rocky, with what I thought was a reasonable comment. I appologise if I misread your sentiment to the letter. Perhaps you could have refrained from being pedantic on your subsequent replies and just put me straight

This is the trouble debating on here sometimes, especially when it comes to the US and views held by those who live outside it, opposed to those who live in it. The gap between those views seems to widen all the time Bush is in power.

It annoys me when you post about the US.  You lump everyone together.  There are 300 million residents, and as you have seen the way I feel about this issue and many others are very similar.  Yet you continue to talk about how people in the US are gung ho, they are cowboys.  So I find it a little rude to be lumped into people like that, when in fact we agree very much.  And when I post somethign objective about torture, like yes the US has had some bad moments, its fairly common in other places around the world, and far more frequent, yet they get no attention.  You instead respond like Im some US stereotyped person that you've made up.  But I think youll find Im far from gung ho or cowboy like.

Fair enough Rocky. I just commented on what you wrote, but it honestly wasn't directed at you, it was my take based on the current stance of the US administration and why people (outside the US) feel the way they do. It was generalised and wasn't directed at you, nor a large part of the US population either.

I appreciate the US is made up with a full political spectrum, so when I comment (and I've said this before) it's usually in response to what the US has become and not what it could or might be after bush has left office. So in that regard, I know many Americans including yourself are looking for a change in the way your country is run and the way it does all it's business and diplomacy abroad.

[Reflex]

What's all this shit-talking about cowboys?  I mean, read some Louis L'Amour for god's sake..  Honor, courage, saving the girl..  What's not to like?!  ;-)

The problem is that some of the posters here just might qualify as 'the girl' who needs saving.  

[VorLonUK]

What's all this shit-talking about cowboys?  I mean, read some Louis L'Amour for god's sake..  Honor, courage, saving the girl..  What's not to like?!  ;-)

The problem is that some of the posters here just might qualify as 'the girl' who needs saving.  

Are you hinting something about yourself Reflex? Cross Dresser maybe ?  :bug:

[Rocky]

Its amazing to me that whenever a real discussion is tried on here someone will boil it down to trying to point to one word and make sweeping assumptions about what that one word implies.  If you want to talk about what I posted, go ahead, I dont care to get into a definition or semantic fight with you.  That's pointless, stupid and immature.  The issue is very serious, and my point was trying to be too.  Obviously you'd rather continue to go on some unobjective rant against my country, so go ahead.

I replied to your comments Rocky, with what I thought was a reasonable comment. I appologise if I misread your sentiment to the letter. Perhaps you could have refrained from being pedantic on your subsequent replies and just put me straight

This is the trouble debating on here sometimes, especially when it comes to the US and views held by those who live outside it, opposed to those who live in it. The gap between those views seems to widen all the time Bush is in power.

It annoys me when you post about the US.  You lump everyone together.  There are 300 million residents, and as you have seen the way I feel about this issue and many others are very similar.  Yet you continue to talk about how people in the US are gung ho, they are cowboys.  So I find it a little rude to be lumped into people like that, when in fact we agree very much.  And when I post somethign objective about torture, like yes the US has had some bad moments, its fairly common in other places around the world, and far more frequent, yet they get no attention.  You instead respond like Im some US stereotyped person that you've made up.  But I think youll find Im far from gung ho or cowboy like.

Fair enough Rocky. I just commented on what you wrote, but it honestly wasn't directed at you, it was my take based on the current stance of the US administration and why people (outside the US) feel the way they do. It was generalised and wasn't directed at you, nor a large part of the US population either.

I appreciate the US is made up with a full political spectrum, so when I comment (and I've said this before) it's usually in response to what the US has become and not what it could or might be after bush has left office. So in that regard, I know many Americans including yourself are looking for a change in the way your country is run and the way it does all it's business and diplomacy abroad.

I agree  I just try to help people not forget the other injustices in the world.  The US torture thing may be big ideaology-wse, but in numbers its incredibly small compared to whats going on elsewhere.  I think europeans (my turn to generalize) seem to love to bash the US, but when it comes to helping injustices in other countries they do very little.  An american expression (I think), put your money where your mouth is.

[Reflex]

The US sets the standards.  We claim to come from a moral standing, from our constitution to our behaviour.  If we set the standard then we *must* live by it.  No if's, ands or buts about it.  As much as Vorlon may think I overly defend the US, I am among the most dissapointed you will ever meet when we fail our own standards.

[VorLonUK]

The US sets the standards.  We claim to come from a moral standing, from our constitution to our behaviour.  If we set the standard then we *must* live by it.  No if's, ands or buts about it.  As much as Vorlon may think I overly defend the US, I am among the most dissapointed you will ever meet when we fail our own standards.

To be honest I have noted that Reflex

I just hope that the US under new leadership will be able to say that regardless of what our enemies may do, that we will remain to work within a just system ie US law/International law etc.

One thing that does draw me to Hilary (and it's not her beauty ) is that she has said she will talk to countries such as Iran. To me that is a massive step forward even if ultimately some sort of military action is taken. I'm not against military action, but I believe it is the tool of very last resort.

[Reflex]

One thing that does draw me to Hilary (and it’s not her beauty  ) is that she has said she will talk to countries such as Iran. To me that is a massive step forward even if ultimately some sort of military action is taken. I’m not against military action, but I believe it is the tool of very last resort.

Actually you have that backwards.  Obama said that at a debate and was instantly criticized by both Edwards and Hillary, Hillary specifically calling Obama 'niave'.

Adding the relevant article: http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/07/25/clinton.obama/index.html

The sparring began Monday at the CNN/YouTube debate, in which a viewer asked candidates if they would be willing to meet with leaders of Iran, Syria, Cuba, Venezuela and North Korea -- whom the United States has called rogue leaders.

Obama said he would, adding "it is a disgrace that we have not spoken to them." He added: "The notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them -- which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of this administration -- is ridiculous."

Obama cited the diplomacy of late presidents John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan, who engaged the Soviet Union even as he called it the "evil empire."

Obama said one of his first orders of diplomacy in the Middle East would be to "send a signal that we need to talk to Iran and Syria because they're going to have responsibilities if Iraq collapses."

"They have been acting irresponsibly up until this point," he said. "But if we tell them that we are not going to be a permanent occupying force, we are in a position to say that they are going to have to carry some weight, in terms of stabilizing the region."

Clinton, who on the campaign trail has blasted the Bush administration for not engaging Iran and Syria directly, responded to the question by promising "vigorous diplomacy," including using high level envoys.

But she said she would not meet with such leaders in her first year before knowing what their intentions would be. "We're not going to just have our president meet with Fidel Castro [of Cuba] and Hugo Chavez [of Venezuela] and, you know, the president of North Korea, Iran and Syria until we know better what the way forward would be," Clinton said. "I don't want to be used for propaganda purposes."

Both campaigns issued memorandums the next day highlighting talking points on the exchange and criticizing the other. That was followed by dueling interviews with Iowa's Quad-City Times.

"I thought that was very irresponsible and frankly naive to say you would commit to meeting with Chavez and Castro or others within the first year," Clinton told the paper, adding that Obama regretted his answer at the debate.

Her comments reflected a strategy to paint herself, a two-term senator and former first lady, as the candidate with the most experience to be president and Obama, a junior senator, as too inexperienced to be commander in chief.

Obama struck back at Clinton in his interview with the Quad-City Times, accusing Clinton of a "fabricated controversy."

"I didn't say these guys were going to come for a cup of coffee some afternoon," Obama told the newspaper. Then, referring to Clinton's vote in Congress authorizing the war in Iraq, Obama said: "If there is anything irresponsible and naive it was to authorize George Bush to send 160,000 young American men and women into Iraq apparently without knowing how they were going to get out."