Ask Johnny S. or Val P. how they're feeling right now. I'm sure the folks over at 2430 E. St NW in DC are rather pissed about now.

- kd

---

kestrel driver


DonorsChoose.org (!!!)
bogolight.com (!!!)

First Libby, Rove, and Cheney, aid and abet the enemy by releasing the name of a covert CIA agent during time of war



Wow. Congratulations you were able to scoop the MSM on this. When were Libby, Roove and Cheney indicted for releasing a covert CIA agents name?

Scandalous, you bet!!!!

arrrgggh!!!

---

kestrel driver


DonorsChoose.org (!!!)
bogolight.com (!!!)

You seem to live in a world of absolute moral and informational certainty. That must be nice. People in secret CIA installations, with no oversight by other bodies, must by definition be terrorists. How do we know? Because they say so. Then it must be. Why bother with trials and all of that? If the CIA and ATG say they are terrorists, then death to all who oppose us!



Actually I do live in a world of moral absolutes not relativeism like you apparently do. There is good and evil, right and wrong. So you would in fact allow a terrorist captured on a battlefield, not fighting for a country or wearing an identifiable uniform the right to a speedy trial huh? Well its a good thing we aren't relying on you to gather intelligence.

As for my "disgusting" comparison to the Soviet-era gulag, let's see? The Soviets routinely imprisoned and tortured "enemies of the state" in a network of secret prisons without trial or anything remotely resembling due process. And who knows, maybe a few them were actual seditionists or conspirators, so I guess that makes the whole gulag justifiable, eh? Is this comparison that amazing, or is that you just can't wrap your mind around any behavior that compares us to the evil empire?

And I stand by my comment its disgusting to make even a remote comparison to a secret CIA prison and a Soviet gulag. That comparison played well with you on the left last year with Abu Grahib so why not trot out the same old playbook huh? As far as wrapping my mind around any behaviour comparing us to the evil empire well you got me there because I can't. Fortunately most Americans feel the same way.

Let's use a firm example, shall we? One of the Administration "triumphs" has been the arrest of Jose Padilla, a US citizen, allegedly for planning a dirty bomb attack. If you actually look at the facts here, he was apparently arrested for nothing more than looking at some drawings at the internet and maybe talking some. He had no conceivable way of accessing radioactive material, and as a low level gangster type, could not be seen to. If he could, we would've had bigger problems by now from more sophisticated enemies. Yet he's been held indefinitely, without a plan for prosecution, or any habeas corpus, as far as I can tell. What do you call that? If that's the basis of their accusation, we can pretty much lock up half the 12-year olds in this country for googling atomic bomb plans on the Internet.

Not sure I would characterize Padilla as a triumph. And since you say look at the "facts" then lets shall we? Can you provide information as to who he knew and what he might be capable of doing from his low level gangster position? I for one don't think that applying the standard to 12 year olds on the internet is the same thing here.

Actually I do live in a world of moral absolutes <> There is good and evil, right and wrong.

That's an interesting position to claim, in this context. I guess torture is morally good and right?

And I stand by my comment its disgusting to make even a remote comparison to a secret CIA prison and a Soviet gulag.

Why? Seriously.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

DUhhhhhhh! when we kidnap people, imprison them illegally and torture them its done to promote freedom and democracy. When the Soviets did it it was to promote nasty Communism.

Can't you see the difference?

---

----------------------------------------------------------
"A society is defined not only by what it creates, but by what it refuses to destroy."
John Sawhill

Is that something like saying that we're good, because our government is free and open and doesn't imprison people without trial in secret prisons and torture them, and that since we're good, it's OK if we imprison people in secret prisons and torture them?

I think I'm starting to get it now, thanks for the help.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

You got it.

---

----------------------------------------------------------
"A society is defined not only by what it creates, but by what it refuses to destroy."
John Sawhill

And now there's this: http://news.yahoo.com/...u/cia_secret_prisons

Art's right, this gamesmanship stuff is complicated.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

So not only are our secret prisons like old Soviet gulags, they are old Soviet gulags.

You gotta laugh.

---

----------------------------------------------------------
"A society is defined not only by what it creates, but by what it refuses to destroy."
John Sawhill

"If they keep them in secret prisons abroad b/c it would be illegal to do so in the US, and if prisoners' rights and laws of the 'host' country such as speaking to an attorney are being violated, then HELL yes."
- - Except that if the prisoners are being held for crimes that exempt them from the protections of the Geneva Accords (i.e., they're terrorists) then no international laws are being broken.

"Or one who has common sense. A matter of interpretation, I guess."
- - Out of curiosity, are you one of those who thinks that whoever outed Valerie Plame should be prosecuted?

Did they not put an entire operation at risk by leaking the story?
"-- I think that's what they wanted, but I don't see how lives are at risk,"
- - You don't? How about by inciting anti-American sentiment, by causing certain governments and their agents to consider endangering covert operatives working in their countries, by perhaps locating one or more of these prisons (assuming they exist) and targeting that facility for terrorist activities...

"Yup! that is, not b/c it's in the public's best interest, but it uncovers illegal activity."
- - It discloses classified, top-secret information, which is illegal, AND holding prisoners in these facilities may very well be legal.

---

Cousin Elwood - Team Over-the-hill Racing
Brought to you by the good folks at Metamucil and Geritol...

"for the past 100-years or so, during times of war or military action, the one thing that has consistently set the US apart from the 'bad guys' is our refusal to compromise on moral high ground."
- - In times of war, yes. But terrorism falls under a completely different rubric.

"Despite the oppositions actions during WWII, Korea, Vietnam, and Desert Storm, the US did not (for the most part) ever mistreat opposition forces once they were captured."
- - Opposition forces, yes, terrorists, no.

"at what point did we give up our stake to the moral high ground?"
- - What do you mean "we?"

"I would hate to see how this plays out should such situation arise and our soldiers and/or citizens find themselves under lock and key of a foreign power."
- - If you're talking about Muslim powers in the middle east, we already know our people will be tortured and beheaded.

"So with that in mind, are secret prisons and prsioner abuse scandals really the kinds of global precedents we want to be setting forth for other countries with less refined moral distinctions?"
- - No, which is why the person who leaked this should be in serious trouble.

---

Cousin Elwood - Team Over-the-hill Racing
Brought to you by the good folks at Metamucil and Geritol...

"When were the trials held that determined that these people are terrorists?"
- - If they were captured during terrorist activities, like attacking US forces in Iraq afte the cease-fire, then it goes without saying.

"I mean, you said they are terrorists, so they must have been convicted somewhere, right?"
- - Terrorists, or rather non-uniformed combatants, are easily identified by their lack of a uniform, flag or apparent affiliation.

"You didn't mean to say that the government *thinks* they are terrorists, and therefore can do just as they please with them?"
- - Our military and intelligence people are supposed to be able to figure this out. So if a guy is captured attempting to plant a bomb under a military vehicle, what would you call him?

"This is circular logic: they are terrorists, therefore they don't deserve due process; they don't deserve due process because they are terrorists."
- - Nothing circular about it. The Geneva Accords specifically require combatants to wear uniforms because by NOT wearing them, they put civilians at risk. When your enemy refuses to wear a uniform, you have to shoot anyone you see. That's what terrorists do to the dynamic of battle, and that's why the Geneva Accords don't offer any protection to the scum who would do that.

---

Cousin Elwood - Team Over-the-hill Racing
Brought to you by the good folks at Metamucil and Geritol...

""So with that in mind, are secret prisons and prsioner abuse scandals really the kinds of global precedents we want to be setting forth for other countries with less refined moral distinctions?"
- - No, which is why the person who leaked this should be in serious trouble. "

Holy shit. I can't believe the things you type.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

""That's a pretty sad quote. So you don't see a problem with the CIA rounding up people in the streets, taking them to some "secret" prison and torturing "information" out of them?"
- - Wow, that's a pretty far stretch. So you think we're just rounding up anyone we find? We're just classifying every Tom, Dick and Mohammad as a terrorist because we love having prisoners to interrogate?

"What if after all of this they find out they got the wrong person?"
- - You mean like when we had Bin Laden and let him go?

"America should be better than this. Wasn't one of the reasons for the Iraq war because Saddam was a brutal dictator who arrested and tortured people with no trial?"
- - Saddam arrested and tortured citizens of his own country simply because the expressed dissent.

"With these prisons aren't we guilty of the same?"
- - Not even close.

"What happened to innocent until proven guilty?"
- - That's a Constitutional right for all American citizens, and only applies within the borders of our country (as we noticed when terrorists were beheading innocent civilians recently).

"I know these people more than likely aren't American citizens, but that shouldn't change how we treat them."
- - Actually, it should.

---

Cousin Elwood - Team Over-the-hill Racing
Brought to you by the good folks at Metamucil and Geritol...

"DUhhhhhhh! when we kidnap people, imprison them illegally and torture them its done to promote freedom and democracy. When the Soviets did it it was to promote nasty Communism."

Duhhhhhh!! When the soviets did it, they were arresting their own citizens. When we do it, we're arresting people who would like to fly more airplanes into US office buildings.

Seem the same to you?

---

Cousin Elwood - Team Over-the-hill Racing
Brought to you by the good folks at Metamucil and Geritol...

"But the overriding thing for ME is that these prisoners are still people, and no human being, how cruel (or innocent they may be), deserves to be treated this way."
- - A man who worked for the same company that I used to work for was beheaded by the kind of people that you wish to treat humanely. I hope you'll understand my dissent.

"But if some hotheaded kid throws a rock at some US soldiers b/c they kicked down his front door in error, ends up in Abu Ghraib, and ends up in such a world of hurt because of it, that just ain't right."
- - Is there even the slightest chance that you think that scenario could occur? I sure hope you don't.

"They can't do it in the US - OK, let's do it in [insert your country] where torture is condoned. I don't see how that's right."
- - Someone here is making the leap from secret prisons to the assumption that prisoners are being tortured.

"This is a beautiful and great country (I say that as a legal immigrant and I hope you don't discard my opinion because of it), but I think of this human rights/POW issue (separate from the war on terror) as a real stain on US history."
- - Your status as a legal immigrant or even a new citizen would simply (or hopefully) make you more aware of the protections ensured us by our Constitution. I don't see how that could possibly diminish the value of your opinions. I hope you don't think my dissent has anything to do with your status, because it doesn't.

---

Cousin Elwood - Team Over-the-hill Racing
Brought to you by the good folks at Metamucil and Geritol...

"Screw the operation, they are putting the damn Constitution at risk."

What the CIA does in foreign countries has nothing to do with the Constitution.

---

Cousin Elwood - Team Over-the-hill Racing
Brought to you by the good folks at Metamucil and Geritol...

"dude, but that post doesn't help at all. McCain sponsored the anti-POW abuse law, above after all."

Terrorists are not POWs.

---

Cousin Elwood - Team Over-the-hill Racing
Brought to you by the good folks at Metamucil and Geritol...

"As for my "disgusting" comparison to the Soviet-era gulag, let's see?"
- - It was extremely disgusting and unamerican. The Soviets held their own citizens in the gulags. How does that relate to our holding terrorists?

---

Cousin Elwood - Team Over-the-hill Racing
Brought to you by the good folks at Metamucil and Geritol...

Terrorists are not POWs.
--
That doesn't mean some CIA goon should be able to torture them without fear for retribution in some secret prison in Estonia, which was the gist of the bill McCain sponsored.

---

Josef
-------
blog

"These people should be outraged by this administration in so many ways, that I don't even know where to begin - but they're not, because they put their party before their country."
- - Maybe some people think that the left is doing that and that the current administration is doing what needs to be done to combat terrorism. It has, after all, been over four years since terrorists have struck in this country.

"The fact is, there is a "culture of fear" being cultivated that would make our forefathers turn on their graves."
- - Actually, what would cause the founding fathers to roll in their graves would be the idea of extending the rights of US Citizens to terrorists.

"Terrorism is a real threat - and is likely to always be so - and the administration is living off of our endless fears, while doing little to nothing to minimize the likelihood of another attack"
- - That's your opinion. Personally, I think we should be doing more, not less. So maybe the current administration is finding the middle ground. Did you want the 9/11 attacks to go unpunished?

"actually, the Bush administration is making it worse"
- - That's your opinion, and one you can't support with anything other than conjecture.

---

Cousin Elwood - Team Over-the-hill Racing
Brought to you by the good folks at Metamucil and Geritol...

"Holy shit. I can't believe the things you type."

Gee, for a guy who was all roiled up over the leaking of the name of a mid-level functionary, you seem to be suddenly apathetic about classified information that might actually cause problems.

---

Cousin Elwood - Team Over-the-hill Racing
Brought to you by the good folks at Metamucil and Geritol...

"Gee, for a guy who was all roiled up over the leaking of the name of a mid-level functionary, you seem to be suddenly apathetic about classified information that might actually cause problems. "

Huh?

I'm not sure how you got that. What I am amazed at is that, in two sentences, you suggested that what we did was the wrong thing to do and a bad precedent to set, and that the solution to that was not to correct the offending behaviour, but to punish the person who squealed and let out the secret. As was the case with the Plame discussion, if classified information was leaked to those who weren't supposed to have it, then I think that action should be punished. But to suggest that the solution to poor policy is to just keep it secret is pretty lame.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

Point of fact (or Newsweek speculation) Robert Novak's source came clean to the grand jury and Fitzgerald therefore, did not indict him...seems obstruction is the operative crime he is pursuing.

Maybe this belongs in another post. Oh well.