Sorry, weren't you on the search and destroy whoever leaked Plame's classified status bandwagon?

Please confirm that you don't know that such prisons exist, that anyone was tortured, that anyone died or that one dime was spent without the authorization of Congress.

Sorry, does that mean you want the massive leak investigation including subpeonas for reporters and putting them in jail as required or not?

I am not looking for a reply to attack. I am just interested to know if you want the same kind of investigation triggered in the Plame situation, and for the same reasons.

You know I value your opinion Casey, except when it disagrees with mine, of course.

Please confirm that you can't see the difference between outing a covert CIA agent for political purposes, and exposing a worldwide network of illegal torture chambers?

---

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

Way too much consistency Casey. You are no fun.

Well, no one was covert and there is no showing or even allegation of any illegality or torture.

Want to rephrase your question to reflect reality?

A. if the prisons weren't covert why were they a secret.

B. If people weren't being tortured why were they kept in secret locations in Eastern Europe and Thailand.



We got busted torturing prisoners in our own prisons so these secret covert ones were set up. Join the dots, it aint that hard there are only two of them.

---

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

"I want an investigation into who authorized these illegal prisons, who authorized the torture, who authorized the $100 million to pay for them, how many people have died in them and who is responsible for that. "

I'd much rather have big in roads into rendering the Muslim Terrorists impotent. And to keep them that way.

I want an investigation into bla-lah ... well you do but frankly I couldn't give a rat's ass. But $100 million??? How much more would an investigation cost? another $100 mill?

Plame was not covert. You know this. Covert agents don't get their CIA association confirmed via a phone call from a journalist to the CIA press office.

The prisons, if they exist, are secret and classified.

If there are such prisons, they are probably secret because the government probably wants to keep the prisoner identity and location secret. Sorry to be pedantic, but stupid question, stupid answer.

The we that got busted for prisoner abuse were busted by that same we. The investigation and abuse was public information well prior to the publishing of the photos, which were leaked from that same investigation by the way. (I am guessing you don't want a leak investigation there either. Correct me if I am wrong.)

Dude , go look up habeus corpus. What we are doing is ILLEGAL.



And if we aren't torturing people in thse secret offshore prisons why is the Bush White House threatening to veto John McCain's torture bill that the Senate just passed by a large majority?

Hmmmmmmm?

---

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

Uh, Matt. Not to be an ass, but the US legal protections are protections for our citizens in our country. Look it up.

Next you will want the US Military to give Mirranda warnings and be pulled out of the field to give testimony at jury trials.

With attitiudes like yours' its no wonder people hate Americans. Our freedom is sacred and we preserve the right to abuse everyone elses to protect our own.

Get real.

---

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

why is the Bush White House threatening to veto John McCain's torture bill

Is that true? Ah ha ha ha ha ha ! ! ! Bush is going to try to VETO something? And a bill that passed by a vote of 90 to 9? Good grief.

---

"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."

Dude , go look up habeus corpus. What we are doing is ILLEGAL.



Dude, since you obviously don't bother researching your own comments.

Suspension during the War on Terrorism

Illegal combatants imprisoned at U.S. Naval Station Guantanamo Bay, Cuba have no apparent right to habeas corpus.

The PATRIOT Act of 2001 gives the President of the United States the power to declare anyone suspected of connection to terrorists or terrorism, as an Enemy combatant. As an Enemy combatant that person can be held without charges being filed against him/her. An Enemy combatant can be held indefinitely without charges or a court hearing and are not even entitled to legal consult.

Many legal and constitutional scholars would contend that these provisions of the PATRIOT Act are in direct opposition to habeas corpus, and the United States Bill of Rights. Specifically, American citizens declared an Enemy combatant under the PATRIOT Act may be denied their constitutional rights, as set forth in Amendments 4, 5, 6 and 8. One recent example is the Jose Padilla case.

Matt, you usually argue better than this. Why don't you answer any of my very clear questions?

A question for you Art. Since you think its OK for America to kidnap and imprison enemy combatants and perceived threats to our security without any recourse in international law, do you think our enemies would be justified in ignoring international law when dealing with US combatants?

What if Al Qaeda kidnapped an undercover CIA operative, how would you like him/her to be treated? Would you like some international legal protections such as the principal of habeus corpus to come into play?

---

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

ATG, I might have missed your reply. (Seriously.) Do you really think that Cheney is seeking a legal exemption for such innocuous things as ripping up the Koran, or questioning terror suspects into the wee hours of the night?

---

"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 what you're saying is that if George Bush says human rights don't apply, then they don't apply? is that it?

---

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

The US is a signatory to multiple international treaties that forbid the "disappearance" of prisoners. It is against international law to detain prisoners without their whereabouts being known and their being provided some rights. What the US is doing is illegal according to these treaties which are binding as law, according to your beloved Constitution.

Of course, all those flights (that were tracked via tail number) from Afghanistan to Romania and back were just R&R for service members, right?

---

----------------------------------
"Go yell at an M&M"

Reread the law. It does not say George Bush. It says the president retains the right. If and when one of your guys ever wins back the White House they too will enjoy the presidential right.

You need to refine your question to indicate whether the enemy combatants are legal, (uniform, chain of command, national identity and other Geneva Convention requirements) or illegal combatants.

It is important that legal combatants get Geneva Convention protections (including Saddam). It is equally important that illegal combatants do not get such protections.

The concept of habeus corpus or anything like that to either legal or illegal combatants has no precedent in history or in treaty.

Al Qaeda will treat any captive horribly, without distinction independent of any policy of ours. Just ask Mr. Buckley.

Oops, sorry, he was tortured to death.

ATG, I might have missed your reply. (Seriously.) Do you really think that Cheney is seeking a legal exemption for such innocuous things as ripping up the Koran, or questioning terror suspects into the wee hours of the night?

I did not answer yet. I don't think Cheney is seeking an exemption for the things you mentioned. I think he is seeking to allow the president the authority to authorize (to the CIA) using whatever means neccessary if it means saving American lives.