Hello:

Evidence has emerged that Lithuanian intelligence agencies allowed secret CIA prisons to be built in their country during the Bush era. I mean just because such prisons are illegal under the so-called "law" of Lithuania and other international conventions to which that nation is a signatory, the irresponsible leaders of that country are demanding "investigations" and even possibly legal consequences if it turns out crimes were committed.

What kind of a backwards, primitive country would do something like this?

What makes what we did there even worse, is the letter Rumsfeld wrote to the people of Vilnius where he said, "... I also had the chance to spend an enjoyable and educational Sunday morning walking through your historic, old town district and visiting the KGB museum. The museum was a stark reminder of the importance of preserving our liberty at all costs, and the visit helped me understand the depth of Lithuania’s commitment to freedom."

You guessed it. The "KGB museum" was an old style Soviet prison where torture was rampant... Then he built a secret CIA prison where torture was rampant.

Poland has also launched investigations.. Italy just convicted 22 CIA agents for kidnapping. Pretty soon, our guys won't be able to leave the country cause they'll get arrested.

Isn't it about time we started doing our own dirty work?

excon

Rummy always talked out of both sides of his mouth at once. Quite a feat but he was a master at it.

As far as the CIA guys getting nabbed - well, you can definitely thank a lot of the blabbermouths that work for the CIA doing "good" for that. Look at Valerie Plame. She was doing just great until Bushy and his cohorts decided to slam her into the public eye ruining her career just because they didn't like the fact that hubby Joe told the truth about the yellowcake to the world. Payback's a b*tch.

Twice already the Lithuanian Parliament has investigated possible CIA black op prison cites and came up empty.

On Wednesday, ABC, citing unnamed Lithuanian officials and an unnamed former American intelligence operative............

The new site is reportedly in a horse riding academy . What did they do?. force the prisoners to ride with English saddles ?

The new site is reportedly in a horse riding academy . What did they do ?.... force the prisoners to ride with English saddles ?Hello tom:

We did unspeakable things to them... Too horrible even for YOU. That's why you make light.

excon

Hello tom:

We did unspeakable things to them... Too horrible even for YOU. That's why you make light.

excon

Unspeakable - like beheading prisoners and broadcasting the beheading on the internet for their family to see?

Allegedly, unspeakable things like "various forms of torture, including sleep deprivation, forced standing, painful stress positions." Sounds a little like being a new parent. They probably blasted them with the Village People, too.

Detainee's in Iraq are turning the tables on us (http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/blog/shutdown_corner/post/Iraqi-detainees-taunt-Wisconsin-soldiers-about-B?urn=nfl,203985), though...

Unspeakable - like beheading prisoners and broadcasting the beheading on the internet for their family to see?Hello Cats:

Yeah, THEY did bad things to us... But, I didn't know we let our enemy dictate what OUR morals are. But, if that's how we're going to act, why don't we just hijack a few of THEIR planes and fly them into THEIR buildings?

excon

Allegedly, unspeakable things likeHello Steve:

So, you're telling me, that the torturers at a SECRET CIA prison are going to follow rules?? Rules that haven't been written yet?? What about the rule that says secret CIA prisons are against the rules?

You too want to make light... I guess if the president I voted for did this, I'd try to make light too...

excon

Hello Cats:

Yeah, THEY did bad things to us.... But, I didn't know we let our enemy dictate what OUR morals are. But, if that's how we're gonna act, why don't we just hijack a few of THEIR planes and fly them into THEIR buildings?

excon

They don't have any. They have to buy things from us. That's a major factor in the whole cultural conflict.

Edit: How come we do "unspeakable" things and they do "bad" things? Shades of MSNBC bias.

Edit: How come we do "unspeakable" things and they do "bad" things? Shades of MSNBC bias.Hello again, Cats:

Just choice of words... I make no distinctions between them.

If you're suggesting, however, that because I revere our Constitution and our international treaties, that I somehow don't like this country as much as those of you who would, for all practical purposes, throw the Constitution overboard, because it is, as toms says, a suicide pact - if that's what you're suggesting, you'd be wrong.

Furthermore, I EXPECT our enemies to act like animals. I am APPALLED that we do.

excon

Isn't it about time we started doing our own dirty work?

excon

What is a terrorist? "A person engaging in planning and execution of heinous acts intended to kill innocent people and scare everyone else." Terrorists have guns, bombs, and other destructive weapons. Terrorists do not have rights.

If I caught up with a terrorist, he would be happy to be in one of those places you are complaining about.

Let's put it another way: Let's say there is no police department and no courts. You and your gang are on the next block. You bust into my house, kill my wife and kids, and burn my house down. I am coming for you, pal. You better run and not get caught. I think the dude on "24" has the right idea except when he goes all mushy to keep the women happy and satisfied.

The folks you portray as victims are lucky to be alive. Besides, you progressives don't believe in individual rights anyway, except to exploit in pursuing your agenda in some fashion.

Hello again, Cats:

Just choice of words... I make no distinctions between them.

If you're suggesting, however, that because I revere our Constitution and our international treaties, that I somehow don't like this country as much as those of you who would, for all practical purposes, throw the Constitution overboard, because it is, as toms says, a suicide pact - if that's what you're suggesting, you'd be wrong.

Furthermore, I EXPECT our enemies to act like animals. I am APPALLED that we do.

excon

Yes, Ex, a culture at least seven times older than ours can condone barbarism. And I found out that Uncle Sam isn't a virgin about the same time you did. I'm curious as to why you expect the US to treat our avowed enemies better than we treated our avowed friends the Cherokee. What's changed?

Let's say there is no police department and no courts. You and your gang are on the next block. You bust into my house, kill my wife and kids, and burn my house down. I am coming for you, pal.Hello again, George:

I'd agree with the above, IF it were that way... You certainly don't think I'm any nicer than you, do you?

But, as a civilized nation, we've given up vigilantism in order to be a nation of laws. Given that fact, if you did what you propose to do above, as justified as you might be, you'd go to jail..

In that same vein, we DO have laws against torture, and those people who violate them, even if their intentions were honorable, should go to jail.

excon

I'm curious as to why you expect the US to treat our avowed enemies better than we treated our avowed friends the Cherokee. What's changed?Hello again, Cats:

When a problem occurs, I look to the law and the Constitution for a solution. I do NOT look back to see who owes who what.

excon

Hello again, George:

I'd agree with the above, IF it were that way...... You certainly don't think I'm any nicer than you, do you?

But, as a civilized nation, we've given up vigilantism in order to be a nation of laws. Given that fact, if you did what you propose to do above, as justified as you might be, you'd go to jail..

In that same vein, we DO have laws against torture, and those people who violate them, even if their intentions were honorable, should go to jail.

excon

Thankfully, the POTUS has no court and no law to consult in the pursuit of protecting the nation. I was involved in a domestic case once; the judge, like many, understood human nature very well. The operative phrase in his order, punishable by contempt, was, "Do whatever is necessary..." President Bush did what was necessary, and we were not attacked during the next seven years. I am satisfied with his effort. I am totally disgusted with President Clinton's handling of the terrorism issue. In fact, his people made our situation much more dangerous for Americans.
Let us assume the next attack is being planned. What do you believe the planners are thinking insofar as Obama's ability to interdict them? What kind of information has already been lost for the sake of providing constitutional rights to terrorists? As I said before, terrorists don't have rights. Actually, you agree with me.

Hello again, Cats:

When a problem occurs, I look to the law and the Constitution for a solution....

excon

Naaaaa... just self-serving malarky. The constitution says nothing about health care, abortion, medicare, welfare, and on and on. In fact, the constitution says a lot about states rights, but you you don't want any of the states voting on those issues. What do you do when cherries aren't in season?

Thankfully, the POTUS has no court and no law to consult in the pursuit of protecting the nation. Hello George:

And, you, apparently think the president doesn't have ANY laws he has to obey... But, of course, he has to follow the Constitution too. Bummer that you don't know that.

excon

Hello:

Evidence has emerged that Lithuanian intelligence agencies allowed secret CIA prisons to be built in their country during the Bush era. the irresponsible leaders of that country are demanding "investigations" and even possibly legal consequences if it turns out crimes were committed.

What kind of a backwards, primitive country would do something like this?



I think you know the answer to question ex. The backwoods primitive country that would do something like this is the USA. I know this is the answer you were seeking, it's a no brainer, but then you also have to ask what sort of backwoods, primitive county would have elected an inarticulate George W Bush in the first place, a man capable to allowing such acts. The answer is a little less obvious, the same backwoods, primitive country that would elect articulate Barrack Obama, a man who's capabilities remain untapped. So what happened, did he USA suddenly become collectively smarter in eight years? Or did the reflection they saw in the mirror give them pause to say I don't want to be seen to be like that?

It's all about perceptions and right now we are seeing an America very focused upon itself

Hello George:

And, you, apparently think the president doesn't have ANY laws he has to obey... But, of course, he has to follow the Constitution too...

excon

Last time I checked, the president is commander-in-chief of the armed forces, a datum that your president seems to neglect. The constitution didn't stop another of your presidents from dropping atomic weapons in Japan. Want to discuss rights further?

Furthermore, I EXPECT our enemies to act like animals. I am APPALLED that we do.

excon

Ex it has obviously escaped you that to the extent and with the standard you judge others, you will yourself be judged. That applies to nations as well as individuals. What this means is if you judge others to behave like animals you will be presented with situations that call for you to do otherwise and apparently a certain nation was weighed and found wanting

You too want to make light... I guess if the president I voted for did this, I'd try to make light too...

Of course, we all know Sarah Palin is much more dangerous (http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/68837-obama-group-attacks-palin-to-fundraise), she's the one that should be waterboarded and taken to a black site.


President Obama's political operation took a shot at Sarah Palin today, accusing her of lying on her media blitz.

"It's dangerous," Organizing for America Director Mitch Stewart said of Palin's book tour.

He continued:


"Remember, this is the person who coined the term 'Death Panels' -- and opened the flood gates for months of false attacks by special interests and partisan extremists.

"Whatever lie comes next will be widely covered by the media, then constantly echoed by right-wing attack groups and others who are trying to defeat reform."

Stewart asks supporters to help raise $500,000 to "push back against Sarah Palin and her allies."

Hello again,

Well, at least it's becoming clear HOW we abandoned our long held values.. Clearly, you Righty's WRONGLY believe:

(1) The Constitution is NOT a suicide pact - meaning you'd be willing to throw it overboard for something else, and

(2) The president doesn't have to follow ANY law in his role as commander in chief...

I'm just wondering where your allegiance lies if NOT with the Constitution.

excon

she's the one that should be waterboarded and taken to a black site.Hello again, Steve:

So, now instead of making light, you change the subject... It's OK, Steve. If I did what your side did, I'd change the subject too.

excon

Hello again, Steve:

So, now instead of making light, you change the subject.... It's ok, Steve. If I did what your side did, I'd change the subject too.

excon

You mean as opposed to all the other times you change the subject when it suits you...

What, pray tell, have we done that you believe is
A) against the law
B) terrible and heinous
c) against the Constitution?

Elliot

ABC leaked the existence of CIA prisons in former Eastern Block nations in 2005. Why is this even news ? Why does ABC keep on recycling this ? Does anyone wonder why it is met with a collective yawn ?

This attempt at moral equivalence is not working because Americans recognize the difference between real torture and making a prisoner uncomfortable during interrogation. Further we recognize that the bigger problem here is that CIA activities to keep us safe were revealed in the 1st place.

You mean as opposed to all the other times you change the subject when it suits you...

What, pray tell, have we done that you believe is
A) against the law
B) terrible and heinous
c) against the Constitution?Hello again, Elliot:

Uhhhhh, torture?? Which you, being politically correct, call enhanced interrogation, and tom calls uncomfortable...

But, you're the only ones in the world who don't know that we tortured people. Oh yeah, Obama don't know it either.

excon

Ex, may I remind you yet again that it ain't just "my side." According to Richard Clarke during the Clinton administration:


The first time I proposed a snatch, in 1993, the White House Counsel, Lloyd Cutler, demanded a meeting with the President to explain how it violated international law. Clinton had seemed to be siding with Cutler until Al Gore belatedly joined the meeting, having just flown overnight from South Africa. Clinton recapped the arguments on both sides for Gore: "Lloyd says this. Says that. Gore laughed and said, 'That's a no-brainer. Of course it's a violation of international law, that's why it's a covert action. The guy is a terrorist. Go grab his .'"

Under Clinton we just sent them to the Egyptian Mukhabarat. I'm sure that was like a day at the beach.

What, pray tell, have we done that you believe is
A) against the law
B) terrible and heinous
c) against the Constitution?Hello again, Elliot:

Before any credible discussion on the above can occur, I want to know where your allegiance lies? If, like tom, you believe that the Constitution is not a suicide pact, then your positions are based on something OTHER than the Constitution.

I want to know what that something else IS.

excon

Hello again, Elliot:

Uhhhhh, torture?? Which you, being politically correct, call enhanced interrogation, and tom calls uncomfortable...

What torture? Was any torture performed in any of these prisons in Eastern Block countries?

Please be sure of your LEGAL DEFINITION OF TORTURE. If it doesn't meet the legal definition of torture, it isn't illegal, WHETHER YOU THINK IT SHOULD OR NOT.


But, you're the only ones in the world who don't know that we tortured people. Oh yeah, Obama don't know it either.

Excon

Apparently you are the only one who does... so either prove your case or move on.

Elliot

Hello again, Elliot:

Before any credible discussion on the above can occur, I want to know where your allegiance lies? If, like tom, you believe that the Constitution is not a suicide pact, then your positions are based on something OTHER than the Constitution.

I want to know what that something else IS.

excon

My allegiance isn't the topic here. The LAW is the topic. And you have yet to prove that any action taken by any interrogator violated any laws. You also have yet to prove that any interrogations took place in any prisons in Eastern Bloc countries.

As for my allegiance, it is to the Constitution... AS IT WAS WRITTEN, not as you would prefer it to be understood according to your political biases.

Please keep in mind that Constitutional rights do not apply to POWs, and never have in our history. We have Supremem Court Precedent to prove that fact, with regard to German POWs captured during WWII when trying to sabotage NY with their U-Boats. The Supreme Court ruled that they are not subject to Constitutional rights of accused criminals. There is strong legal precedent for this position.

So please, show us where the Constitution was violated. Show us where torture was used... using the LEGAL DEFINITION of torture, not just your opinion of what torture is.

Elliot

So please, show us where the Constitution was violated. Show us where torture was used... using the LEGAL DEFINITION of torture, not just your personal opinion of what torture is.Hello again, Elliot:

Would that be in the old days BEFORE Bybee and Yoo CHANGED the definition of torture to fit the dufus's agenda? Because if it is, waterboarding was torture back then. We even prosecuted people for waterboarding our soldiers.

But, we've had this conversation before... You abhor political correctness, unless it means calling torture enhanced interrogation... But, you ain't fooling anybody.

excon

Hello again, Elliot:

Would that be in the old days BEFORE Bybee and Yoo CHANGED the definition of torture to fit the dufus's agenda? Because if it is, waterboarding was torture back then. We even prosecuted people for waterboarding our soldiers.

But, we've had this conversation before... You abhor political correctness, unless it means calling torture enhanced interrogation... But, you ain't fooling anybody.

excon

In actuality excon, they didn't change the definition of anything. They gave an opinion that was based on LEGAL PRECEDENT. That's the part you can't seem to handle... that this is and always has been the law. The Bybee and Yoo memos just made the Bush administration aware of what the law was.

So what you're saying is that you CAN'T prove that the law was ever broken or that the constitution was violated. You might feel morally outraged over it, but you can't prove that any laws were violated.

That's what I thought.

'Nuff said.

Elliot

In point of fact, excon, the Bybee memo specifically discusses Sections 2340-2340A of title 18 of the United States Code, including its ratification history, the history of its application, and the history of defining torture under the law. In other words, it specifically ADDRESSES LEGAL PRECEDENT. At no time does it redefine anything.

Elliot

So what you're saying is that you CAN'T prove that the law was ever broken or that the constitution was violated. Hello again, Elliot:

I can prove it violated the law just like you can prove it doesn't. This isn't a court of law. This is two Jews arguing... It PROVES nothing.

I argue, that writing a memo that meets your boss's requirements, rather than the Constitutions requirements, is against the law. I suggest that's what they did. You'll suggest otherwise. The fact of the matter is, neither of us know what was in their heads when they wrote them. Maybe an investigation would reveal it.

I further suggest that the last chapter on this sordid period in our history has YET to be written.

Now, I COULD, like you, start yelling about proof and stupid crap like that... But, I ain't.

excon

Hello again, Elliot:

I can prove it violated the law just like you can prove it doesn't. This isn't a court of law. This is two Jews arguing... It PROVES nothing.

I argue, that writing a memo that meets your boss's requirements, rather than the Constitutions requirements, is against the law. I suggest that's what they did. You'll suggest otherwise. The fact of the matter is, neither of us know what was in their heads when they wrote them. Maybe an investigation would reveal it.

I further suggest that the last chapter on this sordid period in our history has YET to be written.

Now, I COULD, like you, start yelling about proof and stupid crap like that... But, I ain't.

excon


On the other hand, when the Constitution and your boss' requirements are not only not mutually exclusive but are actually one and the same, there would be no problem with righting such a memo would there.

And that, in fact, is what happened.

So for all your calling it torture, even you now admit that you can't prove that it was torture.

That would be checkmate.

Elliot

Having read this thread I find with interest nobody has every question why Lithuania?

Why not on home soil?

Surely if someone was of such importance, it would be better to question him in the comfort of your own living room?

There cannot be an argument of economics - it is cheaper to build in Lithuania than home, as it just doesn't stack up in the long haul

So why build an interview room in a country that does have lower standards of human rights than we do?

So I am afraid gentlemen, any argument on the leagl definition of torture is erroneous, the CIA's actions are one of concealment and that has to get you to ask one question - why?

As regards the comments made that in war we hope our side will act with integrity, I am afraid is missing the point of war

"The object of war is not to die for your country, but to make the other bast**d die for his."

Ex . Saying the Constitution is not a suicide pact is a completely legitimate ,historical and Constitutionally correct argument to make.

I give you the words of the author of the Declaration of Independence ;founding father and 3rd President Thomas Jefferson's as evidence .

"strict observance of the written law is doubtless one of the high duties of a good citizen, but it is not the highest. The laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation. To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to the written law, would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty, property and all those who are enjoying them with us; thus absurdly sacrificing the ends to the means."
Article 2, Section 3: Thomas Jefferson to John B. Colvin (http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a2_3s8.html)

The laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation. Hello again, tom:

You make sure to point out that my "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness" stuff is NOT in the Constitution. I guess you do it to show me that it's not LAW and therefore, we are NOT obligated to follow it...

This letter is the same. It's an escape clause, and it ISN'T law or part of the Constitution any more than the Declaration of Independence is. IF they wanted it to be part, they could have made it part... They didn't.

The Constitution IS the law of the land, or it is NOT. I suggest it IS, and there is NO escape clause.

excon

You make sure to point out that my "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness" stuff is NOT in the Constitution. I guess you do it to show me that it's not LAW and therefore, we are NOT obligated to follow it...

Again not true . You argue that these are universal rights that we should apply outside while I argue that the Constitution is designed for the United States only.

For the record;those rights for Americans are covered in the 5th amendment "due process" clause (property being what the founders really meant when "persuit of happiness"was penned.)