How ironic — and possibly illegal. The CIA initially videotaped all its interactions with an injured top al-Qaida operative because it was concerned that he might die while in custody and the CIA wanted to be able to prove that it didn’t kill him, the New York Times reported. But after the CIA starting using waterboarding and other torture techniques on the operative, it wanted to destroy the tapes to avoid a scandal and possible legal proceedings. By destroying the tapes, the CIA is now facing just that, as Attorney General Michael Mukasey wisely has ordered a criminal probe into possible obstruction of justice.
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- Daniel on ACORN stole election?
- Daniel on Open thread 11/21
- satatom on Open thread 11/21
- satatom on ACORN stole election?
- Wahine_Tara on Open thread 11/21
- Wahine_Tara on Open thread 11/21
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/21
- Boxlock20 on Open thread 11/21
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/21
- JWink on Will GOP contenders be nice to Obama?
58 Comments
Guess since they didn’t kill him, they didn’t think they needed the tapes anymore. Judge Kennedy wasn’t specific enough, the 9/11 commission was too specific!
I wish the news media would get off the tapes. We are in a war with terrorism and we have to do whatever it takes.
If they have nothing to hide why are they working so hard to hide it?
This is real torture:
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/MonaCharen/2007/12/21/torture_and_the_democrats
No denial from me Paul. So, I guess we should follow their example?
Not in MY book!
Maybe the Iraqis just considered the other people enemy combatants therefore all torture was excusable. If Bush does it then why can’t other people? Lead by example or get out of the way.
Doug
“Illegal Enemy Combatants” is the term.
That group is a subset of “Enemy Combatants”.
Illegal Enemy Combatants do NOT deserve POW status.
Did a court of law determine them to be illegal and how does one obtain a license to become a legal enemy combatant?
“Whatever it takes” Please give me a break. If the US takes the position to disregard long standing International Laws we are not morally better than those we assert to be terrorist. A crime is a crime, we can’t contiinue on this path.
If torture was so effective, the Sunnies would never have turned against Al-Quida. Hearts and minds are not won through torture and intimidation, only irrelevant confessions.
Paul, I’m wondering, would you accept a government denying a segment of the population their citizenship in order to justify atrocities committed against them? Or should all people, regardless of nationality or citizenship, should be treated with dignity?
Econ101,
Still harping on the psuedo-legalistic definition of “illegal enemy combatants” to justify having someone to torture so you can get your jollies.
Funny, Econ101, to watch you continue to ask what the meaning of “is,” is.
The US military should use no tactics it would not want used on US soldiers (or captured US civilians).
If the military and political leaders are willing to stand up and say “We think waterboarding is an appropriate form of interrogation. We think it would be acceptable to use on any captured Americans and we plan to use waterboarding on anyone we capture” then I might respect their decision to use it as an interrogation technique. But no one has the balls to say that.
“Illegal Enemy Combatants do NOT deserve POW status.”
In that case then neither do foreign mercenaries.
Now, to citizens of a country count as ‘illegal’ just because they live there?
CF,
It’s no use lecturing Pall about torture; all it does is make him horny. He obviously gets off on being tortured since he continually submits himself to this blog until we end up torturing him.
I think Paul would say that members of a militia don’t deserve POW status either.
The post above states, “But after the CIA starting using waterboarding and other torture techniques on the operative, it wanted to destroy the tapes to avoid a scandal and possible legal proceedings.”
Wait just a cotten-picking minute, we have no idea WHY the CIA destroyed the tapes.
It may have been to prevent what was said by the torture victim from getting aired.
Consider what was redacted from the 9-11 Commission report, page after page of Saudi complicity and involvment in Al Qaeda terrorism.
Maybe that’s what was destroyed with the tapes . . .
Did a court of law determine them to be illegal and how does one obtain a license to become a legal enemy combatant?
Posted by: Doug | January 04, 2008 at 11:23 AM
————-
Doug
Does a “court” determine who our troops can shoot at, and who they can not shoot at?
NO!
The Geneva Conventions set out the rules for who is a “legal” combatant. Those who do not follow the Geneva Conventions are “illegal”.
Do not use terms like “illegal” and “legal” as some sort of catch-phrase for YOUR preferences.
If you don’t like waterboarding, and if you think waterboarding is torture, that is YOUR right to think that way and to express that view.
I do not believe that waterboarding is torture.
Furthermore, I KNOW that that “illegal enemy combatants” do NOT deserve full Geneva Convention POW status.
If you want to CHANGE the law, be honest at say so.
If you want to CHANGE international treaty obligations, be honest and say so.
Do NOT claim that I am the one who is trying to “change” the law.
I am not. I am, instead, trying to explain my interpretation of current law.
(You, of course, are trying to do the same thing. The difference is, I don’t think you have actually studied current law.)
—–
Brian
The “US Military” does NOT waterboard those with legit POW status.
In fact, the US Military never has used the tactic, under George Bush.
The CIA uses waterboarding, in a few, select, cases, against Illegal Enemy Combatants.
Just as no country has a right to tell us how to deal with our domestic criminals, likewise, no country has a right to tell us how to deal with criminals who have no, direct, line of authority to any recognized, national, military chain of command.
Beyond that, silly liberals:
If you grant CRIMINALS complete POW status, you devalue the honor and respect any true, law abiding member of the military deserves.
If you devalue the Geneva Conventions by granting full POW status to brutal, barbaric criminals, you remove all incentives for these monsters to follow the international rules of war.
Hey Econ,
Was there a trial? A jury? A chance to dispute the evidence in _any_ kind of honest court, open or secret? Was there a verdict?
How do you know they’re “criminals?”
Is this how we do things in the United States now? Have we fallen into Alice’s looking-glass, where it’s “verdict first! trial after!”?
“Do not use terms like “illegal” and “legal” as some sort of catch-phrase for YOUR preferences.” -Paul
Keep in mind you are the one who used the term “illegal enemy combatants”. Nice double standard Paul care to brighten us with any more absurd statements?
A people defending their nation from occupiers are not illegal enemy combatants. I suppose you’ll say the Marquis were illegal because they were fighting against the Nazi occupation. Who determines the status of your phrase “illegal enemy combatant”? Those who are occupied or those who do the occupying?
Tom
So, if a Marine out in the “sand” sees someone, out of uniform, and shoots that person, is he wrong because:
He did not get a warrant first?
He did not get permission from a judge?
—–
Military Combat rules and Law Enforcement rules are two different things.
The failure of our enemies to wear uniforms is actually a strategy of our enemies. It delays the decision making, of our troops, on whether to “kill or be killed,” Likewise, the failure of our enemy to wear a uniform often contributes to civilians being shot, by accident.
There are sound reasons for the Geneva Conventions to encourage legitmate, military chain of command structures and the use of uniforms.
You liberals are granting POW status to criminals who do not deserve that status.
By doing so, YOU are encouraging barbarism.
Econ,
We’re not talking about people killed or wounded in the heat of battle. We’re talking about people held in concentration camps who are no danger to others. They deserve to be heard in either an open court, or a tribunal where the evidence against them can be challenged.
You’re the one calling them “criminals.” Where’s the evidence?
According to Paul America have full justification to slaughter any and all people based upon whim or entertainment value, rather out of threat of necessity.
Congrats Paul, you just excused every act of atrocity in history.
Tom
Show me where a “trial” is required, for a non-US citizen, who commits crimes against the United States, on foreign soil?
It is true that Geneva would seem to require that person be tried under the rules of the country where thet event occured.
However, Iraq does not WANT these people returned to Iraq.
Particularly, Iraq does not want non-Iraqi criminals, captured in Iraq, returned to Iraq to stand trial.
These idiot terrorists decided to be “men without a country” and they fully deserve the consequences of that decision.
—-
The prisoners held at GITMO, in CUBA, have MORE RIGHTS than the prisoners held in any of Castros Cuban prisons.
The prisoners held at GITMO are treated better than any prisoners held anywhere else in Cuba, by the Communists.
In other words – they are illegal combatants because we say so. We don’t need no stinking evidence!
Paul, you know what the vast majority of Iraqis want? They don’t want to be an occupied nation.
Here are some things that Paul justifies, the unwarranted murder of civilians by American mercenaries:
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/09/22/iraq.blackwater.ap/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5z0NMKcVHHM&feature=related
Paul thinks that just because America invades a country we can do whatever we want for whatever reason.
Econ,
You keep saying these people have committed crimes.
WHERE IS THE PROOF?
Oh, and by the way: The Constitution guarantees trials to all PERSONS, not all CITIZENS. Here’s a handy link: http://usconstitution.net/const.html
Tom it’s like the Constitution establishes a difference between persons and citizens. Don’t tell Paul, facts may confuse him.
“No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”
Doug,
Or my favorite part:
“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
Damnit Tom, if you keep on quoting the Constitution here then the neo-cons will label you a liberal, commie America hater. (Pssst, facts piss them off).
Tom
The Constitution does NOT apply to non citizens committing crimes against the United States on foreign soil.
Treaty obligations settle the POW question.
For criminals?
They should be tried in Iraq, but Iraq doesn’t want them.
By the way, under Geneva, a POW can be held until hostilities are over.
No trial is necesary.
So, if these people are, as you THINK, POWs, well, what is your complaint?
The war against terrorism is not over and they can be held until that date!
Tom
We don’t need proof.
These people were attacking the troops of the United States but were not in the chain of command of any recognized government sponsored military.
Under Geneva, they can be shot as spies!
They were out of uniform.
Paul, do the laws of the country America is occupying apply to Americans? In that case Americans would be committing murder. Or do you believe Americans can do whatever they want where ever they want because they have the most guns?
Econ,
People are being held on a US military base, and are in the custody of the United States. That places them within the “jurisdiction” of the United States, as defined by our US Constitution. The alleged crime doesn’t have to occur on US territory; the Constitution says the PERSON (doesn’t matter what KIND of person) has to be under US jurisdiction.
And any fiction about Guantanamo being under Cuban jurisdiction is outrageously idiotic. If you really believe that, give everyone at Guantanamo over to Castro.
“The CIA initially videotaped all its interactions with an injured top al-Qaida operative because it was concerned that he might die while in custody and the CIA wanted to be able to prove that it didn’t kill him, ”
HUH?
Isn’t that a little like taking pictures of a fire to prove you didn’t start it?
Investigation is in order.
Econ,
Not all of the people being held at Gitmo were picked up off a battlefield. Quite a number of them are alleged to be terrorists, often on no more than an angry neighbor’s say-so.
Try them. If there’s evidence, convict them. Otherwise, send them home.
BTW Paul, if you check the Geneva Convention statues POW protections are given to people out of uniform. They can have any marker or carry arms openly. Perhaps you ought to read up on it first.
Also, the Geneva Convention (which doesn’t contain the term unlawful combatant) protects such designated people.
Tom
I never said that the GITMO prisoners were under Castro’s jurisdiction.
I made the honest point that the prisoners, at GITMO are LUCKY they are not being held by Castro.
Econ,
So would you agree the prisoners (I see you’re no longer calling them “criminals”) are under US jurisdiction?
Doug
The Geveva Conventions spell out what is require for lawful combat.
Anything outside that framework is illegal.
How hard is that to understand?
And since when do we interrogate injured people?
“Econ101″ –
More than anything else, the purpose of the Constitution of the United States exists to specifically outline how the United States will operate internally and to specify exactly what a powerful federal government *cannot* do.
Treaties (which, back in the 18th Century, were considered pretty important stuff) were given the power and gravitas of constitutional law in the Constitution of the United States of America; that’s why both the executive and legisislative brancy (the Senate… which was originally an instrument of the states, rather than the people) have to approve treaties.
Under the Constitution of the United States of America, our federal government has no right to deny rights to foreigners accept under the provisions of a *congressional* Declaration of War.
That’s the conservative position; the “original intent” interpretation; black-letter constitutional law.
Okay, so times change. And individual situations have chipped away at what’s been interpreted and accepted and weaseled into “precedent.”
One of the reasons the Vietnam War got so many Americans opposing it was the realization that it wasn’t a *declared* war and the federal government had far exceeding its constitutional powers.
One of the reasons Dick Nixon faced impeachment was that he’d expanded LBJ’s weasel-worded rationalization for war against North Vietnam into an expanded war against Cambodia and all of southeast Asia.
The “war” against “terrorism” is a sham; an effort by Cheney and the neo-cons to expand American executive power around the world…to rationalize the power of the Oval Office to declare war and commit troops anywhere and everywhere at the President’s whim.
Tom
They are criminals and they are prisoners.
However, they are not POW’s under the Geneva Conventions.
The Geneva Convetions do spell out what should be done, with irregular, out of uniform combatants not following the rules of war.
They are to be tried under the laws of the country in which they are captured.
That is what the Geneva Conventions, a TREATY says.
SCOTUS:
“A TREATY IS THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND”
So, the law would indicate that these terrorists be tried in Iraq, if that is where they were captured.
But Iraq does not want them.
Please show me, under any International Treaty, what we are supposed to do with them?
IF they are POW’s, we can hold them until the war on terror is over.
IF they are illegal combatants, we have to get the country, involved to allow their trial.
Furthermore, SCOTUS, previously, stated that Bush did go too far in his setting up his “military tribunals” — so Bush went back to Congress and got a new “Tribunal” structure enacted.
The law is not on your side.
We do not have to try the terrorists, in GITMO, in domestic, US Criminal Courts.
We just don’t.
By the way, if SCOTUS ever says otherwise, it is entirely Constitutional for the President to waive Habeas Corpus.
Lincoln also used military tribunals.
http://www.heritage.org/Research/NationalSecurity/hl834.cfm
By the way, we interrogate injured prisoners of war all the time.
Why should injured terrorists receive BETTER treatment than that given to a respectable POW?
By the way, it is entirely possible to be covered by the Geneva Conventions and NOT be covered under the POW sections of the Geneva Conventions.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/05/20030507-18.html
I never said that the GITMO prisoners were not covered by the Geneva Conventions at all.
I said, clearly, that the GITMO criminals are NOT covered under the provisions of Geneva granting POW status.
And, for the feeble minded:
If you are covered by Treaty, said Treaty trumps any other United States law, Constitutional or otherwise.
The Treaty, and only the Treaty, IS the law.
Fascism is goose-stepping into our future.
Paul – how do we know they are criminals? Is it just because you say they are?
What happens when an Iraqi group captures an American mercenary and declares him to be a criminal? Does that mean they can torture him to death?
econ,
Your implication along has been the “illegal” combatants could be tortured to their captors, in this case gitmo, content. You can say you changed your tune, but it doesn’t wash.
Waterboarding is torture. And this being the United States of America makes the use of torture illegal if for no other reason than we are supposed to be a country the world should look up to. Bush has done a fine job of seeing we don’t have to worry the world thinks we know what we’re doing in that regard.
Waterboarding, if it’s good enough for the Spanish Inquisition then it’s good enough for Paul.
http://panthers.moundsparkacademy.org/~mmiller09/spanishinquisition/water_torture.png
The Geneva Conventions cover how we treat members of the armed forces of other countries, who are captured by our troops.
Yes, that treaty also covers what is legal and what is illegal conduct, in war.
My point, all along, has been to inform all of you that waterboarding, done by the CIA (not the military) against Illegal Enemy Combatants, (or those who are NOT granted POW status) who were not captured in this country, and who can not be returned to the country where they were captured, because that country does not want the TERRORIST back, was LEGAL.
I do not want the military to waterboard anyone.
They don’t.
I do not want POW’s as defined by the Geneva Conventions to be waterboarded, even by the CIA.
They aren’t.
As terrorists, they do not deserve the protections of the Geneva POW classification.
If everyone deserved equal protection, under the Geneva Conventions, WHY spell out the “rules of war” and WHY spell out who is, and is not, a POW, under Geneva?
These are criminals that happened to be captured on the battelfield. Criminals that no other country wants. Criminals that answer to no country or no military chain of command.
Grant them Geneva POW status, and you only encourage more of the same.
“As terrorists, they do not deserve the protections of the Geneva POW classification.”
Posted by econ
Right, so lets just torture them till they find them 72 virgins, huh? Econ I disagree with you 100%.
JM
Disagree all you want.
However, the Law is on the side of George W. Bush, on this one.
Econ — Is that before or AFTER Bush changed the law to his liking?? LOL
We will probably never know. After all, who would investigate and make such a determination? Mukasey? Cheney? Bush?
Much ado about nothing. All your American heroes of WWII have done much worse than water boarding and no one even said ‘boo’ about it.
Everyone just needs to get a life. The captured was a terrorist, it was most likely done on foreign soil and there is no evidence one way or another.
If you want to turn the CIA into the Snow White Detective Agency, then do it, but for God’s sake, stop whining about this.
The CIA is its own agency with its own agenda and anyone who messes with them finds this out fast. It hasnt cared what a President has said since at least Kennedy. Any pres trying to mess with them is going to find him or herself dead or impeached. Congress cant control them since they can find other ways to raise money.