DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Religious Dick on December 18, 2006, 10:58:24 AM
-
Former U.S. Detainee in Iraq Recalls Torment
By MICHAEL MOSS
One night in mid-April, the steel door clanked shut on detainee No. 200343 at Camp Cropper, the United States military’s maximum-security detention site in Baghdad.
American guards arrived at the man’s cell periodically over the next several days, shackled his hands and feet, blindfolded him and took him to a padded room for interrogation, the detainee said. After an hour or two, he was returned to his cell, fatigued but unable to sleep.
The fluorescent lights in his cell were never turned off, he said. At most hours, heavy metal or country music blared in the corridor. He said he was rousted at random times without explanation and made to stand in his cell. Even lying down, he said, he was kept from covering his face to block out the light, noise and cold. And when he was released after 97 days he was exhausted, depressed and scared.
Detainee 200343 was among thousands of people who have been held and released by the American military in Iraq, and his account of his ordeal has provided one of the few detailed views of the Pentagon’s detention operations since the abuse scandals at Abu Ghraib. Yet in many respects his case is unusual.
The detainee was Donald Vance, a 29-year-old Navy veteran from Chicago who went to Iraq as a security contractor. He wound up as a whistle-blower, passing information to the F.B.I. about suspicious activities at the Iraqi security firm where he worked, including what he said was possible illegal weapons trading.
But when American soldiers raided the company at his urging, Mr. Vance and another American who worked there were detained as suspects by the military, which was unaware that Mr. Vance was an informer, according to officials and military documents.
At Camp Cropper, he took notes on his imprisonment and smuggled them out in a Bible.
“Sick, very. Vomited,†he wrote July 3. The next day: “Told no more phone calls til leave.â€
Nathan Ertel, the American held with Mr. Vance, brought away military records that shed further light on the detention camp and its secretive tribunals. Those records include a legal memorandum explicitly denying detainees the right to a lawyer at detention hearings to determine whether they should be released or held indefinitely, perhaps for prosecution.
The story told through those records and interviews illuminates the haphazard system of detention and prosecution that has evolved in Iraq, where detainees are often held for long periods without charges or legal representation, and where the authorities struggle to sort through the endless stream of detainees to identify those who pose real threats.
“Even Saddam Hussein had more legal counsel than I ever had,†said Mr. Vance, who said he planned to sue the former defense secretary, Donald H. Rumsfeld, on grounds that his constitutional rights had been violated. “While we were detained, we wrote a letter to the camp commandant stating that the same democratic ideals we are trying to instill in the fledgling democratic country of Iraq, from simple due process to the Magna Carta, we are absolutely, positively refusing to follow ourselves.â€
A spokeswoman for the Pentagon’s detention operations in Iraq, First Lt. Lea Ann Fracasso, said in written answers to questions that the men had been “treated fair and humanely,†and that there was no record of either man complaining about their treatment.
Held as ‘a Threat’
She said officials did not reach Mr. Vance’s contact at the F.B.I. until he had been in custody for three weeks. Even so, she said, officials determined that he “posed a threat†and decided to continue holding him. He was released two months later, Lieutenant Fracasso said, based on a “subsequent re-examination of his case,†and his stated plans to leave Iraq.
Mr. Ertel, 30, a contract manager who knew Mr. Vance from an earlier job in Iraq, was released more quickly.
Mr. Vance went to Iraq in 2004, first to work for a Washington-based company. He later joined a small Baghdad-based security company where, he said, “things started looking weird to me.†He said that the company, which was protecting American reconstruction organizations, had hired guards from a sheik in Basra and that many of them turned out to be members of militias whom the clients did not want around.
Mr. Vance said the company had a growing cache of weapons it was selling to suspicious customers, including a steady flow of officials from the Iraqi Interior Ministry. The ministry had ties to violent militias and death squads. He said he had also witnessed another employee giving American soldiers liquor in exchange for bullets and weapon repairs.
On a visit to Chicago in October 2005, Mr. Vance met twice with an F.B.I. agent who set up a reporting system. Weekly, Mr. Vance phoned the agent from Iraq and sent him e-mail messages. “It was like, ‘Hey, I heard this and I saw this.’ I wanted to help,†Mr. Vance said. A government official familiar with the arrangement confirmed Mr. Vance’s account.
In April, Mr. Ertel and Mr. Vance said, they felt increasingly uncomfortable at the company. Mr. Ertel resigned and company officials seized the identification cards that both men needed to move around Iraq or leave the country.
On April 15, feeling threatened, Mr. Vance phoned the United States Embassy in Baghdad. A military rescue team rushed to the security company. Again, Mr. Vance described its operations, according to military records.
“Internee Vance indicated a large weapons cache was in the compound in the house next door,†Capt. Plymouth D. Nelson, a military detention official, wrote in a memorandum dated April 22, after the men were detained. “A search of the house and grounds revealed two large weapons caches.â€
On the evening of April 15, they met with American officials at the embassy and stayed overnight. But just before dawn, they were awakened, handcuffed with zip ties and made to wear goggles with lenses covered by duct tape. Put into a Humvee, Mr. Vance said he asked for a vest and helmet, and was refused.
They were driven through dangerous Baghdad roads and eventually to Camp Cropper. They were placed in cells at Compound 5, the high-security unit where Saddam Hussein has been held.
Only days later did they receive an explanation: They had become suspects for having associated with the people Mr. Vance tried to expose.
“You have been detained for the following reasons: You work for a business entity that possessed one or more large weapons caches on its premises and may be involved in the possible distribution of these weapons to insurgent/terrorist groups,†Mr. Ertel’s detention notice said.
Mr. Vance said he began seeking help even before his cell door closed for the first time. “They took off my blindfold and earmuffs and told me to stand in a corner, where they cut off the zip ties, and told me to continue looking straight forward and as I’m doing this, I’m asking for an attorney,†he said. “ ‘I want an attorney now,’ I said, and they said, ‘Someone will be here to see you.’ â€
Instead, they were given six-digit ID numbers. The guards shortened Mr. Vance’s into something of a nickname: “343.†And the routine began.
Bread and powdered drink for breakfast and sometimes a piece of fruit. Rice and chicken for lunch and dinner. Their cells had no sinks. The showers were irregular. They got 60 minutes in the recreation yard at night, without other detainees.
Five times in the first week, guards shackled the prisoners’ hands and feet, covered their eyes, placed towels over their heads and put them in wheelchairs to be pushed to a room with a carpeted ceiling and walls. There they were questioned by an array of officials who, they said they were told, represented the F.B.I., the C.I.A., the Naval Criminal Investigative Service and the Defense Intelligence Agency.
“It’s like boom, boom, boom,†Mr. Ertel said. “They are drilling you. ‘We know you did this, you are part of this gun smuggling thing.’ And I’m saying you have it absolutely way off.â€
The two men slept in their 9-by-9-foot cells on concrete slabs, with worn three-inch foam mats. With the fluorescent lights on and the temperature in the 50s, Mr. Vance said, “I paced myself to sleep, walking until I couldn’t anymore. I broke the straps on two pair of flip-flops.â€
Asked about the lights, the detainee operations spokeswoman said that the camp’s policy was to turn off cell lights at night “to allow detainees to sleep.â€
A Psychological Game
One day, Mr. Vance met with a camp psychologist. “He realized I was having difficulties,†Mr. Vance said. “He said to turn it into a game. He said: ‘I want you to pretend you are a soldier who has been kidnapped, and that you still have a duty to do. Memorize everything you can about everything that happens to you. Make it like you are a spy on the inside.’ I think he called it rational emotive behavioral therapy, and I started doing that.â€
Camp Rule 31 barred detainees from writing on the white cell walls, which were bare except for a black crescent moon painted on one wall to indicate the direction of Mecca for prayers. But Mr. Vance began keeping track of the days by making hash marks on the wall, and he also began writing brief notes that he hid in the Bible given to him by guards.
“Turned in request for dentist + phone + embassy letter + request for clothes,†he wrote one day.
“Boards,†he wrote April 24, the day he and Mr. Ertel went before Camp Cropper’s Detainee Status Board.
Their legal rights, laid out in a letter from Lt. Col. Bradley J. Huestis of the Army, the president of the status board, allowed them to attend the hearing and testify. However, under Rule 3, the letter said, “You do not have the right to legal counsel, but you may have a personal representative assist you at the hearing if the personal representative is reasonably available.â€
Mr. Vance and Mr. Ertel were permitted at their hearings only because they were Americans, Lieutenant Fracasso said. The cases of all other detainees are reviewed without the detainees present, she said. In both types of cases, defense lawyers are not allowed to attend because the hearings are not criminal proceedings, she said.
Lieutenant Fracasso said that currently there were three Americans in military custody in Iraq. The military does not identify detainees.
Mr. Vance and Mr. Ertel had separate hearings. They said their requests to be each other’s personal representative had been denied.
At the hearings, a woman and two men wearing Army uniforms but no name tags or rank designations sat a table with two stacks of documents. One was about an inch thick, and the men were allowed to see some papers from that stack. The other pile was much thicker, but they were told that this pile was evidence only the board could see.
The men pleaded with the board. “I’m telling them there has been a major mix-up,†Mr. Ertel said. “Please, I’m out of my mind. I haven’t slept. I’m not eating. I’m terrified.â€
Mr. Vance said he implored the board to delve into his laptop computer and cellphone for his communications with the F.B.I. agent in Chicago.
Each of the hearings lasted about two hours, and the men said they never saw the board again.
“At the end, my first question was, ‘Does my family know I’m alive?’ and the lead man said, ‘I don’t know,’ †Mr. Vance recounted. “And then I asked when will we have an answer, and they said on average it takes three to four weeks.â€
Help From the Outside
About a week later, two weeks into his detention, Mr. Vance was allowed to make his first call, to Chicago. He called his fiancée, Diane Schwarz, who told him she had thought he might have died.
“It was very overwhelming,†Ms. Schwarz recalls of the 12-minute conversation. “He wasn’t quite sure what was going on, and was kind of turning to me for answers and I was turning to him for the same.â€
She had already been calling members of Congress, alarmed by his disappearance. So was Mr. Ertel’s mother, and some officials began pressing for answers. “I would appreciate your looking into this matter,†Senator Richard J. Durbin of Illinois wrote to a State Department official in early May.
On May 7, the Camp Cropper detention board met again, without either man present, and determined that Mr. Ertel was “an innocent civilian,†according to the spokeswoman for detention operations. It took authorities 18 more days to release him.
Mr. Vance’s situation was more complicated. On June 17, Lt. Col. Keir-Kevin Curry, a spokesman for the American military’s detention unit, Task Force 134, wrote to tell Ms. Schwarz that Mr. Vance was still being held. “The detainee board reviewed his case and recommended he remain interned,†he wrote. “Multi-National Force-Iraq approved the board’s recommendation to continue internment. Therefore, Mr. Vance continues to be a security detainee. We are not processing him for release. His case remains under investigation and there is no set timetable for completion.†Over the following weeks, Mr. Vance said he made numerous written requests — for a lawyer, for blankets, for paper to write letters home. Mr. Vance said that he wrote 10 letters to Ms. Schwarz, but that only one made it to Chicago. Dated July 17, it was delivered late last month by the Red Cross.
“Diana, start talking, sending e-mail and letters and faxes to the alderman, mayor, governor, congressman, senators, Red Cross, Amnesty International, A.C.L.U., Vatican, and other Christian-based organizations. Everyone!†he wrote. “I am missing you so much, and am so depressed it’s a daily struggle here. My life is in your hands. Please don’t get discouraged. Don’t take ‘No’ for answers. Keep working. I have to tell myself these things every day, but I can’t do anything from a cell.â€
The military has never explained why it continued to consider Mr. Vance a security threat, except to say that officials decided to release him after further review of his case.
“Treating an American citizen in this fashion would have been unimaginable before 9/11,†said Mike Kanovitz, a Chicago lawyer representing Mr. Vance.
On July 20, Mr. Vance wrote in his notes: “Told ‘Leaving Today.’ Took shower and shaved, saw doctor, got civ clothes back and passport.â€
On his way out, Mr. Vance said: “They asked me if I was intending to write a book, would I talk to the press, would I be thinking of getting an attorney. I took it as, ‘Shut up, don’t talk about this place,’ and I kept saying, ‘No sir, I want to go home.’ â€
Mr. Ertel has returned to Baghdad, again working as a contracts manager. Mr. Vance is back in Chicago, still feeling the effects of having been a prisoner of the war in Iraq.
“It’s really hard,†he says. “I don’t really talk about this stuff with my family. I feel ashamed, depressed, still have nightmares, and I’d even say I suffer from some paranoia.â€
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/18/world/middleeast/18justice.html?_r=2&pagewanted=1&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
-
Can't possibly happen here.
Just ask all those who keep repeating the mantra that we need to give up more of our civil liberties in order to be more secure.
-
Can't possibly happen here. Just ask all those who keep repeating the mantra that we need to give up more of our civil liberties in order to be more secure.
And who keeps repeating that, I wonder
-
Sounds like something from Pinochet's run, doesn't It?
A court with no legal representation. In secret. Held without charge. Does that bring up "America" in anyone's mind? It doesn't in mine.
But then, I've never supported Bush, his lies, his "war" or his stolen "presidency" or his "administration" like some. This is all his doing.
-
Well, let's see...
Who defends the governments use of indefinite detention, without the right of habeas corpus, without access to an attorney, without trial, without being able to see the evidence or hear the witnesses against them?
Who defends illegal government wiretaps without judicial oversight?
Who supports the use of abusive means of interrogation that has been condemned by human rights groups?
I'm sure if you want to look back into some of the news articles over the last few years, and some of the archives in this forum, you can find a few names.
Mine won't be one of them.
-
Well, let's see...Who defends the governments use of indefinite detention, without the right of habeas corpus, without access to an attorney, without trial, without being able to see the evidence or hear the witnesses against them? Who defends illegal government wiretaps without judicial oversight? Who supports the use of abusive means of interrogation that has been condemned by human rights groups? I'm sure if you want to look back into some of the news articles over the last few years, and some of the archives in this forum, you can find a few names.
Minus the distorted applications of the above claims, again who is spouting we need to lose more civil liberties in order to be more secure? Hint, mine won't be one of them
-
Well, let's see...
[snip]
Seems like these things have been defended by the last 5 or 6 administrations.
The pen registers and trap and trace "wiretaps," for example, have been used since the mid-70s; the Supreme Court even said they were legal in 1979 without a warrant. The "Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986" required law enforcement agencies to acquire a "shall issue" warrant for the information. However, the NSA is not a law enforcement agency, and there is no evidence that the information was passed on to a law enforcement agency.
Similar situation with the extraordinary rendition, which was created by the Clinton administration.
-
"It was ever thus" is cold comfort in a cell. And it wasn't "ever thus."
We have seen a steady erosion of our civil liberties since 9/11.
http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/media/2003_alerts/0918.htm
Erosion of Civil Liberties Reflects a “New Normal†in America - not Temporary Sacrifices - since 9/11
New Report Documents How U.S Government Has Fundamentally Changed Its Relationship with the People It Serves
NEW YORK – Over the two years since the 9/11 attacks, the relationship between the U.S. government and the people it serves has changed dramatically. This “new normal†of U.S. governance is defined by “the loss of particular freedoms for some, and worse, a detachment from the rule of law as a whole,†a new report by Human Rights First finds.
The report, “Assessing the New Normal: Liberty and Security for the Post-September 11 United States,†is the third in a series since 9/11.
Click here to read the full report
“Two years after the attacks, it is no longer possible to view these changes as aberrant parts of an emergency response,†said Michael Posner, the Executive Director of Human Rights First. “Rather, the expansion of executive power and abandonment of some well-established civil and criminal legal safeguards have become part of a new normal in American life.â€
Click here to read the Introduction of the report and a discussion
of the "New Normal"
Some of the most dramatic examples of this “new normal†include:
Sidestepping the U.S. courts. Perhaps the most pronounced change in U.S. policy is the sharp departure from the principles guaranteeing that like cases will be treated alike, and that all will have recourse to fair and independent courts as a check on executive power. Since 9/11, the executive has established a set of extra-legal institutions that bypass the federal judiciary – the most well known are the military commissions and the detention center at the U.S. military base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. (See Chapter 4)
Less information about public government, more information about private individuals. The two years since 9/11 have seen a shift away from the core U.S. presumption that the government is largely open to public scrutiny, while the personal information of individuals is largely protected from government intrusion. Today, the default in America has become just the opposite: the work of the executive branch increasingly is conducted in secret, but unfettered government access to personal information is becoming the norm. (See Chapters 1-2)
A shift in U.S. position toward immigrants and refugees. Far from viewing immigrants as a pillar of strength, U.S. policy now reflects an assumption that immigrants are a primary national threat. Through the expenditure of enormous resources, the civil immigration system has become a principal instrument to secure the detention of “suspicious†individuals when a government trawling for information can find no conduct that would justify their detention on any criminal charge. (See Chapter 3)
The Ripple Effect of U.S. Actions. Around the world, counterterrorism has become the new rubric under which opportunistic governments seek to justify their actions, however offensive to human rights. Indeed, governments long criticized for human rights abuses have publicly applauded U.S. policies, which they now see as an endorsement of their own longstanding practices, and as a basis for new draconian measures. (See Chapter 5)
“Assessing the New Normal†describes and analyzes specific changes to U.S. law and security policy in five areas:
Chapter One: Open Government
This chapter examines how the U.S. government operates under a framework of increased secrecy that encompasses both specific initiatives and a more general pattern of less openness about the way important executive branch decisions are made. The chapter discusses:
* Rollbacks of the Freedom of Information Act that could limit public access to important health, safety and environmental information.
* The USA PATRIOT Act and the proposed Victory Act.
* The executive’s increased powers to classify information -- and to withhold information without the formal process of classification.
* Executive branch efforts to restrict congressional access to information.
* Growing bi-partisan Congressional concern that too much secrecy may well result in less security.
* Increased deference of the courts to executive branch secrecy.
Chapter Two: Personal Privacy
This chapter discusses the expansion of government power to pry into Americans’ private lives, including:
* The USA PATRIOT Act and the easing of restrictions on government searches and seizures, including searches targeted at library and other consumer records.
* The lifting of limits on foreign intelligence and domestic spying powers.
* The expansion of government data-gathering efforts and the Terrorism Information Awareness program.
* The Terrorist Threat Integration Center.
* The establishment of air passenger profiling.
Chapter Three: Immigrants, Refugees and Minorities
This chapter covers shifts in U.S. policy on immigrants and refugees, including:
* The Justice Department’s moves to increase state and local participation in the enforcement of federal immigration law.
* New hardships for refugees seeking asylum.
* The effects of the administration’s now-terminated blanket registration and information-gathering programs; and the treatment of the post-9/11 detainees.
Chapter Four: Unclassified Detainees
This chapter analyzes the executive’s new blended system of criminal law enforcement and military detention – a system the report describes as a “mix and match†approach. The chapter includes:
* Discussions of the military detention of U.S. citizens (Jose Padilla and Yaser Hamdi) without access to counsel.
* The president’s proposed military commissions.
* The applicability and interpretation of the Geneva Conventions for the treatment of civilians and prisoners of war (including those held at Guantanamo).
* The absence of judicial oversight in many of these cases.
Chapter Five: The United States and International Human Rights
This chapter canvasses how opportunistic governments have relied cynically on the U.S. “war on terrorism†as a basis for internal repression of domestic opponents. It also analyzes how U.S. actions have encouraged other countries to disregard domestic and international law. And the chapter discusses how political refugees are bearing the brunt of the new international climate as countries from Australia to France treat all immigrants, including refugees seeking asylum, as security risks.
About Us & Acknowledgements
Read the Full Report
Email communications@humanrightsfirst.org if you would like to receive a printed copy of the report.
Assessing the New Normal: Liberty and Security for the Post-September 11 United States is the third report in a series. A Year of Loss was published in September 2002 and Imbalance of Powers was published in March 2003.
-
"It was ever thus" is cold comfort in a cell. And it wasn't "ever thus."
I don't think I've ever said "it was ever thus."
Fact is, civil rights have been eroding since at least the 1930's. It sped up a bit in the late 1960s, and proceeded apace through next 3 decades. Then there was another bump up in the pace after 9/11.
Seems like you only noticed the last one. Just because you only recently noticed it doesn't mean it hasn't been going on for quite a while.
Interestingly enough, you support the lack of the equivilent of "habeas corpus" in the case of child endangerment.
-
Fact is, civil rights have been eroding since at least the 1930's. It sped up a bit in the late 1960s, and proceeded apace through next 3 decades. Then there was another bump up in the pace after 9/11. Seems like you only noticed the last one. Just because you only recently noticed it doesn't mean it hasn't been going on for quite a while.
Well Summized, Ami. It would seem the (R) behind the current presential occupant magically produced such civil erosions at the hands of Government, when it's been plain for all to see such erosions have been manifesting themselves for some time. and very little, if any, of it was at the screech of "we need to give up more of our civil liberties in order to be more secure."
And I won't even delve into the mountain of condemnation that would be launched at our current Presidential occupant had we been hit by another 911, and what he failed to do to prevent such
-
I suppose what Sirs and Ami mean to say it that all this crap has been going on for a long time, so we should not deny Juniorbush the power to rachet it up a bit more, because to do otherwise would be unfair to Republicans.
It really does not make a rat's proverbial ass worth of difference as far as I am concerned. It should STOP, it should STOP NOW, and people like the fellow who blew the whistle on his thieving contractor should be paid reparations for the harm that was done to them, ideally with funds made from the sale of fat rendered from Juniorbush and Cheney's corpses.
-
I suppose what Sirs and Ami mean to say it that all this crap has been going on for a long time, so we should not deny Juniorbush the power to rachet it up a bit more, because to do otherwise would be unfair to Republicans.
Not even close. (But what else is new) It has more to do with critical commentary aimed at the hypocritical cries of how Bush alone is supposedly dismantling the Bill of Rights, when;
A) that's not happening to the hyperbolic levels the left would have us believe
&
B) what erosion is occuring has been occuring for many an Administration
-
For whatever reason, it should come to a goddamned screeching halt, wouldn't you agree?
-
For whatever reason, it should come to a goddamned screeching halt, wouldn't you agree?
Maybe, just maybe, I'll actually consider that a sincere desire on your part,..............when the beam of condemnation for such erosions is no longer aimed at Bush as being the sole source of all evil and Constitutional bending, and applied on all those prior Presidents' administrative decrees & decisions that faciliated such, Mr Clinton included
-
For whatever reason, it should come to a goddamned screeching halt, wouldn't you agree?
I'm already on record as wanting to roll back our laws to about 1960 or so, and implementing an automatic expiration date for all future laws (so they'll have to be periodically renewed).
-
I'm already on record as wanting to roll back our laws to about 1960 or so, and implementing an automatic expiration date for all future laws (so they'll have to be periodically renewed).
So, your blanket stance is your way of stating that no one should be held incommunicado by the Bush "administration"?
-
So, your blanket stance is your way of stating that no one should be held incommunicado by the Bush "administration"?
Actually, I was against extraordinary rendition during the Clinton years as well.
Were you?
-
Were you?
I had no idea it was going on then. It was never written about in the bottom of any of my margarita glasses.
-
I had no idea it was going on then. It was never written about in the bottom of any of my margarita glasses.
Guess you're not against RICO laws and roving wiretaps, either.
Until someone brings them up in relation to Bush. Then it'll be one your rallying cries.
-
I had no idea it was going on then. It was never written about in the bottom of any of my margarita glasses.
Guess you're not against RICO laws and roving wiretaps, either.
Until someone brings them up in relation to Bush. Then it'll be one your rallying cries.
If I could go back in time to when Clinton was in office and find out that he was using these tactics and holding people incommunicado and so forth, I would and I'd be equally disgusted and a lot more embarrassed for having supported him and voted for him. I'm on record as having no real love for him or his wife anymore. If that can't suffice, then you are just S. O. L.
Bush has done nothing BUT this kind of crap and so, here I am, involved and aware of what's going on in this country and disgusted by it now. Here and now.
We can't change what has been done before, only atone for it. And a good way to start that atonement is to prevent it happening again and continuing to happen now. Can't you get with that? Or do you only participate in activism when it is in your best interest?
-
Minus the distorted applications of the above claims...
Where, exactly? Have not each and every one of those taken place and been defended by the current administration and it's lackeys as vital to prevent another terrorist attack?
...who is spouting we need to lose more civil liberties in order to be more secure?
You have the same access to the news accounts of the day and the forum archives that I do. Go look them up.
Hint, mine won't be one of them
I don't recall mentioning anyone by name; why this overwhelming need to defend yourself?
Seems like these things have been defended by the last 5 or 6 administrations.
Don't see anything in what I said that limited it to just Bush's administration; the examples I provided are simply the most recent, thus the first that came to mind.
Just because Clinton did it, or Olbush, or Reagan, or Carter, or anyone else, does not excuse the fact that it is going on now. I didn't like it anymore during any of the preceding administrations, but there are a couple of reasons I don't bring them up. One is that I wasn't a member of this forum then, though I did protest similar activities elsewhere. The other is that Clinton, Olbush, Reagan, Carter, et al are no longer president; Bush is. Hard to press Clinton to change his administration's activities in that direction when he's no longer in office, innit?
-
Or do you only participate in activism when it is in your best interest?
Activism is always in my best interest, regardless of who is in office.
I don't just place blame on the current officeholder, though.
-
Or do you only participate in activism when it is in your best interest?
Activism is always in my best interest, regardless of who is in office.
I don't just place blame on the current officeholder, though.
That's true. I've only ever heard you "blame" Clinton or Carter for anything. Any time there is something the left doesn't like about Bush, you can always be counted on for a hearty, "Clinton did it too!" but never a "Damn, that sucks that Bush is doing that now. How disappointing because I always hated that Clinton was doing that. Now, here's my guy doing it too. Dang."
-
What a tremendous opportunity for the incoming congress to take a stand on these flagrant abuses and correct them.
This will happen, won't it?
Ball in your court.
-
That's true. I've only ever heard you "blame" Clinton or Carter for anything. Any time there is something the left doesn't like about Bush, you can always be counted on for a hearty, "Clinton did it too!" but never a "Damn, that sucks that Bush is doing that now. How disappointing because I always hated that Clinton was doing that. Now, here's my guy doing it too. Dang."
Really? Can you point out one post where I said "Clinton did that, too" as my only response?
I usually point out - as I did earlier today with pen registers and trap and trace "wiretaps" - that the Supreme Court found them lawful.
It's a shame, but it's not illegal.
I'll always condemn an illegal activity. Pointing out that "Clinton did it" is not a defense, unless it was found to be legal when Clinton did it.
-
It is one thing to make something technically legal, it is another to actually use it.
I could give a damn less about Clinton or Bush. But, certainly Bush's overseas prisons and use of Guantanamo are concerning. The idea of locking away individuals with no access to the legal system, no charges, no real reasons given - whether or not they are foreigners or not is extremely concerning to me.
-
Have not each and every one of those taken place and been defended by the current administration and it's lackeys as vital to prevent another terrorist attack?
Yes, they have. And to date, I still haven't lost any liberties, outside of the possibility my phone could be tapped if I were in contact with a foreign terrorist. Next?
...who is spouting we need to lose more civil liberties in order to be more secure?
You have the same access to the news accounts of the day and the forum archives that I do. Go look them up.
Excuse me? You made the claim. You provide the back up
I don't recall mentioning anyone by name; why this overwhelming need to defend yourself?
Confusing. When you do it, it's just a posting. When I do it, I'm somehow "overwhelmingly" trying to defend myself. Were you?
Don't see anything in what I said that limited it to just Bush's administration; the examples I provided are simply the most recent, thus the first that came to mind.
Try providing some objectivity then, by denouncing such erosions that have been occuring for quite some time now. Otherwise it just comes across as just another, in a long list of lefties decrying how everything was right as rain until that evil moron Bush took office
-
It is one thing to make something technically legal, it is another to actually use it.
I could give a damn less about Clinton or Bush. But, certainly Bush's overseas prisons and use of Guantanamo are concerning. The idea of locking away individuals with no access to the legal system, no charges, no real reasons given - whether or not they are foreigners or not is extremely concerning to me.
What has been the usual appeals procedure for Prisoners of War?
-
It is one thing to make something technically legal, it is another to actually use it.
So, you're trying to say that the Clinton Administration went to all the trouble to set up the extraordinary rendition program, and then they didn't bother to use it? I find that rather hard to believe.
-
Excuse me? You made the claim. You provide the back up
If I had made the claim about anyone in particular, I would have already researched the news and forum archives to do just that. I made a general statement based on recent news accounts and what I have seen in some of the posts here, defending the actions taken as necessary for our security - which you agreed has occurred.
Hnumpah - Have not each and every one of those taken place and been defended by the current administration and it's lackeys as vital to prevent another terrorist attack?
Sirs - Yes, they have...
So what's your beef?
Try providing some objectivity then, by denouncing such erosions that have been occuring for quite some time now. Otherwise it just comes across as just another, in a long list of lefties decrying how everything was right as rain until that evil moron Bush took office
Done already. Next.
-
What has been the usual appeals procedure for Prisoners of War?
They aren't considered, nor treated like prisoners of war.
So, you're trying to say that the Clinton Administration went to all the trouble to set up the extraordinary rendition program, and then they didn't bother to use it? I find that rather hard to believe.
When and where did they use it?
-
So, you're trying to say that the Clinton Administration went to all the trouble to set up the extraordinary rendition program, and then they didn't bother to use it? I find that rather hard to believe.
When and where did they use it?
Here's a couple instances noted in the New Yorker magazine, I'm sure there were many others:
In 1995, Scheuer said, American agents proposed the rendition program to Egypt, making clear that it had the resources to track, capture, and transport terrorist suspects globally—including access to a small fleet of aircraft. Egypt embraced the idea. “What was clever was that some of the senior people in Al Qaeda were Egyptian,†Scheuer said. “It served American purposes to get these people arrested, and Egyptian purposes to get these people back, where they could be interrogated.†Technically, U.S. law requires the C.I.A. to seek “assurances†from foreign governments that rendered suspects won’t be tortured. Scheuer told me that this was done, but he was “not sure†if any documents confirming the arrangement were signed.
A series of spectacular covert operations followed from this secret pact. On September 13, 1995, U.S. agents helped kidnap Talaat Fouad Qassem, one of Egypt’s most wanted terrorists, in Croatia. Qassem had fled to Europe after being linked by Egypt to the assassination of Sadat; he had been sentenced to death in absentia. Croatian police seized Qassem in Zagreb and handed him over to U.S. agents, who interrogated him aboard a ship cruising the Adriatic Sea and then took him back to Egypt. Once there, Qassem disappeared. There is no record that he was put on trial. Hossam el-Hamalawy, an Egyptian journalist who covers human-rights issues, said, “We believe he was executed.â€
A more elaborate operation was staged in Tirana, Albania, in the summer of 1998. According to the Wall Street Journal, the C.I.A. provided the Albanian intelligence service with equipment to wiretap the phones of suspected Muslim militants. Tapes of the conversations were translated into English, and U.S. agents discovered that they contained lengthy discussions with Zawahiri, bin Laden’s deputy. The U.S. pressured Egypt for assistance; in June, Egypt issued an arrest warrant for Shawki Salama Attiya, one of the militants. Over the next few months, according to the Journal, Albanian security forces, working with U.S. agents, killed one suspect and captured Attiya and four others. These men were bound, blindfolded, and taken to an abandoned airbase, then flown by jet to Cairo for interrogation. Attiya later alleged that he suffered electrical shocks to his genitals, was hung from his limbs, and was kept in a cell in filthy water up to his knees. Two other suspects, who had been sentenced to death in absentia, were hanged.
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/050214fa_fact6?050214fa_fact6 (http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/050214fa_fact6?050214fa_fact6)
So, does thinking that Clinton set up the program then didn't bother to use it, make you gullible?
-
When and where did they use it?
Oh yeah, I really like the "make a claim (Clinton didn't use the program) then require others to prove you wrong."
-
What has been the usual appeals procedure for Prisoners of War?
===============================================
There is no appeal process, normally.
Prisoners of War are held until the war is over. They are returned according to the terms of the peace treaty.
The detainees are not considered POWs because they are not troops of any government that will sign any peace treaty, or at least that's what they say.
-
Oh yeah, I really like the "make a claim (Clinton didn't use the program) then require others to prove you wrong."
I like the "so Clinton created it, Bush is clean and innocent" argument.
-
I like the "so Clinton created it, Bush is clean and innocent" argument.
You don't need to like it, since I didn't use it.
-
Right.
-
Right.
Sarcasm?
Perhaps you'd like to point out where I said that?
-
Right.
Sarcasm?
Perhaps you'd like to point out where I said that?
Or even implied it. Here's a hint. He won't
-
No, you didn't say it explicitly.
It is too bad more people didn't oppose these things when they were implemented. I appreciate being corrected, by the way. I have no problem with saying I was wrong.
And just because something is legal does not make it moral, just as something that is illegal isn't necessarily immoral.
-
No, you didn't say it explicitly.
When/where did Ami ever say so implicitly?
-
When/where did Ami ever say so implicitly?
Do you realize your question is an oxymoron?
-
And just because something is legal does not make it moral, just as something that is illegal isn't necessarily immoral.
Oh, I agree.
However, I said rather clearly, that I opposed rendition during the Clinton administration as well. I only pointed out that it was found to be legal during those years, so the current claim of illegality is incorrect. The only time that rendition performed by the US is illegal is when the US knows ahead of time that a prisoner will be tortured.
You do realize that Ramzi Youssef was brought to the US to stand trial via rendition, right? And that "Carlos the Jackal" was brought to France to stand trial via rendition as well?
In the case against the Jackal, he even made an appeal to the European Commission of Human Rights that his rendition from Sudan was illegal, which was rejected.
-
Do you realize your question is an oxymoron?
Do you realize you didn't answer the question?
explicit - fully and clearly expressed or demonstrated; leaving nothing merely implied
implicit - implied, rather than expressly stated, potentially contained
Posted by: _JS; "No, you didn't say it explicitly."
You answered as to the former, yet allowed the latter to carry your ball
-
However, I said rather clearly, that I opposed rendition during the Clinton administration as well. I only pointed out that it was found to be legal during those years, so the current claim of illegality is incorrect. The only time that rendition performed by the US is illegal is when the US knows ahead of time that a prisoner will be tortured.
You do realize that Ramzi Youssef was brought to the US to stand trial via rendition, right? And that "Carlos the Jackal" was brought to France to stand trial via rendition as well?
In the case against the Jackal, he even made an appeal to the European Commission of Human Rights that his rendition from Sudan was illegal, which was rejected.
My apologies then. I know better than to make assumptions, as often I tend to get lumped in as an anti-Bush leftist nutter when that isn't necessarily the case.
I believe that torture (and the definition thereof) as well as detention of foreigners with no charges or legal counsel is a significant problem. Rendition includes extradition and deportation. What makes Bush's extraordinary rendition (or extraordinary rendition carried out under this administration) somewhat unique is that some of the prisoners have been detained and then delivered to a third-party state (the CIA prisons) without ever touching US soil. Ramzi Youssef and Carlos faced criminal charges in specific countries. Some of these prisoners have faced no criminal charges and have never been to see an American court room.
Isn't that a distinction worth noting? Do you think one can abuse extraordinary rendition?
-
Do you realize you didn't answer the question?
explicit - fully and clearly expressed or demonstrated; leaving nothing merely implied
implicit - implied, rather than expressly stated, potentially contained
Posted by: _JS; "No, you didn't say it explicitly."
You answered as to the former, yet allowed the latter to carry your ball
If Ami has a problem then I believe he is fully capable of speaking for himself. I already apologized and as I said, I'm not one who has a problem admitting when I'm wrong.
As much as I enjoy semantics Sirs, I've got more useful things to do with my time than trying to answer your oxymoron.
-
Some of these prisoners have faced no criminal charges and have never been to see an American court room.
Rendition is seperate from extradition, and therefore does not require a visit to a court room. It's actually more akin to a government agency acting as a bail enforcer. We trade in these favors with other governments. Similar to the three way deal we have with Great Britain and Canada where they listen in on our internet traffic, and we listen in on theirs, then trade reports. It's not illegal for Canada and GB to monitor our citizens, and it's not illegal for the US to get a report on possible criminal activity from Canada or GB. And vice versa. It would be illegal for the US to monitor it's own citizens in this way, and ditto for the other countries, so they don't. Germany and France joined this group as well a few years ago.
Do you think one can abuse extraordinary rendition?
Anything can be abused. And I would hope that any abuse with adequate evidence would be prosecuted. We may get a case soon, Khalid El-Masri has filed against the US and several corporations.
-
As much as I enjoy semantics Sirs, I've got more useful things to do with my time than trying to answer your oxymoron.
While the question as stated was an oxymoron, it was a valid question. Should have been stated as "When did Ami imply it?"
More than likely, you came to that conclusion based on this post (http://debategate.com/new3dhs/index.php?topic=1320.msg10706#msg10706), though a close reading would see that I did not imply it then, either. I was just unclear that I was pointing out that the program had apparently been found to be legal at the time.
-
Posted by: _JS; "No, you didn't say it explicitly." You answered as to the former, yet allowed the latter to carry your ball
....I already apologized....
Glad we got that subtle accusation out of the way then
-
What makes Bush's extraordinary rendition (or extraordinary rendition carried out under this administration) somewhat unique is that some of the prisoners have been detained and then delivered to a third-party state (the CIA prisons) without ever touching US soil. Ramzi Youssef and Carlos faced criminal charges in specific countries. Some of these prisoners have faced no criminal charges and have never been to see an American court room.
And therein lies the rub.
Padilla was held so long without recourse, he is now too insane to stand trial! It's like he's Josef K!
-
Look at Padilla's treatment compared to this Crocker @$$&*($.
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2006/12/18/tennessee_terrorist/index.html
-
So what's your beef?
The ground up sausage was the distorted translation of supporting efforts, many of them pefectly legal, in trying to fight the terrorist threat as analogus to claiming we need to lose more civil liberties in order to be more secure.