The system is said to depend on the co-operation of foreign intelligence services, and on keeping even basic information about the system secret from the public, foreign officials and nearly all members of Congress charged with overseeing the CIA's covert actions.
quote:
The top 30 al-Qaeda prisoners held at the black sites are isolated from the outside world, have no recognised legal rights and no-one outside the CIA is allowed to talk to or see them, the sources said.
They added that the CIA used such detention centres abroad because in the US it is illegal to hold prisoners in such isolation.
well aparently someone in the CIA leaked this. It's glad to know that someone that is involved in this thinks this is wrong to the point of leaking it to the media. Whoever leaked this is a brave person. I am eager to hear what will happen, but I am astonished that it said that this program was designed to be hidden from the members of congress in charge of overviewing CIA covert actions. That means that someone has put a LOT of effort into trying to hide it. Well if it wasn't the legislative branch, and if it wasn't the judicial branch (can you imagine them having something to do w/ this?), that leaves the executive branch. Surprise, surprise. Wonder how long this has been setup and running for.
Kudos to the countries that deny existance of such fascilities on their soil (Bulgaria and Russia).
Ogi ******************************************************** 11-02-05, 09:02 PM DorianGreyed "Kudos to the countries that deny existance of such fascilities on their soil (Bulgaria and Russia)."
Denial of the existence is not proof of their non-existence. Putin was KGB, and one of his first jobs in the KGB was suppression of dissident activities. Bulgaria was essentially the vassal state of the KGB, and often did their foreign wet work.
11-02-05, 09:50 PM Scotty
quote: Kudos to the countries that deny existance of such fascilities on their soil (Bulgaria and Russia).
Ogi
And you automatically accept their word for it? How gullible.
11-02-05, 10:02 PM Ogi who said I took their word for it, kudos for them speaking up to begin with. hell, even our own government isn't denying that this prison system is in place, if our government doesn't deny it, why would these countries do unless there actually isn't one.
in regards to bulgaria's involvement w/ the KGB, that was under a COMPLETELY different government, when they were under a communist government all sorts of stuff could have gone on there w/o anyone knowing). now they are a republic, with 10 million different branches of government, ...and they have their own affairs to worry about before they cater to the U.S. with allowing them to hold this kind of facility on their soil.
I was actually in Bulgaria a few months ago (and I lived there for a good chunk of my childhood). I would HIGHLY doubt any kind of secret jail being placed there (from 10 years ago to present day). There are only a few airports in Bulgaria, and it would be really difficult to have a U.S. operation such as this go on w/o anyone knowing. There is talk of a U.S. military base being built there in the future, but to my knowledge nothing has been built yet, including an air strip. I also don't think Russia would get involved in this matter either because they got their own terrorism to worry about. Al-Qaeda is probably a low priority in comparison to what they are dealing with currently (and believe me when I say they are dealing with it, I was in Russia on a brief visit a few years ago, "security measures" are definitely in place regarding their anti-terrorism policies within their borders.
now scotty, don't get me started on "gullible". You use opinion colomns as "references".
Ogi
11-02-05, 10:06 PM Scotty
quote: now scotty, don't get me started on "gullible". You use opinion colomns as "references".
Wow! Yeah,and I actually do that all by myself,noboby else here has ever used an opinion before. Roll Eyes
11-02-05, 11:15 PM Ogi i have never labeled an opinion colomn as a refernece, perhaps someone else has, but I haven't seen it.
but if we are going to use opinions as references then let's take Mr. Rockefeller's statement as fact here:
quote: "Once again, it appears to me that the White House has dictated that the Republican-controlled Congress not conduct oversight of an important national security matter," Rockefeller said. "They have made it clear that anyone who suggests that oversight is needed should be labeled as unpatriotic."
well, I can't in good conscious use that as a reference, but I must say that what was said there describes exactly how I feel on the matter.
Ogi
11-02-05, 11:16 PM DorianGreyed "who said I took their word for it, kudos for them speaking up to begin with."
You are right, of course, and I didn't mean that you accepted it. I am sorry if I wasn't clearer on that. But I think that the fact that Russia has their own very serious problems with terrorism makes Putin all the more likely to go along with Bush's secret prisons. After all, Putin was more than familiar with Lubyanka.
You spent a large part of your childhood in Bulgaria? Interesting. My grandfather was born in Macedonia.
11-02-05, 11:26 PM Ogi I have many cousins still in Bulgaria, and thanks to Skype I still communicate with them frequently. I was born in the U.S.A., but I moved there, and then back 4 years later.
Russia could be a potential site for one of these prisons, but I still REALLY doubt it. When I went to Russia (while attached to the military), it was a HUGE deal. No navy ships had ever been there, and we were the 2nd (or 3rd) Coast Guard Cutter to go there. It was HUGE news there, I mean HUGE. If we got that kind of treatment for being a ship that pulls into port there for 3 days, can you imagine the coverage that would go into a whole base being setup there. I mean we were a group of 170 guys that were there for 3 days. To support one of these prisons they would have to have frequent air traffic (planes coming and going) and the logistics of it would arrise some attention.
I suppose though, that there is enough empty land in Russia that if it could be pulled off anywhere, Russia would be the place. They do have loads of airstrips, plenty of abandoned/obsolete prisons. I don't see the forign relations between Russia and the U.S.A. being good enough to allow something like this to happen.
well damn, I was going to post my predictions tonight on which countries were most likely to have these prisons on their soil, but a news article beat me to the "suspected" countries. For the record my guess was Poland and Latvia (sp?).
quote: Human Rights Watch said it has evidence, based on flight logs, that indicate the CIA transported suspects captured in Afghanistan to Poland and Romania. But the two countries — and others in the former Soviet bloc — denied the allegations. U.S. officials have refused to confirm or deny the claims.
I don't know why Romania would contribue to an operation such as this, but these are just aligations at this point, we shall see where this leads.
Ogi
11-04-05, 07:52 AM Lighteningrodd I am all for having these "Secret Prisons". Considering this is a war type situation, these prisons do serve a purpose for integraton.
If we are going to win the War on Terror, we need to get serious & throw this political correctness out the window. Are the Iraqi insurgents & al Qaeda terrorist concerned with the human rights of our soldiers??? You can bet they are not. And I certainly am not going to lose any sleep about theirs.
I think some people on here need to decide whose side they are on. The U.S. or the terrorists. Seems there are those on here who are more concerned about the rights of our enemy than they are our own soldiers.
11-04-05, 08:15 AM frankvan
quote: I am all for having these "Secret Prisons". Considering this is a war type situation, these prisons do serve a purpose for integraton.
I presume you meant "interrogation". If these prisons do serve a justifiable purpose, why do they have to be so hidden from the American taxpayers' oversight? Confused
11-04-05, 09:50 AM newnickname
quote: Are the Iraqi insurgents & al Qaeda terrorist concerned with the human rights of our soldiers???
If you give it a moment's thought, you'll see that it is in every soldier's interest that prisoners of the enemy have basic rights, and that something like the Geneva Convention is upheld as a universal standard. A race to the bottom, to see who can treat prisoners worse, is not a pro-military stance. Also, as John McCain (surely someone worth listening to on this point) says, "This isn't about who they are. This is about who we are. These are the values that distinguish us from our enemies."
11-04-05, 11:00 AM DorianGreyed "This isn't about who they are. This is about who we are. These are the values that distinguish us from our enemies."
"This isn't about who they are. This is about who we are. These are the values that distinguish us from our enemies."
This is a concept that some just cannot understand. How we treat people is all about us, not those we treat inhumanely. We decry nations who use what we call barbaric punishment, yet we mistreat prisoners ourselves. Having a set of rights in place means absolutely nothing of they can be removed so easily. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That apparently should be changed to read Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances, unless we don't want you to.
And this one is abviously meaningless: In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.
Of course, there are those who would say that I am favoring the enemy by supporting these rights, another viewpoint I cannot understand. I am not supporting the United States by being in favor of its Constitution? Yet it is we who support the Constitution who are called anti-American and those who wish to ignore the Constitution call themselves patriots. The logic of that position escapes me.
11-04-05, 02:48 PM Ogi
quote:
If we are going to win the War on Terror, we need to get serious & throw this political correctness out the window.
Funny, Hitler used the same argument, the ends justify the means right?
Ogi 11-04-05, 02:51 PM Ogi
quote: "This isn't about who they are. This is about who we are. These are the values that distinguish us from our enemies."
John McCain couldn't have said it better. I may not agree with the man's political ideals, but this man's morals are something I can totally agree to.
While I was in the service I would always get a kick out of people saying how we should torture the prisoners, however they (like me) know nothing of interogation techniques. It's funny how everyone is suddenly an expert. I think we should stick to the guidelines our founding fathers set in our constitution, and stick to ideals such as "innocent until proven guilty".
Ogi 11-04-05, 03:03 PM Lighteningrodd So its about who we are...well I would venture to say that torture doled out by the U.S. Military is a picnic compared to torture by any of the terrorist groups. Would any of them abide by the Geneva Convention??? Personally I say lets burn it. Its not worth the paper its written on. Simply designed to tie the hands of our Military. Of the enemy we have fought, who if anyone abided by the Geneva Convention???
We are fighting an enemy. Animals, er I mean people of other countries.
Actually organizations that are probably not even considered military in nature. Yet their sole purpose is to kill anyone & everyone who is not a Muslim. Get right down to it, I care nothing about the viewpoint of the enemy. Its not important. The enemy is wanting to kill our soldiers. Hey, kill them first.
When captured they are not entitled to our Constitutional Rights. Nor should they be granted access to our Court system. Any judge who say they are is totally wrong & should be thrown off the bench. he's not fit to be a judge.
Let's allow our soldiers to do their job. To be the killing machines they were trained to be. To put fear in the heart of our enemy.
11-04-05, 05:15 PM FredPuli LR Is there any reason you can suggest why we should not shoot dead all enemy captives? After all, before capture they were trying to kill us or our soldiers. Why should they not be put to death, without recourse to the court system?
11-04-05, 07:39 PM Ogi
quote: Originally posted by Lighteningrodd: So its about who we are...well I would venture to say that torture doled out by the U.S. Military is a picnic compared to torture by any of the terrorist groups. Would any of them abide by the Geneva Convention??? Personally I say lets burn it. Its not worth the paper its written on.
I'm guessing you are not in the military and have never been in the military. Funny how you people are "experts" on weather or not the geneva convention when it has never applied to you.
Ogi
11-04-05, 09:34 PM Dwight I am in total agreement here with Senator John McCain concerning the treatment of our captured enemies. I just cannot understand how any person anywhere can justify torture as an acceptable practice.
"This is a concept that some just cannot understand. How we treat people is all about us, not those we treat inhumanely." Well said by, DorianGreyed
Dwight
11-05-05, 04:48 AM Lighteningrodd
quote: Originally posted by Dwight: I am in total agreement here with Senator John McCain concerning the treatment of our captured enemies. I just cannot understand how any person anywhere can justify torture as an acceptable practice.
"This is a concept that some just cannot understand. How we treat people is all about us, not those we treat inhumanely." Well said by, DorianGreyed
Dwight
Dwight-I am sure you will agree that for the most part our government does treat it's prisoners humanely. But I will pose this scenario. In the case we are holding someone who is of a fairly high level in his terror organization. Someone who has knowledge of plans for future attacks on our soldiers. Don't we owe to our troops to do whatever it takes to get all the info we can, for their protection???
We are not dealing with a conventional military. Not even another country. More like an organization or series of organizations. Insurgents who use tactics that are about as underhanded & brutal as any enemy we have ever faced. If we have to resort to extreme tactics to get needed information, so be it.
11-05-05, 05:04 AM Lighteningrodd
quote: Originally posted by DorianGreyed:
That apparently should be changed to read Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances, unless we don't want you to.
DG-Since you mentioned religion, perhaps we ought to look at this a little bit further. Just what does our enemy consist of??? Muslims. What many refer to as extremists. Not pointing to the whole religion, just the group within the religion. What is their ultimate objective??? Some might say to get the infidels, as in the U.S. out of Iraq. I tend to think it goes much further. Essentially they are wanting to spread out. They want to take over. Their own brand of ethnic cleansing.
This is an enemy whose very problem with us is the fact that we exist. We are not one of them. When we, as a country grasp that fact, then perhaps we can bring ourselves to do what we have to do to deal with them.
11-05-05, 08:28 AM Dwight "Don't we owe to our troops to do whatever it takes..." - Lighteningrodd
In my opinion, no. If "whatever it takes" involves torture, then I believe that we cannot stoop to that level. If the United States is to stand for human rights, then we must insure that our people follow the rules. I know it will sometimes be extremely difficult because of situations like the scenario you mentioned:
"Someone who has knowledge of plans for future attacks on our soldiers."
In my opinion we can try to get information from the captive in any way that does not involve torture. But I believe that the United States must have written rules for our people that give them clear rules and standards that they are expected to comply with.
Dwight
11-05-05, 09:04 AM frankvan Apart from the objection on moral or ethical grounds, the down-side of stooping to the level of unscrupulous enemies; how reliable is any information obtained through torture?
Also, in the case where we are known to treat our captured enemies humanely, they are less inclined to fight to the death and to the last man standing. We have often been able to obtain large scale defections and surrenders in past conflicts. It seems counter productive to me, at this time, to yield to desperate abandonment of our own better natures, tempted as we might otherwise be. Wink
11-05-05, 10:27 AM Ogi I'm not trying to pull self-rightousness
I'm saying that as a member of the military I thought the Geneva Convention was a VERY good thing. Enemies can still show respect for each other, and as a superpower, I think we should hold ourselves to higher standards than terrorists.
When did the Geneva Convention apply to you?
Ogi
11-05-05, 10:29 AM Ogi
quote: Originally posted by Lighteningrodd:
quote: Originally posted by Dwight: I am in total agreement here with Senator John McCain concerning the treatment of our captured enemies. I just cannot understand how any person anywhere can justify torture as an acceptable practice.
"This is a concept that some just cannot understand. How we treat people is all about us, not those we treat inhumanely." Well said by, DorianGreyed
Dwight
Dwight-I am sure you will agree that for the most part our government does treat it's prisoners humanely. But I will pose this scenario. In the case we are holding someone who is of a fairly high level in his terror organization. Someone who has knowledge of plans for future attacks on our soldiers. Don't we owe to our troops to do whatever it takes to get all the info we can, for their protection???
You start torturing someone, they will be quick to give you information yes, weather or not is accurate, you won't know until it's too late.
Ogi
11-05-05, 10:32 AM Ogi
quote: Originally posted by frankvan: Apart from the objection on moral or ethical grounds, the down-side of stooping to the level of unscrupulous enemies; how reliable is any information obtained through torture?
Also, in the case where we are known to treat our captured enemies humanely, they are less inclined to fight to the death and to the last man standing. We have often been able to obtain large scale defections and surrenders in past conflicts. It seems counter productive to me, at this time, to yield to desperate abandonment of our own better natures, tempted as we might otherwise be. Wink
Someone beat me to the comment about inaccurate information being extracted from torture. That's another good thing about troops willing to surrender if we have a history and reputation for treating our POWs with dignity and respect. How many Iraqi solders surrendered as we invaded?
Ogi
11-05-05, 11:27 AM DorianGreyed The Bush administration has said that the discussion in the memo notwithstanding, al Qaeda and Taliban detainees, including those held at Guantanamo Bay, have been treated in accord with international conventions prohibiting torture. ---- "There is no presidential order immunizing torture," Ashcroft told the Judiciary panel. He cited President Bush's statement that al Qaeda captives should be treated in a manner consistent with the Geneva Conventions, even though the administration chose not to designate detainees as prisoners of war. ---- (Attorney General John) Ashcroft responded, "I condemn torture. I don't think it's productive, let alone justified." (Senator Joseph) Biden told Ashcroft that prohibitions against torture are intended to "protect my son in the military. That's why we have these treaties. So when Americans are captured, they are not tortured. That's the reason, in case anybody forgets it." Ashcroft said he needed no reminder, because his own son has been on active military duty in the Persian Gulf. - Washington Post, Wednesday, June 9, 2004; Page A01
quote: Would it be so risky to do the right thing -- to bring al Qaeda operatives into American courtrooms and give them proper trials? There might be a risk, but this is a country that routinely accepts risks as the price of upholding its ideals. For example, we tolerate thousands of deaths by gunfire every year as the cost of respecting the right to bear arms. Most other nations would consider our homicide rate an unacceptable holocaust. We're not like most other nations.
I couldn't have said it better myself.
11-06-05, 06:02 AM Lighteningrodd When our soldiers take in prisoners, if these prisoners are well behaved, cause no problems, then treat them accordingly. But there will be those who are unruly, basic troublemakers. Our soldiers should have whatever authority they need to do their job & take care of themselves. If whatever actions they use are deemed as torture, so be it.
My problem with the Geneva Convention, is the one-sidedness to it. Since it has been the standard for ethical treatment of prisoners, how many coountries have really abided by it??? The United States always has. But when we hear of American POW's being held by the enemy, being starved to death, beaten, & whatever other methods the enemy uses. On the flip side, the U.S. Military takes in prisoners, feeds them gives them proper medical care, humane treatment. It seems to me this Geneva Convention doesn't work very well. Yet it is the Americans that get criticized for their actions. Seems our soldiers being held captive get the short end.
As I've stated before, I don't believe in allowing the enemy access to our court system. That is what we have military tribunals for. Our court system has enough on the plate already without adding war& military matters to it.
Our military is an all volunteer force. Those who enlist really don't have a grasp of what they get into until they are there. The pay is low & above all else, potentially they can be in situations their life is on the line. Some don't make it back alive.
Bottom line is when the human rights of the enemy is held above the welfare of our soldiers, that isn't right. I have a real problem with that.
11-06-05, 09:08 AM FredPuli
quote: Originally posted by Lighteningrodd: But when we hear of American POW's being held by the enemy, being starved to death, beaten, & whatever other methods the enemy uses. On the flip side, the U.S. Military takes in prisoners, feeds them gives them proper medical care, humane treatment. It seems to me this Geneva Convention doesn't work very well. Yet it is the Americans that get criticized for their actions. Seems our soldiers being held captive get the short end.
As I've stated before, I don't believe in allowing the enemy access to our court system. That is what we have military tribunals for. Our court system has enough on the plate already without adding war& military matters to it.
Bottom line is when the human rights of the enemy is held above the welfare of our soldiers, that isn't right. I have a real problem with that.
So what do you advocate? Some of the enemy execute hostages or prisoners for no more reason than that these are hostages or prisoners. Would you have us, Americans or British, execute enemy prisoners, then, by the same reasoning? If you would not, then how would you distinguish that from the case where the enemy tortures prisoners ? If we should not kill prisoners because the enemy kills prisoners, why then should we torture prisoners because the enemy tortures prisoners ?
11-06-05, 04:23 PM Lighteningrodd
quote: Originally posted by FredPuli: So what do you advocate? Some of the enemy execute hostages or prisoners for no more reason than that these are hostages or prisoners. Would you have us, Americans or British, execute enemy prisoners, then, by the same reasoning? If you would not, then how would you distinguish that from the case where the enemy tortures prisoners ? If we should not kill prisoners because the enemy kills prisoners, why then should we torture prisoners because the enemy tortures prisoners ?
Fred-I am not advocating the torture & killing of prisoners for fun & sport, if that is what you are getting at.
Should prisoners become a problem, our soldiers guarding them should be free to use whatever means needed to keep the situation under control. I'm sure some methods in doing so would be considered torture by nature.
Should we have a high level prisoner who is knowledgeable about terrorist planning & operations, by all means use whatever means necessary to extract information out of him. I'm not worried about what the other countries think of us. If the information obtained prevented another attack like 9-11 or prevented the deaths of some of our soldiers in the field, great. That is what is important. Not what the other countries think. Truth be known, they would do the same thing.
11-06-05, 09:52 PM Ogi LR, if we have a high level al-qaeda operative and we torture him, what guarantee do we have that we will receive acurate information or just a bunch of bad information? torture will get information out of people yes, but weather or not it's credable information or not won't be known until resources are used to investigate it.
also I don't think our laws on morality, the ideas our country was founded in, are something that should be flexable when it's "convinient".
In regards to the "problem" prisoners, have you heard of long term isolation? Far from torture, and still quite punishing.
Ogi 11-07-05, 07:47 AM frankvan "Should prisoners become a problem, our soldiers guarding them should be free to use whatever means needed to keep the situation under control." LR
Our soldiers, for the most part, are young, decent, ethical young men and women. Should we advocate encouraging sadistic or brutal behavior as part of their training experience ? I shudder to think of what kind of veterans would be returned home to their wives and children when the service is over. I sincerely hope that your attitude toward the treatment of prisoners is not prevalent in today's military.
11-08-05, 05:31 PM bunkboy You know, the worst thing anybody in the media can ever say about American military prisons anywhere in the world is that they're secret, the inmates wear panties, we scare the inmates with dogs on leashes, and the female guards remove their shirts in front of them.
That gives me the greatest confidence. I love my country for not doing all the things that truly amount to torture, inhumane treatment, and crimes against humanity.
I'm positive that any of our military prisons, wherever they're at, have inmates that are actually getting a taste of benevolence. When we return them to their homes, they'll miss us.
11-08-05, 08:44 PM Scotty Why don't you ask Sen. McCain about his rights under the Geneva Conventions? My brothers in arms in "Nam" will tell you how the Geneva Conventions helped them. Yes, I was there. LR is correct when he says that we abide by the Conventions,but most of our enemies do not. It is a one sided affair.
We may have a few instances of torture,but it is certainly not the norm for this Country. Certain individuals take it into their own hands.
11-08-05, 08:58 PM DorianGreyed I never get to see Senator McCain, but perhaps this may explain how he feels about torture.
McCain fights exception to torture ban
By Charlie Savage, Globe Staff | October 26, 2005
WASHINGTON -- Senator John McCain yesterday warned that a push by the White House to exempt overseas CIA agents from a proposed ban on mistreating prisoners in US custody would exacerbate the problem of detainee abuse by giving interrogators legal authority to torture suspected terrorists.
"I don't see how you could possibly agree to legitimizing an agent of the government engaging in torture," said the Arizona Republican, who survived torture as a prisoner of war in Vietnam. ''No amendment at all would be better than that."
After the 2001 terrorist attacks, the administration crafted a secret legal memo arguing that Bush could authorize aggressive interrogations to protect national security. The controversial memo defined ''torture" narrowly as pain that is equal to organ failure and that is inflicted as an end to itself, rather than as a means to obtaining life-saving information.
The administration repudiated the memo in 2004 after it leaked, and said it had never been used. But the White House insists the Constitution gives the commander-in-chief the power to decide how terrorism suspects will be treated.
The Senate voted 90-9 three weeks ago to attach McCain's amendment to a military appropriations bill, in a bipartisan vote that was seen widely as a rebuke to Bush administration policies following detainee abuse scandals at Guantanamo Bay, Abu Ghraib, and elsewhere.
McCain responded: ''I don't know how you protect your life by torturing somebody. I've never understood that scenario."
McCain's proposal would do two things. First, it would restrict military interrogators to using only techniques authorized in the Army Field Guide, imposing firmer limits on military prisons.
Second, it would prohibit torture and other forms of cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment of detainees in US custody anywhere in the world. That rule would extend to CIA agents and officials from allied governments.
Several weeks ago, the White House threatened to veto the military appropriations bill should the final version contain McCain's proposal, citing Bush's need for flexibility in setting policy for the treatment of prisoners in the war on terrorism.
But the threat did not deter 90 members of the Senate, including 46 Republicans, from approving the amendment. - BostonGlobe.com -------- So 44 Democrats (or 43 Democrats and 1 Independent)and 45 Republicans agree with Sen. McCain's bill. But if you want, I will e-mail his staff and ask them how he feels. 11-08-05, 09:03 PM DorianGreyed Wait, I don't have to e-mail Sen. McCain! Here is a press release from his web site, McCain.Senate.gov. It seems that he made his position clear. Please note the date on the release.
Press Releases MCCAIN STATEMENT ON DETAINEE AMENDMENTS For Immediate Release Wednesday, Oct 05, 2005
Washington D.C. ¬– Senator McCain delivered the following statement today from the Senate floor on the Amendment on (1) the Army Field Manual and (2) Cruel, Inhumane, Degrading Treatment, amendment #1977:
Mr. President, I call up amendment #1977, which is filed at the desk.
The Department of Defense Appropriations bill is one of the most important funding measures considered by Congress. Equally important is the Department of Defense Authorization bill, and it is very unfortunate that we are forced to consider this funding measure without having completed our important work on the authorization bill. Despite the efforts of the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Armed Services Committee, who have worked to bring up and dispense with the authorization bill in a reasonable manner, they have been unable to reach an agreement with the leadership. As a result, the authorizers have filed the authorization bill and a procedural vote will occur on it this evening.
The Senate has an obligation to address the authorizing legislation, just as it has an obligation to deal with the issue that apparently led to the bill being pulled from the floor – America’s treatment of its detainees. Several weeks ago I received a letter from Captain Ian Fishback, a member of the 82nd Airborne Division at Fort Bragg, and a veteran of combat in Afghanistan and Iraq. Over 17 months he struggled to get answers from his chain of command to a basic question: what standards apply to the treatment of enemy detainees? But he found no answers. In his remarkable letter, he pleads with Congress, asking us to take action, to establish standards, to clear up the confusion – not for the good of the terrorists, but for the good of our soldiers and our country. The Captain closes his letter by saying, “I strongly urge you to do justice to your men and women in uniform. Give them clear standards of conduct that reflect the ideals they risk their lives for.” I believe that the Congress has a responsibility to answer this call – a call that has come not just from this one brave soldier but from so many of our men and women in uniform.
We owe it to them, Mr. President. We sent them to fight for us in Afghanistan and Iraq. We placed extraordinary pressure on them to extract intelligence from detainees. But then we threw out the rules that our soldiers had trained on, and replaced them with a confusing and constantly changing array of standards. We demanded intelligence without ever clearly telling our troops what was permitted and what was forbidden. And then when things went wrong, we blamed them and we punished them. We have to do better than that.
I can understand why some administration lawyers might want ambiguity, so that every hypothetical option is theoretically open, even those the President has said he does not want to exercise. But war does not occur in theory, and our troops are not served by ambiguity. They are crying out for clarity. The Congress cannot shrink from this duty, we cannot hide our heads, pulling bills from the floor and avoiding votes. We owe it to our soldiers, during this time of war, to take a stand.
And so while I would prefer to offer this amendment to the DOD Authorization bill, I am left with no choice but to offer it to this appropriations measure. I would note that I am offering this amendment in accordance with the options afforded under Rule 16 of the Standing Rules of the Senate. The amendment I will now offer combines the two amendments that I previously filed to the authorizing measure.
This amendment would (1) establish the Army Field Manual as the uniform standard for the interrogation of Department of Defense detainees and (2) prohibit cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment of persons in the detention of the U.S. government.
Mr. President, to fight terrorism we need intelligence. That much is obvious. What should also be obvious is that the intelligence we collect must be reliable and acquired humanely, under clear standards understood by all our fighting men and women. To do differently would not only offend our values as Americans, but undermine our war effort, because abuse of prisoners harms – not helps – us in the war on terror. First, subjecting prisoners to abuse leads to bad intelligence, because under torture a detainee will tell his interrogator anything to make the pain stop. Second, mistreatment of our prisoners endangers U.S. troops who might be captured by the enemy – if not in this war, then in the next. And third, prisoner abuses exact on us a terrible toll in the war of ideas, because inevitably these abuses become public. When they do, the cruel actions of a few darken the reputation of our country in the eyes of millions. American values should win against all others in any war of ideas, and we can’t let prisoner abuse tarnish our image.
And yet reports of detainee abuse continue to emerge, in large part, I believe, because of confusion in the field as to what is permitted and what is not. The amendment I am proposing will go a long way toward clearing up this confusion.
Army Field Manual
The first part of this amendment would establish the Army Field Manual as the uniform standard for the interrogation of Department of Defense detainees. The Army Field Manual and its various editions have served America well, through wars against both regular and irregular foes. It embodies the values Americans have embraced for generations, while preserving the ability of our interrogators to extract critical intelligence from ruthless foes. Never has this been more important than today, in the midst of the war on terror.
The Army Field Manual authorizes interrogation techniques that have proven effective in extracting life-saving information from the most hardened enemy prisoners. It is consistent with our laws and, most importantly, our values. Let us not forget that al-Qaeda sought not just to destroy American lives on September 11, but American values – our way of life and all we cherish. We fight not just to preserve our lives and liberties but also American values, and we will never allow the terrorists to take those away. In this war that we must win - that we will win - we must never simply fight evil with evil.
This amendment would establish the Army Field Manual as the standard for interrogation of all detainees held in DOD custody. The Manual has been developed by the Executive Branch for its own uses, and a new edition, written to take into account the needs of the war on terror and with a new classified annex, is due to be issued soon. My amendment would not set the Field Manual in stone – it could be changed at any time.
The advantage of setting a standard for interrogation based on the Field Manual is to cut down on the significant level of confusion that still exists with respect to which interrogation techniques are allowed. The Armed Services Committee has held hearings with a slew of high-level Defense Department officials, from regional commanders, to judge advocate generals, to the Department’s deputy general counsel. A chief topic of discussion in these hearings was what specific interrogation techniques are permitted in what environments, with which DOD detainees, by whom, and when. And the answers have included a whole lot of confusion. If the Pentagon’s top minds can’t sort these matters out after exhaustive debate and preparation, how in the world do we expect our enlisted men and women to do so?
Confusion about the rules results in abuses in the field. We need a clear, simple, and consistent standard, and we have it in the Army Field Manual on Interrogation. That’s not just my opinion, but that of many more distinguished military minds than mine. I would refer you to a letter expressing strong support for this amendment, signed by 28 former high-ranking military officers, including General Joseph Hoar, who commanded Centcom; General John Shalikashvili, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs; RADM John Hutson and RADM Don Guter, who each served as the Navy’s top JAG; and LTGEN Claudia Kennedy, who served as Deputy Chief of Staff for Army Intelligence. These and other distinguished officers believe that the abuses at Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo and elsewhere took place in part because our soldiers received ambiguous instructions, which in some cases authorized treatment that went beyond what the Field Manual allows, and that, had the Manual been followed across the board, we could have avoided the prisoner abuse scandal. Mr. President, wouldn’t any of us do whatever we could to have prevented that? By passing this amendment, our service members can follow the Manual consistently from now on. Our troops deserve no less.
Cruel, Inhumane, Degrading Treatment
The second part of this amendment really shouldn’t be objectionable to anyone since I’m actually not proposing anything new. The prohibition against cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment has been a longstanding principle in both law and policy in the United States. Before I get into why this amendment is necessary, let me first review the history.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted in 1948, states simply that “No one shall be subject to torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.” The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which the U.S. is a signatory, states the same. The binding Convention Against Torture, negotiated by the Reagan administration and ratified by the Senate, prohibits cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment. On last year’s DOD Authorization bill, the Senate passed a bipartisan amendment reaffirming that no detainee in U.S. custody can be subject to torture or cruel treatment, as the U.S. has long defined those terms. All of this seems to be common sense, in accordance with longstanding American values.
But since last year’s DOD bill, a strange legal determination was made that the prohibition in the Convention Against Torture against cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment does not legally apply to foreigners held outside the U.S. They can, apparently, be treated inhumanely. This is the administration’s position, even though Judge Abe Soafer, who negotiated the Convention Against Torture for President Reagan, said in a recent letter that the Reagan administration never intended the prohibition against cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment to apply only on U.S. soil.
What all this means is that America is the only country in the world that asserts a legal right to engage in cruel and inhuman treatment. But the crazy thing is that it is not even necessary, because the Administration has said that it will not engage in cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment as a matter of policy. What this also means is that confusion about the rules becomes rampant again. We have so many differing legal standards and loopholes that our lawyers and generals are confused – just imagine our troops serving in prisons and the field.
So the amendment I am offering simply codifies what is current policy and reaffirms what was assumed to be existing law for years. In light of the administration’s stated commitment, it should require no change in our current interrogation and detention practices. What it would do is restore clarity on a simple and fundamental question: Does America treat people inhumanely? My answer is no, and from all I’ve seen, America’s answer has always been no.
Mr. President, let me just close by noting that I hold no brief for the prisoners. I do hold a brief for the reputation of the United States of America. We are Americans, and we hold ourselves to humane standards of treatment of people no matter how evil or terrible they may be. To do otherwise undermines our security, but it also undermines our greatness as a nation. We are not simply any other country. We stand for something more in the world – a moral mission, one of freedom and democracy and human rights at home and abroad. We are better than these terrorists, and we will we win. The enemy we fight has no respect for human life or human rights. They don’t deserve our sympathy. But this isn’t about who they are. This is about who we are. These are the values that distinguish us from our enemies.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
11-08-05, 09:10 PM Scotty
quote: But if you want, I will e-mail his staff and ask them how he feels
You missed my point completely. I know Sen. McCain is against any torture. He suffered at the hands of the NVA terribly,as did many more American service personnel.
I was responding to OGIs asking LR about him being under the GC.
We abided by it,but our enemy did not,and the good Senator was tortured.
When we abide by the rules and our enemies do not,it doesn't do us much good does it?
11-08-05, 10:05 PM DorianGreyed "When we abide by the rules and our enemies do not,it doesn't do us much good does it?"
Having ethics and morals does not always pay dividends at the time you show them. One should do the right thing because it is the right thing, not because of any potential benefits. As a few of us have said, how we treat prisoners is not about the prisoners, it is about us.
11-08-05, 10:59 PM Ogi
quote:
Originally posted by Scotty:
quote:
But if you want, I will e-mail his staff and ask them how he feels
You missed my point completely. I know Sen. McCain is against any torture. He suffered at the hands of the NVA terribly,as did many more American service personnel.
I was responding to OGIs asking LR about him being under the GC.
We abided by it,but our enemy did not,and the good Senator was tortured.
When we abide by the rules and our enemies do not,it doesn't do us much good does it?
So are we children now? That is an argument I would expect a 6 year old to make. "MOMMY, JERRY HIT ME, I'M GOING TO HIT HIM BACK, AND IT'S OK BECAUSE HE HIT ME FIRST."... please
Scotty, let me ask you a question in return, do you think that the United States of America, should take the moral high road whenever it can, and should not stoop to the level of terrorists? Do you not think that the USA should be the benchmark of respect, honor, and integrity?
Personally I think the USA should be all those things. Now by torturing pe
This message has been edited. Last edited by: DorianGreyed,
Posts: 153 | Location: Fremont, CA | Registered: 09-29-05
