Europe 'aided US in CIA flights'

[jose]

Fourteen European states colluded with the CIA in secret US flights for terror suspects, a report concludes.
The report comes from Europe's human rights watchdog, the Council of Europe.

It says there is evidence to back suspicions secret prisons are or were located in Poland and Romania - allegations both countries deny.

Under the CIA policy of rendition, prisoners are moved to third countries for interrogation. There have been allegations some were tortured.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/5054426.stm
comments http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thre...20060608205242
so it seems people have been picked up in one country and sent to other countries to be ¨rendered¨ IE tortured to see if they have any info.therefor the bush gov can claim with a strait face ¨WE, do not do torture¨ golly gosh more outsourcing?
in what conditions would you consider Torture OK. and should it be done to American subjects too

[bishop]

i've also heard that the EU has no means by which they can punish countries like poland for engaging in these antics.. i'd be a little concerned about poland if i were in the EU, especially given the country's newfound connections with our military. (we were caught red-handed spying on EU processions when clinton was president - and i'm sure we still are.) nice to have a country like poland in our pocket.

seems to me that the europeans should be focusing the brunt of their ire on fellow EU states that permitted the torture within their borders. and us americans should be focused on nailing bush's demented ass to the wall. (too bad there are lots of people here who are savages - who view torture as a good thing to do.)

[jose]

The [Egyptian] embassy got the information from its own sources that 23 Iraqi and American citizens have actually been interrogated at the military base Mihail Kogalniceanu close to the [Romanian] city of Constanza at the Black Sea
http://www.sundayherald.com/56171

[G. Adams]

Quote by: bishop i've also heard that the EU has no means by which they can punish countries like poland for engaging in these antics.. i'd be a little concerned about poland if i were in the EU, especially given the country's newfound connections with our military. (we were caught red-handed spying on EU processions when clinton was president - and i'm sure we still are.) nice to have a country like poland in our pocket. seems to me that the europeans should be focusing the brunt of their ire on fellow EU states that permitted the torture within their borders. and us americans should be focused on nailing bush's demented ass to the wall. (too bad there are lots of people here who are savages - who view torture as a good thing to do.)

The EU is not a united body, nor is it a supra-government. It is, primarily, an economic union for the purposes of political cooperation. It's not the job of the EU to deal with Poland, it is the job of European states, to deal with Poland.

[Apeman81]

If the existence of "secret" prisons is fact, so what? Where is the proper location to detain a terrorist? Should a terrorist prison be in a known location? Would that not invite terrorist attacks?

Should the names of captured members of a group as amorphous as a terrorist organization be released publicly upon their capture? Could not the lack of this knowledge on the part of the terrorist organization be useful in thwarting their efforts?

What do you think the right way to do it is?

[RickSp]

Quote by: Apeman81 If the existence of "secret" prisons is fact, so what? Where is the proper location to detain a terrorist? Should a terrorist prison be in a known location? Would that not invite terrorist attacks? Should the names of captured members of a group as amorphous as a terrorist organization be released publicly upon their capture? Could not the lack of this knowledge on the part of the terrorist organization be useful in thwarting their efforts? What do you think the right way to do it is?

Sure. Everyone the CIA kidnaps and sends to a third country to be tortured is a terrorist. How do we know that? Because our government is always good and true and never ever makes mistakes.

Canadian sent to Syria sues US over rendition policy

Maher Arar, a Canadian software engineer who also holds Syrian citizenship, was detained when he was switching flights in New York to return to Ottawa from Damascus, The Mass. Community Newspaper MetroWest Daily West (MA) reported. Mr. Arar said US officials nabbed him in JFK airport in Brooklyn as a presumed Al Qaeda terrorist in October 2002 and sent him to Syria where he was tortured for 10 months. Arar, who denies any terror links and was never charged with a crime, charges the US government with violating the Torture Victim Protection Act and his Fifth Amendment right to due process. Arar was eventually released by the Syrian government, which says it did not torture him, thanks largely to the efforts of his wife in Canada. Both the Canadian and Syrian governments now say Arar has nothing to do with Al Qaeda or any other terrorist group, and Arar was named by the Canadian edition of Time Magazine as "Newsmaker of the Year" in 2004, calling him "a symbol of how fear and injustice have permeated life in the West since 9/11." His case is also the subject of an ongoing inquiry in Canada.

Interesting Ape that you have no objection to breaking both international and domestic law or apparently have any problem with seeing at least some wholly innocent individuals being kidnapped and tortured.

[Setnakt]

The problem is not that there's no place to put criminals. The problem is accountability. Bush has said he can break any law he wants to, but for added measure he apparently kidnaps people and puts them where, for one thing, NOBODY knows anything about, and for another, they can get away with murder. If you're suspected of being a "Terrorist" (whatever that means, who can tell anymore), you have no rights, and they can "disappear" you any time they want just by dropping the T bomb.

Apeman's post reminds me of the State Department's response to Guantanamo. As opposed to responding to issues like judicial review, the State Department evades the issue by talking about releasing all the prisoners and how that's unacceptable because they're all dangerous. Actually we have no idea whether or not any of them are dangerous because there's no review.

Similarly here, the main problem is not necessarily where they're held, the problem is what's going on there. Also, we're not talking about Terrorists, we're talking about American citizens and random people they can't prove anything about. If they're such horrible human beings you'd think it'd be easy to prove a case. Whatever.

[Apeman81]

Quote by: RickSp Sure. Everyone the CIA kidnaps and sends to a third country to be tortured is a terrorist. How do we know that? Because our government is always good and true and never ever makes mistakes. Canadian sent to Syria sues US over rendition policy Interesting Ape that you have no objection to breaking both international and domestic law or apparently have any problem with seeing at least some wholly innocent individuals being kidnapped and tortured.

Read for comprehension. My point addressed the existence of secret locations and confidential list of prisoners. At no time did I assert that no oversight be in place, only that the information be held secret to protect our abililty to hold such prisoners and to maximize the value of holding them.

Your tirade ignores these issues. Lets stay on topic

[Apeman81]

Quote by: Setnakt The problem is not that there's no place to put criminals. The problem is accountability. Bush has said he can break any law he wants to, but for added measure he apparently kidnaps people and puts them where, for one thing, NOBODY knows anything about, and for another, they can get away with murder. If you're suspected of being a "Terrorist" (whatever that means, who can tell anymore), you have no rights, and they can "disappear" you any time they want just by dropping the T bomb. Apeman's post reminds me of the State Department's response to Guantanamo. As opposed to responding to issues like judicial review, the State Department evades the issue by talking about releasing all the prisoners and how that's unacceptable because they're all dangerous. Actually we have no idea whether or not any of them are dangerous because there's no review. Similarly here, the main problem is not necessarily where they're held, the problem is what's going on there. Also, we're not talking about Terrorists, we're talking about American citizens and random people they can't prove anything about. If they're such horrible human beings you'd think it'd be easy to prove a case. Whatever.

As these detainess are roughly analogous to Prisoners of War, there is no need for judicial review as no charges need be made. They may be held for the duration of hostilities.

[Mr.Vicchio]

I don't condone torture, for tortures sake. But if beating a man down saves lives, well... beat the man down.

It's a fine line. Do you play nice and then suffer the consequence of not "using physically coersive measures" that might occur.... like oh say another 9/11...

Or do you risk breaking some prisoners feet only to learn.. he knew nothing?

Torture to me is inflicting pain and anguish on someone... just to do it instead of using such nasty measures to save lives.

Think about it, it's boiled down rather simple, put yourself in the following situation:

Some really bad people have your wife and kids, you have the ring leader, in your custody, it's just you and him. He refuses to tell you where your family is to save them. Do you treat him nicely out of respect for his human rights, or do you start breaking bones?

I prefer ball peen hammer shots to knuckles. Hurts more.

[Autolykos]

Quote by: Mr.Vicchio I don't condone torture, for tortures sake. But if beating a man down saves lives, well... beat the man down. It's a fine line. Do you play nice and then suffer the consequence of not "using physically coersive measures" that might occur.... like oh say another 9/11...

Your fear-mongering tactics have no power over me. 9/11 would never have happened had the US government not tried to interfere in the affairs of much of the rest of the world.

Quote by: Mr.Vicchio Or do you risk breaking some prisoners feet only to learn.. he knew nothing? Torture to me is inflicting pain and anguish on someone... just to do it instead of using such nasty measures to save lives.

Those who are most likely to use torture are also those who are most likely to enjoy using it. It's called adverse selection.

Quote by: Mr.Vicchio Think about it, it's boiled down rather simple, put yourself in the following situation: Some really bad people have your wife and kids, you have the ring leader, in your custody, it's just you and him. He refuses to tell you where your family is to save them. Do you treat him nicely out of respect for his human rights, or do you start breaking bones?

If he refuses to say anything, nothing you do will "make" him do otherwise. A person who wants to do something (or not do something) badly enough will find a way to (not) do it.

Quote by: Mr.Vicchio I prefer ball peen hammer shots to knuckles. Hurts more.

Off-topic: You would know, wouldn't you. :rolleyes:

- Rob

[grandpa]

Quote by: Autolykos Your fear-mongering tactics have no power over me. 9/11 would never have happened had the US government not tried to interfere in the affairs of much of the rest of the world.

And it is fear-mongering. We are supposed to constantly have the atrocities (or even alleged atrocities) of others in mind while never acknowledging our own, which are numerous.

Grandpa h.

[Autolykos]

Quote by: grandpa And it is fear-mongering. We are supposed to constantly have the atrocities (or even alleged atrocities) of others in mind while never acknowledging our own, which are numerous. Grandpa h.

You are, of course, correct. The difference between "them" and "us", of course, is that "they" do not have American exceptionalism.

- Rob

[grandpa]

Quote by: Autolykos You are, of course, correct. The difference between "them" and "us", of course, is that "they" do not have American exceptionalism.

This is not to say Al-Qaeda should not be regarded as some kind of threat to the world, but terrorism is terrorism. We need to challenge all activities that put the masses in jeopardy, not just select a few. This includes combatting Islamic extremism and our own government, which provide ample threats to the world population.

Grandpa h.

[Mr.Vicchio]

So basically you guys believe all the worlds problems are our fault, and your wife and kids would die if it were up to you to decide between breaking someones hands with a hammer, or treating him nicely.

Glad to know my life, and the lives of others are not in your hands.

[Autolykos]

Quote by: Mr.Vicchio So basically you guys believe all the worlds problems are our fault

Give me a break. Where did I say that? :rolleyes:

If you're going to debate at all, you should at least represent the other person's side honestly.

Quote by: Mr.Vicchio and your wife and kids would die if it were up to you to decide between breaking someones hands with a hammer, or treating him nicely.

You yourself stated that the "ringleader" would offer no information whatsoever, regardless of circumstances. Therefore, breaking his hands would be a waste of effort for the intended purpose (preventing said wife and kids from dying). The only rationale for using any force against him would be to prevent others from getting into the same situation -- which, taken to its logical conclusion, means killing him. However, that has not appeared to be the position from which you have been arguing. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Quote by: Mr.Vicchio Glad to know my life, and the lives of others are not in your hands.

Go ahead and pat yourself on the back for this little nothing.

On a more meaningful note: No, your life and others' lives are not in my hands. But nor are they in the hands of the US government and military. If you believe otherwise, with all due respect -- actually no, who am I kidding? -- you are a fool.

- Rob

[grandpa]

Quote by: Autolykos Give me a break. Where did I say that? :

You didn't say that, and neither did I. What I have said is that people should reject all tyrannical behavior, whether by a ragtag group of terrorists or by a very powerful state. I take it you believe roughly the same, otherwise Mr.Vicchio would not have misrepresnted us.

Grandpa h.

[twoanickel]

Quote by: Mr.Vicchio So basically you guys believe all the worlds problems are our fault, and your wife and kids would die if it were up to you to decide between breaking someones hands with a hammer, or treating him nicely. Glad to know my life, and the lives of others are not in your hands.

Aren't you using hypotheticals to support your position? Hypotheticals are very subjective and lend themselves to justifying action against people on hypothetical bases. The very fact that someone supports torture says that they are for torture of those whose guilt is not proven because if enough were known about the subject to justify severe action against them, why not instead take action in regard to what is known about their guilt in a situation.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: Mr.Vicchio So basically you guys believe all the worlds problems are our fault, and your wife and kids would die if it were up to you to decide between breaking someones hands with a hammer, or treating him nicely. Glad to know my life, and the lives of others are not in your hands.

Hey, I can turn your own rhetoric against you.


"If you haven't done anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about."


Perhaps we should consider turning over our guilty, or at least see that are held accountable for their actions.


This is a point that is lost on the Republican mindset, or you are all using the same rhetoric intentionally. ( I've seen 9/11 involked a couple of times, must be about time to drag out the "old mushhroom cloud" routine any time now. )


If the citizens of the U.S. had the stones to stand up, and take their government back from the corrupt politicians, and the special interests they represent, the "terorists" would be too busy determining their own fate ( which was now left for them instead of meddling foreigners ) to be bothered seeking revenge on the good citizens of the United States.


The most egregious part of this equation in my eyes is the fact that people like Vicchio won't even admit past wrongs the play a role in the present mindset of his alleged opposition. All of these violations ( and, indeed virtually all of our foreign policies abroad ) are in direct violation of the constitution, and the chartered intentions of this country.


I also find it maddening that they expect us to go out on a limb defending criminals who not only cultivate enemies abroad, but who at the same time, with the same acts, are disenfranchising the very constituents he lambasts for failing to rally to these people's defense.


Since these same people are the ones who always look for ways around the constution in the legal arena, and have, for all intents, and puposes,suspended it's validity, I would like to see these people eventually turned over ( against constitutional provisions, but hey, thats the way they roll ) to the people whom they have suppressed for so long. ( There's an awful lot, so don't expect to be able to cast your stone at them any time soon. )


This same tired rhetoric is getting awfully old, and worn out Vicchio. You guys should think about investing in new propaganda at the rate you do military hardware.