Bush admits to CIA secret prisons

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by mactbone
Nobody cares? The administration spent months denying this. Other governments wouldn't talk about it. Now Bush finally admits it and everybody goes, "meh?"

They did? Funny I thought they responded with condemnation against WaPo for leaking a classified program.

[Velociryx]

I'm not sure I get the motivation.

Bush's whole argument is that we need these (secret) prisons in order to interrogate the terrorists....because as we all know, you're either with Bush, or you're with the terrorists.

My question is...why does the interrogation require secrecy? If there is nothing untoward about the interrogation itself (and you know that Bush is in direct communication with God and the Fundycrats....they'd never condone anything that would make Baby Jesus blanch)....why the need for the "secret" prisons?

Shrub.

"Secret" prisons.

-=Vel=-
(Dear God...or Santa...or Allah...Easter Bunny....Fate....or unnamed Divine Being, please bring us a halfway decent presidential candidate in time for the next election)

[Velociryx]

But...I'm not surprised. It's just a variation on the same theme he's been using since 9/11.

Paint everything in black and white. Us and them, right down the line.

And try to couch what you're doing in grandiose terms that are too big for you (a global war on Islamic Fascisim).

I used to be indifferent, but as more time passes and we get to see just what this guy is made of, I must confess that I HATE everything that this man and his Administration stand for.

I hate the cronyism.

The lies.

All of it, and I cannot WAIT until this fool is out of office.

I would rather rip the whole thing down than risk another President like this one.

-=Vel=-

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Velociryx
I'm not sure I get the motivation.

Bush's whole argument is that we need these (secret) prisons in order to interrogate the terrorists....because as we all know, you're either with Bush, or you're with the terrorists.

My question is...why does the interrogation require secrecy? If there is nothing untoward about the interrogation itself (and you know that Bush is in direct communication with God and the Fundycrats....they'd never condone anything that would make Baby Jesus blanch)....why the need for the "secret" prisons?

Your questionis a good one. Why indeed? I can only presume that given the Zubadayah situation wherein he started to talk and then clammed up, he began to understand the nature of his capitivity and the rules by which he could play the game. Once the situation changed and the element of the unknown was introduced the effect was that he thought he needed to cooperate in order to not simply disappear without a trace from the face of the earth. Even if nothing untoward happened with respect to actual torture, being removed and placed in a situation where he was likely to think he might be erased from existance without anyone none the wiser might have made him start to rethink his position.

[Arrian]

I can only presume that ...

Or you could presume that, like so many other things the Bush admin has done, there IS NO GOOD REASON.

That may or may not really be the case, but there is a course of performance here, Ogie.

-Arrian

[Velociryx]

Your questionis a good one. Why indeed? I can only presume that given the Zubadayah situation wherein he started to talk and then clammed up, he began to understand the nature of his capitivity and the rules by which he could play the game. Once the situation changed and the element of the unknown was introduced the effect was that he thought he needed to cooperate in order to not simply disappear without a trace from the face of the earth. Even if nothing untoward happened with respect to actual torture, being removed and placed in a situation where he was likely to think he might be erased from existance without anyone none the wiser might have made him start to rethink his position.

I could buy this as an explanation, but for one thing....it would be far easier (and cheaper) to pull off a ruse like that than it would be to actually have a series of "secret prisons" lined up and waiting.

I mean, if that was the goal, you could blindfold the guy, throw him on a chopper, fly him around for an hour and take him back to solitary row and tell him he's in (fill in the blank with something suitably grim). It's not like they're going to let him out to ask around or buy a map and verify his location.

No...the only logical reason for HAVING the "secret prisons" is that there's something to hide. Because for all our talk about being the good guys, and of being on the "right side" of the battle lines....we're only pretending (a thing that will apparently be true for as long as the current President remains in office), but it'd be bad PR if that got out.

In my mind, this is a far more likely explanation, and even if false, I can guarantee you it will be the one that the bulk of the rest of the world subscribes to. And we could have avoided it by making an attempt to live up to the ideals that our country was founded upon.

Ideals that most definitely do NOT include secret prisons and torture.



-=Vel=-

EDIT: Two reasons I have trouble buying it actually. The first is as above...the second is that this is not an isolated incident. This Administration has made a habit out of lying to the public and attempting to ram through legislation that erodes our rights. And we impeached Clinton for turning Monica into a life sized Humidor? GRRRR...

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Velociryx

I could buy this as an explanation, but for one thing....it would be far easier (and cheaper) to pull off a ruse like that than it would be to actually have a series of "secret prisons" lined up and waiting.

I mean, if that was the goal, you could blindfold the guy, throw him on a chopper, fly him around for an hour and take him back to solitary row and tell him he's in (fill in the blank with something suitably grim). It's not like they're going to let him out to ask around or buy a map and verify his location.

No...the only logical reason for HAVING the "secret prisons" is that there's something to hide. Because for all our talk about being the good guys, and for being on the "right side" of the battle lines....we're only pretending, but it'd be bad PR if that got out.

In my mind, this is a far more likely explanation, and even if false, I can guarantee you it will be the one that the bulk of the rest of the world subscribes to. And we could have avoided it by making an attempt to live up to the ideals that our country was founded upon.

Ideals that most definitely do NOT include secret prisons and torture.



-=Vel=-

The ruse might work except that a prisoner in a standard situation has to be accessible to inspectors, red cross and the like. AS soon as they know that they have some sort of oversight they have a security blanket. I don't see how a ruse would work to prevent these types of oversight from happening and hence giving the psychological security blanket.

AS for the international uproar to my mind this is but one of the reasons this is being addressed. The Democrats didn't and don't have the cahoneys to make this a huge issue as the general public feel these guys deserve torture even if it is or is not occurring. W put the onus now on the Democrats to back a tough policy or appear to go against the will of the Joe Q Public.

So in essence Bush has betrayed his beleif that the need for optimum interrogation that can only be accomplished by secret prisons and the mind games that can play on a prisoner is outwieghed by the expedience of helping Repugs and putting Demonrats on the spot as well as smoothing international relations. Personally I think it a bad trade.

[Elok]

Originally posted by Velociryx
I would rather rip the whole thing down than risk another President like this one.

-=Vel=-

I have no love for W, but historically, haven't statements like this been what ushered dictatorships into power at the end of democracies? The ruling class is corrupt and incompetent, we need a new system to put a strong and courageous person in power, etc.

This is just one statement, taken out of context, I know, but it still set off my "OH SHIZNAT" alarm...a lot of people worry about Bush setting up a police state with his new powers, but not me. Bush wouldn't know what to do with a police state if he got it as a present for Christmas. The real danger (which is still thankfully far off as far as I can see) is that his incompetence will get him replaced with a man who knows how to be ruthless, and kill our faith in democracy enough that we give that man free rein.

[Velociryx]

I dunno man...I'm still not convinced. It's a big country. There are LOTS of places you could "get lost" for a couple days if the goal was to convince someone that they'd better start talking.

I'd venture to say that it happens all the time, which makes me CRINGE to think at what sorts of atrocities we might actually be committing while calling ourselves "the good guys."

If we're gonna take the title, then we've got to talk the talk AND walk the walk...it's just that simple.

Right now, under this Admin's leadership, it's becoming painfully obvious (and more obvious by the day) that we're not.

The solution then, seems clear enough.

Let's either admit that we're not the good guys...that our hands are just as dirty, and thumb our noses at anyone who chides us for getting just as dirty as the opposition, or let's try and live up to our own ideals. The ideals we used to care something about.

That....the second option, would be my choice.

-=Vel=-

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Elok


I have no love for W, but historically, haven't statements like this been what ushered dictatorships into power at the end of democracies? The ruling class is corrupt and incompetent, we need a new system to put a strong and courageous person in power, etc.

This is just one statement, taken out of context, I know, but it still set off my "OH SHIZNAT" alarm...a lot of people worry about Bush setting up a police state with his new powers, but not me. Bush wouldn't know what to do with a police state if he got it as a present for Christmas. The real danger (which is still thankfully far off as far as I can see) is that his incompetence will get him replaced with a man who knows how to be ruthless, and kill our faith in democracy enough that we give that man free rein.

Fortunately our two party system ensures we have blithering idiots.

[Arrian]

The system is pretty messed up, but we're not going to go all fascist just yet.

What really worries me isn't the system or even Bush (loathe him and his admin? yeah, but he's gone soon). What worries me is my fellow Americans. Stuff like this:

the general public feel these guys deserve torture even if it is or is not occurring. W put the onus now on the Democrats to back a tough policy or appear to go against the will of the Joe Q Public.

appears to be true. I see plenty of this in wealthy, educated, liberal CT. I can only imagine what it's like in Texas.

-Arrian

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Velociryx
I dunno man...I'm still not convinced. It's a big country. There are LOTS of places you could "get lost" for a couple days if the goal was to convince someone that they'd better start talking.

My guess is this a calculated move that figures on the time frame of months not days.

[Velociryx]

Elok - It's not that there's not historical prescident for what you're saying...there is...but there's also evidence it could go the other way.

In any case, it should be seen as a DIRE warning when a largely indifferent moderate like me starts thinking positively revolutionary thoughts to ward off another disaster like this one.

That's not my forte, but that IS my level of hatred for this Administration.

And I fear that the trouble will not end after he's gone. He's been packing the house with friends and like minded individuals...people with more smarts than he has EVER had. People who will find a way to worm their way into future administrations and continue pressing their agendas.

I doubt that Shrub could have done significantly more damage to this country -- on a variety of levels-- if he had personally been on the payroll of Al Quaida.



-=Vel=-
(nose thumbed and middle finger extended at the NSA guys)

[Velociryx]

Og...I'd venture that the timeframe is tied to the man's stomach. I'm not an advocate of torture, but you know....if we're on the road and NONE of us get to eat for a few days....talking starts to look mighty attractive, and it don't take months.

-=Vel=-

[chequita guevara]

Bush lied his ass off in that speech. Zibaydah was a frikkan driver of women and children. He gave us the dangerous terrorist . . . Jose Padilla. They claim the name he gave was Ramzi somebody or other, but not only did we already know about him, it was the Emire of Qatar who told us where he'd be so we could pick him up. After they started torturing the guy (who apparently had multiple personalities) he started making up stories in the hopes that they'd stop torturing him. We raised our terror alerts and sent squads of agents swarming around every story he gave, but nothing ever turned up.

That mans needs to be impeached!