BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Bush Admits, Defends Secret CIA Prisons

 
 
Quantum
18:03 / 06.09.06
Bush Admits Secret CIA Prisons, crikey!

"One of the most important tasks is for Congress to recognize that we need the tools necessary to win this war on terror," Bush said to members of his Cabinet in prepared remarks Wednesday. "We'll continue to discuss with Congress ways to make sure that this nation is capable of defending herself."

Is this just more argument about rendition or something more sinister?
 
 
Quantum
18:17 / 06.09.06
President George W. Bush on Wednesday acknowledged the existence of previously secret CIA prisons around the world where key terrorist suspects have been held and questioned.
He said the "small number" of detainees that fall into this category include people responsible for the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the bombing of the warship USS Cole in 2000 in Yemen and the 1998 attacks on U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania.


So some people have been in secret CIA prisons abroad without charge for eight years. If you'd said that was the case in 1999 you would have been called a conspiracy theorist.

What will we find out about in 2014 I wonder?
 
 
grant
19:18 / 06.09.06
TalkingPointsMemo speculates that this speech represents a "Hail Mary pass" for the November elections -- getting Republican senators to put forward some clear (and clearly objectionable) terrorism legislation in order to get some Democrats to sign the thing (strong on defense!) and some Democrats not to sign the thing (morally objectionable!), splitting the party and giving plenty of room for "soft of defense" attack ads.
 
 
Baz Auckland
21:29 / 06.09.06
I don't know if this would work politically. (Or at least, I don't hope it will).

It's one thing to raise the terror alert just before the elections, or come up with a new 'plot' to try and make people vote for you, but to admit to having SECRET CIA PRISONS just seems a bit too sinister and messed-up to be able to defend...
 
 
Dead Megatron
04:47 / 07.09.06
Which could ensue the conspiracionist question: what could they be truly hiding? Because, if they are using secret CIA prision as a smoke screen, I don't want to think about what is behind that.

And, if there are people in those prisions as far as 1998, whay are they keeping them for, after all? Can't be intel. And those guys have already been declares M.I.A., if not simply dead.Why keep them still in secret prisions, without trial?

As you can see, I have no answers
 
 
Triumvir
12:26 / 07.09.06
Megatron:

Its a legal thing. Since the prisons (until now) didn't officially exist, and were not on US soil, and the white house had plausible deniability, they would be able to torture people and break the Geniva conventions with fewer fears of legal reprocussions. I don't really think its a smokescreen, just a way to get around the law.
 
 
grant
19:28 / 07.09.06
TPM continues theorizing along the same lines.
 
 
Baz Auckland
05:39 / 08.09.06
Help me out please: The Supreme Court ruled that the courts as they exist are illegal. So now Bush wants Congress to pass a law making them legal?

I don't know exactly how the Supreme Court works, but doesn't the Supreme Court have the final say in the legality of laws? Isn't there are chance that even if they make a new law, legalizing the tribunals, that the Supreme Court will rule them unconstitutional again?
 
 
grant
14:26 / 08.09.06
Well, I *think* part of what made them illegal was the fact that they were just sort of out there, unregulated by any laws or Congressional oversight.

What Bush is proposing (I *think*) is to build a structure of law clearly defining the role of these courts and clearly defining what they do as legal.

The Supreme Court interprets the law -- I'm not sure their main problem with the courts was based on the constitution, although, again, I'm kinda talking out of my butt here.
 
 
Slim
13:02 / 09.09.06
Although I'm not 100 percent sure, I believe that a Washington Post/New York Times article that I read yesterday stated that most legal experts believed that if Congress passed the law, the Courts would have no say in the matter.
 
 
grant
13:51 / 11.09.06
Online Journal offers another analysis, placing the announcement squarely in the "self-interest/self-protection" realm:

...Bush asked Congress to amend the War Crimes Act in order to retroactively protect him and other U.S. officials from prosecution for these crimes, and from civil lawsuits arising from them. He justified this on the basis that "our military and intelligence personnel involved in capturing and questioning terrorists could now be at risk of prosecution under the War Crimes Act . . . ," and insisted that “passing this legislation ought to be the top priority” for Congress between now and the election in November.

...Military personnel charged with war crimes have always been, and continue to be, prosecuted under the Universal Code of Military Justice rather than the War Crimes Act; and the likelihood of CIA interrogators being identified and prosecuted under the act is remote -- they are protected by the secrecy that surrounds all CIA operations.

The only real beneficiaries of such amendments to the War Crimes Act would be Bush himself and other civilian officials who have assisted him in these crimes -- Rumsfeld, Cheney, Gonzales, Rice, Cambone, Tenet, Goss, Negroponte and an unfortunately long list of their deputies and advisors.


It goes on to itemize Bush's requested changes: specific can/cannot lists for means of questioning, "... asking Congress to replace the straightforward prohibitions in Common Article 3 with the provisions of the 2005 Detainee Treatment Act, which includes extraordinary protections for U.S. officials," and legally declaring terrorism suspects as something other than prisoners of war (thus removing them from Geneva protections).

“Third," Bush said, "I’m asking that Congress make it clear that captured terrorists cannot use the Geneva Conventions as a basis to sue our personnel in courts, in U.S. courts. The men and the women who protect us should not have to fear lawsuits filed by terrorists because they’re doing their jobs.”

This would protect U.S. officials from civil liability for human rights violations. Prisoners released from Guantanamo have already filed such lawsuits against the U.S. government, Bush, Rumsfeld and other officials, which might help to explain why these amendments are Bush’s “top priority.”


There's more at the link.
 
 
Dead Megatron
20:51 / 11.09.06
Its a legal thing. Since the prisons (until now) didn't officially exist, and were not on US soil, and the white house had plausible deniability, they would be able to torture people and break the Geniva conventions with fewer fears of legal reprocussions. I don't really think its a smokescreen, just a way to get around the law.

Triumvir, I do not quesion any of that. What I was wondering is what is tue use of keeping any given prisioner in such prision after 8+ years. He certainly no longer has any valuable intel.

But, then again, what else would they do with said prisioner. Let hir go? Or just transfer hir to a legla prision and say: "gee, look what we found! Can you ignore the fact the guy has been missing so long and take him in as if nothing weird is going on?".

And what would keep the CIA from assassinating a prisioner that has no longer any use and has thus become nothing but a liability????
 
 
Quantum
14:33 / 12.09.06
And what would keep the CIA from assassinating a prisioner that has no longer any use and has thus become nothing but a liability... and denying they had ever detained them? Nothing except their (haha) conscience. That's why it's so worrying.

Grant, thanks for that link. Terrifying.
 
 
Dead Megatron
21:45 / 12.09.06
It does amaze me that Bush admits on that secret ilegal prision thing, and there's no ensuing Congress or Supreme Court investigation on the matter, and no one demands for a list of current - and past - prisioners, and their legal status and/or formal accusations.

I mean, will people simply let this pass?

I guess this War on Terror excuse really does work for everything...
 
 
Slim
03:16 / 13.09.06
It's possible that a number of people in Congress already knew about the secret prisons.

Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't the CIA hesitate to kill Bin Laden prior to 9/11 because they didn't believe that they had the legal authority to do so? I suspect that there are a number of restraints both within the CIA and in Congress that check the CIA's freedom of operation.
 
 
Dead Megatron
09:34 / 13.09.06
The CIA have been assassinating - or planning to assassinate - people since at least the 1960s, so the excuse "we're worried if we were allowed to do it in the pre-9/11 world" seem like total bulshit to me (A "this was not our fault, you should have started ignoring civil rights a lot longer ago, if you ask me" kind of excuse).

I mean, if they had access to Bin Laden prior to 9/11, why did they lost his track sooo completely after that? The answer is, I believe, they never had the means to kill him anyway.

Of course, I only especulate
 
 
Slim
00:21 / 15.09.06
First of all, like most organizations the CIA has changed over the years. The Church Committee clamped down on its excesses and the CIA was forced to change, just like the FBI has since Hoover.

Secondly, the issue isn't whether or not the CIA is killing people. Of course it is. It's been killing people since the 1940s and I hope it continues because, frankly, some people (such as Taliban fighters who refuse to surrender) need to be killed. The issue is whether or not CIA activities are being monitored. My contention is that the agency has less freedom than you think it does. Proving this, though, would be difficult.

Lastly, the U.S. did have a chance to kill Osama in Tora Bora. Unfortunately, the Pentagon refused to send in troops to cut off an exit route and Bin Laden slipped into the mountains. He got lucky and capitalized on the United States' mistake. If you've ever seen pictures of the mountains he's probably hiding in, you'd understand why we can't find him. That and the fact that he can easily slip into Pakistan and we can't touch him.
 
 
spectre
11:58 / 15.09.06
I'm not much of a politico, but I caught part of the interview Matt Lauer of the Today Show had with W (via The Daily Show).

ML asks something like: "So, the US has secret prisons...wtf?"
W: "SO WHAT?! Why is that not within the law?"

ML: "Do you care to comment on the US's interrogation techniques?"
W: (irritated laugh) "No, We don't want the terrorosts to become accostomed to them"

Comedy gold. The entire interview, W is a belligerent bully, repeatedly poking his finger at Matt and talking about Matt's family being murdered. When someone like Matt Lauer can get out there and ask hard questions, we've reached some sort of milestone in either our ability to tolerate our gov'ts questionable practices, or our inability to. Jury's still out.

http://www.backyardleague.org/opinion/?p=64
 
 
Henningjohnathan
15:21 / 15.09.06
Hey, they have secret prisons on 24 where terrorists get tortured and murdered all the time so that Jack Bauer can get the info he needs to save the world.

Don't we all think real life should be more like television?
 
 
Dead Megatron
15:55 / 15.09.06
That depends a lot on what channel you're watching...
 
 
ibis the being
19:29 / 15.09.06
I would assume that Bush admitting to these prisons ties in with his recent, so-far-unsuccessful (thank christ) attempts to push legislation through Congress that would change/defy the Geneva Convention's prohibition on torture.

Bush's news conference came a day after four Republicans on the Senate Armed Services Committee broke with the administration and joined Democrats in approving a bill assuring that foreign terrorism suspects would be accorded Geneva Convention protections. Bush claims that measure would compromise the war on terrorism.

He is urging the Senate to pass a bill more like a House-passed one that would allow his administration to continue holding and trying terror suspects before military tribunals and to give interrogators more leeway.

Bush said he would work with Congress but stood firm on his demands.

"Unfortunately the recent Supreme Court decision put the future of this program in question. ... We need this legislation to save it."

The high court earlier this year struck down Bush's current arrangement for holding detainees held at the U.S. Naval Base Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

Bush said that it was vital to clarify the law to protect intelligence professionals who are called on to question detainees to obtain vital information. He called it an important debate that "defines whether or not we can protect ourselves. Congress has got a decision to make."


John McCain has been the face of the Republican opposition to Bush's torture legislation, and Colin Powell recently came forward to support McCain and oppose the president on this matter. "The world is beginning to doubt the moral basis of our fight against terrorism," Mr Powell wrote.
 
 
PatrickMM
01:28 / 19.09.06
Bush's reasoning is certainly sound. If you know you're going to get waterboarded, it's not that big a deal, it's that surprise factor that really gets them. He's so ridiculous, just saying the same three phrases over and over again, yet people still believe it. Wasn't the whole justification for going to war in Iraq that fact that Sadaam was a terrible dictator who abducted people and tortured them in secret prisons? If you really believe the point of the Iraq war was to spread freedom, how could you possibly justify secret torture from the American government?
 
 
We're The Great Old Ones Now
08:19 / 19.09.06
Not spread. Protect Freedom. In this context, that means protect American Freedom. And that, in turn, means the mundane freedoms not to be bothered with the doings of other nations, not to worry about economic regulation, not to have to cope with difficult truths. Bush's freedom is the freedom to do business as usual, to be normal, to be well-behaved.

And in the quest of protecting all that, if a few fringe folk, marginal people, get disenfranchised... that's a good price. Power will keep it from happening to anyone who matters... and so on.
 
 
grant
02:46 / 23.09.06
Oh, crap.

Tell me this guy's barking up the wrong tree.
 
 
grant
02:55 / 23.09.06
More from Washington Post:

...Mr. Bush, as he made clear yesterday, intends to continue using the CIA to secretly detain and abuse certain terrorist suspects. He will do so by issuing his own interpretation of the Geneva Conventions in an executive order and by relying on questionable Justice Department opinions that authorize such practices as exposing prisoners to hypothermia and prolonged sleep deprivation. Under the compromise agreed to yesterday, Congress would recognize his authority to take these steps and prevent prisoners from appealing them to U.S. courts. The bill would also immunize CIA personnel from prosecution for all but the most serious abuses and protect those who in the past violated U.S. law against war crimes.

In short, it's hard to credit the statement by Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) yesterday that "there's no doubt that the integrity and letter and spirit of the Geneva Conventions have been preserved." In effect, the agreement means that U.S. violations of international human rights law can continue as long as Mr. Bush is president, with Congress's tacit assent.
 
 
Quantum
13:37 / 23.09.06
"...his own interpretation of the Geneva Conventions..."

Hahahahaha...*hiccup*...hahahahahahaha... maybe next we can hear his 'interpretation' of Shakespeare, or general relativity. Can anyone seriously believe he's read and understood the Geneva? Does anyone believe this is anything other than the first steps* toward an oligarchical dictatorship?

*thinking about it, it's more like the seventh or eighth steps, "8. Made a list of all persons we had harmed, and became willing to make amends to them all" ...if by amends we mean waterboarding.*
 
 
Spyder Todd 2008
17:07 / 23.09.06
Well, I'm going to go never sleep again. How does this shit keep happening?!? And why does it seem like no one has the power to stop it?!?! (These questions are meant as rhetoricals, I don't actually expect to know the answer)
 
 
Dead Megatron
17:14 / 23.09.06
[Enter Darth Vader theme song]

"The Empire Never Ended"
The Dick
 
 
Tuna Ghost: Pratt knot hero
18:15 / 23.09.06
Can anyone seriously believe he's read and understood the Geneva? Does anyone believe this is anything other than the first steps* toward an oligarchical dictatorship?

I was going to make a joke about the "first steps" bit, something along the lines of "if that's what you really think is happening, this is hardly the first step", but since you already made one, I'll just leave it alone. Back to your questions:

Can anyone seriously believe he's read and understood the Geneva?

Yes. Easily. Is that a serious question?

Does anyone believe this is anything other than the first steps* toward an oligarchical dictatorship?

Hardly the first step, I mean--Shit! Nevermind. Really though, I want to ask you what you mean by an "oligarchal dictatorship". I would assume you mean a small group of people weilding total power in a state, which is what an oligarchy is, but you throw in "dictatorship", so I'm not exactly sure what you are afraid of here.

Don't get me wrong, I personally feel the U.S. government is fighting a war, fighting it badly and without much forethought to the consequences (except in terms of saving their own ass) but are you seriously afraid of a dictatorship? Do you really suspect that come november 2008 the U.S. will not have a new president? Or are you afraid that it will be just another jerk from the same group of jerks that run the country? Because one is sort of silly to believe, and the other is a complaint that has been made long before Bush ever took office and has little to do with recent policy.
 
  
Add Your Reply